And on this against the Russian "Sushkas"?

72 174 100
And on this against the Russian "Sushkas"?

Why don't veterans age and die?


The question is interesting in general, especially when applied to airplanes. It would seem: it's the 21st century, hundreds of fifth-generation airplanes are furrowing (or pretending to) the sky, the sixth generation is practically flying over the Chinese houses and serves as a theme for TikTok videos. And suddenly - the airplanes are not like the previous generation, but outright rarities.

It is clear that it is modernization, it is clear that it is saving, but: not long ago in Azerbaijan they were happy about the fact that they bought 24 aircraft (almost a whole regiment) of the "newest fighter-bombers" JF-17C from Pakistan. Well, Pakistan is a well-known world aircraft manufacturing power, and nevertheless: what did the Azerbaijanis buy?




And they bought a MiG-21. Yes, it went through a series of incarnations, through the J-7 to the JF-17. The plane received a modern nose, side air intakes and new avionics. But the engine remained the same RD-93, which is the RD-33 with a lower engine box from the 70s of the last century. And therefore the plane carries only 3 kg of combat load on 800 suspension points, which is more than modest overall.

But 24 new aircraft will allow the Azerbaijani Air Force to flex its muscles in the region, since its neighbors are in a much worse situation. We are not taking Turkey into account, of course, because they are the same people.

And Russia's Su-24s are still straining themselves in combat. And in other countries, F-4s, MiG-21s, Su-17/20/22s fly just like that. Well-cut and tightly sewn? Let's see...

Mirage 2000DRMV



The other day, with a decent amount of fanfare, the French Aerospace Force officially presented the upgraded Mirage 2000DRMV strike aircraft. I would say with a bit of malice – once again.

By the end of this year, the French armed forces will have 50 modernized Mirages, which, according to the military department, despite their relative age, remain a highly effective means of striking ground targets and direct aviation support. We won't argue, the Mirage is a really good plane, but its time has long since passed. historyHowever, the choice is not ours.


The question is how long will the veteran remain in service and why? For the first part – at least until 2035. Then the forgotten accordion melody will be replaced by the Rafale (they have been changing it, sorry, since 2006 and still haven’t replaced it), the Rafale will be supplemented by the planned unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), which will be ready any minute now, and ultimately, everything will be replaced by a completely new all-European combat aircraft with a crew.

It seems I haven't forgotten anything, I'd like a cup of coffee with a croissant... And "Dreams, dreams, what's your sweetness", in the words of Alexander Sergeyevich. It is clear that the sweetness of French dreams is that everything will be as written in the plans. Bitterness will come later, and if someone is interested in the author's personal forecast - the Mirages will serve until 2040 at least, and then, if the gliders allow, even longer.

But the state of the French aviation industry and why all Mirages have not been replaced with Rafales since 2006 is a subject of separate mockery and ridicule of French reality. We have a rejuvenating old man, the Mirage 2000, with a bunch of letters.

So, Dassault Mirage 2000, the first were manufactured in 1984, the last – in 2007. Mirage 2000DRMV is the last word of French aircraft manufacturing in relation to this family of aircraft. The main characteristics of the modernized Mirage 2000DRMV include:
- rocket MICA NG air-to-air class with infrared guidance;
- improved Paveway II GBU-48, 49 and GBU-50 precision bombs;
- new digital instrument panel.


The GBU-48 (454 kg), GBU-49 (227 kg) and GBU-50 (908 kg) bombs with improved Paveway II precision guidance are American-made. As for indigenous munitions, there is a rocket-propelled version of the AASM laser-guided bomb, versions of which have been widely used in Ukraine. Other offensive variants include the Thales/TDA ASPTT (Air-Sol Petite Taille Tactique) lightweight air-to-surface munition with laser guidance, also known as the BAT-120LG.

What can I say... Well, not the most impressive set of weapons in terms of novelty. MICA as a missile was developed by Matra since 1982. The first tests took place in 1991, and in 1996 the missile was accepted into service to equip Rafale and Mirage 2000. American bombs of the Paveway II family with electro-optical guidance are again from the 70s of the last century. In general - very so-so.

What could improve the combat capabilities of the upgraded Mirage is the introduction of a more modern long-range electro-optical targeting system, the TALIOS pod, which is used on the Rafale. It replaces the outdated ATLIS II, PDL CTS and Damocles pods previously used by the Mirage 2000D. TALIOS is also a dual-use pod, providing both tactical reconnaissance and targeting. For reconnaissance, the pod generates high-resolution color images that can be transmitted in real time via the Link 16 data link.

The Mirage 2000DRMV has a new centerline fuel tank that sits on the centerline of the aircraft and in addition to fuel, a portion of the pod is dedicated to electronic intelligence (ELINT), meaning the aircraft can perform reconnaissance missions over long distances. Previously, Mirages used the older ASTAC pod, which meant there was no centerline fuel tank. Fuel plus ELINT is useful.

In addition to these weapons and equipment, the Mirage 2000DRMV features a redesigned cockpit with a more intuitive digital instrument panel. In addition, pilots of the upgraded Mirage will benefit from the Thales Scorpion helmet-mounted display, which is already provided to French Rafale crews and is also used on the US Air Force's A-10 and F-16 aircraft.


However, other key avionics, including the Antelope 5 terrain-following radar, remain the same as those found on the Mirage 2000D series aircraft.

All in all, not that generous for the stated cost of the program of 530 million euros, or about 590 million dollars if someone is more interested in US dollars.

Of course, if you consider the entire chain of aircraft modifications, everything looks quite weighty. Mirage 2000D became a derivative of the two-seat all-weather strike aircraft Mirage 2000N for carrying nuclear munitions, but with conventional weapons. And already on the basis of Mirage 2000D by means of improvements and created Mirage 2000DRMV. From a de facto nuclear bomber, which could not use conventional weapons, created a conventional strike fighter-bomber.


Externally very similar to the Mirage 2000N, the D model featured a completely redesigned cockpit with new displays and a Hand-Operated Throttle Assignment (HOTAS). In addition to the targeting modules, the Mirage 2000D received an improved suite of electronic self-defense tools.

The Mirage 2000D's initial offensive armament included the AS30L laser-guided missile, the BGL 1000 laser-guided bomb (LGB), and the US-built 227 kg GBU-12 and 908 kg GBU-24 Paveway II LGBs. The Mirage 2000D can also carry a single SCALP-EG or APACHE missile on its centerline pylon in place of the external fuel tank.


APACHE, which carried cluster submunitions, has already been withdrawn from service, but SCALP-EG has performed quite well in Ukraine.

The Mirage 2000D was in production from 1993 to 2001, with a total of 86 2000D series aircraft built. They soon became the workhorses of the French Air Force during major operations in Afghanistan, the Sahel region of Africa (Operation Barkhane), Iraq and Syria (Operation Chammal).

After undergoing full combat testing, the Mirage 2000D underwent a gradual upgrade to the DRMV program, adding new weapons including the GBU-49 dual-mode laser/GPS guided bomb, as well as the Link 16 data link/exchange system, an improved data modem and encrypted radios.

The Mirage 2000DRMV program has not only been delayed, but has been scaled back since it was first launched, from 71 aircraft to the current 50, which are to be delivered to the French Aerospace Force. Fleet "flew by" in the literal sense of the word.

The first upgraded Mirage 2000DRMV was delivered to the French Aerospace Force in early 2021 and was used to evaluate the capabilities of the aircraft as a whole. Today, the current Mirage 2000D fleet operates from the Aérienne 133 base in Nancy-Ochey, north-eastern France.

With ongoing operations, particularly in the Middle East, the upgraded Mirage 2000DRMV strike aircraft are likely to be deployed earlier to make the most of their new capabilities. As the French fighter jets deploy to the Middle East to target militants in Iraq and Syria, the aircraft will replace older versions based at H4 Air Base in Jordan and Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.

In its current form, the Mirage 2000DRMV will be the last of the Mirage combat aircraft to serve with the French Aerospace Force. The Mirage 2000N was retired in 2018, followed by the basic Mirage 2000C version for Defense in 2022. Today, the fleet of improved versions of the Mirage 2000-5F for air defense is also being reduced, with individual models being donated to Ukraine.

The suitably upgraded Mirage 2000DRMV will now continue to operate in France until 2035. By that time, Rafales should be produced in sufficient numbers to finally allow the Mirage D model to be withdrawn and sent to its rightful place in history.


So what's the problem?


The problem is that French aircraft manufacturers are simply unable to produce the required number of Rafales. The fact that since 2005, that is, in almost 20 years, French aviation enterprises have produced 175 aircraft is probably already a feat.

And there are also foreign buyers (India, Greece, Croatia, Qatar), who are also waiting for their ordered (and – importantly – paid for) aircraft.


Let's use a scary thing - a calculator.

France (VKS and VMS) ordered 180 aircraft in several stages. They received 95 (VKS) and 42 (VMS) aircraft respectively: 137 aircraft.

India: 24 of 36 aircraft received.

Qatar: 23 of 36 aircraft received.

Greece. Received 18 of 24 aircraft.

Croatia. 6 out of 12 aircraft received.

In total, 86 aircraft need to be manufactured to pay off all debts. Rafales have been manufactured since 2005, that is, for 20 years. A total of 175 aircraft were manufactured, let no one be confused by the larger number of aircraft delivered, some countries like Croatia will receive used aircraft. So, 175 aircraft in 20 years is almost 9 aircraft per year. Thus, to manufacture the remaining 43 aircraft for the French Armed Forces under contracts, it will take about 5 years. And to close all contracts - 10 years!

And here you have 2035, until which time the Mirages will have to pull the strap. Pure arithmetic and no fraud!

Will Mirage make it? It has no other options! The question is how fit it is for such a mission, which, judging by everything, will be the last one in its career.


Is the Mirage a good plane? Yes. It was 30 years ago, at least.


Can it be assigned combat missions in accordance with the current moment? Yes. In order to drive armed with small arms weapons formations in Syria and Iraq, it is more than good. A case of "cheap and cheerful".

If you hang fuel tanks on the Mirage instead of missiles, it can even fly relatively well in terms of range. It can't be compared to the MiG-29, but it can fly somewhere with a combat load.

Modern weapons? Sorry, we didn't bring any. The only more or less modern missile, MICA, comes from the 80s and was created as a counterweight and competitor to the American AIM-120 AMRAAM, but lost to the American missile in all possible competitions. MICA is in service with the Air Forces of France, Qatar, Greece, Taiwan, and the UAE, while the AIM-120 AMRAAM is used by more than 30 countries.

In general, if you do not look at the same veteran (well, 10 years older) Su-24, which today is also going down in history, but somehow very slowly and with special effects, analogies are not drawn. Especially if you look at what the Su-24 is armed with, and there is order with truly modern and high-precision weapons. And the list of what the Su-24 can carry is somewhat more preferable.


Incorrect comparison? Yes, I agree. But what if we have nothing that could be compared to this small aircraft, which is not capable of carrying much fuel without drop tanks and a lot of weapons? Maneuverability, as an argument? Yes, of course. This is a very important aspect today, especially with the speeds and maneuvering capabilities of modern missiles.

If we look at the Mirage with a truly impartial eye, we can see an old single-engine aircraft, slightly modernized, slightly armed, which is suitable for the role of a strike aircraft in third-rate conflicts or... for the role of a patch in the gaps of the French Aerospace Forces.


Releasing the Mirage 2000 with a bunch of letters after it in a modern conflict is more than doubtful. As the practice of using MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25 and F-16 of early modifications in Ukraine has already shown, it is very difficult for old aircraft to be effective in conditions of confrontation with modern air defense systems and combat aircraft.

So old Mirage will have to play the role of defender of the skies of France, fortunately, no one is encroaching on France, no matter how hard the empty-headed gentlemen from the government and their supreme commander try to preach otherwise.

In principle, nothing special, there are countries where such monsters as F-4 (Greece, Iran, Turkey) and F-5 (Brazil, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan), Su-17 (Poland, Angola, Vietnam) still serve, instilling horror (it is not entirely clear to whom, their own or others). The main thing is not to get involved in real wars, and you can flex your muscles on such veterans.


So the answer to the question of why veterans do not age and do not leave is simple - they are not given such an opportunity. Lack of money, lack of working capacity, lack of qualified personnel - and here is the result: the service of the "Mirage" is extended, and anyone is to blame for this, but not the honored veteran.

It only remains to congratulate the French Aerospace Forces on such a replenishment in the form of 50 modernized Mirage 2000DRMV, which will undoubtedly strengthen the combat capabilities of the Aerospace Forces. This is very important, especially today, when Macron is seriously going to repel Russian aggression in Europe.

It would also be nice to get the Mirage III out of the trash. That would be really good. Against the Russian Su-30SM2 and Su-35S - you couldn't think of anything better.
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    April 14 2025 05: 03
    In general, if you do not look at the same veteran (well, 10 years older) Su-24, which today is also going down in history, but somehow very slowly and with special effects, analogies are not drawn. Especially if you look at what the Su-24 is armed with, and there is order with truly modern and high-precision weapons. And the list of what the Su-24 can carry is somewhat more preferable.


    Mirage can be armed with the same thing as Su-24, the Skalp missile, for example.
    1. +9
      April 14 2025 07: 20
      For us, this is, in fact, the most unpleasant thing.
      1. -18
        April 14 2025 08: 01
        Glory to the Russian soldier! Glory to Russian weapons!! Glory to our president!!!

        Quote: novel xnumx
        For us, this is, in fact, the most unpleasant thing.

        Will they have time to fire them? What about radars, who will detect whom faster?
        1. +5
          April 14 2025 09: 38
          Why? Took off from the track, launched a Scalp or threw a couple of bombs with a wing and landed.
        2. +2
          April 14 2025 10: 10
          Distances will be measured
          1. -18
            April 14 2025 10: 55
            Our cause is just, the enemy will be defeated, victory will be ours!

            Quote: Zaurbek
            Why? Took off from the track, launched a Scalp or threw a couple of bombs with a wing and landed.

            One has already taken off, but has not landed.

            Quote: novel xnumx
            Distances will be measured

            We will!

            In general, you don’t know anything, you CIPS windbags.
            1. +2
              April 14 2025 14: 47
              In general, you don't know shit.

              Do you know?
            2. -1
              April 18 2025 21: 21
              By the way, you are a perfect example of a tsipso bot. Oink.
  2. +11
    April 14 2025 05: 27
    request
    It's not even clear, "what is correct here"...
    request
    Let's use a scary thing - a calculator.

    Let's use something even more scary - Google or Wikipedia.
    France (VKS and VMS) ordered 180 aircraft in several stages. They received 95 (VKS) and 42 (VMS) aircraft respectively: 137 aircraft.

    India: 24 of 36 aircraft received.

    Qatar: 23 of 36 aircraft received.

    Greece. Received 18 of 24 aircraft.

    Croatia. 6 out of 12 aircraft received.

    In total, 86 aircraft need to be manufactured to pay off all debts. Rafales have been manufactured since 2005, that is, for 20 years. A total of 175 aircraft were manufactured, let no one be confused by the larger number of aircraft delivered, some countries like Croatia will receive used aircraft. So, 175 aircraft in 20 years is almost 9 aircraft per year. Thus, to manufacture the remaining 43 aircraft for the French Armed Forces under contracts, it will take about 5 years. And to close all contracts - 10 years!


    Compare: "As of early 2025, France had 98 Rafale B and C aircraft and 41 Rafale M carrier aircraft in service. In addition, 56 aircraft (including two naval) were ordered from the aforementioned order for 42 aircraft, as well as from orders compensating for the transfer of used French Aerospace Forces Rafale aircraft to export customers (Greece, Croatia). Thus, domestic orders will increase to 76-86 aircraft, and the total number of Rafale should reach 174-184 aircraft plus 63 M aircraft. In total, this will amount to 237-247 aircraft.
    ...
    Rafale manufacturer Dassault has a strong export order book. At the end of 2024, the company said it had 220 aircraft in stock, including 56 for France and 164 for export (customers include the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Greece, Egypt, Qatar, Croatia and Serbia). More orders are expected in March or April, including one for the Rafale M naval fighter for India.
    ...
    The manufacturer plans to expand the annual production of these aircraft to 36 units per year, but this is currently very difficult to achieve. It is not known when this will be achieved, or whether it will be achieved at all.

    In 2023, only 13 new aircraft were delivered, of which 11 for France and 2 for export customers, while in 2024, 21 aircraft were delivered, of which 14 were destined for the French armed forces and 7 for export.
    " https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/francja-bierze-sie-w-garsc-wielkie-zamowienia

    Well, and so on, too lazy to sort out the rest... and it's time to go to work... recourse
  3. +6
    April 14 2025 05: 31
    MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25 and F-16 early modifications, it is very difficult for old aircraft to be effective
    But there are no new ones there, if you don’t count some vague rumors about the participation of Su-57 in operations.
    1. +1
      April 14 2025 07: 22
      Oh, come on!! The Su-35 and Su-30 are completely new, no need.
      1. -2
        April 14 2025 09: 00
        Not that new, considering that these are simply "shamefully" renamed modifications of the Su-27/33.
        1. +3
          April 14 2025 11: 00
          Not that new, considering that these are simply "shamefully" renamed modifications of the Su-27/33.

          And what about the F/A-18E Super Hornet and F-15EX Eagle II, "shamefully" renamed modifications of the already decommissioned 4th generation F/A-18A Hornet and F-15A Eagle "shamefully" generation 4++ fighters?
          1. -4
            April 14 2025 11: 45
            I didn't understand the question, to be honest? But yes, the Fighter/attack aircraft-18E and Fighter-15EX are modernizations of the 18A and 15A, note the same numbers. Only the letters are different.
            1. +9
              April 14 2025 13: 31
              It's all about the design. If the F-15EX airframe still has some traces of the F-15A airframe, then the F/A-18E design only has the general aerodynamic layout of the F/A-18A. There, the geometric dimensions of the airframe are simply different, and the wing area even differs from the F/A-18C by 25 percent. This is a different aircraft with the same "numbers" in the designation.

              The names are naturally different: Hornet and Super Hornet, Egle and Eagle II.

              We have similar cases with the same "numbers":

              https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/106935/

              "Work on the Tu-22M began in 1965 and was declared as a deep modernization of the Tu-22. During the development of the project, the only thing they had in common was their tactical purpose."

              But the Tu-22M3 can already be seriously considered as a deep modernization of the Tu-22M2, and not a completely new aircraft.

              The same with the Su-27, Su-33 and Su-35S. If the Su-27 is an aircraft of normal aerodynamic configuration, the Su-33 is an aircraft of the "longitudinal triplane" aerodynamic configuration, then the Su-35S is again an aircraft of normal aerodynamic configuration.

              The Su-35S airframe is different from the Su-27 airframe, it is redesigned. The maximum takeoff weight has increased by 27 percent compared to the Su-15. This, of course, does not reach the 21,3 percent increase in the maximum takeoff weight of the F/A-18E compared to the F/A-18A, but it is still significant.
              1. -6
                April 14 2025 13: 41
                So what if they lengthened the glider?
                1. +5
                  April 14 2025 14: 44
                  The fuselage was lengthened, the air intake ducts and the air intakes themselves were changed to accommodate the new engines, the wing was replaced with a much larger wing with a much more developed tail, and the horizontal and vertical tail units were completely changed. And that's only for the airframe. But the F/A-18C and F/A-18E are the same aircraft - after all, the number hasn't changed.

                  Are Yak-1M and Yak-3 different planes because the number has changed?

                  "By the State Defense Committee decree of October 26, 1943, the Yak-1M was renamed the Yak-3 and was launched into serial production under this designation."

                  And despite all the changes in the design of the Yak-1 and Yak-1M, is it the same aircraft, only modernized, because the number has NOT changed?
                  1. -2
                    April 14 2025 15: 40
                    It didn't work out with the F/A-18, so they decided to rebuild it as a Yak-1?
                    1. +7
                      April 14 2025 15: 57
                      I wrote to you about the difference between a new type of aircraft and a modernized aircraft. If the aircraft has a new airframe (the supporting part of the aircraft without the power plant and target equipment) and a new engine (engines), it is definitely a new type of aircraft.

                      At the same time, I showed with examples that your focus on the "numbers" in the aircraft type designation is wrong. Sometimes the numbers are the same, but the type is new, and sometimes the type is the same, but the "numbers" in the alphanumeric code designating the aircraft type are the same.

                      If I couldn’t explain this to you, well, the world is imperfect, or I didn’t explain it convincingly, or you didn’t want to understand my explanations.

                      All the best.
                      1. -1
                        April 14 2025 18: 11
                        The Mirage 2000 N has a longer fuselage than the single-seat version, so what?)
                      2. +3
                        April 14 2025 19: 52
                        You are confusing the fuselage and the airframe.

                        The Mirage 2000N is based on the Mirage 2000B two-seat trainer, but has significant differences. The airframe has been strengthened for low-altitude flights, and the aircraft has been equipped with the Antilope 5 radar, which provides low-altitude terrain-following flight.

                        Since you did not want to understand my explanations that aircraft with different airframes should be classified as different types, here is a more or less precise criterion that is understandable even to a person far from aviation who does not know the difference between an aileron and an elevon.

                        If two different Wikipedia articles are created for aircraft with the same numbers in the type designation, then these are aircraft of different types, and not different modifications of the same type of aircraft.

                        https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000
                        https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000N/2000D

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

                        And if the Wikipedia articles are different and the numbers in the designations are different, then these are even more so different types of aircraft:

                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Су-27
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Су-33
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Су-35

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Як-1
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Як-3

                        https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakovlev_Jak-1
                        https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakovlev_Jak-3
                      3. 0
                        April 15 2025 02: 49
                        I understand that you are far from aviation.
                        So please refer to Wikipedia.
                        So let me explain.
                        The two-seater Mirage 2000 has an extended fuselage and, accordingly, a longer airframe than the single-seater.
                      4. 0
                        April 15 2025 16: 55
                        I understand that you are far from aviation.

                        We were discussing how to distinguish a new type of aircraft from a new modification of the aircraft and about publicly available criteria that can be applied to avoid confusion in these matters. And you are distracted by argumentum ad hominem. In my opinion, this is not productive. And yes, I don’t think you know enough about the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 2000N to ignore the fr.wikipedia.org articles about these aircraft.

                        If you want less popular links. Well. I will not quote GOST RV 1500-001-2018. Do you mind?

                        If you follow the commentator AdAstra If you think that the Su-35S is just a modification of the Su-27S, and the F/A-18E is just a modification of the F/A-18A, the F-15EX is just a modification of the F-15A, and not different types of combat aircraft, then you are mistaken.

                        What about the Mirage 2000N nuclear missile carrier, the changes in the airframe design of which, in your opinion, are not significant enough in comparison with the Mirage 2000B combat training fighter to recognize the Mirage 2000N as a new type of combat aircraft...

                        Well, if for you the changes in the airframe design of the Pe-3 heavy fighter in comparison with the Pe-2 frontline bomber are not significant enough to recognize the Pe-3 as a new type of combat aircraft, and not a modification of the Pe-2, then the ASMP Mirage 2000N nuclear cruise missile carrier was not a separate type of attack aircraft of the French Air Force, but only a modification of the Mirage 2000B combat trainer. I do not wish to argue about this any further.
                2. 0
                  April 14 2025 16: 50
                  What about building a plane? Nonsense..... One, two and done.... Right?))))
        2. +2
          April 14 2025 17: 04
          Quote from AdAstra
          considering that these are simply "shamefully" renamed modifications of the Su-27/33.

          Sorry, but you are almost completely wrong. Engines, avionics, fuselage, armament, etc. - everything is different. It is especially funny about the Su-33, which is simply a seared version of the Su-27, it has nothing to do with the Su-35.
          Su35 is the same modification of Su27/33 as T-90AM is a modification of T-34-76
          1. -4
            April 15 2025 07: 46
            Thanks Cap, I "didn't know". Then the two-seater Su-30 is a remake of the Su-27UB, yeah. The F-4A, as it were, differs from the F-4E in avionics and airborne, and they corrected the airframe, but it's still the same F-4.
        3. +2
          April 15 2025 13: 48
          Not that new, considering that these are simply "shamefully" renamed modifications of the Su-27/33.

          It is truly better for you to chew than to speak.
          The 35 has a completely different engine, avionics, and even airframe. What was renamed where?
          What can we say if the 35th ERP has TEN (TENSE CARL!!!) times less than the 27th. Is this also due to renaming? fool

          The Su 27 and 35 have as much in common as the Shahi and Vesta. Four wheels. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
          (for you) fret nameplate.
          1. -3
            April 15 2025 16: 11
            Well, we "raw boys" are no match for you "academicians". Forgive us, Master, we didn't graduate from homespun universities. Yes
    2. KCA
      -9
      April 14 2025 07: 29
      Sorry, the SU-57 dropped two R-59 compartments and didn't report it to you. I'll punish you, I'll beat you with whips, as hard as I can...
    3. +3
      April 14 2025 17: 44
      Su-35, MiG-31, Su-30SM2 - not new enough?..
    4. -4
      April 15 2025 09: 19
      Yes, 57 is already 15 years old, and we still can't finish it. Well, it's a piece of cake.
    5. 0
      April 16 2025 00: 48
      Michel, is the Su-35 also an old man???
  4. Eug
    +3
    April 14 2025 06: 03
    The JF-17 was probably designed by specialists from the MiG Design Bureau, so they probably licked it as much as possible in terms of aerodynamics and "control". A very good budget option. It would be interesting to compare it with the F-20 in terms of maneuverability.
    1. +3
      April 14 2025 07: 24
      In general, the topic is interesting, to look up the documentation on the "Old Men" and see how they can be improved to the point of awesomeness. New engines, avionics, polish up the aerodynamics - voila, an air monster, the enemy's thunderstorm
      1. +4
        April 14 2025 18: 00
        Quote: Eug
        The JF-17 was probably designed by specialists from the MiG Design Bureau... It would be interesting to compare it with the F-20 in terms of maneuverability.
        Why Tigershark? Especially since it did not go into production, most likely for political reasons. The JF-17 is a solidly built 4th generation aircraft with a pretty good set of equipment and ASP. And it also has a pretty good price.
        To be honest with the author for optimism - excellent, everything else - unsuccessful. Many countries are following the path of equipment modernization: if good hardware has not yet exhausted its resource, then update the stuffing, inexpensively, and the plane will serve for a while longer. Normal course.
        Quote: novel xnumx
        In general, the topic is interesting, to raise the documentation on the "Old Men" and see how they can be improved to the point of awesomeness.... the enemy's thunderstorm
        1. +2
          April 14 2025 18: 02
          Tramp, hi I knew you would understand!
          1. +3
            April 14 2025 18: 10
            hi timely modernization is a very normal topic: it's cheap and cheerful. Well, if we talk about the French: Mirage are all quite multifunctional machines from the very beginning - this is a good platform for modernization. In a word, I did not understand the author's banter
            1. 0
              April 16 2025 16: 35
              Quote: novel xnumx
              Tramp, hi I knew you would understand!

              And here come the Poles: 48 F-16 block52+ aircraft will be upgraded to block72. Work, personnel, and ASP to boot - 7,3 billion greenbacks. The Poles want all the work to be done here...
  5. +13
    April 14 2025 06: 14
    Luckily, the author found a target for his military self-affirmation.

    Once again he made fun of the incompetent president of France.

    It's time for someone to lead some country with an air force.
    All the makings are there: call others idiots, and you’re already Great.
    1. +22
      April 14 2025 06: 49
      Quote: Feodor13
      All the makings are there: call others idiots, and you’re already Great.

      Unfortunately, this style of narration has recently become very common on VO in articles and, especially, in comments. Like elementary schoolchildren...
  6. Des
    +3
    April 14 2025 06: 18
    The first photo in the chapter about Mirage is not a mirage))).
    And the respected author is an expert, and the one who published the article is an expert).
    But this is the Military Review website))(friendly).
    But - it's easy to read and - there's no other way) - the article has a plus.
    1. +13
      April 14 2025 06: 56
      The first photo in the chapter about Mirage is not a mirage))).
      Of course, it's an F-5, but it's forgivable for a political worker. It's time to get used to it.
      1. Des
        +6
        April 14 2025 06: 58
        I'm quite used to it. I can't break the habit).
  7. -8
    April 14 2025 06: 58
    Yes, it is clear that the development of the Su-27 brought the USSR to the highest level of development, now we need to finish the MiG-41 and the West will again be in the role of catching up, and the launch of the SR-71 Blackbird will not help, it is extremely expensive, it had a jamb, because of thermal gaps, fuel leaked from all the cracks when it was refueled, and then it was accelerated, the glider warmed up and the leaks stopped, then refueling in the air and on the route laughing
  8. +4
    April 14 2025 07: 26
    with the replacement of the Rafale (they have been replacing it, sorry, since 2006 and still haven’t replaced it), the Rafale will be supplemented by a planned unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), which will be ready soon, and ultimately, everything will be replaced by a completely new pan-European combat aircraft with a crew.
    This reminds me of something, really, really
  9. +14
    April 14 2025 07: 38
    The most dangerous thing is boasting. The French gave the Egyptians a couple of Mirages of the latest version for testing several years ago, when they were buying Su-35s. And it's a pity that the Russian segment didn't write about the reviews of Egyptian pilots. Having thoroughly tested the machines, they came to the conclusion that both versions are worthy rivals.
    Beauty and maneuverability are all very well, but how many times has it come in handy in combat over the past few years? Whoever has more modern electronics, avionics, a more powerful radar and a missile that flies further, will win.
    1. +2
      April 14 2025 19: 13
      Quote: Max Maxov
      Whoever has more modern electronics, avionics, a more powerful radar and a missile that flies further will win.

      Are you saying that the Mirage-2000 (whatever the letters it has) has a radar with comparable capabilities?
      Seriously ?
      Should I look in reference books?
      Egypt was banned from buying Su-35SE by the US, which threatened to provide annual aid. And the fact that the Mirage-2000 is a good aircraft, a solid mid-range 4th generation fighter and in the strike version will still serve itself well, no one argues with that. But you compared the incomparable. And the Egyptians most likely compared the Mirage with the most meager version of the F-16, which they have in service.
      Quote: Max Maxov
      Having tested the machines thoroughly, we came to the conclusion that both options are worthy competitors.

      This could only be said by comparing Mirage and Falcon, which is probably what happened in reality.
      1. 0
        April 14 2025 22: 33
        By the way, I didn't think about the fact that the Egyptians were offered an export version. Perhaps it was cut down in parameters, which is why they called the planes equal.
        1. +1
          April 14 2025 22: 47
          Quote: Max Maxov
          Perhaps it has been cut down in parameters

          There are no restrictions on the parameters and capabilities of the radar. The only restrictions are on encrypted communication channels, electronic warfare and the identification system. Just compare the table data of these aircraft yourself and you will understand the stupidity of such statements. I repeat - the Egyptians most likely compared the F-16 with the Mirage, and they are really approximately equivalent. But the MiG-29 is noticeably worse and especially the MiG-35S. Comparing it with the Su-35S is like comparing a tiger with a house cat.
  10. -1
    April 14 2025 07: 56
    and why haven't all Mirages been replaced with Rafales since 2006?

    Why didn't we replace the T-72 with the Armata?
  11. +7
    April 14 2025 08: 49
    Mirage 2000 is the same age as our MiG-29, so no need to brag, it's a normal plane. MiG-35 is still needed, but our command "wrote it off".
    1. +2
      April 14 2025 11: 05
      The MiG-29 of the first modifications 9-12 and 9-13 is completely outdated and can only be a target in an air battle with 4++ generation fighters produced in the XNUMXst century.
      1. +2
        April 14 2025 19: 24
        At the time of its adoption into service, the Mirage-2000 was not a match for the MiG-29 in terms of performance, armament, or close-in maneuverability. Just one helmet-mounted target designator for the RVV MD was worth something, and WHEN did NATO countries develop something similar?
        And if you are comparing modernized versions, then compare them with the MiG-35S, or at least with the MiG-29M2.
        By the way, India still buys MiG-29s from our stock (from storage), with major repairs and for very good money. For their high-altitude airfields and to compensate for other types of aircraft being written off. They have Mirage-2000s, they have the opportunity to buy them if they want, but they order MiG-29s because this extremely powerful fighter is the best solution for their high-altitude airfields.
        1. +2
          April 14 2025 20: 35
          Quote: bayard
          At the time of its adoption into service, the Mirage-2000 was not a match for the MiG-29 in terms of performance, armament, or close-in maneuverability. Just one helmet-mounted target designator for the RVV MD was worth something, and WHEN did NATO countries develop something similar?


          I agree. I will only note that in group air-to-air combat there is still a large element of chance. And of course in the 80s the MiG-29 would have destroyed all Western 4th generation fighters in close maneuverable combat. It was precisely because of the helmet-mounted target designation system, which was absent on Western fighters at that time, and the large angles within which this target designation was received by the R-73 missile homing head before launch. Before the advent of the AIM-120 air-to-air missile, which provided an attack at medium range against several opponents at once, with the AIM-7M medium-range missiles and similar ones in service with Western air forces, the chance of a missile battle at medium range turning into a close maneuverable one was quite high.

          On the other hand, history has developed in such a way that MiG-29 fighters do not have a single confirmed victory in air battles with 4th generation fighters. But Mirage-2000 fighters have one confirmed victory. Over the F-16D of the Turkish Air Force. wink
          And if you are comparing modernized versions, then compare them with the MiG-35S, or at least with the MiG-29M2.

          What's the point? The MiG-29M/M2 did not become widespread. The MiG-35S will not become widespread. The time of "medium" fighters of the 4+ and 4++ generations is coming to an end. There is one nuance, however, which is discussed below.

          The most effective SVO air-to-air missile is probably the R-37M. Heavy long-range air-to-air missiles are the weapons of heavy fighters and heavy interceptors.

          Now a nuance. Only the European Meteor air-to-air missile with a rocket-ramjet engine can somehow shake this alignment. Its carriers, the JAS-39E/F Gripen and the modernized Eurofighter Typhoon with the CAESAR (CAPTOR Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar) radar, remain "dark horses" in a certain sense. These aircraft can be very effective in air combat. It depends on the merits of their radar and the perfection of the Meteor air-to-air missile seeker.

          In any case, if the Russian Aerospace Forces have to engage in massive air combat with the JAS-39E/F and Eurofighter Typhoon, it will be a major war in Europe, not the SVO.
          1. +1
            April 14 2025 21: 48
            Quote: AlexanderA
            Now here's a nuance. Only the European Meteor missile with a ramjet engine can somehow shake this situation.

            A good missile, dear, if the engine works by the time it approaches the target and during vigorous maneuvering, that’s a big plus...
            But the range is 200 km.
            In ideal conditions - on a collision course, at an altitude of 10 m and at a closing speed of 000 Mach. Do you think this will happen often? And in the case of a launch into the rear hemisphere, the range is already 2,5 times less. At the same time, the AIM-2 has a range of 120, and the R-180M - 77. That is, the range indicators are very close, but at the maximum range, the missiles will hardly be used, as a rule, they try to be sure and so that there is energy left for maneuver.
            Quote: AlexanderA
            . Its carriers, the JAS-39E/F Gripen

            This is not a serious carrier in case of confrontation with our heavy fighters - the detection range of its radar is two times less than that of the "Irbis". And it will never be able to use the full potential of this missile ... This is approximately like the first modifications of the MiG-29 and R-27 - they could be used, but not at full range, the detection / target acquisition range was not enough. The Eurofighter's radar capabilities are approximately at the limit of the Meteor's range, but again it is not a match for our heavy fighters - ours will see them earlier, which means they will have the initiative and choose / build the entire pattern of combat. And if there are R-37Ms on the suspension, then it is a sin to even argue about the outcome of such a battle. But a war with NATO will really be completely different - fast-moving, nuclear, with the removal of all airfields in the first minutes / hours of the war.
            Quote: AlexanderA
            What's the point? The MiG-29M/M2 did not become widespread.

            We haven't even upgraded our operational MiG-29s, let alone fully developed new modifications with competitive avionics. Even the MiG-35S, according to rumors, wasn't put into production because they didn't make a normal radar for it. With excellent flight characteristics and operational capabilities, tuned-up engines with a 4000-hour service life... no one is interested in it without a full-fledged AFAR radar. And creating such a radar is difficult, time-consuming and expensive... The design bureau had very little of its own funds, the state financed the Sukhoi design bureau and relied exclusively on heavy aircraft. But they could have gotten an excellent radar based on the "Belka" - on the same PPM with a smaller cross-section canvas. But who would have paid for it and put pressure on the developer? The Ministry of Defense?? There were completely different (very ingenious) people there at that time, they were thinking about something completely different.
            If the MiG Design Bureau had offered a high-quality program to modernize the MiG-29 fleet at the time, they would still be considered among the best fighters of our time.
            1. +1
              April 15 2025 00: 06
              Quote: bayard
              But the range is 200 km... At the same time, the AIM-120 has a range of 180, and the R-77M - 170

              If you leaf through the book "Ramjet Rocket Engines on Solid and Paste Fuels", here is the link:

              https://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/sorokin/rpd/sorokin-yan-rpd2010.pdf

              Then you must agree that in order to create a rocket with a RPD, all other things being equal, with a maximum launch range that is only slightly superior to similar rockets with dual-pulse solid-propellant rocket engines, the developers of the MBDA consortium must work very, very carelessly.

              "With their comparative simplicity, RPDs have high values ​​of specific impulse in a wide range of altitudes and flight speeds, which, while ensuring high speeds, allows, under certain flight conditions, to have a flight range 1,5–2 times greater than using solid rocket motors (Fig. 1.1)." p. 10

              Therefore, having allowed 170 km for the R-77M, I would not take Meteor's 200 km on faith. We must proceed from the fact that the RPD of the 190 kg Meteor provides a maximum launch range at least 1,5 times greater than that of the 190 kg R-77M.

              In this case, in air battles between high-speed, maneuverable fighter aircraft, what is important is not the maximum launch range in ideal conditions, but the effective launch range (or no escape zone in Western terminology) for an air target maneuvering with a high overload.

              In this parameter, an air-to-air missile with a RPD should significantly surpass an air-to-air missile with a similar launch weight with a solid-propellant rocket motor, even with a two-pulse solid-propellant rocket motor with an adjustable pause between firings.

              https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2435979C1_20111210

              Thus, I do not think that the AIM-120D or R-77M can compete with the Meteor in terms of effective launch range against an air target maneuvering with a high overload.
              But the 600 kg R-37M, if today it also has a two-pulse solid propellant rocket motor with an adjustable pause between firings, can.
              This is not a serious carrier in case of confrontation with our heavy fighters - the detection range of its radar is two times less than that of the Irbis

              GaN amplifiers in the PPM are declared for Raven ES-05.

              https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/04/28/saab-flys-gripen-e-equipped-with-raven-es-05-aesa-radar-for-the-first-time/

              And this is not a small radar. Its mass is about the same as the AN/APG-81 F-35 radar. But the AN/APG-81 PPM does not have any GaN amplifiers with their high efficiency.

              In fact, the JAC-39E/F's radar and long-range IR radar have better characteristics than the APG-81 radar and the AN/AAQ-37 mid-IR radar of the F-35 family of fighters.

              That is why I cannot classify the JAS-39E/F as a frivolous aircraft. It may turn out that this light Swedish fighter will be better in a long-range missile battle than the "medium" Eurofighter Typhoon with the CAPTOR-E radar.
              The Eurofighter's radar capabilities are roughly at the limit of the Meteor's range, but again, it's no match for our heavy fighters.

              In AFAR radar CAPTOR-E ~1000 PPM. https://www.deagel.com/Components/CAPTOR/a001496
              IN AFAR radar RAVEN ES-05 1000 PPM.
              In AFAR radar AN/APG-81 ~1000 PPM.

              But there is a nuance: only 05 Gallium Nitride (GaN) transmit/receive modules are declared for RAVEN ES-1000.
              1. +1
                April 15 2025 02: 27
                I know about the advantages, benefits and disadvantages of ramjet engines for RVV, and I noted this in my post. But the characteristic of the RVV energy capabilities is precisely the maximum launch range at a target on a collision course, at an altitude of 10 m and at an approach speed of 000 Mach. This is how the range is calculated in PPS. In real launches, the range will be noticeably less. In addition, I am not sure that when firing at the maximum distance, the ramjet will still work when the missile approaches the target and it begins to maneuver. It is maneuvering when aiming at a maneuvering target with a running engine that gives the Meteor an advantage in guidance quality. But at extreme distances, most likely, this advantage will no longer exist. But it will exist at shorter launch distances.
                At the same time, the dual-pulse turbojet engine is also very effective at “non-maximum” distances.
                In addition, when firing from the maximum distance, the range of target detection and target acquisition will be critical. And here, alas for Euro-NATO, their radars will detect a fighter-type target at a distance of "about 200 km." or a maximum of 240 km (for Rafale). And this is precisely the detection range, but it is also necessary to capture the target for automatic tracking, estimate the course and approach angles, make a decision and carry out the launch itself. In this case, the distance will be reduced and the actual launch range will be somewhat less than indicated in the table data.
                At the same time, the Irbis will detect a target such as a 4th generation fighter with external suspensions at a distance of at least 300 km. and there will be much more time to make a decision, maneuver and launch. Moreover, from its own invisibility zone. It is clear that this is for an ideal duel situation. But this characterizes the real potential of the fighter and its weapons. In addition, the Su-35SM will already have the Belka AFAR with much greater capabilities and better interference immunity and stealth.
                By the way, in Russia they also worked on a direct-flow RVV, created and tested it, proposed it for service... but the Ministry of Defense refused - it was too expensive and specific a thing with a relatively small increase in characteristics. In addition, the R-37M with much higher characteristics was already ready at that time. So we have a choice of tools for conducting combat at maximum distances. Unlike our opponents.
                Regarding the Grippen radar... gallium nitride is of course a good material for PPM, but the final characteristics are important, not the number of PPM. I look at the cross-section of its nose cone and see... a serious problem for high range characteristics. In addition, the declared characteristics are far from always true. People my age remember the declared speed for the F-111 lol 2650 km/h. And this was far from an isolated case. The maximum range for the "Phoenix" was declared at 165 km, but in reality it was no more than 120 km. in the PPS and 60 km. in the ZPS, like our R-33. So I prefer to believe my eyes and experience. I even then claimed that the F-111 with such engines and takeoff weight would hardly give more than 2000 km/h in ideal conditions. And so it turned out. But our characteristics were usually underestimated. Our fighters in the SVO have already confirmed their characteristics many times, but it is still difficult to figure out the real combat use of NATO fighters. Especially with the "Gripens" and "Eurofighters".
                1. 0
                  April 15 2025 13: 10
                  Quote: bayard
                  I know about the advantages, benefits and disadvantages of ramjets for RVV, and I noted this in my post. But the characteristic of the energy capabilities of RVV is precisely the maximum launch range at a target on a collision course, at an altitude of 10 m and at a closing speed of 000 Mach.

                  And I quoted to you that it was a ramjet engine. "allows, while maintaining high speeds, to have, under certain flight conditions, a flight range 1,5–2 times greater than that achieved using solid propellant rocket motors" Thus, if we consider that the R-77M has a maximum launch range into the forward hemisphere of a non-maneuvering target of 170 km, then the Meteor has 170 * 1,5 ~ 250 km. But all these maximum ranges in ideal conditions in a real air battle of modern fighters should be reduced several times. Because the fighters will maneuver intensively. And here the concept of effective launch range for an air target maneuvering with a large overload, or no escape zone, comes up:

                  https://min.news/en/military/1b074624912adee9fc6355456927742c.html

                  he Meteor air-to-air missile was developed by the European Missile Group (MBDA) and is the product of cooperation among many European countries. Its biggest feature is that it uses a solid ramjet engine, which can flexibly adjust the thrust during flight, thereby greatly increasing the missile's no-escape zone (about 60 kilometers). In comparison, the no-escape zone of the US AIM-120D is only 50 kilometers, and the Russian R-77 is only 40 kilometers.

                  For comparison, the Western estimate of the no escape zone for the R-37M:

                  https://defensemirror.com/news/26659/Testing_Commences_of_Russian_R_37M_Hypersonic_air_to_air_Missile_from_Su_35_Jet

                  the ideal targeting distance (also known as no-escape-zone) depends upon the type of enemy aircraft; for fighter jets it is 40–70 km, for stealth aircraft or cruise missiles, this distance would be less, for large bombers or early warning aircraft, the effective firing distance could be greater than 70 km-100km.

                  As can be seen from these quotes, according to Western press estimates, Meteor and R-37M have comparable no escape zones in combat between highly maneuverable fighters. All other missiles, according to Western authors, demonstrate NEZ of 60-70 km instead of 30-40 km.
                  In addition, when shooting from maximum distance, the range of target detection and target acquisition will be critical.

                  As you can see, Western authors do not believe that launches from maximum range in battles of modern fighters, those with developed modern onboard defense systems and high acceleration and maneuverability characteristics, will be effective. Cautious air battles with missile launches from maximum ranges will usually be ineffective. For decisive missile battles, it will be necessary to approach at a distance of ~70 km or less.
                  At the same time, the Irbis will detect a target such as a 4th generation fighter with external suspensions at a distance of at least 300 km.

                  In conditions of absence of electronic interference. Now let's look at the BKO of the already mentioned JAS-39E:

                  https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-electronic-warfare-suite

                  A very developed BKO. And what is remarkable, again GaN amplifiers:

                  https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/01/07/gripen/

                  Gripen E is equipped with a GaN (gallium nitride) based EW-suite, which will probably make a ghost.

                  Have I managed to demonstrate that the JAS-39E has the most modern (according to the electronic component base, for sure) and more advanced avionics than the upgraded Eurofighter Typhoon with the CAPTOR-E radar and the F-35A/B/C (by the way, the F-35 has active interference only with the radar's AESA, i.e. in the rear hemisphere, where the F-35 has a high EPR value, the F-35's air defense system cannot perform active interference) and that, in particular, the RAVEN ES-05 radar is the most advanced and powerful in comparison with the Typhoon's CAPTOR-E radar and the F-81's AN/APG-35?

                  And it would seem such a small, frivolous airplane. It can't even compare to the "average" fighters of the 4++ generation.

                  "The devil is in the details."
                  1. 0
                    April 15 2025 14: 38
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    the rocket-ramjet engine "allows, while maintaining high speeds, to have, under certain flight conditions, a flight range 1,5–2 times greater than using a solid propellant rocket engine." Thus, if we consider that the R-77M has a maximum launch range into the forward hemisphere of a non-maneuvering target of 170 km, then the Meteor has 170 * 1,5 ~ 250 km.

                    But for the Meteor it is indicated as 200 km, and I do not admit one iota that the developers were "modest", this was done only in the USSR and with a certain aim. The Meteor is a very good missile and has some advantages (it does not lose speed when maneuvering with the engine running), but its advantage is not critical. And it is a very expensive missile, in real combat missions there will be a fairly high consumption, and it will not be possible to replenish and rely on large warehouse stocks. Precisely because of the price.
                    With a vigorously maneuvering target, there is indeed a high risk of the RVV losing speed and losing guidance, but any pilot knows that the solution to this problem is to launch two missiles at one target with a small interval. And if the fighter dodges the first missile, the second will definitely get it. And it is quite possible that even in terms of money, two conventional RVV SD (R-77M) will be cheaper and more accessible to manufacture than one Meteor.
                    And regarding "with equal weight, a RVV with a ramjet will fly 1,5-2 times further" ... look at how many additional elements such a RVV with a ramjet must carry - an air intake, an air duct for the same, a fuel supply and regulation system (and it is not simple and very expensive). And this largely eats up that same fuel economy on board and the real increase in range of such a small missile is about 15-20%. But the price is several times more expensive. And there is also more hassle and specificity in servicing such missiles. So the question is - maybe it is simpler and more rational to spend two RVVs on a target and not bother with such a complex and extremely expensive missile?
                    Regarding the merits of the new modification of "Grippen" ... anything is possible, but paper\text of advertising booklets also tolerates everything. Only real combat use with an equal\almost equal enemy can confirm it. The "Griffin" is too small for such heroism and characteristics. This can and should be taken into account, but without confirmation by practice all this (regarding the Griffin) will remain just words and numbers.
                    In addition, a new modification of the Su-35SM with a new avionics package and the Belka airborne missile system is starting to arrive in our troops. They will probably be tested in the SVO, although I am not sure that reports on their operation will be published openly.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    And it would seem such a small, frivolous airplane. It can't even compare to the "average" fighters of the 4++ generation.

                    "The devil is in the details."

                    And all the parts have their own weight, dimensions and energy consumption.
                    But the Grippen is a really good fighter and probably the most sophisticated of the light ones today.
                    1. 0
                      April 15 2025 20: 52
                      Quote: bayard
                      But for Meteor it is indicated as 200 km.

                      I have seen various sources that indicated the maximum launch range of the Meteor missile. And this range in different sources varied from >100 km to >300 km. Example:

                      https://www.deagel.com/Weapons/Meteor/a001122#001 Max Range 320 kilometer

                      This is all speculation - there are no official figures.
                      And this is a very expensive rocket, in real combat missions the consumption will be quite high, and it will not be possible to replenish and rely on large warehouse stocks. Precisely because of the price.

                      2 million euros? AIM-120D is more expensive.
                      And regarding "with equal weight, a RVV with a ramjet will fly 1,5-2 times further" ... look at how many additional elements such a RVV with a ramjet must carry - an air intake, an air duct for the same, a fuel supply and fuel supply regulation system

                      After the engine stops working, the Meteor loses speed faster. But the Meteor's engine runtime is several tens of seconds, not several seconds, like solid-propellant rockets (in each pulse of two, for modern rockets with two-pulse solid-propellant rockets). Tens of seconds of engine runtime among today's solid-propellant rockets is only possible for the R-37M, but... The MiG-31BM carries 4 R-37M, the Su-35S up to 4 R-37M, the JAS-39E up to 7 Meteor. In addition, the MiG-31BM interceptor can be crossed out of serious fighters for air superiority today. It has virtually no air defense.

                      I am talking about a hypothetical mid-air collision between the Russian Aerospace Forces and the combined air forces of the European Union in 2025-2026. wink
                      So the question is - maybe it would be simpler and more rational to use two RVVs per target and not bother with such a complex and extremely expensive missile?

                      Saving on air weapons has never led anyone to major successes in air warfare. In my opinion, the most expensive part of an air-to-air missile is the seeker. The Russian and American refusal to develop air-to-air missiles with ramjet/RPD engines is, in my opinion, a mistake. It's good that today we have the R-4M and hundreds of combat aircraft capable of using R-37M missiles against the European Meteor and Japanese AAM-37B. But this is not the area of ​​military-technical rivalry where one can "rest on one's laurels" for long.
                      Regarding the advantages of the new modification of "Grippen"... anything is possible, but the paper/text of advertising brochures also tolerates everything.

                      I don't think that the Swedes are overstating the 215 kg weight of the RAVEN ES-05 radar (AN/APG-81 <220 kg) and are lying about their work on the GaN electronic component base in the radar AFAR PPM and the AFAR onboard Arexis active jamming equipment. They are lying that the Skyward-G IRST matrix photodetector operates in the far IR range and similar parts that the technical person of Gripen-E/F is creating today.

                      It is interesting that the same Germany chose Arexis for its Typhoon EK electronic warfare aircraft (plans for 15 aircraft https://www.twz.com/electronic-warfare-typhoon-ek-fighter-to-join-german-air-force):

                      https://aviationweek.com/defense/sensors-electronic-warfare/saabs-arexis-wins-german-order-typhoon-ew-system

                      And the Swedes will have Arexis on every JAS-39E and JAS-39F. Plus compact disposable active decoys BriteCloud.

                      This is the work of a relatively small company against the background of mega-corporations, Saab AB, in which, unlike all these mega-corporations, it seems that competent management runs the processes and there is little theft.
                      In addition, a new modification of the Su-35SM with a new avionics package and the Belka airborne missile system is starting to arrive in our troops. They will probably be tested in the SVO, although I am not sure that reports on their operation will be published openly.

                      Considering that today the Swedish Air Force has only a few JAS 39E/Fs, the "United European Forces" that suddenly went crazy (let's say) to fight Russia in the air, of course, have no chance of winning an air war today. I even wondered if we were to gather together 4++ fighters with AFAR radars capable of using Meteor missiles in the European Air Forces, how many dozens of them would be collected. But frankly speaking, I'm too lazy to look for and count the current figures. There are few of them.
                      But the Grippen is a really good fighter and probably the most sophisticated of the light ones today.

                      According to my estimates, the JAS-39E/F is the best of the European ones today. But these fighters are simply few in number, today there are only a few machines in service with the Swedish Air Force. There are more of them in Brazil than in Sweden.
                      1. 0
                        April 15 2025 21: 57
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        this range in different sources varied from >100 km to >300 km. Example:

                        https://www.deagel.com/Weapons/Meteor/a001122#001 Max Range 320 kilometer

                        I think this is just propaganda, or (maybe) the maximum range of such a missile when flying straight along a ballistic trajectory and without hitting a target (dynamic characteristics), which have nothing to do with combat capabilities. The maximum range is always indicated in the PPV on head-on courses, at a closing speed of 2,5 M at an altitude of 10 m - this is the standard. In the ZPS it is always about 000 times less. The real range of use will be even less. So I would only operate with official figures, and even then with caution.
                        While it has already been officially recorded and confirmed by Ukrainian means of control, the defeat of a light MiG-29 fighter at a distance of "at least 240 km." I do not think that the launch conditions were optimal (head-on course, high altitude), and the target's EPR is by no means a bomber. But targets at distances of 220-240 km were hit several times. This is a fact verified in real combat. For a large and non-maneuverable target (AEW and similar aircraft), the range will be significantly greater. Ukrainian MiG-29s do not have a modern air defense system, but this is a very maneuverable and thrust-armed fighter.

                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        MiG-31BM carries 4 R-37M, Su-35S up to 4 R-37M, JAS-39E up to 7 Meteor.

                        For a duel situation, the first detection (who is first), the launch range, and if it (the launch) is out of range of the enemy's radar and the Meteor missile system, then after these launches the enemy will no longer have time for a duel - he will dodge. And he certainly won't be able to escape the second missile, and certainly not a repeat salvo.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        I am talking about a hypothetical mid-air collision between the Russian Aerospace Forces and the combined air forces of the European Union in 2025-2026.

                        Such a clash will occur after massive nuclear strikes on all NATO airfields and their command centers. A war with NATO will be completely different. No one will restrain themselves anymore. In anything. This is the algorithm prescribed in the Military Doctrine. The first/preemptive strike is also prescribed there as the main means of inflicting maximum possible damage on the enemy and for minimizing one's own losses and damage. Europe will have absolutely no chance. In the Northern Black Sea region, we are fighting on our own soil with our own crazy, but brothers - this is an internecine conflict. With Europe, everything will be COMPLETELY different.

                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        2 million euros? AIM-120D is more expensive.

                        I think, considering the cost and complexity/specifics of maintenance, it is much more expensive. Besides, in the Russian Federation such a missile was also created, tested, prepared for production, but the Ministry of Defense refused to purchase it, and this was before the SVO. The SVO has been going on for 4 years now, and who knows if the Kh-77 (that's what our RVV with a ramjet was called, I think) has been launched into production. Many decisions and plans have been revised since then.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Considering that today the Swedish Air Force has only a handful of JAS 39E/Fs, the "United European Forces" that have suddenly gone crazy (let's say) to fight Russia in the air have no chance of winning an air war today.

                        Europe has no chances today. But the total number of Euro-NATO air forces in terms of combat aviation exceeds that of the Russian Federation. But Europe will be burned and partially washed away by tidal waves even before our aviation flies into their territory for additional reconnaissance and control destruction of accidentally surviving targets.
                        Fighting with Russia is a very bad idea. We are not kind at all. Now we are just fair.
                      2. +1
                        April 16 2025 01: 37
                        Quote: bayard
                        I think this is just ordinary propaganda, or (perhaps) the maximum range of such a missile when flying in a straight line along a ballistic trajectory and without hitting a target (dynamic characteristics), which have no relation to combat capabilities.

                        This range does not exceed the limits specified in the book “Ramjet Rocket Engines on Solid and Paste Fuels” “1,5–2 times greater flight range compared to the use of solid propellant rocket engines.”

                        170 * 2 = 340

                        The maximum range is always indicated in the PPV on a collision course, at a closing speed of 2,5 M at an altitude of 10 m. This is the standard.

                        So to speak, there is a "generally accepted" international standard on this issue. After all, the F-15 was declared to have a maximum speed of Mach 2,5 at an altitude of 36 feet, and this is not 10 meters, but almost 11 meters (10972,8 m). And of course, the real combat characteristics of the missiles are classified. Therefore, these or those digital values ​​of the maximum launch range of the latest air-to-air missiles are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, speculative.
                        The actual range of use will be even less, so I would only use official figures, and even then with caution.

                        There are no official figures. The actual distances of decisive battles between fighters and existing missiles will most likely be less than 100 km, despite the fact that the Western press has declared a record 37 km range for the destruction of a real air target (Su-217) during the SVO for the R-27M:

                        https://londonpolitica.com/euroasia/how-do-nato-and-the-west-compare-with-chinese-and-russian-air-to-air-technology

                        In late October a Ukrainian Sukhoi-27 Flanker, Soviet-era fighter, was shot down by a long-range air-to-air missile (LRAAM) – the R-37M. This is not the first Ukrainian aircraft to be shot down since Russia's invasion commenced in February, but it is nevertheless a significant feat for the Russian Air Force because the R-37M took down the Ukrainian Sukhoi-27 from a range of 217km (about 140 miles). This would make the kill the longest on record. The R-37M is a hypersonic long-range air-to-air missile (LRAAM) reportedly capable of reaching Mach 6 and striking targets up to 400km (250 miles) away.

                        The Su-27 pilot with an outdated air defense system most likely simply did not know that he was under attack and did not evade the missile.
                        While it has already been officially recorded and confirmed by Ukrainian control means, the defeat of a light MiG-29 fighter at a distance of "no less than 240 km."

                        Didn't find it. Found 213 km.

                        https://www.defensemirror.com/news/37390/Russian_Su_35S____R_37M_Missile_Strikes_Ukrainian_MiG_29_at_a_record_213_Km_Distance

                        For a duel situation, the first detection (who is first) is much more important, at what range the launch is, and if it (the launch) is out of range of the enemy's radar and the Meteor missile system, then after these launches the enemy will no longer have time for a duel - he will dodge.

                        There are many nuances. One of them is:

                        https://commi.narod.ru/txt/1987/0110.htm

                        "But if the firing and target detection ranges are comparable, then the advantage in preemption of the launch of aircraft with a smaller RCS becomes significant (graph B, curve 2). At the same time, if the target detection range of the radar of the "blue" aircraft is 90 km, and that of the "blue" - 125 km, then the "blue" aircraft, having an RCS equal to 1 m2, gains an advantage in preemption of the use of weapons. Based on this, the company's experts came to the conclusion that it is possible to reduce the cost of an aircraft with a small RCS by reducing the requirements for the characteristics of its targeting equipment, in particular, for the radar."

                        RCS 1m2 versus RCS 5m2, and the "blue" plane with an inferior radar "gains an advantage in anticipating the use of weapons." Interesting, isn't it?

                        If we take into account that turning on the radar for emission simply informs a pair of enemy fighters with modern onboard ELINT systems and data exchange systems (DES) about the location of the fighter that turned on the radar, which allows, upon receiving precise bearings on the operating radar, to also obtain the range to it with an accuracy sufficient for launching missiles without turning on their own radar.

                        https://www.ultimatespecs.com/aircraft-specs/saab-gripen/saab-jas-39e-gripen-2022

                        JAS 39E has networked sensor fusion suite, TAU - link (Tactical Air Unit).
                        JAS 39E has extensive electronic intelligence (ELINT) signal collection.
                        For a duel situation, the first detection is much more important.

                        Today, the first to detect is often the one who does NOT turn on the radar first.
                        Such a clash will occur after massive nuclear strikes have been launched against all NATO airfields and their command centers.

                        The US, represented by the Trump administration, has withdrawn - it's not our war. The EU "globalists" are stubborn. EuroNATO can be defeated without the US and without a nuclear war.
                        I think given the cost and complexity/specificity of service, it is much more expensive.

                        It has a combined rocket-ramjet engine with solid fuel.
                        Moreover, in the Russian Federation such a missile was also created, tested, prepared for production, but the Ministry of Defense refused to purchase it, and this was even before the SVO

                        Where did you find out that they were preparing for production... and refused?
                        Europe has no chances today. But the total number of Euro-NATO air forces in terms of combat aviation exceeds that of the Russian Federation.

                        The specificity of air warfare is that qualitative superiority negates quantitative superiority. Surprisingly, our fighter aviation today has qualitative superiority over the fighter aviation of the "coalition of the willing" of EU countries wishing to introduce their troops into the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR.
                      3. -1
                        April 16 2025 10: 06
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        This range does not exceed the limits specified in the book “Ramjet Rocket Engines on Solid and Paste Fuels” “1,5–2 times greater flight range compared to the use of solid propellant rocket engines.”

                        The flight profile is of great importance, a classic RVV with a TTD flies along a flat ballistic trajectory at an altitude where the resistance of the environment is several times less. A RVV with a ramjet flies at an altitude of up to 20 km.+ and is slowed down by the environment much more. It was the flight to the target along a ballistic trajectory and a two-stroke RTD that made it possible to abandon the ramjet for medium-range RVVs (up to 200 km in PPS). A new RVV with an estimated range of 250 km.+ (in PPS), but of a classic type, is currently being developed in the USA. In addition, as far as I heard, beryllium is used as fuel for the Meteor - a very rare and expensive metal.
                        Quote: AlexanderA

                        The US, represented by the Trump administration, has withdrawn - it's not our war. The EU "globalists" are stubborn. EuroNATO can be defeated without the US and without a nuclear war.

                        We have been unable to recapture our territories from the former without nuclear weapons for four years. With our population size, we would have to mobilize the entire able-bodied male population for such a war and sacrifice ourselves in such a war. To the delight of Muslims and Chinese. According to the Doctrine, a war with NATO can ONLY be a nuclear missile war and a total one. And this position in the Doctrine has not changed since the 90s.
                        Besides, we will have no allies in a direct conventional war with Europe. For China, Europe is the second most important market after the USA. And don't forget that we have been fighting for the fourth year; no state can wage war forever. Especially not a liberal-feudal-capitalist one with the corresponding efficiency and responsibility of thieves, traitors and slobs. That is why Europe will be burned and washed away along with its allies, if such a war happens. The USA knows about this and therefore decided to leave the game. But... NATO membership entails mandatory responsibility. If war happens, all the "sisters" will receive "earrings", "nuts", and other gifts from the Good Wizard.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Where did you find out that they were preparing for production... and refused?

                        Periodicals, internet rumors and publications. No one has officially announced this, but at least since the early 00s it has been known about work in the Russian Federation on a ramjet RVV. There were quite official reports that the work was completed and the missile was presented for adoption. Then only rumors, leaks on forums and internet bloggers of varying degrees of awareness. I don’t know what metals were used as fuel for the ramjet of this RVV, but boron and beryllium are very rare and expensive metals.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The specificity of air warfare is that qualitative superiority negates quantitative superiority.

                        Quantity always matters, it usually turns into quality. And if we take into account the presence of a sufficient number of AWACS and ELINT aircraft, as well as the presence of F-35 fighters in many NATO countries, I would not rush to talk about our qualitative (in terms of avionics) superiority.
                        And you should always remember WHO is standing behind you.
                        That is why the war with NATO will be Nuclear and Total. Specifically with NATO and its allies, and not with the Europeans, to whose leadership they specially put some funny and absurd women.
                      4. -1
                        April 16 2025 22: 09
                        bayard, have you noticed the artificial intelligence that is launched through the nickname AlexandrA?
                        Here
                        https://topwar.ru/259356-britanskij-kompleks-dlja-ukrainy-zrk-gravehawk.html#comment-id-15066729
                        The same AI was launched under the nickname Vlad2012 in the discussion of homing heads and modernization of R-27, R-73. The same structure of nonsense that this AI writes.
                      5. 0
                        April 17 2025 01: 38
                        Quote: bayard
                        The flight profile is of great importance; a classic rocket with a TTD flies along a flat ballistic trajectory at an altitude where the resistance of the environment is several times less.

                        What do you think is incorrectly depicted in Fig. 1.1, which I will provide with a scan of the book page.
                        In the US, a new RVV is currently being developed with an estimated range of 250 km.+ (in PPS), but of a classic type

                        In the US, several air-to-air missile development programs have come to nothing in recent decades - AAAM, CUDA, LRAAM, FMRAAM (the latter, by the way, was supposed to have a ramjet). I would not refer to the US today as a country that sets world military-technical "fashions". The American military-industrial complex is actually in crisis today, although it may not be so noticeable behind the shiny "facade" of expensive skyscrapers. American engineering schools have simply been eaten by locusts of corporate "effective" managers. They were unable to develop a hypersonic AGM-183 ARRW with a solid-propellant rocket engine. How can we talk today about the success of technically ambitious American programs for developing missiles with ramjet and SPVRD?
                        Moreover, as far as I heard, the Meteor uses beryllium as fuel - a very rare and expensive metal.

                        Or they could have used powdered aluminum and it would have been even better:

                        https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/opredelenie-oblasti-rabochih-parametrov-pryamotochnogo-vozdushno-reaktivnogo-dvigatelya-na-poroshkoobraznom-alyuminievom-goryuchem
                        We have been unable to recapture our territories from the former without nuclear weapons for four years. With our population size, we would have to mobilize the entire able-bodied male population for such a war and sacrifice ourselves in such a war. To the delight of Muslims and Chinese. According to the Doctrine, a war with NATO can ONLY be a missile-nuclear and total one.

                        1. NATO with the US and NATO without the US are two different NATOs.
                        2. What are the captured Ukrainian servicemen fighting for today? They themselves cannot really explain it - at least most of them. I don't think it's worth stretching this strange psychiatric phenomenon even on a part of the population of several countries of the European "coalition of the willing". The politicians acting as leaders of this coalition are persistently trying to scare the political leadership of Russia by sending their regular military formations to the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, but for some reason they still don't send these military formations.
                        3. Therefore, I do not quite understand your confidence in the inevitability of a total war, although the observed indecision on the issue of European military intervention in the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR demonstrates that this is only a show of putting a good face on a bad game and we will most likely not see any military formations of European armies in the combat zone. This is if we abstract ourselves from the "spherical" military clash of the modern Russian Aerospace Forces and a conglomerate of the most combat-ready formations of the Air Forces of some European countries and soberly look at the current realities.
                        Periodicals, Internet rumors and publications.

                        Can you provide a link to a publication about the prepared production of RVV-AE-PD, which was abandoned?

                        https://topwar.ru/114996-opasnost-zamorazhivaniya-proekta-pryamotochnoy-rakety-rvv-ae-pd-v-polzu-tradicionnogo-izdeliya-170-1.html

                        "...the Russians were able to get a closer look at the unique creation of domestic engineering thought during the MAKS-1999 aerospace show; after that, no reliable information about flight tests and preparations for serial production of the RVV-AE-PD ever appeared."
                        I don’t know what metals were used as fuel for the ramjet engine of this rocket, but the metals boron and beryllium are very rare and expensive metals.

                        In any case, we are working on ramjet rocket engines:

                        https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU182771U1_20180831

                        Therefore they are not considered to be erroneous.
                        Quantity always matters, it usually turns into quality. And if we take into account the availability of a sufficient number of AWACS and ELINT aircraft, as well as the availability of F-35 fighters in many NATO countries

                        EuroNATO without the US is not NATO. The widespread use of long-range air-to-air missiles will lead to the death of AWACS aircraft. The F-35 Block 3F "strike fighter" is completely unsuitable for the fight for air superiority. The aircraft has an underdeveloped avionics (the fact that a new AN/APG-35 radar is being developed for the F-4 Block 85 is indicative), rudimentary air defense, weak speed and acceleration characteristics, and a small number of air-to-air missiles in the internal compartments.
                        I wouldn't rush to talk about our qualitative (in terms of avionics) superiority

                        I would not rush to consider that the F-35 Block 3F is fit for combat use in a large-scale war with a serious adversary. In any case, representatives of the US Government Accountability Office in their reports on the program were not in a hurry to think so. And in addition to the F-35, Europe may today have several dozen modernized Rafale and Typhoon fighters with modernized RBE2-AA radars and CAPTOR-E radars with AESA, and several new JAS-39Es with RAVEN ES-05 radars with AESA in the Swedish Air Force.
                        And you should always remember WHO is standing behind you.

                        Nobody stands behind the ridiculous, absurd women from Brussels who ignore reality and do not want to admit that the Banderites have already lost the war, and they, together with the Banderites, have also already lost the war. Trump has clearly washed his hands of it - this war is not his. His war is the economic war he has already unleashed simultaneously with China and the European Union. I do not think that Trump will emerge victorious from this war on two fronts. There is no need to Hiroshima the European capitals. It is enough to continue to put pressure on the Banderite front until it collapses. After which the Euro-hysteria: "We demand our participation in the negotiations!" - an important puffing out of cheeks and pretending that the four of them hold on, otherwise tomorrow they will take and send their troops to save Zelensky, and will remain in the shameful European past.
                      6. 0
                        April 17 2025 03: 36
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        What do you think is incorrectly depicted in Fig. 1.1, which I will provide with a scan of the book page.

                        Everything is fine with the scan and the page, the implementation and scale (size of the product) are important with such an implementation. The smaller the size of the missile, the smaller this coefficient will be. For a larger missile (long and super-long range) this coefficient can be =2, but for a compact RVV SD, it (as we see in the example with the "Meteor") has a value of about 1,25-1,3. Size matters. Perhaps it was the attempt to make a sufficiently compact missile with a ramjet that led to such contradictory results. But the work must definitely be continued, having made the right conclusions.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        I would not refer to the United States today as a country that sets trends in global military-technical “fashions.”

                        No matter how fashionable the French are, the USA still remains the most powerful and largest armed force. And the main supplier of ASP for NATO. And if there is a war with NATO, we will have to deal with products of the American military-industrial complex.
                        In addition, when assessing a particular type of weapon, the US implies the scale of its future production to supply the US Air Force and NATO countries. Scale also matters, and an overly expensive or complex/capricious type of ASP may be rejected precisely because of the required scale of its production and operation. But the US has really sagged significantly over the past 20-25 years, resting on the laurels of victory in the Cold War.


                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Can you provide a link to a publication about the prepared production of RVV-AE-PD, which was abandoned?

                        This was a long time ago and from a correspondence on the forum, several years before the start of the SVO.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        In any case, we are working on ramjet rocket engines:

                        And it is right that they are going. The main thing here is to choose the right niche for combat use. For long/ultra-long range RVV, a ramjet is justified and desirable. For SD RVV, this is already questionable, because the R-77M is quite good and sufficient for medium ranges. I think it would be extremely desirable to get two types of RVV with a range of 250-300 km. and 400 km.+. The first for long-range combat with fighters, the second for hitting AWACS, ASW, ELINT aircraft, etc. large high-priority targets at extreme range. The Chinese boasted that they had such RVV (or SAM) or were close to it. In our case, such long- and ultra-long-range RVVs would be extremely desirable for arming the Su-57M and Su-35SM. And the capabilities of the R-77M are quite sufficient today.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The F-35 Block 3F "strike fighter" is completely unsuitable for fighting for air superiority. The aircraft has an unfinished avionics system (the fact that a new AN/APG-35 radar is being developed for the F-4 Block 85 is indicative), rudimentary air defense, and weak speed and acceleration characteristics.

                        These shortcomings are known, but firstly, this is a strike fighter, its advantages are stealth and the ability to reach the attack line unnoticed. And the Euro-NATO countries already have them in decent numbers.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        EuroNATO without the US is not NATO.

                        To enter into a conventional conflict with Euro-NATO in the hope of US neutrality? In conditions when the EU seeks to conclude a pact with China against the US and Russia at the same time? This would be the height of madness. Therefore, only a nuclear - preventive or preemptive strike with a one-time shutdown of the entire eurozone from the ability to continue the conflict. With the complete destruction of the leadership of the countries of this snake pit and their entire military infrastructure. First of all, nuclear. The issue of the USA and China should also be on the agenda depending on the developing circumstances. I would really like to avoid this, but I am afraid that we will not be left with a choice. Unless we break this rotten but very toxic Euro-Atlantic gang over our knee (it doesn’t matter whether we or Trump do it anymore). Europe as a military and political factor on our Planet should not remain. But for such tasks, our elites also need a serious and high-quality personnel rotation. If they just want to survive and survive what lies ahead. Their choice today is simple - choose Life together with Russia and its People, or perish together with all their descendants and servants.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Nobody stands behind the funny, absurd women from Brussels who ignore reality and do not want to admit that the Banderites have already lost the war, and that they, along with the Banderites, have also already lost the war, today.

                        You just have to take a closer look. Even Naryshkin sees those who are standing. Take a closer look too.
                        It may happen that at a certain stage we will be on the same path with the USA named after comrade Trump. Not against China. But against Europe and its Neighbor.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        I don't think Trump will emerge victorious from this war on two fronts.

                        "Never say never". The split in the Western bloc that has occurred may actually be very beneficial for us. But decisions must be made CORRECTLY and in a timely manner. Including personnel decisions.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Besides the F-35, Europe may now have a few dozen modernized Rafale and Typhoon fighters with modernized RBE2-AA radars and CAPTOR-E radars with AESA, and several new JAS-39Es with RAVEN ES-05 radars with AESA in the Swedish Air Force.

                        And together with the F-35?
                        Any problem, especially such an important one, must be considered comprehensively. And don't throw hats at each other... in 2022, the enemy has already been underestimated. Such lessons must be learned for life.
                      7. 0
                        April 17 2025 14: 15
                        Quote: bayard
                        Everything is fine with the scan and the page, the implementation and scale (size of the product) are important with such implementation. The smaller the size of the missile, the smaller this coefficient will be. For a larger missile (long and super-long range) this coefficient can be =2, but for the compact RVV SD, it (as we see in the example with the "Meteor") has a value of about 1,25-1,3.

                        Okay, no one will argue - 1,25-1,3. Is this increase tactically significant?

                        https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2025/us-marine-corps-tests-british-meteor-missile-on-f-35b-stealth-fighter-to-expand-long-range-air-combat-capabilities

                        "The US Marine Corps is testing the British Meteor missile on the F-35B stealth fighter to expand its long-range air-to-air capabilities" March 3, 2025

                        "...The integration of the Meteor missile into the F-35B could provide significant advantages in air-to-air combat. The missile's advanced propulsion system allows it to maintain high speed throughout its flight, increasing its range compared to conventional air-to-air missiles. This capability allows the F-35B to engage enemy aircraft from greater distances, reducing its vulnerability in the air. In addition, the missile's high energy state significantly expands the engagement envelope, increasing the likelihood of successfully engaging maneuvering targets... Meteor is a long-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) developed by MBDA and designed to counter a wide range of air threats. It features a solid-fuel, vector-thrust rocket propulsion system that maintains thrust throughout its flight, achieving speeds in excess of Mach 4 and a maximum range of over 200 kilometers. The missile's high maneuverability and Advanced guidance systems allow it to hit fast-moving targets with high precision, even in the face of electronic countermeasures. Unlike conventional air-to-air missiles, the Meteor's propulsion system allows it to regulate thrust levels in flight, optimizing energy use for maximum effectiveness in the final stages of combat." etc.

                        The USMC clearly believes that it is tactically significant that the Meteor provides greater capability for missile air combat at longer ranges than the AIM-120D.

                        Do you think that Meteor has tactical advantages over the R-77M missile or not?
                        No matter how fashionable the French are, the United States remains the most powerful and largest armed force.

                        And what do the "fashionistas" French have to do with it? As you can see, the US Marine Corps has begun testing the European Meteor missile, believing that it will increase the F-35B's capabilities in air combat.
                        It was a long time ago and from the correspondence on the forum, several years before the start of the SVO

                        People write a lot of things in their correspondence on forums. I have not found any information that the production of RVV-AE-PD was prepared in books and magazines on the relevant subject.
                        These shortcomings are known, but firstly, it is a strike fighter, its advantages are stealth and the ability to reach the attack line unnoticed.

                        If I ruled out the European Air Force's F-35 as a candidate for an air superiority fighter, would you agree? Or, if the European F-35s were armed with Meteor missiles, would you disagree?
                        Enter into a conventional conflict with Euro-NATO in the hope of US neutrality?

                        Do not give in to military threats from European leaders like Macron and von der Leyen - they are bluffing. Without the US, Euro-NATO is closer to a "paper tiger" than a real one. And Trump has clearly demonstrated that he is not interested in a nuclear war over Ukraine. What Trump is interested in is economically squeezing everything he can out of the EU, while sending the globalist elites entrenched in the EU, opponents of Trump's course of reindustrialization of the US, to the dustbin of history. If the leadership of several EU countries decides to "let's just fight" with Russia, Trump will behave exactly as he is today in the bargaining over Ukraine. Broadcast on TV screens: "It was a mistake to allow this war to start... I want this war to end" - and not send US forces to Europe. The inevitable economic and political catastrophe in the EU, caused by direct involvement in a war with Russia, along with China, the second main geoeconomic competitor of the United States, is only to Trump’s advantage.
                        In a situation where the EU is seeking to enter into a pact with China against the US and Russia at the same time?

                        The EU may strive for anything, but today's military wretchedness of the EU has already determined that it is precisely at the expense of the EU that the great powers of modern times will solve their problems. "They beat and said: "You are abundant" - therefore, it is possible to profit at your expense. They beat and said: "You are wretched, powerless" - therefore, it is possible to beat and rob you with impunity... Such is the wolf's law of capitalism."

                        Russia has many thousands of nuclear warheads... and an armed forces with the experience of three years of large-scale war. And who will the modern "global bandits" "defatten", the EU or Russia?
                        It may happen that at a certain stage we will be on the same path with the USA named after comrade Trump. Not against China. But against Europe and its Neighbor.

                        It has already happened. It's just that in Brussels, Paris and Berlin they can't believe it. It was such a cozy "European garden" surrounded by the world's "jungles", and then, lo and behold.
                        And together with the F-35?

                        We've already agreed that the F-35 Block 3F is poorly suited to the role of an air superiority fighter. No?

                        I can admit that the F-35 can successfully perform in this role. But only with the Meteor missiles that were promised to be included in the F-35 Block 4 armament at the end of the decade.

                        Do you think that the F-35 Block 3F with AIM-120C-7 missiles can successfully perform in such a role today? As far as I remember, European F-35 operators do not have AIM-120D/AIM-120C-8 missiles in service today. Perhaps Norway, but for the NASAMS air defense system.

                        https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/norway-approved-for-aim-120c-8-amraam-missiles-for-nasams-f-35a


                        I do not think so.
                      8. 0
                        April 17 2025 19: 02
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Okay, no one will argue - 1,25-1,3. Is this increase tactically significant?

                        Of course.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Do you think that Meteor has tactical advantages over the R-77M missile or not?

                        It definitely has an advantage over the R-77M. According to an article on VO for 2017, the effective range of the R-77 against a maneuvering target is 85 km, while the Meteor has 100 km or even a little more. But we have the R-37M. If we were to adopt our own RVV with a ramjet, we would immediately want to have not parity, but superiority. That is, as I wrote above, RVVs with a long range with a maximum of 250-300 km, and super-long range with a maximum of 400+ km.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        People write a lot of things in their correspondence on forums. I have not found any information that the production of RVV-AE-PD was prepared in books and magazines on the relevant subject.

                        I don't remember the exact wording, but the discussion was about the fact that the Ministry of Defense refused to put a missile that was already ready for acceptance into service into series production because of the price. There was no discussion about the readiness of production lines, but there was a discussion about the readiness to deploy such lines. For this reason (not wanting to pay), the Ministry of Defense then turned down many projects. And for the Su-57 (as well as the Su-35S and Su-30SM), the R-77M was considered sufficient. If a domestic RVV with a ramjet and a range of 250 km+ appears, I will only be glad.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        If I ruled out the European Air Force's F-35 as a candidate for an air superiority fighter, would you agree? Or, if the European F-35s were armed with Meteor missiles, would you disagree?

                        They will use them in this capacity anyway, they simply have no other choice, and the "Lightning" has a chance to reach the launch line undetected due to its stealth. So I would include them in the list of opponents to our fighters in the European theater of operations, because they will be anyway. And they buy a lot of them (in total).

                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Don't give in to military threats from European figures like Macron and von der Leyen - they are bluffing. Without the US, Euro-NATO is closer to a "paper tiger" than a real one.

                        The Ukrainian army in 2014 was not even a paper tiger, but paper paper, but look at the beast they created on psychotropics and NLP programs. And Ukrainian society at the beginning of 2014 was more than amorphous and passive, but look at the result of their creativity. With the European population, it will be even easier and faster for them. The question is in launching their own military-industrial complex, but this also depends on will, and not on capabilities. They have capabilities, and they are already whipping up hysteria in preparation for war with Russia. Let's give them time, as we gave Ukraine, and we will get a result that we definitely won't like. After all, we ourselves got rid of the false idea of ​​a Small Army only 2-2,5 years ago.
                        Europeans are not ready to fight??
                        But were they ready? Those who are caught like cattle on the streets, are they ready? But they fight and are captured only after they have completely used up their ammunition. And they blow themselves up with grenades too... Since 2014, very professional psychologists and pharmacists have been working on them. If we give them time and opportunity, we will see the same thing in Europe, only on an order of magnitude larger scale.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The current military misery of the EU has already determined that it is precisely at the expense of the EU that the great powers of our time will solve their problems.

                        This will be the right decision, but the "food on a plate" will resist. As it is doing now b\u5b. And they have their own military-industrial complex, nuclear weapons. Their mobilization potential is 3,5 times higher than ours. They have not fought for the last 20 years and their society is not tired of war. How many hundreds of meters do we walk per day in the Northern Black Sea region? And this is in Ukraine, where the population remains at only about 32 million (from the previous 34-3 million before the SVO). Do you really want to continue the conventional meat grinder, now with all of Europe? Which China will also help? Europe is such a TV@Rь, which can only be made to behave decently by breaking it over the knee and grinding it into mincemeat. This has been proven by all previous wars and the current "non-war". That is why the changes were made to the Doctrine. That's what heavy-class IRBMs, light-class IRBMs, etc., hypersonic missiles with special equipment are for. It is impossible to appeal to the minds of their elite, because they have no mind in the human sense, only rigid algorithms for enslavement, robbery/plunder, and domination at any cost. These are robots, not people, but functions of one hostile external force. And now they are working on the task/program of overthrowing Trump and preparing for war with Russia. And believe me, they will cope with this preparation in XNUMX years.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Russia, on the other hand, has many thousands of nuclear warheads... and armed forces with the experience of three years of large-scale war.

                        Do you think that this war/non-war does not exhaust our forces? The combat experience acquired by the Army and its increased numbers are good. Only their armies and headquarters learned to fight against us during this war. And I would not say that their achievements of the Cold War were disgraced. Otherwise, we would not have had so many gestures of goodwill, regroupings and difficult decisions in 2022. We would not have reflected the entire 2023 dissipative impulse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine under the leadership of NATO headquarters. And we would not have squeezed the enemy out of our land with meaty assaults at such an imperceptible pace on the map ... We must realistically assess the situation. We will hardly be able to continue the war with Europe for another 5, or even all 10 years without the use of normal weapons (nuclear weapons, because in a war for survival this weapon is the only normal one). And having used them, we will solve the problem within a few hours/days.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        We've already agreed that the F-35 Block 3F is poorly suited to the role of an air superiority fighter. No?

                        It has obvious shortcomings, but it is stealthy and has a fairly good radar. It will be a difficult opponent, and we are unlikely to have more than 57 of our own Su-70s even by the end of this year.
                        For a conventional war with such an enemy, we need to rearm and reform the Army. And we have no fewer problems than Europe and the USA. But with the strategic nuclear forces and nuclear weapons in general, everything is quite good.
                      9. 0
                        April 21 2025 01: 36
                        Quote: bayard
                        Everything is fine with the scan and the page.

                        bayard, AleksandrA trolled you quite well:
                        1. In addition to Fig. 1.1, this book also contains Table 1.2, which indicates the Meteor's flight range of 150 km. It seems that AlexandrA did not read this book to the page with this table.
                        2. The date of the last source used to write Chapter 1 of this book is 2003. The bulk of the material on which Chapter 1 was written is from the second half of the 80s - 90s of the last century.
                        3. Caption under Fig. 1.1: "Ballistic characteristics...", but aeroballistic ones are needed. We are flying in the atmosphere.
                        4. The paragraph before Fig. 1.1 does not contain the subject of flight at all, but does contain the "mysterious" phrase: "...under certain flight conditions...". These special flight conditions are not defined in the book.
                      10. 0
                        April 21 2025 05: 29
                        To be honest, I didn't even look at that book, but there was a good article on this topic on VO for 2017. No one disputes the advantages of RVV with ramjet, but they have their own specifics, their own price and dependence on their own dimensions/launch weight. In the dimensions of RVV R-77 ramjet gives an increase in characteristics in range, but this increase is not so critical in a real combat situation, but the price of the product increases quite noticeably. And the use of two RVV on one maneuverable target significantly neutralizes the possibility of evasion of the fighter by energetic maneuvering.
                      11. 0
                        April 16 2025 00: 05
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        After the engine stops firing, Meteor loses speed faster. But the engine firing time of Meteor is several tens of seconds, not several seconds, as in rockets with solid propellant rocket engines (in each impulse of two, for modern rockets with two-pulse solid propellant rocket engines). Tens of seconds of engine firing time from today's rockets with solid propellant rocket engines

                        Modern SRM (air-to-air missiles) "climb" to 30-40 km and glide when flying at long range, while SRM-guided air-to-air missiles fly horizontally at an altitude of 20-23 km. That is, SRM-guided air-to-air missiles fly where air resistance is 4-5 times less than at the altitude of SRM-guided air-to-air missiles. Compared to SRM-guided air-to-air missiles, SRM-guided air-to-air missiles simply waste fuel to overcome air resistance. There is no gain.
                      12. 0
                        April 16 2025 20: 30
                        Quote: Comet_1
                        Modern SAMs (air-to-air missiles) with solid propellant rocket engines, when flying over a long range, “climb” to 30-40 km and fly with a glide, while air-to-air missiles with RPEs fly horizontally at an altitude of 20-23 km.

                        We are talking about air-to-air missiles with a launch weight of up to 200 kg and a maximum flight speed that is far from hypersonic. Such missiles do not "climb" when flying to their maximum range at altitudes of 30-40 km. Do not lump together 190 kg air-to-air missiles and the 40N6 SAM with a launch weight of almost two tons. It is a pity that you did not find the time to leaf through the book "Ramjet Rocket Engines on Solid and Paste Fuels".
                      13. -1
                        April 16 2025 00: 14
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The Swedes will have Arexis installed on every JAS-39E and JAS-39F.

                        And we have electronic warfare systems on every side.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Plus compact disposable active decoys BriteCloud.

                        And we also have PPOI - single-use jamming transmitters.
                      14. 0
                        April 16 2025 21: 11
                        Quote: Comet_1
                        And we have electronic warfare systems on every side.

                        I wrote that the Germans chose Arexis for the prospective specialized electronic warfare aircraft Typhoon EK of their Air Force. This clearly indicates that the capabilities of Arexis significantly exceed the capabilities of the regular active radio jamming stations of the onboard defense system Praetorian DASS of the Typhoon fighter. And on the Gripen-E/F Arexis is installed NOT on 15 electronic warfare aircraft Typhoon EK, but on all combat fighters.

                        There are no modern 4++ generation fighters without active radio interference equipment as part of the BKO. The question is in the capabilities of this equipment. The capabilities of the latest Arexis electronic warfare equipment are clearly "above average". In any case, in comparison with the JAS-39E/F, the capabilities for setting active self-defense interference from the F-35A Block 3F look pathetic.
                        And we also have PPOI - single-use jamming transmitters.

                        At exhibitions. At the stands of the Research Institute "Ekran". But have you seen, for example, active towed radar decoys (ATD) developed by the Research Institute "Ekran" on combat aircraft participating in the SVO?

                        I still can't find any traces of the presence of the SPO L-52 on the Ka-150 combat helicopters. Only on the exhibition and export Ka-52s.
                      15. +1
                        April 16 2025 00: 25
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The Russian and American refusal to develop air-to-air missiles with ramjet/RPD engines is, in my opinion, a mistake.

                        You are mistaken. By the way, the declared maximum overload of the target being hit for the R-77 is 12, and for the Meteor - 11. The ranges of modern SRM and RPM air-to-air missiles with the same weight and dimensions are practically the same, but the flight paths are different. In the vicinity of the target, SRM air-to-air missiles can reach high angles of attack, while RPM air-to-air missiles cannot.
                      16. 0
                        April 16 2025 22: 00
                        Quote: Comet_1
                        You are wrong.

                        You have leafed through the book "Ramjet Rocket Engines on Solid and Paste Fuels" the link to the pdf file of which I have given above. Write where its authors are mistaken?
                        By the way, the declared maximum overload of the target being hit for the R-77 is 12, and for the Meteor it is 11.

                        And the design of manned fighters is calculated for an overload of 9, or even less. For example, the maximum operational overload of the F-35B fighter is 7, as is the case with the Su-34 frontline bomber.
                        The ranges of modern air-to-air missiles with solid rocket motors and air-to-air missiles with rocket engines with the same weight and dimensions are practically the same, but the flight trajectories are different.

                        Maybe you'll still leaf through the book mentioned above? I'll give you the link so you don't have to look for it:

                        https://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/sorokin/rpd/sorokin-yan-rpd2010.pdf

                        If desired, you can also look at the article: "Simulation modeling of scenarios for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles with a combined rocket-ramjet engine when attacking a protected air target" which examines the problem of analyzing the effectiveness of using air-to-air missiles with a combined rocket-ramjet engine:

                        https://vkit.ru/index.php/archive-rus/506-003-009

                        The article is paid. 350 rubles.
                  2. 0
                    April 15 2025 23: 56
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    Have I managed to demonstrate that the JAS-39E has the most modern (according to the electronic component base, for sure) and more advanced avionics than the upgraded Eurofighter Typhoon with the CAPTOR-E radar and the F-35A/B/C (by the way, the F-35 has active interference only with the radar's AESA, i.e. in the rear hemisphere, where the F-35 has a high EPR value, the F-35's air defense system cannot perform active interference) and that, in particular, the RAVEN ES-05 radar is the most advanced and powerful in comparison with the Typhoon's CAPTOR-E radar and the F-81's AN/APG-35?

                    No, it was not possible. There are no target detection ranges, average radiation powers, angular resolution. The RAVEN ES-05 and AN/APG-81 F-35 radars are different types of radars.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    In conditions of absence of electronic interference. Now let's look at the BKO of the already mentioned JAS-39E:

                    https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-electronic-warfare-suite

                    A very developed BKO. And what is remarkable, again GaN amplifiers:

                    https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/01/07/gripen/

                    Gripen E is equipped with a GaN (gallium nitride) based EW-suite, which will probably make a ghost.

                    Irbis-E is capable of determining bearings on ten jamming sources and the range to one jamming source. And the Su-35 is equipped with the Khibiny-M electronic warfare system.
                    1. 0
                      April 16 2025 15: 33
                      Quote: Comet_1
                      No, it was not possible. There are no target detection ranges, average radiation powers, angular resolution. The RAVEN ES-05 and AN/APG-81 F-35 radars are different types of radars.

                      It's a pity. Apparently, you will be interested in independently figuring out why amplifiers built on GaN microwave MMICs are better than amplifiers built on GaAs microwave MMICs. Go through, so to speak, the entire chain from the supply voltage to the average and peak power emitted by the antenna array in a given microwave range. Understand how this chain is affected by the increase in the efficiency of amplifiers in the receiving and transmitting modules of the antenna array.
                      The RAVEN ES-05 and AN/APG-81 F-35 radars are different types of radars.

                      Provide a link to the source from which you learned this. I hope this is not some forum, but an article in a scientific and technical publication?
                      Irbis-E is capable of determining bearings on ten jamming sources and the range to one jamming source. And the Su-35 is equipped with the Khibiny-M electronic warfare system.

                      Are you really ready to talk about ways to form so-called deep nulls of the radiation pattern in an antenna array with only phase control of the RP?

                      https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2414780C2_20110320

                      The Su-35 is not equipped with either towed (https://www.electronics.ru/files/article_pdf/1/article_1582_259.pdf) or, even more so, autonomous disposable active false targets.

                      Taking into account the available information, it is not worth considering that the Su-35S air defense system is more advanced than the JAS-39E air defense system. Based on the electronic components, GaN microwave electronic control system in the AFAR PPM of the active interference equipment and the presence in the JAS-39E air defense system of not only onboard active interference equipment but also expendable active false targets, it can be understood that today the small Swedish fighter has a more advanced air defense system.
              2. 0
                April 15 2025 23: 40
                Quote: AlexanderA
                "With their comparative simplicity, RPDs have high values ​​of specific impulse in a wide range of altitudes and flight speeds, which, while ensuring high speeds, allows, under certain flight conditions, to have a flight range 1,5–2 times greater than using solid rocket motors (Fig. 1.1)." p. 10

                Only “under certain flight conditions,” and the air-to-air missiles with solid-propellant rocket engines categorically refuse to comply with these conditions.
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Therefore, having allowed 170 km for the R-77M, I would not take Meteor's 200 km on faith. We must proceed from the fact that the RPD of the 190 kg Meteor provides a maximum launch range at least 1,5 times greater than that of the 190 kg R-77M.

                Erroneous conclusions. The launch range of modern SRM missiles is determined by their onboard power supply - it is necessary to power the drives and onboard electronics. And the flight range of SRM missiles is determined by the operating time of the RPE. An inoperative RPE produces high drag and the missile quickly loses speed.
                Quote: AlexanderA
                GaN amplifiers in the PPM are declared for Raven ES-05.
                ...
                And this is not a small radar. It has about the same mass as the F-81's AN/APG-35 radar.

                The mass is not important, what is important is the ratio of the characteristic size of the antenna to the wavelength (or vice versa).
                Quote: AlexanderA
                However, the AN/APG-81 PPM does not have any GaN amplifiers with their high efficiency.

                And that's not important. What's important is: target detection range, angular resolution, average power...
                Quote: AlexanderA
                In fact, the JAC-39E/F has both a radar and an IR radar that operates in the far IR range, with better characteristics than the APG-81 radar.

                According to the Russian classification, the APG-81 is a radar with digital signal processing and an AFAR with digital signal processing, like the Belka, and the Raven ES-05 is a radar with digital signal processing and an AFAR.
                Quote: AlexanderA
                But there is a nuance: only 05 Gallium Nitride (GaN) transmit/receive modules are declared for RAVEN ES-1000.

                The type of semiconductor is not important. What is important is the average radiation power of each radar.
                1. 0
                  April 16 2025 14: 53
                  Quote: Comet_1
                  Only “under certain flight conditions,” and the air-to-air missiles with solid-propellant rocket engines categorically refuse to comply with these conditions.

                  The flight conditions are shown in the book "Ramjet Rocket Engines on Solid and Paste Fuels". They are shown right away in Figure 1.1.

                  The flight altitude of a supersonic air-to-air missile with a ramjet/RPD is no more than 20+ km. Above that, there is simply not enough oxygen in the air to operate the ramjet engine of a supersonic air-to-air missile. Therefore, the flight of an air-to-air missile with a ramjet along a ballistic trajectory during the cruise phase is excluded - this is a so-called "cruise" missile (the flight trajectory of which is determined by the aerodynamic lift of the wing (lifting body), engine thrust and gravity).
                  Rockets with solid propellant rocket engines can climb to altitudes significantly higher than 30 km with the engine running.

                  Flight conditions that determine the advantage in flight range, all other things being equal, are determined by the flight altitude. When launched at low altitudes at a low-altitude target, the advantage in maximum flight range of an air-to-air missile with a ramjet over a missile with a solid-propellant rocket engine is conditionally 25%. When launched at high altitudes at a high-altitude target, the advantage in flight range is conditionally 70%. Large minimum launch range - a missile with a sustainer ramjet must pass the boost section on the launch solid-propellant rocket engine along a certain trajectory for the urgent start of the ramjet engine. All this is illustrated by the zones of minimum and maximum launch range for each of the missiles (with a solid-propellant rocket engine or with a prospective RPE) in Figure 1.1.
                  Erroneous conclusions. The launch range of modern air-to-air missiles (SAMs) with solid-propellant rocket engines is determined by their on-board power supply - it is necessary to power the drives and on-board electronics. And the flight range of air-to-air missiles with RPE is determined by the operating time of the RPE.

                  The conclusions are correct. Because the case of clumsy bad designers, for whom the flight speed of the missile provided by the cruise engine of one design or another is still sufficient for the missile to react to the deflection of the rudders and to be guided to the target, but there is no energy on board for the seeker head and the operation of the steering machines - as a result, the missile is not controlled and in the end the self-destructor is triggered. Such a case is taken out of brackets as unlikely.
                  The mass is not important, what is important is the ratio of the characteristic size of the antenna to the wavelength (or vice versa).

                  The mass of the radar shows what percentage of the aircraft's design mass its developers spent on the radar. And in the case of the JAS-39E, the developers spent a much larger percentage of the aircraft's design mass on the radar than in the case of the F-35A. The weakest radar in Europe on a fighter is the RBE2-AA of the French Rafale. Somehow I didn't find its mass on the fly, but it does not have a deflectable AESA web, which has only 838 PPMs with amplifiers on GaAs components. The diameter of the AESA is less than 600 mm. This is the level of the AN/APG-83 SABR, which is designed to replace the 16-164 kg AN/APG-72(V)69 on the F-9C, a rework of the nose of the onboard electrical power system from the onboard cooling system of the aircraft.

                  And RAVEN ES-05 is higher than the AN/APG-81 radar of the F-35. At least because the AFAR canvas on RAVEN deviates towards the required azimuth due to rotation, while the AFAR canvas of the AN/APG-81 radar is stationary. If serial RAVEN ES-05 uses PPM amplifiers on a GaN electronic component base, then RAVEN ES-05 is significantly higher than AN/APG-81.

                  It is not surprising that for the long-delayed F-35 Block 4, the US has been developing a new AN/APG-2022 radar since at least 85.

                  And the wavelength of all, one might say, is the same: the X-range.
                  And that's not important. What's important is: target detection range, angular resolution, average power...

                  I know that the radio is not based on lamps or semiconductors, but on an armored personnel carrier. wink

                  Are you aware of why the radar PPM with AFAR is being converted to GaN monolithic integrated circuits (MIC) today?

                  https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/air/apg79aesa

                  GaN Insertion

                  A scaled version of the APG-79, the (V)4 also implements Gallium Nitrade, or GaN, technology. This technology insertion allows aircrews to see further and clearer. The US Marine Corps selected the RI&S APG-79(V)4 to upgrade their Hornet fleets.

                  I have already described the reason in one sentence, GaN amplifiers have significantly higher efficiency than GaAs. With the same level of energy consumption and the same water cooling system as APAA with GaAs TPM, APAA with GaN TPM can get significantly higher radiated power.

                  https://www.electronics.ru/files/article_pdf/3/article_3458_959.pdf

                  "One of the tasks of the developers of MIS for AFAR is to increase the power and efficiency in a given frequency band. This is especially relevant for onboard AFAR for aviation and space purposes."
                  According to the Russian classification, the APG-81 is a radar with digital signal processing and an AFAR with digital signal processing, like the Belka, and the Raven ES-05 is a radar with digital signal processing and an AFAR.

                  Have you read somewhere about the fundamental differences between the antenna arrays of the AN/APG-81 and RAVEN ES-05 radars? I am waiting with interest for a link that would say that the AN/APG-81 antenna array uses digital beamforming, and accordingly, in the AN/APG-81 PPMs, the phase shifters and attenuators are replaced by quadrature modulators/demodulators.

                  That's exactly what you wanted to write, that the AN/APG-81 antenna array is a CAR? wink
                  The type of semiconductor is not important. What is important is the average radiation power of each radar.

                  I hope my comments above helped to understand why the type of semiconductor microwave integrated circuit is important and why amplifiers built on GaN microwave integrated circuits are better than amplifiers built on GaAs microwave integrated circuits.
      2. 0
        April 16 2025 18: 39
        I compared aircraft of equal years of production, and not the first 9-12 productions and the latest Mirage 2000.
        1. 0
          April 17 2025 10: 53
          If you had written: "Mirage 2000-5F is the same age as our MiG-29SMT, so no need to brag, it's a normal aircraft..."
  12. +7
    April 14 2025 09: 48
    Look - we are his hats, hats... You write such crap...
    1. 0
      April 17 2025 20: 00
      Did you read the article carefully?
  13. vBR
    +8
    April 14 2025 10: 11
    What is the article about? To laugh at the foolish French? They are doing everything right, it is the author who has no idea that a glider - especially if it is aerodynamically licked and has a reserve resource, which is usually extended - can be used forever, if that makes sense. To begin with, the author should at least find out how many front-line aircraft there are in the European NATO countries. There will be no laughing matter.
    1. +4
      April 14 2025 11: 05
      a glider - especially if it is aerodynamically licked and has a reserve resource, which is usually extended - can be used forever

      That's true. During the modernization process, all equipment and even the engine can be changed: radar, weapons... .
  14. +5
    April 14 2025 11: 15
    The distinctive feature of the "Mirage" is its delta wing, so some of the photos are of an old man F-5 - never in service with France. The author and editors need to be more careful in selecting and analyzing illustrations. Such inconsistencies are a sign not only of inattention, but also of insufficient qualifications. By the way, in the materials of "VO" bloopers with illustrative material are not uncommon. Bad for a site that positions itself as professional.
  15. +3
    April 14 2025 11: 55
    It’s strange, the last photo shows an F-5E Tiger II, which has nothing to do with France.
    1. +4
      April 14 2025 13: 19
      As the author of the article to aviation lol
  16. +2
    April 14 2025 14: 13
    Top article. We write that the French attack aircraft is bad because it will be shot down by air defense or fighters of the Russian Federation. And what about the Tu-95 or Su-34? It can also be shot down by air defense or a fighter, does that mean it is a bad aircraft? This is not World War II, where the qualities of the carrier itself decided a lot, now it is precisely the carrier, and what it carries will decide. If it carries free-falling faba bombs - then yes, the complex is useless, but if scalps and a modern reconnaissance complex - then what?
    Let's write about Oreshnik's strikes on gayrope and the US right away, why bother with analysis? Or we can recall the classic and slightly change the earth's gravitational field at night...
  17. 0
    April 14 2025 16: 01
    An aircraft is only a means of delivering a missile to a designated area on time. With AWACS, reliable communications and corrections, it does not need its own avionics and maneuverability. Why have its own radar if there is communication with ground and airborne locators? The battlefield radar should be on a separate carrier, equipped with only a pair of anti-missiles and capable (there is no crew!) of maneuvering with extreme acceleration. And a silent carrier of strike weapons still needs to be noticed...
    The missile carrier must fly fast and low, maybe like a log. The radar must hang high and be maneuverable enough to dodge missiles. There is no way to combine these qualities in one machine.
    .
    The future does not belong to super-planes, but to primitive unmanned missile carriers with high-velocity propellers and a simple small delta wing. These machines take off from the near rear and are directed from stratospheric radars.
  18. 0
    April 14 2025 16: 35
    Against the Russian Su-30SM2 and Su-35S, you couldn’t think of anything better.


    And how many Su-35S and Su-30SM2 are in the Aerospace Forces in the whole of our huge mother Russia?
    For ten squadrons and air defense and air defense and UAV interception....
    It is quite normal for the French Air Force to have a little over a hundred multi-role aircraft, but for the huge Russia the Air Force should have an order of magnitude more aircraft...
    1. 0
      April 14 2025 20: 40
      Is France small?
      France is not only that place in Europe where there is Paris and the Cote d'Azur.
      This is also French Guiana (comparable in size to Germany), these are island possessions in the Indian Ocean. This is the giant French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. These are the former colonies of West and North Africa in which their puppet regimes must be supported.
      Believe me - France has enough territory that their aviation needs to monitor. I would even say that it has FEW of them. Only they consider this sufficient. And let's be happy about it, it will only be better for us
      1. -1
        April 14 2025 22: 24
        The total area of ​​France is 551 km² (500 km² including overseas territories).

        Russia is the largest country in the world, with an area of ​​17075200 km2.


        Russia is 25,3 times larger than France and its overseas territories.
        If the French Air Force has 180 multi-role Rafales, then the Aerospace Forces should logically have 4500 Su-35/34/30..., but in fact there are ten times fewer of them...
        1. 0
          April 14 2025 22: 43
          The number of aircraft in the USSR Air Force in 1990 was more than 6 thousand aircraft of various types, with the most powerful air defense in the world....
          Russia currently has 500-600 combat-ready aircraft: Su-35/34/30, MiG-31
  19. +1
    April 14 2025 20: 33
    Well, if we put aside all unnecessary reasoning and political disputes, then.....
    ... All that is needed from a modern aircraft (for it to be considered relevant for performing the vast majority of tasks) is a good radar with a good analytical complex and a good engine (not only to fly and lift as much cargo as possible, but also to power the radar and computer).
    Everything else becomes SECONDARY.
    Maneuverability?
    So if you/your enemy has a lot of air-to-air missiles with a gas-dynamic belt and a ramjet engine, then at least one missile will hit you.
    Stealth? Well, with a powerful and broadband radar, stealth will only slightly move the detection radius.
    New lightweight materials?
    This increases the cost of building and maintaining the aircraft, which reduces the total fleet of aircraft that the country can support.
    Etc.
    All other parameters bring noticeable advantages ONLY if the rule of having a powerful and economical engine and a powerful radar is observed. If one or both components are missing - all this loses its meaning.
    The F-35 is a bad airplane (as we like to say). But it did the main thing - an EXCELLENT engine and a GOOD radar were created for it. Some other parameters even hinder it a little. But it is the presence of a powerful engine and a good radar that do 90% of its work.
    If it weren't for the attempt to make him omnipotent where necessary and where not, he would have been even cheaper.
  20. 0
    April 15 2025 14: 35
    The author sings a requiem for "Mirages" so enthusiastically that I don't want to interrupt. But I have to interrupt, because there is a question. Why does everyone (including the author) think that medium and small countries need the latest developments? These countries are not engaged in global confrontation, they need to fight not with the USA or with China. The most they are going to do in a war is to take away some border territory from their neighbors or not let them cut off the same from themselves. And for this, spend trillions on "super-duper"? Oh, come on! The modernized equipment that is now sold by the trainload is enough.
  21. -1
    April 15 2025 18: 39
    For comparison
    The speed of the Mirage is 2,2 M, the Su 24 1,6 M. The combat load of the Mirage is 6900 kg, the Su 24 7000 kg.
  22. 0
    April 15 2025 21: 10
  23. 0
    April 19 2025 17: 47
    Why don't veterans age and die?

    Because there are poor countries that can't afford anything better.