Su-35: Egyptian Plague

So tell me, what are we to do with these losers from Egypt? It's truly astonishing how the descendants of the pharaohs, who built one of the first empires, could degenerate to such a level. However, the actual descendants of the pharaohs, the Copts, make up no more than 8% of Egypt today. The rest are Arabs.

Let the experts figure out the difference; our agenda is somewhat different: why military-trade relations with that world often develop so peculiarly. And why it's India and Egypt that are battling it out to be the world's biggest misfits in military procurement.

I would characterize what the Egyptians are doing as “the height of cynicism.”

We all remember discussing how the Egyptian military obstructed our Su-35 in the summer. In July, there allegedly was ahistorical"The Su-35 and Rafale battle was simulated on a supercomputer. The only real question here is: where did Egypt get its supercomputer? Oh, a French one... Okay, it happens.

After tinkering with this supercomputer, which simulated a "mock battle" between a Rafale and a Su-35, our fighter appeared to have lost. This gave Cairo the opportunity to officially announce its refusal to purchase Russian fighters. The battle itself, however, was never shown to anyone, nor were any analytical calculations, but that's just the way it is.

It should be noted that the delivery of Su-35s to Egypt was formalized by so-called "firm contractual obligations." This means that breaking such obligations requires either very compelling reasons, or...

Who will say that the Su-35 in such a paint scheme would be worse?

According to the Egyptian military, the Su-35 has a number of “serious technical deficiencies that hinder the implementation of the contract,” namely: an outdated N035 Irbis PFAR radar, critical dependence on external guidance, excessive fuel consumption, and a high level of thermal and radar signature.

Oh-ho, well, you still have to distinguish a camel from a fighter jet...

I'm certainly not as much of an expert as the Egyptian camel drivers, but after specifically retrieving data from Flightglobal.com and flightradar24.com, I've come to certain conclusions. Why the British? It's simple. They absolutely hate us, but when it comes to aircraft, they try to be objective. And what's more, their performance data and specifications are indeed accurate.

The obsolete N035 Irbis radar

The most powerful radar ever produced in the world, with the longest range. Interestingly, our H035, which powers the Su-35, is 20 years younger than the French RBE2, which powers the Rafale. The French radar was first developed in 1986 and launched in 1997. The Irbis is actually a bit younger – it was built in 2012.

"Critical dependence on external guidance." That is, an aircraft with the world's longest-range radar requires guidance from an AWACS aircraft. I don't even want to comment on this simply because it's absurd.

"Excessive fuel consumption"

Well, here it is enough to simply look at the data on the aircraft's range.

In general, the fuel tanks of any modern Sukhoi aircraft are a weak point.

Su-35. The fighter has a range of 3,600 km on internal fuel tanks, giving it a range of 1,800 km. With two 2,000-liter external fuel tanks, the Su-35 has a range of 4,500 km, giving it a range of 2,250 km. At an altitude of 200 meters and subsonic speed, the range is 1,580 km, giving it a range of 790 km.

It's impossible to find a Rafale in a photo without two or even three barrels under its belly. Otherwise, the poor thing won't fly anywhere.

Rafale. Range of 1,800 km. With THREE external fuel tanks, each with a capacity of 5,700 liters. Naturally, three of these monsters are attached to the weaponry, since all of this weighs a lot. Combat radius is 1,390 km with one external fuel tank, holding 2,000 liters. So who has the high fuel consumption now? Or the short range?

If any aircraft can fly long distances, it's definitely not the French one. It's true that the Su-35 is more fuel-hungry, but it shouldn't be compared to the Rafale. The first Egyptian aircraft, the Ramses, would do just fine.

As for visibility, these are the same generation of aircraft. And what the Egyptian camel breeders calculated is very difficult to say, because if the criticism came from those who know how to build aircraft—the US, Germany, France, the UK—we'd be discussing it, but Egypt...

And speaking of maneuverability... of armament... Well, it's true, everything is not in the Rafale's favor. Yes, I'm often accused in the comments of "all planes are great." Not all. The Rafale, for example... No, this plane will never be a favorite. For many reasons, the main one being its complete imbalance.

Here is that memorable battle with the Pakistani-Chinese MiG-21 and the Russian S-300 air defense systems, when four Rafale jets, worth a total of about a billion dollars, took with them several Indian pilots (they were later posthumously awarded) and faith in the capabilities of the Indian Air Force.

And after this, when the JF-17s, which are very much like MiG-21s in new clothes, did such a thing to the Rafales, to say that the Su-35 is worse—I don't even know what adjectives one could find to get past the censors. Here, the great and mighty Russian admits his own impotence.

However, if you read the Algerian publication "MENA Defense," which we've already cited several times (it's something like their "Military Review," yes), the real reason for such boorish behavior on the part of Cairo's officials is not the Su-35's inferiority, but Egypt's soft backbone, which is under considerable pressure from Washington and Jerusalem. Intercontinental geopolitical blackmail, if you will, in all its glory.

The US didn't like the contract between Egypt and PJSC UAC. It's clear why. And the US threatened to cut off military aid under the Camp David Agreement, which, by the way, amounts to $1,3 billion per year. And Israel, understandably, couldn't be happier with the strengthening of the Egyptian Air Force. Today they have peace and friendship, but tomorrow they could easily fly an Su-35 toward Israeli F-35Is, and hit them hard. Who wants that kind of risk?

Under such pressure, Cairo collapsed and began looking for excuses to "get out of the contract." The mock air battle and fabricated technical problems became an excellent excuse to conceal its capitulation to the forceful pressure from the US and Israel.

But in Egypt, fatteh is far better prepared than surrender agreements. But, having suffered such political and diplomatic humiliation, the Egyptians, for some reason, decided to take revenge on an innocent aircraft and launched a full-scale hounding of the Su-35 this summer.

The most remarkable thing about this frankly sordid story is that the Egyptian side didn't bother to present or publish any official analytical findings, research results, or expert opinions in any respectable industry publications. They simply orchestrated a murky deluge of information from "relevant" and, naturally, anonymous sources.

But the West has eagerly embraced the idea. While their F-35s are competing to see who can break down first, while F/A-18s are being scrapped en masse, and F-22s are rotting away in their bases, they need something to counter an aircraft that not only fights, but does so effectively, leaving many flabbergasted. Perhaps even those who previously slandered this undeniably remarkable aircraft.

How else can one explain the fact that, after the summer mudslinging aimed at saving the Rafale's reputation, the Egyptian military department invited Russia, represented by PJSC UAC, to participate in the tender for the purchase of 40 Su-35 fighters?

Naturally, the other participants will include the American F-15EX fighter, the Chinese J-10E, and the French Rafale. The French will have a distinct advantage, as the Rafales have already been acquired…

Honestly, given the complete mess the Egyptian Air Force is, the only thing missing was the Su-35 to make things even more complicated. Judge for yourself:

- "Rafale" - 1 modification;
- "Mirage 2000" - 2 modifications;
- "Mirage 5" - 4 modifications;
- F-16 – 4 modifications;
- F-16 TUSAŞ – Turkish licensed copy – 2 modifications;
- MiG-21 – 4 modifications;
- MiG-29 – 1 modification;
- Chengdu F-7 – 1 modification.

And this set also includes Sukhoi aircraft... Although then it would be possible to get rid of the veterans.

However, it's hard to say how feasible this is. What the Egyptians have done is nothing new. It's common practice in the Arab and African worlds, and the way our Indian clients are treated, the dances they perform, have the whole world glued to their screens for weeks.

It's worth noting that this slander is directed at equipment they generally like. It's difficult to say what's at play here: whether it's part of the traditional Eastern (and Southern, for that matter) bazaar, allowing them to negotiate discounts or preferential treatment, or whether it's the work of local lobbyists pushing the interests of other suppliers. Perhaps, yes, it's part of the bargaining process.

But overall, it all doesn't look very civilized.

And then the Algerians appeared, who, to put it mildly, dunked the Egyptians.

Algeria is the largest African buyer of first Soviet and then Russian weapons. It's just as capable as India of squeezing the seller dry, but... it's also a buyer with money.

Back at the beginning of the last decade, the Algerian military tested the Rafale against the Su-30MKA (a variant of the Su-30MKI specifically designed for Algeria), and the conclusions were unequivocal – the Russian aircraft's superiority was undeniable. Perhaps that's why the Rafale never found a place in the Algerian Air Force. Although, in a former French colony… there was a chance.

In short: the older Su-30MKA gave the Rafale a good beating. Following the exercises, the Algerian military, through the same MENA Defense, rather rudely advised the Egyptians to stop groveling so shamelessly (actually, that wasn't the wording, but that's a matter of censorship) to the French, so that they would finally agree to sell to Egypt. missiles "Meteor".

Algeria is lucky, it has the R-37, so you can say even more.

Incidentally, it was Algeria that purchased 12 of the 24 Egyptian Su-35s immediately after the fighters had been modernized based on extensive combat experience. It's the best way to demonstrate independence and foresight. Independence means buying what you think you need, while foresight means buying for the long term, expecting effective operation.

Here it is, the first one. Already in Algerian Air Force livery, at the Oum Bouagha base.

Algeria has good relations with almost all of its neighbors, with the exception of Morocco. Things haven't come to a head yet, but in this world, you can never be sure of anything, can you?

The Moroccans have long since switched to American and French technology, and I wouldn't go so far as to say their F-16C/D will fare well against the Su-30MKA and Su-35E. The F-16C/D is a good aircraft overall, confident, but it's in a slightly different weight class. While it can hold its own against the Su-30MKA, the Su-35E has too great an advantage.

With this purchase, Algeria becomes the air force hegemon in the region. While Morocco has a more or less capable air force, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, and Niger have virtually no air force. In this regard, Algeria is beginning to resemble Israel, which can also cause trouble for anyone in its region from the skies. True, it only suits those who can't retaliate, but in principle...

As a result, the Algerian military can be congratulated; they have developed a very powerful and balanced air force.

But what will happen to Egypt is a question. What else will they add to their mess called the Air Force? Perhaps the American F-15EX "Eagle II" or buy more Rafales. Frankly, I seriously doubt the Chengdu J-10E has a chance of winning, since Washington and Jerusalem are deciding to buy Cairo (of course, the latest version of the F-15 is very cool). The question is how will our side respond?

We are, of course, interested in the reaction of Rosoboronexport representatives in general and UAC in particular. Ultimately, it's up to them to decide whether to accept such a dubious proposal. I think the vast majority of the Russian population would prefer to send the Egyptians to herd camels at a minimum, and at worst...

Well, at most, our schoolchildren already know this difficult route.

Of course, dollars and prestige on the global arms market are nice, but the Aerospace Forces need the Su-35s today. There are still places to send them, but once things start to wind down in Ukraine, there will definitely be demand for these aircraft. It's already there; it's just that our global "hegemon," the United States, will be putting a stop to the landing gear, preventing other countries from gaining traction with their air forces.
It's just politics, but Mr. Trump is up to something that will soon have the whole world crossing itself. And at the same time, the world will gradually begin to stop fearing the United States and its antics. Which means there's plenty of room for improvement.

It sounds like a toast (or a plan): we need to choose tomorrow's clients today. And let them be like Algeria, not Egypt.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

However, the actual descendants of the pharaohs, the Copts, make up no more than 8% of the population in Egypt today. The rest are Arabs.
Let the experts figure out what the difference is.

However, the trend is clear!

[TermNachTer]

Talking about Egypt's gene pool is simply ridiculous. Over the course of 5 years, there were all sorts of people there. And the French influence in Egypt was always noticeable, not as strong as that of the Britons, who effectively colonized the Channel region, but quite significant.

[ASSAD1]

But in a nutshell, we can say that the promotion of our truly good and inexpensive military aircraft is being actively hindered by our "partners." And when the production of our civil aviation finally begins at full capacity, the same thing awaits it.

[novel66]

And this

production of our civil aviation

Will it definitely happen? And will the An-2 fly?

[GRANATE-19]

Quote: novel xnumx

And will the An-2 fly?

Wake up, he's been flying since '47.

[Alex777]

Quote: ASSAD1

But in a nutshell, we can say that the promotion of our truly good and inexpensive military aircraft is being actively hindered by our “partners”

That's right. The US told Egypt that if they buy Su-35s,
then let them forget about components for the F-16
(approximately 200 units) and about deliveries for Abrams (1200 units).
Egypt, in this situation, had no choice. Alas.
And all the groans about stupid Egyptians are on the conscience of the author of the article.

[GRANATE-19]

Quote: Alex777

And all the groans about stupid Egyptians are on the conscience of the author of the article.

The article was not about stupidity, but about independence and foresight.
Here is the text:
The best way to demonstrate your independence and foresight.
Independence is when you buy what you think you need, and foresight is when you buy for the long term, counting on its efficient use.

[Alex777]

Quote: GRANATE-19

The article was not about stupidity, but about independence and foresight.

Egypt is an extremely dependent country.
But the United States has not imposed sanctions before.
for the acquisition of our weapons.

[solar]

No less Chinese than "partners." Why do the Chinese need competitors?

[Pavel57]

I don’t remember exactly, but one Egyptian pilot flew to Israel on a Soviet plane.

[Revolver]

Quote: Pavel57

I don’t remember exactly, but one Egyptian pilot flew to Israel on a Soviet plane.

Iraqi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Diamond

[Asper_Daffy]

There were Iraqi, Syrian, and Algerian ones, but he was talking about Egyptian ones (01/19/1964)

[novel66]

And not to Israel, but to Japan, and not Iranian, but Belenko, a plague on his head

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: novel xnumx

And not to Israel, but to Japan, and not Iranian, but Belenko, a plague on his head

- Tell me, is it true that Katz won a million in the lottery?
- True. But not Katz, but Rabinovich. Not to the lottery, but to the cards. Not a million, but a hundred rubles. And did not win, but lost.

[Asper_Daffy]

There was a case.

January 19, 1964. Yak-11 aircraft. Pilot Mahmoud Abbas Hilmi;
Flew from El Arish base in Egypt to Hatzor base in Israel.

[Revolver]

And what did the Egyptian camel breeders calculate?

Camel humpers

[AK-1945]

The author of the article posed a question and then answered it in his own article. Egypt and India are not only incompetent in their military procurement, they're incompetent in general. "Unclear" nations, what else can one say?

[bug120560]

AK-1945, it's just that over the course of our "fruitful and mutually beneficial cooperation," dating back to Soviet times, we've accustomed them to freebies. So as soon as they try to enforce the "money in the morning, chairs in the evening" rule, the blackmail begins—like, "let's go elsewhere." Let them go, rather than do it their way—it's better not to do it at all. With friends like that, you don't need enemies.

[Hole puncher]

In general, with this purchase, Algeria becomes the air force hegemon in the region.

The Algerian Air Force is a cardboard cutout; they fly very little, averaging 50 hours a year—just enough to maintain takeoff and landing skills. In 2020, they brought their 22 Su-24MKs to Russia for repairs. These were aircraft delivered to them between 2001 and 1005, decommissioned in Russia. This means these used aircraft required their first overhaul within 15-19 years, indicating they were hardly flown.

[Illanatol]

The Egyptians, however, are, presumably, nothing but aces. Almost everyone there has a cardboard air force. The Libyans were something, but that's a thing of the past.

[faridg7]

Quote: Puncher

In general, with this purchase, Algeria becomes the air force hegemon in the region.

The Algerian Air Force is a cardboard cutout; they fly very little, averaging 50 hours a year—just enough to maintain takeoff and landing skills. In 2020, they brought their 22 Su-24MKs to Russia for repairs. These were aircraft delivered to them between 2001 and 1005, decommissioned in Russia. This means these used aircraft required their first overhaul within 15-19 years, indicating they were hardly flown.

That's a strange statement. What kind of flight time do you expect from a frontline bomber, whose primary mission is to take off, fly a short route (a frontline bomber), engage a target (dropping anti-aircraft missiles), and return to the airfield? At our airfield, with the range about 120 km away from the airfield, such a flight takes 15 to 30 minutes (depending on the route and speed). This applies to combat missions; we have training aircraft for training missions and to maintain piloting skills.

[naofumi]

According to the Egyptian military, the Su-35 has a number of “serious technical deficiencies that hinder the implementation of the contract,” namely: an outdated N035 Irbis PFAR radar, critical dependence on external guidance, excessive fuel consumption, and a high level of thermal and radar signature.

Well, the N-035 is indeed based on outdated PFAR technology, unlike its competitors, which have more modern AFAR.


An AESA is a much more flexible radar, capable of simultaneously scanning, tracking, and jamming targets. A PEAS cannot do this.
All other things being equal, better jamming immunity and target detection range. All other things being equal, these include, for example, the radar's size, weight, and power consumption.

Su-35. The fighter has a range of 3,600 km on internal fuel tanks, giving it a range of 1,800 km. With two 2,000-liter external fuel tanks, the Su-35 has a range of 4,500 km, giving it a range of 2,250 km. At an altitude of 200 meters and subsonic speed, the range is 1,580 km, giving it a range of 790 km.

Rafale. Range of 1,800 km. With THREE external fuel tanks, each with a capacity of 5,700 liters. Naturally, three of these monsters are attached to the weaponry, since all of this weighs a lot. Combat radius is 1,390 km with one external fuel tank, holding 2,000 liters. So who has the high fuel consumption now? Or the short range?

And not a word about the range; the complaint is about the fuel consumption. And yes, with afterburner on, the AL-31F has a specific fuel consumption of 1,96, while the Safran M88 has 1,70.
The numbers fluctuate a little, but the essence remains the same.

Naturally, the other participants will include the American F-15EX fighter, the Chinese J-10E, and the French Rafale. The French will have a distinct advantage, as the Rafales have already been acquired…

The F-15EX looks like the clear favorite. So...

It's worth noting that this slander is directed at equipment they generally like. It's difficult to say what's at play here: whether it's part of the traditional Eastern (and Southern, for that matter) bazaar, allowing them to negotiate discounts or preferential treatment, or whether it's the work of local lobbyists pushing the interests of other suppliers. Perhaps, yes, it's part of the bargaining process.

What kind of "slop" was poured on the Su-35? What lie did the Egyptians lie about, or how did they slander the Su-35?

But what will happen to Egypt is a question. What else will they add to their mess called the Air Force? Perhaps the American F-15EX "Eagle II" or buy more Rafales. Frankly, I seriously doubt the Chengdu J-10E has a chance of winning, since Washington and Jerusalem are deciding to buy Cairo (of course, the latest version of the F-15 is very cool). The question is how will our side respond?

As I wrote above, the F-15EX wins here, and against everyone else. Moreover, it should be cheaper than the Rafale.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Naofumi

The F-15EX wins here, and it beats everyone else. Moreover, it should be cheaper than the Rafale.

The Pentagon is buying the F-15EX for itself at a higher price than the F-35. It's a very expensive aircraft.

[naofumi]

The Pentagon is buying the F-15EX for itself at a higher price than the F-35. It's a very expensive aircraft.

But cheaper than Rafale.
The first lot costs 80,5 million each. While the second lot is 97 million.
Rafal's price tag is per hundred.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Naofumi

But cheaper than Rafale.
The first lot costs 80,5 million each. While the second lot is 97 million.
Rafal's price tag is per hundred.

I seriously doubt the F-15EX for export will cost as much as it does for the Pentagon. Typically, a contract (as in the case of the Rafale) includes not only the aircraft delivered, but also maintenance, training, additional engines, and much more.

[naofumi]

I seriously doubt the F-15EX for export will cost as much as it does for the Pentagon. Typically, a contract (as in the case of the Rafale) includes not only the aircraft delivered, but also maintenance, training, additional engines, and much more.

The Indians paid over 200 million each for the planes and their equipment, including personnel training. I even remember there was an article about it on VO.
I think the EX will be cheaper with all the trimmings. But I could be wrong.
In any case, EX looks much better.

[bayard]

Quote: Naofumi

The Indians paid over 200 million each for the planes and equipment for them, including personnel training.

This isn't the price of a fully-fledged fighter jet purchased from Russia, but the cost of a Su-30MKI assembled at an Indian factory under license and from our own kits, with some localization. A fighter with the same configuration purchased from Russia would cost around $100 million. And that was in the same article. In it, the Indians were outraged that domestically assembled aircraft cost them twice as much.

Quote: Naofumi

It seems to me that EX will cost less with all the trimmings.

No, it won't. The US sells its aircraft to countries like Egypt or Iran (under the Shah) for at least twice as much as it sells them to its own Air Force (see the example of selling F-14s to Iran ($35 million versus $17 million for its own Air Force – at the prices of the time, of course). They sell Lightnings the same way, but many countries participated in the financing of the project and even in cooperation, so it's a little cheaper for them.
The EX costs almost $200 million for its own Air Force (it’s a twin-engine fighter, after all), so it will definitely be more expensive for export.

Quote: Naofumi

In any case, EX looks much better.

There are also questions and nuances here. The Su-35 has an Irbis antenna with a rotating antenna panel. As a result, its field of view during full scanning ranges from 240 to 270 degrees. A fixed active phased array antenna (APAA) has a scanning sector of 90 to 110 degrees. So, compare which has better situational awareness and which cannot do without external target designation. APAAs have better interference immunity by the basic definition, but this can be addressed by other technical methods, not just excluding the interfering sector from the data reception analysis.
The Su-35E can be equipped with the R-37ME BD air-to-air missile system with a range of 300 km. The US has nothing comparable to offer. However, the EX has other interesting options (if they are offered, of course). So the aircraft are roughly equivalent, but the American version will be more than twice as expensive.

The mystery of the idiotic Egyptian publications is simple: under pressure or "pressure by promises," the Egyptian Arabs simply opened their press to anonymous French sources. Egyptian pilots and superiors later apologized to their counterparts in Russia, and the invitation to re-enter the competition supposedly demonstrates interest. And let's not forget that Egypt prepaid for the fighters ordered from Russia, paying more than the American "aid" under the Camp David deal. Times are changing, and who knows how long such pressure on the country will remain possible. The Rafale aircraft failed drastically, just to the accompaniment of fanfare. The Su-35S in the Air Defense Forces demonstrates miraculous effectiveness, including guiding S-400 SAMs to enemy fighters at literally the maximum range of SAMs. And overall, the Egyptians like our planes, they're building our nuclear power plants in their own free economic zone, and the successes of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the panicked collective West only demonstrate the latter's weakness and fading nature. And they always bet on the strongest—on the winner.

Moreover, the Russian Federation is already offering the Su-57E for export, so after the exhibition in Dubai, it’s unlikely that the Egyptians will want it.

[dimon642]

The plane's axis is 90 degrees to the right, 90 degrees to the left. That radar, like a giraffe, can look backwards.

[bayard]

Look not at the radar axis, but at the edges of the radiation pattern, then everything will become clear. By the way, in Europe and the US, they've also thought about rotating the antenna web and are even trying to implement it.

[dimon642]

The radar side lobes are suppressed to avoid false signals.

[bayard]

Quote: dimon642

The radar side lobes are suppressed to avoid false signals.

Aslan, I wrote to look at the edges of the radiation pattern and the field of view of the antenna, not at the side lobes, which are naturally suppressed. You should know what that is, since you know about side lobes.

[dimon642]

It says 60 degrees below
The use of phased arrays has limitations. One of these is the size of the spatial sector within which beam scanning is possible without significantly degrading other phased array performance indicators. For a flat phased array, the practical limit is 45-60 degrees from the geometric normal to the antenna array. Beam deflection at large angles significantly degrades the antenna system's key performance characteristics (such as beam level, directivity gain, and the width and shape of the main lobe). This is explained by two effects. The first is a decrease in the antenna's effective area (aperture) with increasing beam deflection angle. In turn, a reduction in array length, combined with a decrease in antenna gain, reduces the ability to detect targets at a distance.
especially for you

[bayard]

Quote: dimon642

especially for you

??
In fact, to increase the reception efficiency at extreme beam angles, the antenna sheet is rotated towards the target.
That is, not only to increase the field of view, but also to improve the quality of radar operation at large angles from the aircraft axis.

Quote: dimon642

It says 60 degrees below

They also write a lot of things on fences.
The maximum fixed field of view for a flat surface is 120 degrees, but 90-100 degrees is considered optimal. Consider the field of view for the latest AWACS radar surface and the Chinese AWACS radar. They have three fixed surfaces (in a triangle) with a 120-degree sweep each, providing 360-degree coverage.
And don't try to be clever with me. You're talking to a radar specialist, after all. I may have worked with other radars, but this is my area of ​​professional interest, and I know the meaning of the terms.
I am a former combat control officer of a large air defense unit (division/corps).

[dimon642]

I worked on RSP 7, 10, P 12, P 18, P 37, Kasta, 1RL 13
KhVVAURE is familiar with such a school

[bayard]

Quote: dimon642

KhVVAURE is familiar with such a school

Honestly, no. I graduated from the Higher Military Command School of Radioelectronics (VVKURE) in 1988, in Vilnius. Air Defense Radio and Television. I served in the Transcaucasus at the division command post (formerly a corps) as part of the RIC.
In our time, specialists for the Radio-Telecommunications and Radiotechnics were trained in Vilnius (command), Krasnoyarsk (command), and Kyiv (KVIRTU - engineering). For the Air Defense Forces, they trained in Pushkino, but that's no longer our province.

[dimon642]

Why refine the AFR if the operating principle is that the beam changes angle.

[bayard]

Quote: dimon642

Why refine the AFR if the operating principle is that the beam changes angle.

To increase the field of view. Our Su-35S and Su-30SM2 can fly along the LBS or state border and observe without approaching the target by rotating the cover toward the enemy or adjacent side. Or, by rotating the cover from the far left to the far right, they can observe within the same 240-degree field of view. The scanning beam of the cover typically provides a field of view of 90 to 100 and even 120 degrees.
Also, the rotation of the canvas allows for continued observation and even missile guidance during maneuvering.

[dimon642]

Electronic viewing angle 60 degrees
, mechanical 120 degrees.

[vadim dok]

Please explain why everyone wants to buy/install a "bad AFAR" with such a small viewing angle on their aircraft, while it seems that no one except the Russian Federation uses a wonderful PFAR with a 270-degree coverage angle.

[bayard]

Quote: vadim dok

Why does everyone want to buy/install a "bad AESA" with such a narrow field of view on their aircraft?

It provides better noise immunity due to the multi-frequency signal and the ability to exclude the sector with the interference source from the receiver analysis.

Quote: vadim dok

, and it seems that no one except the Russian Federation uses the wonderful PFAR with a coverage angle of 270 degrees.

It's not true. Many people like it, many wanted it, but not everyone has been able to yet. The US banned it. Now, more and more countries are starting to give a damn about US bans and sanctions.
In the US and Europe themselves, phased array antennas with additional rotation are already being designed and are planning to install them when upgrading their aircraft. But we were the first.
And yes, making an AESA capable of turning is extremely difficult, and some developers say it's impossible. But with a penetrating electronically scanned array (PESA), it's much easier. That's why the Su-35S has an Isbis penetrating electronically scanned array (PESA) with a lateral turn, while the Su-57 has an AESA with both main and side panels. In other words, the problem is solved differently—with a larger number of multidirectional AESA panels.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

It provides better noise immunity due to the multi-frequency signal.

To form a beam pattern, all the transducers must operate at the same frequency but with different phases (delays). Otherwise, the result will be an omnidirectional emitter.

Quote: bayard

and the ability to exclude from the receiver analysis the sector containing the interference source.

A phased array antenna (PAAA) can do this, too. However, for a LNA, no phased array antenna (PAAA) can exclude a sector containing an interference source, unlike a phased array antenna (PAAA).

[Alexandra]

Quote: vadim dok

Please explain why everyone wants to buy/install on their aircraft a "bad early warning radar" with such a small field of view

The JAS-39E/F Gripen and the latest versions of the Eurofighter Typhoon are equipped with a radar capable of slewing the active electronically scanned array (AESA) toward the target. This is touted in marketing materials as a major advantage for these fighters. However, the US and French aircraft industries don't have fighter radars capable of slewing the active electronically scanned array (AESA) toward the target. This isn't because it's unneeded. They simply couldn't afford it. The F-22, for example, was originally planned to feature a side-looking AESA, like the Su-57, but the Pentagon ran out of money in the 1990s, just as it ran short of funds for the installation of an optical radar system. So the F-22A went into production without the side-looking AESA or the optical radar system.

The illustration shows the extended field of view of the Raven ES-05 radar of the JAS-39E/F fighter compared to fighters with fixed-wing AESA radars.

[Comet_1]

Quote: vadim dok

Please explain why everyone wants to buy/install a "bad AFAR" with such a small viewing angle on their aircraft, while it seems that no one except the Russian Federation uses a wonderful PFAR with a 270-degree coverage angle.

1. The element base for modern PFARs remains only in the Russian Federation.
2. Only AESA can be integrated into the 5th generation aircraft airframe.
3. The Su-57 has an airborne radar system consisting of five active phased array (AESA) radars (not including the Himalayan AESAs). It is impossible to build such a system using a pentaphased array.

[naofumi]

This isn't the price of a fully-fledged fighter jet purchased from Russia, but the cost of a Su-30MKI assembled at an Indian factory under license and from our own kits, with some localization. A fighter with the same configuration purchased from Russia would cost around $100 million. And that was in the same article. In it, the Indians were outraged that domestically assembled aircraft cost them twice as much.

We're talking about Rafal.

The EX costs almost $200 million for its own Air Force (it’s a twin-engine fighter, after all), so it will definitely be more expensive for export.

The price tag for the F-35 is also expected to creep up. The F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin recently finalized a deal for the aircraft's next production lots, whose deliveries are set to begin this summer. However, a final flyaway cost cannot be calculated until the contract for the aircraft's F135 engines, built by Pratt & Whitney, is definitized. The former head of JPO, Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, additionally said in March 2022 that the aircraft's unit cost in the forthcoming lots is likely to rise above a target of $80 million.
https://insidedefense.com/share/216985

There are also questions and nuances here. The Su-35 has an Irbis antenna with a rotating antenna array. As a result, its field of view with full scanning ranges from 240 to 270 degrees. A fixed active electronically scanned array (AESA) has a scanning range of 90 to 110 degrees. So, compare which has better situational awareness and which cannot do without external target designation.

Yes, the H-035 has wider viewing angles.

The AFAR has better noise immunity according to the basic definition, but it can be solved by other technical methods, not only by excluding the sector with interference from the data reception analysis.

Yeah, with banal power.

The Su-35E can be equipped with the R-37ME BD air-to-air missile system with a range of 300 km. The US has nothing comparable to offer. However, the EX has other interesting options (if they are offered, of course). So the aircraft are roughly equivalent, but the American version will be more than twice as expensive.

We have always sold cheaper, that's a fact.

[bayard]

Quote: Naofumi

We're talking about Rafal.

The Rafale Indians cost almost $240 million.

Quote: Naofumi

Yes, the H-035 has wider viewing angles.

This allows the S-400 to operate in AWACS mode while patrolling behind the LBS, providing radio command guidance to low-altitude targets at the SAM's maximum range. This mode of operation is carried out regularly. This is made possible by the antenna's rotation toward the enemy.

Quote: Naofumi

Yeah, with banal power.

Not only that, but also the response signal processing algorithms. It's also technically impossible to fully rotate an active phased array (APAA). So, this type of primary web rotation is an option specifically for an active phased array (APAA). And that's a clear advantage. With an active phased array (APAA), you have to use the side webs, like on the Su-57.

Quote: Naofumi

We have always sold cheaper, that's a fact.

Our production cost was significantly lower. But the Su-57E's barebones version costs at least $100 million. Spare engines, spare parts/repair kits, consumables, ammunition, simulators, pilot and technician training, and maintenance equipment are all included. Depending on the volume of ordered aircraft, etc., this will cost at least $150 million+.

[naofumi]

The Rafale Indians cost almost $240 million.

I wrote that 200+.

This allows the S-400 to operate in AWACS mode while patrolling behind the LBS, providing radio command guidance to low-altitude targets at the SAM's maximum range. This mode of operation is carried out regularly. This is made possible by the antenna's rotation toward the enemy.

How does the N-035 technically correct the SAM's course? How does the S-400 radar transmit control to the N-035?
And if the SAM is not in the forward hemisphere, then how will the N-035 correct the SAM?

Not only that, but also the response signal processing algorithms. It's also technically impossible to fully rotate an active phased array (APAA). So, this type of primary web rotation is an option specifically for an active phased array (APAA). And that's a clear advantage. With an active phased array (APAA), you have to use the side webs, like on the Su-57.

As for the antenna itself, I haven't seen anything like this. As for the unit itself and the antenna, those are found on the Eurofighter and Grippen.

Incidentally, this is another advantage of the AESA: it can be installed not only in the nose cone, but throughout the entire airframe.

Our production costs were significantly lower. But the Su-57E's barebones version alone costs at least $100 million. Spare engines, spare parts/repair kits, consumables, ammunition, simulators, pilot and technician training, and maintenance equipment—all of this, depending on the volume of ordered ASP and other items, will cost at least $150 million.

.
I agree.

[bayard]

Quote: Naofumi

How does the N-035 technically correct the course of the SAM?

By radio command, the missile is given target designation at a lead point/rendezvous with the target. If the target maneuvers, the lead point is adjusted each time. When the target is 30-35 km away (usually), the AGSN is activated, and the missile automatically locks on to the target and guides itself to it. This is the guidance scheme for all SAMs and missiles with AGSNs. There is no need to specifically illuminate the target as before (this would have revealed the fact of targeting, causing the target to begin evasive maneuvering in advance); the radar operates in its previous surveillance mode, in no way revealing the fact of guidance. And this is the particular insidiousness of missiles with AGSNs. This guidance system was first implemented on the Phoenix missile (USA), carried by the F-14 Tomcat, and on the R-33, which was mounted on the MiG-31.

Quote: Naofumi

The unit itself with the antenna, if any, then these are found on the Eurofighter and Grippen.

This is also a PFAR. You can't make a rotating AESA. AFARs were/are only now being installed on the Eurofighter during the modernization process; they have regular PFARs. They don't have a rotation function. Some work is underway to create a rotating antenna unit, but it's purely for visual reference and following the example of the Irbis. When they saw this and learned the parameters (power, detection range), they were almost drooling with envy. I remember their publications on this matter.

Quote: Naofumi

It can be installed not only in the nose cone, but also throughout the entire glider.

Theoretically, yes, but in practice, it's not so easy to implement. We managed it. The Su-57's radar system quality and capabilities are unmatched, no matter what the British and French write in the Indian sell-out press.

[naofumi]

By radio command, the missile is given target designation at a lead point/rendezvous with the target. If the target maneuvers, the lead point is adjusted each time. When the target is 30-35 km away (usually), the AGSN is activated, and the missile automatically locks on to the target and guides itself to it. This is the guidance scheme for all SAMs and missiles with AGSNs. There is no need to specifically illuminate the target as before (this would have revealed the fact of targeting, causing the target to begin evasive maneuvering in advance); the radar operates in its previous surveillance mode, in no way revealing the fact of guidance. And this is the particular insidiousness of missiles with AGSNs. This guidance system was first implemented on the Phoenix missile (USA), carried by the F-14 Tomcat, and on the R-33, which was mounted on the MiG-31.

I know how radio command and control works. But what if the SAM isn't in the radar's field of view? AWACS understands this; they have a 360-degree field of view.
Yes, the TWS mode (TWS, as we call it, "Tracking While Warping") was invented specifically for missiles with ARL-homing heads.
The Phoenix had an ARLGSN, but the R-33 had a PARLGSN. The R-37 already had an ARLGSN.

Theoretically, yes, but in practice, it's not so easy to implement. We managed it. The Su-57's radar system quality and capabilities are unmatched, no matter what the British and French write in the Indian sell-out press.

Yes, so far only the Su-57 has this feature.

[bayard]

Quote: Naofumi

But if the SAM is not in the radar’s field of view, then what?

For this purpose, the Irbis has an antenna rotation function. The fighter can fly along (not to the side) the LBS, rotating the radar toward the enemy and guiding SAMs or missiles. And, if necessary, the fighter itself can be rotated. Only the Irbis can rotate in this way, and given its range, it provides guidance at the extreme range of SAMs and R-37M missiles.

Quote: Naofumi

What then? AWACS

The A-50U can do it too, at least that's what Shoigu said when, in a week (or even a few days), 17 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters were shot down in the southern direction using this method.

Quote: Naofumi

but the R-33 has PARLGSN.

Perhaps, I didn’t look into this missile, but its range (real) was the same as the Phoenix’s - 120 km in the PPS (advertised in brochures and tables - 165 km, but in reality this was the visibility range of its radar).

[naofumi]

For this purpose, the Irbis has an antenna rotation function. The fighter can fly along (not to the side) the LBS, rotating the radar toward the enemy and guiding SAMs or missiles. And, if necessary, the fighter itself can be rotated. Only the Irbis can rotate in this way, and given its range, it provides guidance at the extreme range of SAMs and R-37M missiles.

Well, yes, maybe so.

The A-50U can do it too, at least that's what Shoigu said when, in a week (or even a few days), 17 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters were shot down in the southern direction using this method.

Can.

Perhaps, I didn’t look into this missile, but its range (real) was the same as the Phoenix’s - 120 km in the PPS (advertised in brochures and tables - 165 km, but in reality this was the visibility range of its radar).

Yes, that's right.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Naofumi

For this purpose, the Irbis has an antenna rotation function. The fighter can fly along (not to the side) the LBS, rotating the radar toward the enemy and guiding SAMs or missiles. And, if necessary, the fighter itself can be rotated. Only the Irbis can rotate in this way, and given its range, it provides guidance at the extreme range of SAMs and R-37M missiles.

Well, yes, maybe so.

No, it can't do that. And other fighters can't do that either.

[Hexenmeister]

No, that can't be.

Why? Rotate the headlight array 60 degrees and operate in a range from zero relative to the aircraft's axis to 120 degrees (left/right).

[Comet_1]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Why? Rotate the headlight array 60 degrees and operate in a range from zero relative to the aircraft's axis to 120 degrees (left/right).

This requires a spherical nose cone. Aerodynamic nose cones ensure the maintenance of an acceptable energy potential of up to 60 degrees.

[Hexenmeister]

So why were both the Bars and Irbis designed for the turning surface? So the fairing issue was solved too?

[Comet_1]

Quote: Hexenmeister

So why were both the Bars and Irbis designed for the turning surface? So the fairing issue was solved too?

No, miracles don't happen. Irbis is still participating in the BKO.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Naofumi

How does the N-035 technically correct the course of the SAM?

No way. The Su-35S transmits target movement parameters to the command post, which then sends the data to the S-400, which then transmits the data to the SAM.

[naofumi]

No way. The Su-35S transmits target movement parameters to the command post, which then sends the data to the S-400, which then transmits the data to the SAM.

Those. repeater.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Naofumi

No way. The Su-35S transmits target movement parameters to the command post, which then sends the data to the S-400, which then transmits the data to the SAM.

Those. repeater.

KP? - Yes, a repeater. Although, not quite. The KP also solves the problem of target distribution.

[Totor5]

And the Indians bought them for 200, so what? Nobody ever talks about the price of a specific plane; it's always a package deal, including maintenance and training. Plus kickbacks and political influence.

[Illanatol]

Production scales vary somewhat. The larger the output, the cheaper the unit. The actual cost includes development costs. Maintenance, upgrades, and other costs also need to be factored in, which depend on many factors.
And don't confuse the price of an aircraft for your own Air Force and the export version. Prices are a tricky thing; they can make up whatever they want. If they deem it necessary, they might even give it away for free. Price and actual value are two very different things.

[solar]

The Pentagon is buying the F-15EX for itself at a higher price than the F-35. It's a very expensive aircraft.

No, the F-35's price has been greatly exaggerated in our media. In reality, the F-35 is a relatively inexpensive single-engine aircraft, a replacement for the F-16.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Naofumi

An AESA is a much more flexible radar, capable of simultaneously scanning, tracking, and jamming targets. A PEAS cannot do this.

It can only scan space and track a target, yes. But if you force the AESA to operate in three modes simultaneously, you'll experience a sharp drop in range in both modes.

Quote: Naofumi

All other things being equal, better interference immunity and target detection range.

AFAR has no better range at all.

Quote: Naofumi

What kind of "slop" was poured on the Su-35? What lie did the Egyptians lie about, or how did they slander the Su-35?

The air battle they allegedly carried out never took place.

Quote: Naofumi

As I wrote above, the F-15EX wins here, and against everyone else. Moreover, it should be cheaper than the Rafale.

Hardly.

[naofumi]

It can only scan space and track a target, yes. But if you force the AESA to operate in three modes simultaneously, you'll experience a sharp drop in range in both modes.

Of course, because all this requires PPMs, of which there is a limited number in the radar.

AFAR has no better range at all.

With equal energy consumption, it is better.

The air battle they allegedly carried out never took place.

Well, they didn’t douse them with slop.

Hardly.

Why? The EX is a dynamic and fast fighter-interceptor, with modern avionics. Not to mention the sheer number of weapons, the selection is like the stuff in Hyper-Lenta.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Naofumi

With equal energy consumption, it is better.

Excuse me, at whose expense?

Quote: Naofumi

Well, they didn’t douse them with slop.

Well, how about that? Declaring to the whole world that the plane lost a battle that never actually happened is just a smear campaign.

Quote: Naofumi

EX is a dynamic and fast fighter-interceptor

Well, it was actually made more like a tactical bomber. But I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about price.

[naofumi]

Excuse me, at whose expense?

Because that's how an active phased array antenna is designed. The PPM is a transmitting/receiving module, which itself also transmits and receives signals. It emits and receives signals with greater efficiency than a single central transmitter, which distributes energy to the antenna array via waveguides. The longer the path, the higher the losses.
This is where the radar efficiency increases.

Well, how about that? Declaring to the whole world that the plane lost a battle that never actually happened is just a smear campaign.

Well, if Rafal had lost, does that mean they would have poured filth on him?
It's just a technique.
When you buy a phone of one brand, you don’t criticize others, right?
Otherwise, you would buy, for example, a Samsung, and then someone would write an article about you throwing mud at Motorola.
Lost and lost. It happens. The market decided. That's normal.
This doesn't mean the Su-35 is bad, no. It just means the customer wanted something different.

Well, it was actually made more like a tactical bomber. But I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about price.

Are you talking about his father, the F-15E? Yes, it was designed as a strike aircraft.
And so, 2.5M, its combat load, the number of suspension points for air-to-air missiles, makes it an excellent interceptor.

[Toptygin]

The EX's Mach 2,5 speed is only when empty (even the pylons are removable). Its operational speed is Mach 1,4-1,8, no more.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Naofumi

It emits and receives a signal with greater efficiency than a single central transmitter, which distributes energy to the antenna web via waveguides.

Sorry, but no. The difference between a PFAR and an AFAR is that a PFAR has, roughly speaking, one target acquisition point, while an AFAR has many, but otherwise, nothing prevents them from being similar. Therefore, an AFAR does not outperform a PFAR in range.

Quote: Naofumi

Well, if Rafal had lost, does that mean they would have poured filth on him?

The point is, the battle never happened. But yes, if the Su-35 had won the non-existent battle, it would have been like throwing dirt at the Rafale.

Quote: Naofumi

Are you talking about his dad, the F-15E?

No, I'm talking about the CX, which was, in fact, an air superiority fighter.
So, the United States developed two MFIs—the CX as an air-to-air fighter and the EX as a tactical bomber. This doesn't mean the EX can't fight against aircraft, of course, but it's still not its specialty.

Quote: Naofumi

And so, 2.5M, its combat load, the number of suspension points for air-to-air missiles, makes it an excellent interceptor.

No. The small fuel capacity in the internal tanks and the heavy weight unpleasantly limit its capabilities.

[naofumi]

Sorry, but no. The difference between a PFAR and an AFAR is that a PFAR has, roughly speaking, one target acquisition point, while an AFAR has many, but otherwise, nothing prevents them from being similar. Therefore, an AFAR does not outperform a PFAR in range.

That's what I wrote. But the AFAR is more energy efficient.

The point is, the battle never happened. But yes, if the Su-35 had won the non-existent battle, it would have been like throwing dirt at the Rafale.

Why?

No, I'm talking about the CX, which was, in fact, an air superiority fighter.

So, the United States developed two MFIs—the CX as an air-to-air fighter and the EX as a tactical bomber. This doesn't mean the EX can't fight against aircraft, of course, but it's still not its specialty.

Are you talking about Silent Eagle SE?

No. The small fuel capacity in the internal tanks and the heavy weight unpleasantly limit its capabilities.

In terms of fuel capacity, yes, it loses out compared to the Flanker. But the Flanker is also much larger.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Naofumi

With equal energy consumption, it is better.

The Irbis radar's energy consumption is roughly equivalent to that of only one other fighter radar: the AN/APG-77 radar of the F-22A fighter.

As a result, the AN/APG-77 has a declared maximum detection range of 290 km for a target with an RCS of 1 m2, while the Irbis has a declared maximum detection range of 400 km for a target with an RCS of 3 m2, i.e., when converted to targets with the same RCS, the maximum detection ranges for air targets are approximately the same.

[naofumi]

The Irbis radar's energy consumption is roughly equivalent to that of only one other fighter radar: the AN/APG-77 radar of the F-22A fighter.

Peak pulse power and energy consumption are two different things. The kW consumption of each is unknown.

[Alexandra]

It is known that the power consumption of the Zaslon radar of the MiG-31 interceptor is 31 kW.

https://www.yaneuch.ru/cat_34/radiolakacionnye-sistemy-letatelnyh-apparatov/363134.2563393.page1.html

It is known that the power consumption of the AN/APG-77 radar is 16,5 kW:

https://military.wikireading.ru/hpuEn2f6h4?ysclid=midl4elf4k447520938

The power consumption of the Irbis radar is greater than that of the AN/APG-77 radar, but less than that of the Zaslon radar, i.e. it is somewhere between 16,5 kW and 31 kW.

The approximate power consumption of the Irbis radar can be estimated using, for example, the parameters of the Sokol radar (see the first link) - the power consumption of which is 12 kW, and the average radiated power is 2 kW.

Since the Irbis radar has an average radiated power of 5 kW, 2,5 times higher than that of the Sokol radar, the Irbis radar's power consumption is no more than 2,5 times higher than that of the Sokol radar.

12 kW * 2,5 = 30 kW.

Based on the fact that the average radiated power of the AN/APG-77 radar is 4 kW, we can calculate the approximate efficiency of this radar based on the ratio of the average radiated and consumed power:

4/16,5 * 100% = 24,2%

The corresponding minimum efficiency of the Irbis radar:

5/30 * 100% = 16,5%

I don't think a difference of ~8% efficiency is worth a religious war.

Yes, the Irbis consumes more than the AN/APG-77, but ultimately the Irbis and AN/APG-77 are radars of approximately the same class.

And the French RBE2-AA with its pathetic 838 GaAs PPM in AFAR, it is, for example, “in the third league” in comparison with the Irbis radar and the AN/APG-77 radar.

[naofumi]

Based on the fact that the average radiated power of the AN/APG-77 radar is 4 kW, we can calculate the approximate efficiency of this radar based on the ratio of the average radiated and consumed power:

4/16,5 * 100% = 24,2%

The corresponding minimum efficiency of the Irbis radar:

5/30 * 100% = 16,5%

I don't think a difference of ~8% efficiency is worth a religious war. wink

Of course not worth it.
Thanks for the energy consumption figures.

And the French RBE2-AA with its pathetic 838 GaAs PPM in AFAR, it is, for example, “in the third league” in comparison with the Irbis radar and the AN/APG-77 radar.

Yes, the RBE2-AA is a weak station compared to its competitors. Take the Captor-E for example.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Naofumi

Of course not worth it.
Thanks for the energy consumption figures.

However, only NIIP has officially provided the detection range (including range determination) of an aerial target with a given radar cross-section for the Irbis-E. For all other radar systems, detection range data (and detection modes) are based on the opinions of various experts.

[Hexenmeister]

Only NIIP officially gave the detection range for Irbis-E

Most likely, this was information for foreign customers on the export version at the initial stage of development, and now even this meager information has been removed from the website.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Most likely, this was information for foreign customers on the export version at the initial stage of development, and now even this meager information has been removed from the website.

This information has been moved to the KRET website.

[solar]

AFAR has no better range at all.

The actual range is better than the tabulated one, due to better noise immunity.

[Hexenmeister]

due to better noise immunity

And how did interference immunity suddenly improve? Not with advertising slogans, but with technical ones!

[solar]

Due to the better beam forming scheme and its better controllability, it is possible to improve the radiation pattern and obtain dips in the pattern in the direction of interference.

[Hexenmeister]

Beamforming and beam control schemes are identical. The best radiation pattern, which provides maximum antenna gain with minimal main beam width, is achieved with a single field distribution across the aperture, and the resulting characteristics are the same for any phased array type. Only this pattern is characterized by the well-known Soviet proverb, "Neither here nor there," precisely because of the side lobes. Any attempts to improve the side lobe level will result in a "sag" in the main beam, which will reduce antenna gain and loss of detection range, as well as broaden the beam, thereby reducing spatial resolution, which is very detrimental, for example, when operating against an underlying surface. The mathematical problem of synthesizing a radiation pattern with a null at any desired point is generally unsolvable, and the "synthesized" null typically turns into a "bubble" in the other direction. Moreover, not every jammer can be triangulated, that is, its angular coordinates can be determined. How to place such interference was known back in the 80s, and without knowing the angles, there is, accordingly, nowhere to synthesize the failure.

[solar]

Everyone who is technologically capable of switching to AFAR is switching to it, because they don’t know that AFAR is worse.

[Hexenmeister]

They don't know that AFAR is worse.

Oh, how many wondrous discoveries the spirit of enlightenment prepares for...

[solar]

The mathematical problem of synthesizing a DP with zero at any desired point, as a rule, has no solution

And the boys didn't know ...

In APAA channels with beamforming at radio frequency
microwave devices for phase and amplitude control are also installed
radiated/received fields (phase shifters and attenuators). With their
with the help of which it is possible to change the amplitude-phase distribution in the aperture
AFAR and therefore change the characteristics of the AFAR as needed.
particular, it is possible to scan the beam, i.e. change the angular position of the main lobe of the DD (see, for example, [2]), form "zeros" of the DN [34] or
to form contour DN [35,36]).

http://jre.cplire.ru/jre/jan23/5/text.pdf

[Comet_1]

Quote from solar

And the boys didn't know ...

In particular, it is possible to scan the beam, i.e. change the angular position of the main lobe of the RP (see, for example, [2]), form “zeros” of the RP [34] or
to form contour DN [35,36])

Solar, PFAR with the formation of radiation pattern dips in the direction of jammers was developed back in the USSR in the late 80s, when in the West only articles and monographs were written about it.

Quote from solar

In APAA channels with beamforming at radio frequency
microwave devices for phase and amplitude control are also installed
transmitted/received fields (phase shifters and attenuators).

But these are low-frequency radars: meter and lower decimeter, and perhaps now mid-decimeter. A real, not experimental, radar must have at least four counts per carrier period. In electronic warfare, 2.4 counts are sufficient.

[Hexenmeister]

And the boys didn't know ...

Of course they didn't know

With their help it is possible to change the amplitude-phase distribution in the aperture
AFAR and, consequently, change the AFAR characteristics as required.
in particular, it is possible to scan the beam, i.e. change the angular position of the main lobe of the RPN

Well, that's news, the guys apparently forgot that only the phase component is responsible for the beam position, and therefore electronic control of the main beam position was available on conventional phased arrays more than forty years ago, for example, on the Zaslon (Mig-31), and electronic scanning is not an achievement of the AFA era.

form "zeros" of the DN

Let the guys try it. A phased array diagram will always have zeros at certain points, but creating a "zero between zeros" under conditions of a limited set of elements, and a limited set of states for these elements, well, phased arrays can't set the phase smoothly from zero to 360 degrees, but only a set of specific values, and the number of these states is very small, the same goes for amplitude.

[solar]

That's some news, the boys seem to have forgotten.

Don't make people laugh. Did you even look at the link? Who are the authors?

[Hexenmeister]

Did you look at the link, who are the authors?

And what radar systems for our fighters were these authors involved in developing?

[solar]

Oh, this NIIRF, any anonymous VO user can easily put it to shame.
Which Russian fighters, besides the Su-57, used AESA?

[Hexenmeister]

NIIRF

It reads:

From 1980 to 1987, the institute's employees developed the design of a fully rotating phased antenna array (PAR) for the decimeter range - 20Zh6, as well as the design of a large-sized, fully rotating PAR for the centimeter range with an optical power supply method as part of the multifunctional ship complex "Atoll"

At this time, Zaslon had been flying the MiG-31 for a long time, and they were just starting to develop it! So much for being cutting-edge, there's no one else. Other anonymous VO users need to expand their horizons and knowledge of mathematics.

[solar]

At this time, Zaslon had been flying on the MiG-31 for a long time, and they were just starting to create it!

I see you don't understand the difference between Zaslon and 20Zh6.

[Hexenmeister]

You don't understand the difference; in aviation radar everything is different than on Earth, and Earth was always lagging behind.

[dimon642]

Complex: AN/APG-77

Target detection range with EPR = 1 m2: 201-241 km; [6]
225 km in azimuth-speed mode;
193 km in LPI mode (the frequency changes more than 1000 times per second);
Instrumental range: 515 km[7] p. 31(18);
Number of receiving and transmitting modules (RTM): ~1500[7] - 19

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: dimon642

Complex: AN/APG-77

The data is classified, all information like the one you provided is from the OBS agency.

[dimon642]

Read the materials better.
OBS is no longer working, now the trend is for cracks with unknown physical parameters

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

There is an objective fact - the data from these radars is secret.

[Comet_1]

Quote: dimon642

Target detection range with EPR = 1 m2: 201-241 km; [6]

You should watch this [6]...

[solar]

You should watch this [6]...

What's wrong with this [6]? Aviation Week & Space Technology, a fairly well-known weekly, is known for its insider information. For example, it wrote about the Soviet Buran back in 1978, when no one in the USSR had even heard of it. It is now known that Aviation Week & Space Technology obtained intelligence information about Buran as a result of a deal with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General David S. Jones.

[Comet_1]

Quote from solar

What's wrong with this [6]? Aviation Week & Space Technology, a fairly well-known weekly, is known, among other things, for its insider information.

Read about the ranges in this link. Some of it is from the manufacturer, and some is the opinion of the article's authors. And compare it with the data in the wiki, where it was taken from.

[Luminman]

Quote: Naofumi

And yes, the AL-31F has a specific fuel consumption of 1,96, while the Safran M88 has 1,70.

It should not be forgotten that the Su-30's takeoff weight is approximately one and a half times greater than that of FlurryThe Su-30 has a much higher ceiling than the Flurry, and at such high altitudes, fuel consumption also increases. The AL-31F has much more thrust than the French engine (I don't remember the figures now), hence the slightly higher fuel consumption, both in afterburner and at cruise speeds. And then there's the variable thrust vector, which Flurry absent as a class...

[naofumi]

It's important to remember that the Su-30's takeoff weight is approximately one and a half times greater than the Rafale's. The Su-30 has a much higher ceiling than the Rafale, and at such high altitudes, fuel consumption also increases. The AL-31F has significantly more thrust than the French engine (I can't recall the exact figures right now), resulting in slightly higher fuel consumption, both in afterburner and at cruise. And then there's the variable thrust vectoring, which the Rafale lacks, of all things...

Well, I'm not arguing. I wrote about the gluttony, not about the entire system (Su-35).

[faridg7]

Quote: Luminman

The Su-30 has a much higher ceiling than the Rafale, and at such high altitudes, fuel consumption also increases.

I don't really believe that statement. I'm more accustomed to the idea that air resistance decreases, ground speed increases, and fuel consumption decreases with increasing altitude. In any case, I remember my pilot, after a skirmish with the Koreans, realizing he'd used too much fuel during the "fight" and wouldn't have enough to reach his airfield, trying to get to the ceiling and from there, heading home at low RPM and a slight descent. His engines stopped immediately after taxiing from the runway. During the debriefing, command considered this return decision the only correct one.

[Luminman]

Quote: faridg7

I'm more accustomed to the assertion that as flight altitude increases, air resistance decreases, ground speed increases, and fuel consumption decreases.

At high altitudes air density decreases, temperature and atmospheric pressure decrease, which reduces the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft and, consequently, requires greater fuel consumption to maintain the characteristics of a given flight condition...

[faridg7]

It still doesn't add up. If you listened to you, the Pax would huddle low to the ground to save fuel, but they're actually trying to occupy the upper echelons. At high altitudes, air density decreases, which reduces the thrust required to maintain a given indicated airspeed, while ground and true airspeed increase. Furthermore, as the air temperature decreases, engine efficiency should increase, but this is complicated by the decrease in atmospheric pressure, which, by the way, is compensated for by the engine compressor. It's no wonder supersonic aircraft are equipped with adjustable air intakes—in the lower layers, the air pressure and density are excessive for normal engine operation at high speeds. Perhaps you're referring to the increase in specific fuel consumption with altitude, while maintaining constant engine thrust? But then comparing the Frenchman's fuel consumption at its ceiling with the dry fuel consumption at the dry ceiling is pointless; they need to be compared at the Rafale's ceiling, since it won't reach the dry ceiling, and it seems to me that the Rafale's specific fuel consumption under these conditions will be higher.

[Comet_1]

Quote: faridg7

It still doesn't add up.

For each flight mass of an aerodynamic aircraft (considered for a standard atmosphere), there is a speed and altitude with a minimum fuel consumption per kilometer and a minimum fuel consumption per hour. Any change in this altitude leads to an increase in fuel consumption.

[faridg7]

Quote: Comet_1

Quote: faridg7

It still doesn't add up.

For each flight mass of an aerodynamic aircraft (considered for a standard atmosphere), there is a speed and altitude with a minimum fuel consumption per kilometer and a minimum fuel consumption per hour. Any change in this altitude leads to an increase in fuel consumption.

This is about choosing the optimal speed and altitude. However, you don't explain Luminman's assertion that as flight altitude increases, an aircraft's fuel consumption increases.
You are simply confirming that up to the optimal altitude, the aircraft's fuel consumption will fall and will begin to increase when this optimal altitude is exceeded, up to the aircraft's practical ceiling, that is, up to the altitude at which the engine thrust does not compensate for air resistance.

[Comet_1]

Quote: faridg7

This is about choosing the optimal speed and altitude. However, you don't explain Luminman's assertion that as flight altitude increases, an aircraft's fuel consumption increases.

As air density decreases, the aircraft's angle of attack increases to maintain lift (Cy must be increased). As the angle of attack increases, drag (Cx) increases, and Cx increases faster than Cy.

[dmitryaves]

Repatriate? ))) Yes, I've heard similar speeches from those who have "come in droves" to the Promised Land...

[LMN]

What kind of "slop" was poured on the Su-35? What lie did the Egyptians lie about, or how did they slander the Su-35?

According to the Egyptian military, the Su-35 has a number of “serious technical deficiencies that hinder the implementation of the contract,” namely, an allegedly outdated radar with an N035 Irbis active phased array antenna (AESA) and a critical dependence on external guidance, as well as excessive fuel consumption and a high level of thermal and radar signature.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Naofumi

AESA is a much more flexible radar, capable of simultaneously scanning space and tracking a target.

PFAR can do this too.

Quote: Naofumi

and create interference. PFAR can't do that.

AFAR:
1. Either in radar mode or in ELINT/EW mode. But not at the same time.
2. Not all AFARs can do this.

Quote: Naofumi

All other things being equal, better jamming immunity and target detection range. All other things being equal, these include, for example, the radar's size, weight, and power consumption.

This depends on the phased array's center frequency. In the lower frequency range, active phased arrays (APAs) almost indisputably outperform non-phased arrays (NPAs). Furthermore, in the lower frequency range, APAs with digital digital arrays (CDD) outperform analog APAs. As frequency increases, NPAs converge with APAs, and at approximately the X-band, they become comparable. Then, NPAs begin to outperform APAs, and the higher the frequency, the more so.

Another point. In a PFAA, the LNA (wideband amplifier) ​​is located after the antenna, while in an APAA, it's located in the antenna (actually, before the antenna). In a PFAA, the LNA is protected by the antenna from interference that's misaligned with the target, while in an APAA, the LNA isn't protected from such interference by the antenna. This means that an APAA is more susceptible to EA (Electronic Attack) than a PFAA.

[snow mountain]

descendants of the pharaohs who built one of the first empires

These are not the descendants of the pharaohs, but camel drivers.

[smart ass]

There is no need to appeal to common sense, the frogs simply brought the money to the right people.

[Totor5]

The aircraft were abandoned due to the cooperation program with America. It covers a wide range of issues, from the assembly of licensed Abrams fighters to politics.

[Vitaly.17]

Dear author, try raising a hundred arguments about the Su-35's advantages over the Rafale or a simple paper airplane. But officials will always favor those where more than 50% of the contract price goes toward bribes and kickbacks. Or do you think their Rafale just so happens to be more expensive than the F-35? Everything's been divided up before you, and even before us. The French are just as good at selling air power.

[Maluck]

Holy shit!!! A whole article about something that could be summed up in one sentence: "Our guys didn't score, or scored less than the French..."

[greencon]

To win a contract overall, you need more strategy and skill, and lobbying or kickbacks are also necessary.

[Taskmaster]

I'll use a machine translator. I'm no expert, but this is my opinion.

I'm very familiar with the Egyptian Air Force and how the Egyptian government operates. Simply put, it's all business. You've already answered half the question by mentioning how America and Israel are pressuring Egypt not to buy such excellent aircraft, fearing Israel will lose air superiority. They're already pressuring Egypt not to buy the MiG-29 either. Egyptian pilots are prohibited from conducting air-to-air combat training maneuvers, and, as they say, they're simply "wasting fuel." But you probably forgot to mention that Egypt uses arms sales solely as a way to gain favor with the selling country. Egypt is already buying wheat from Russia and Ukraine instead of growing it itself, to maintain relations with Russia. They didn't buy the Rafale because it's "better," based on some supercomputer modeling—those are all excuses, as you said. They bought it for the same reason they bought the Mistral helicopter carriers intended for Russia – to improve relations with France for future business (plus, the aircraft carriers were considered a good deal). After Camp David and the Gulf War, Egypt poses virtually no threat, save for militants from neighboring anarchic groups mired in permanent civil war. The cuts to military budgets in the 90s are proof of this. The Egyptian army exists to maintain power within the country and protect it from internal threats (especially popular uprisings). The Egyptians' subservient attitude toward the United States and their cooperation with Israel protect them from the fate of Syria and Iraq, at least for now.

Moreover, I highly doubt the Americans will sell the F-15EX to Egypt. It's too expensive for a country in IMF debt bondage, and its potential isn't as limited as the F-16's.

[Askold65]

Quote: Taskmaster

They bought it for the same reason they bought the Mistral helicopter carriers intended for Russia - to improve relations with France for future business (plus aircraft carriers were considered a good deal).

The Egyptians were paid for the Mistral by the Saudis so that the Egyptians would help them in the war against the Houthis.

[AdAstra]

"However, the actual descendants of the pharaohs, the Copts, make up no more than 8% of the population in Egypt today. The rest are Arabs."
Then what was the purpose of the phrase before?
"It's actually surprising how the descendants of the pharaohs, who built one of the first empires, could degrade to such a level."
When everyone already knows that there are descendants of the pharaohs there, just like we have descendants of the Truvors and Sineuses.

[1944-1989]

People are equal from the very beginning, the most important thing is the living conditions (in the broad sense) that shape them.

[1944-1989]

If the Egyptian people knew which aircraft was more effective and made a democratic decision, they would likely choose the Sukhoi. The Americans always back down at the last moment when a fight between the Su-57 and the F-35 is about to break out. Coincidence?

[1944-1989]

Egypt's political elite followed Zhelensky's example and went on a shopping spree, as if going to a Black Friday sale.

[futurohunter]

The Egyptian "people" sell trinkets to tourists in the bazaars, while "democratic" decisions are made by the local corrupt military elite.
But yes, the Egyptians don't like Americans - I heard it from them personally, and they would prefer Russian planes.

[1944-1989]

The Su-35 has the advantage of being very neat in appearance, the F-35 reminds me of a bloated Krakow pigeon.

[futurohunter]

There is no accounting for taste)) In my opinion, the Su-35, F-16, F-15 and F-18 are better looking than the Su-27...35 and MiG-29, due to the "hunchback" of the Su-27...35 and MiGs.
The F-35 was designated on the drawing boards as... the Yak-48.

[Zaurbek]

The trend is that everyone on the market wants a universal aircraft with AESA. Many countries, even rich ones, cannot afford specialized aircraft, especially heavy ones.
Of the 4th generation ++, the most successful in export was the S30MKI (MKK, MKA, SM), the most successful now in this size is the F15EX (and its variations).
i.e. the market (buyers with money) needs a heavy, two-seat IB with a powerful PFAR, AFAR.
With the ability to hang something like BRAHMOS, a targeting container... the latest trend is the use of long-range air-to-air missiles.
And here you can look at our offer in this class......

[futurohunter]

The trend is that those who make decisions want to profit from these deals. Those who can, get something for themselves. Those who can't, get some opportunities for their department, their political group, or, ultimately, their country. All this talk about generations is purely a marketing (sales) story.
Well, for all those Arab horsemen who have money to burn, it's simply an opportunity to race not on camels or Lamborghinis, but on more expensive and cool toys, like a "super-modern" fighter jet.
BRAHMOS is a purely Indian story. If our people hadn't interested the Indians with a project like "you too will make a cool rocket" (cooler than your "friends"—China and Pakistan), there would have been no BRAHMOS.
Everything is extremely cynical and mercantile.

[Zaurbek]

He'll get what he needs from those who sell what he needs...but why bother with what he doesn't? There's a trend...

[futurohunter]

Why is it unnecessary? Don't the Americans and the French have airplanes? And the Chinese too.

[Zaurbek]

They offer universal, modern solutions: the F15EX and the Rafal.
We don't have such a proposal yet.

[Askold65]

Quote: Zaurbek

We don't have such a proposal yet.

Su-35 or Su-57 junk?

[Zaurbek]

Both have 1 pilot... and they have a competitor - the F35.

[Askold65]

The Su-35 competes in the F-15 class. But we also have the Su-30SM, a two-pilot version. The Rafale also exists in a single-seat version.
The F-35 is a competitor to the Su-57, so we do have a proposal?

[Million]

How could the descendants of the pharaohs, who built one of the first empires, have degenerated to such a level? However, the actual descendants of the pharaohs, the Copts, make up no more than 8% of Egypt today. The rest are Arabs.

It's very simple. That's what religion is for.

[futurohunter]

What does religion have to do with it? These are the peculiarities of national hunting... mentality.

[Million]

Are you saying that degradation was the mentality of the pharaohs?

[futurohunter]

The descendants of the pharaohs have been gone for over a thousand years. It's hard to say what the mentality of the people of that time was. Besides, they were conquered by the Arabs 1300 years ago... And the Arabs themselves had a somewhat different mentality 1300 years ago...

[Million]

Religion does not contribute to mental development, especially in those states where it is almost the foundation of the state.

[futurohunter]

In most Arab countries, even in such "religious" countries as the UAE or Qatar, religion is not the foundation of the state. It's pretty much the same for them as it is for us. How many of us cross ourselves at the sight of a church, and even light candles, but have never even opened a Gospel? It's the same for them. Religion is purely ritualistic, but there's no understanding of its meaning, much less real faith. So, do you think people drink less alcohol in "Muslim" countries than we do? I bet even more! It's just that in our country, a drunk is a "lieutenant," while there... it's somewhat shameful to be drunk. So they drink on the sly. So religion "there" has nothing to do with it. And don't forget that at least 30% of the population of Egypt is "Orthodox." Well, about the same as ours. So, there's no connection between religion and "mental development," at least in this case. By the way, although the King of Saudi Arabia is, technically, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and the head of all Sunnis in the world, he is very smart and pragmatic. So you shouldn't say that.

[futurohunter]

Roman is generally correct, but he missed a few details. Most of our citizens are interested in Al-Misr, or Pyramid Country, solely as a place to roast their bodies in the hot tropical sun and dip them in the warm tropical sea. And, of course, to spend their hard-earned money this year, adding to the budget of a poor desert country.
Roman, for some reason I forgot to mention that history repeats itself. And not just when India chose Rafales over MiGs. Egypt already rejected our Ka-52Ks after buying our former Mistrals.
It's simple: our guys just don't know how and don't want to contribute. But the French and Americans are willing and able. Maybe it's time for our guys to do the same? And we don't have to contribute to everyone, we just have our "friends" "where it's needed."
The East is like that. If you don't "bring it to someone who needs it," they won't buy it.
Regarding Algeria, they have a historical grudge against France, just like the Indians have against Britain. So they'll easily push France around, and they'll do it with pleasure.
As for the "trouble in the skies," Israel isn't causing it because it "has the most powerful air force in the region." That's true, but Israel has given Arab armies a run for their money, even back when its military was much weaker than its neighbors'. It simply has the political will and determination, and doesn't have the same level of venality at the top as in Arab countries. And don't even mention that the US is behind Israel. The Jews successfully fought against the Arabs even when their country was under sanctions.
As for Algeria, I hope that it simply has the "right" leadership, thanks to which Algeria has managed to avoid getting involved in the showdown around it and has almost avoided the "Arab Spring."
I'll add that Algeria was the first to purchase the Su-57E, and two aircraft are already flying there.

[Askold65]

Quote: futurohunter

Regarding Algeria, they have a historical grudge against France, just like the Indians have against Britain. So they'll easily push France around, and they'll do it with pleasure.

France isn't the only place in the world. By your logic, our Algerian aircraft buyers received more from us than the Americans or the Chinese?

[bulatmuhamadeev]

It's simple - our people simply don't know how and don't want to carry it in.

How many "Shoigu's nestlings" have been sent off to sew quilted jackets for such skills? Our guys don't know how to carry it, huh?

[Trapperxnumx]

Well, what's surprising? The descendants of the Romans aren't exactly shining stars these days, but they were a truly remarkable time.

[futurohunter]

Generally speaking, it's the Romanians ("Romană") who beat their chests and shout that they are the direct descendants of the Romans. You might be surprised, but the Roma ("Romale") also claim to be descendants of the Romans... But as for the Italians and the French, that's a big question...

[Mapping]

Quote: ASSAD1

But in a nutshell, we can say that the promotion of our truly good and inexpensive military aircraft is being actively hindered by our "partners." And when the production of our civil aviation finally begins at full capacity, the same thing awaits it.

Where will civil aviation come from if Russia doesn't produce any scrap metal? That's why they only produce dozens of Su-57s a year, while even China produces dozens and is already testing the sixth generation.

[futurohunter]

Well, China's sixth-generation is still more of an image project. And the Chinese are no better at civilian aircraft than we are. And the latest Chinese airliner, the COMAC C919, was designed in Novosibirsk... Although, after the USSR, we should be ashamed of ourselves...
In Russia, iron is not produced, but only oil, gas, and grain.

[Illanatol]

Quote: futurohunter

In Russia, iron is not produced, but only oil, gas, and grain.

Really? Russia produces quite a bit of metal (iron, cast iron, and non-ferrous metals).
This year, from January to September, Russia produced more than 50 million tons of steel.
In August, smelting totaled 5.5 million tons. While there was a slight decline, it's still significant. The US smelting total for the same month was 7.2 million tons.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Nagan

Quote: Pavel57

I don’t remember exactly, but one Egyptian pilot flew to Israel on a Soviet plane.

Iraqi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Diamond

An Iraqi Kurdish Christian. But there was also an Egyptian who flew away on a training plane.

[lynnot]

The Egyptians don't care what they merge with.

[Pioneer1984]

99% of the current population of Egypt have no connection to the pharaohs and the pyramids. Egypt was conquered by the Arabs in 639 AD.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Naofumi

Lost and lost. It happens. The market decided. That's normal.

The arms trade market has never been decisive. Arms procurement has always and everywhere been dictated primarily by political considerations. There has never been, and never will be, any "equal competition" in this sphere.

[K-50]

How else can one explain the fact that, after the summer mudslinging aimed at saving the Rafale's reputation, the Egyptian military department invited Russia, represented by PJSC UAC, to participate in the tender for the purchase of 40 Su-35 fighters?

Ignoring camel drivers.
If you don't want to get "drying", eat sand.

[Anthony]

Why would this crowd even need such planes? The Israelis can fly and fight from Morocco to China, and the Turks are much weaker, but that's about it.

[udushyev]

Egypt is a bunch of crooks. I've dealt with them three times, and the third time they just sent me away for a long time. They don't respect their partners, don't keep their word, and I have to go to court to enforce their contractual obligations. It works, but only after 5-6 years!

[AC130 Gunship]

The descendants of the pharaohs do not live in modern Egypt. That civilization has completely disappeared. Both Arabs and Copts (who actually make up much more than 8%) settled Egypt much later.

[AC130 Gunship]

If the author's math is to be believed, the solution is quite simple. An agreement is signed with Egypt, under which Big Brother transfers, say, $1.5 billion annually. And—that's it.
Money keeps flowing into Abkhazia. More is needed here. But the scheme for buying friends is the same.
So, maybe in Egypt they will also understand that the Su-35 is a very good aircraft.

[Kravets Vyacheslav]

A very interesting chain of logic: Indian Rafale were shot down by Pakistani JF-17s, so the Egyptians are fools for buying Rafale instead of Su-35.
Firstly, although it is difficult to say for sure, the Indian aircraft were shot down by the J-10, albeit with a missile that the JF-17 can also use.
Secondly, this example seems to show that Chinese aircraft are superior to French ones. However, what does the non-Chinese Su-35 have to do with this? Apparently, this is what it has to do with it:

JF-17s, which are very much like MiG-21s in new clothes

The JF-17 is actually our MiG-21, so the Su-35, which is also ours, is even better. By the same token, the Rafale could be justified by claiming it's a "Mirage in new clothes."
And the Su-30MKI was also lost during the same conflict. So, are Chinese aircraft better than ours?
Or is it the fault of Indian pilots who don't know how to fight? But those same pilots were at the controls of Rafales. Or does that not count?

[stoqn477]

The author is being cunning.
The Rafale had three external fuel tanks, while the Su-35, for example, only had two... How much fuel was in the internal tanks of both? If you add these two numbers together, wouldn't you get something else?
The Egyptian Air Force was a complete mess... The Greek? The American? Yours?

[Victor19]

However, the actual descendants of the pharaohs, the Copts, make up no more than 8% of the population in Egypt today. The rest are Arabs.

.
I'll say right away that I liked the article. But I don't think racist remarks like "camel drivers" are appropriate.

[shikin]

In addition to the Su-35s, a pair of Su-57s recently flew to Algeria. The order totals 12 aircraft.

[matsur]

One Armenian writes to another:
- Frunzik, bro! Do you know any losers? I want to sell my beat-up Lexus.
- Bro, is he really that bad? I've been wanting a Lexus for ages!
- He's awesome, bro!

[AntonR7]

Well, there is little left of the descendants of the pharaohs there; mostly descendants of the Arab Caliphate live there.

[the same doctor]

So, is there compensation for breaking a firm contract in the agreement? Or was the contract again negotiated by kickback professionals?

[spektr9]

The most powerful radar ever produced in the world, with the longest range. Interestingly, our H035, which powers the Su-35, is 20 years younger than the French RBE2, which powers the Rafale.

What, again, is our radar the most unique in the world, and no one else can replicate it, so they're churning out their own unnecessary AESAs?))
I remember there was a similar electronic warfare fuss back in 18-19, when the urashki on this site were screaming that our electronic warfare would jam all drones, and the "experts" were eagerly agreeing. Then the Armenian-Azerbaijani war happened, and the "experts" fell silent. And once the Soviet Union's military operations began, the urashki forgot about the miracle of electronic warfare...
Now here is a radar that has no analogues

[Glagol1]

With Egypt, it's simple: they're afraid of losing their annual US military aid. $1,3 billion annually isn't exactly a pittance. The Israeli lobby in the US is also at work. Why would they need an Su-35 right under their noses?!
The aircraft that Egypt could have received went to Algeria and Iran. Of course, it's impossible to find honest copies of the contracts, as they're all classified, but information circulating online suggests 12-20 aircraft for Algeria and 24-40 for Iran. This means the Egyptian supply won't be sufficient to cover the entire requirement; new production is inevitable. Algeria has already contracted for Su-57Es, but Iran will definitely need 24 Su-35s—more likely 40, or even 48. A good product will always find a buyer. And the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant, the only Su-35 production site, will be fully booked for many years to come.

[anclevalico]

"It's truly astonishing how the descendants of the pharaohs, who built one of the first empires, could degenerate to such a level." Nothing surprising. Look around. We, too, are descendants of the greats who squandered everything.

[koramax81]

"It's amazing how the descendants of the pharaohs, who built one of the first empires,"
Dear author: the current population of Egypt has the same attitude towards the descendants of the pharaohs as I have towards ballet.