Military Review

F-22 Raptor and the real problems of the Russian Air Force

120



The legend of the daring flight design ideas, lost money and unfulfilled hopes. Hymn to the greatness of the human mind and the parable of the insane ways, which sometimes turns technical progress. The saga is about how the bumbling outlines of truth melt away in a haze of fog of human error. The parabola of greed and gullibility, which go hand in hand for centuries, fueled by the unattainable human dream of the "philosopher's stone" and "perpetual motion".

All this - история fighter "fifth generation". The myth of the fantastic winged ship, which will bring laurels of victories at the feet of those who can build such a machine.

No other aircraft in history yet aviation was not presented with such fanfare as the formidable Reptor fighter. The merciless fury of heaven. The absolute technical superiority of the US Air Force. A miraculous means to win any war. Invisible and destructive weapon, bringing death to everyone who dared to “raise a hand” on its creators.

The paradox is that, to date, none of the “fifth generation” 187 fighters have taken part in the hostilities. It would be normal if the wars stopped on Earth - but since 2003, when the first serial F-22 arrived at Nellis air base, the world was shaken by many conflicts - the US Air Force aircraft made tens of thousands of sorties, sweeping away from the Earth.

The excuses associated with the "excess power of the aircraft" and the "inconsistency of the conditions of local conflicts with the purpose of F-22" can only arouse the rage of the American taxpayers: the military spent 60 billions of dollars to create an aircraft for which there are no suitable tasks!

Comparison of F-22 with nuclear weapons does not work - “Raptor” does not have the share of the stopping effect of the Strategic Nuclear Forces. Unlike the Tridents and Minutemen, this is a purely tactical weapon designed to solve the pressing problems of our time. But alas ...
US Air Force pilots prefer to carry bombs and dominate the air using proven F-15 and F-16.
It turns out easier, cheaper, and most importantly - no worse than using a fifth-generation fighter.



Much more fun is another fact: F-22 will certainly be of little use in solving "serious problems." So far, disputes about the inconspicuousness of the aircraft have not abated - experts lament that “Raptor”, most likely, will not be able to work effectively in the zone of action of the C-300 anti-aircraft systems.

A simple survey should be asked here: What did you expect? Twelve channels of guidance. Six speeds of sound. Weight of warhead 150 kg. A solid set of radar and detection systems capable of detecting airborne targets at a distance of hundreds of kilometers.

Crawling through C-300 is pure suicide. And no "Raptor" is not a panacea here - the US Air Force pilots will refuse to sit in the cockpit, but the one who ordered the breakthrough of enemy air defenses with the help of "Raptors" is awaiting a tribunal.

What do we "Raptor"! Throw hats?

Not at all. The 300 anti-aircraft complex is really a serious weapon, even the venerable foreign experts admit it. Another thing is that for a breakthrough through the C-300 barrier, the “fifth generation” re-airplane is not necessary.

How is that?

Brute strength and nothing more. The detected positions of the air defense missile system are put under pressure in a simple way: a volley of HARM anti-radar missiles, aimed at the sources of radio emission. Missiles are launched along a ballistic trajectory, while homing — the aircraft themselves remain at the same time outside the zone of action of the air defense missile system, and the account of the released Kharma usually goes to thousands.

The dead-headed “Kharma” will kill all the microwaves and radio transmitters in the district, but several of them will surely explode near the radar of the anti-aircraft complex, removing it from the game. Even if the operator, having felt something was wrong, will have time to turn off the radar, Harm will remember the last coordinates of the radiation source and continue its sorrowful path in the direction of the intended target.

The explosive cocktail from Kharmov is abundantly flavored with Tomahawk cruise missiles, squalls of radio-electronic interference, UAVs and special forces sabotage groups.

F-22 Raptor and the real problems of the Russian Air Force

Launch anti-radiation missile AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radar Missile (HARM)

Very rude, costly and dirty reception - but this is the only way to break through modern air defense. It is this scenario that we observed in all the conflicts of recent years - both the Gulf Wars, Yugoslavia, Libya.
Only when the command is convinced of the incapacity of the enemy air defense system — do the carriers of democracy invade the airspace — hundreds of combat aircraft of the NATO air forces. Conventional F-15 and F-16.

Uber-plane F-22 "Raptor" again remained without work. Like his colleague B-2 "Spirit." Super-capabilities of these machines are simply not in demand.

Who are you, fifth generation fighter?

Modern pilots have everything - supersonic airplanes capable of automatically breaking through to the target, almost tearing down the crowns of the trees with their wings. Fantastic sighting systems capable of distinguishing a woman from a man, an armed man from a peaceful man from the stratosphere, or see the thermal trail of a passing car - the sensitivity of these systems is amazing. Jet combat vehicles can fly over a continent in a matter of hours, and their combat load exceeds the performance of WWII strategic bombers. Incredible aerobatics, guided missile weapons, opto-electronic defense systems and jamming systems.

The question is: Guys, what else do you need? Immortality and infinite ammo?

Of course, progress does not stand still - the fifth generation must replace the fourth generation of fighters. But what exactly is the "fifth generation" different in? And here, even among the most courageous theorists, a collapse of consciousness occurs.

- Stealth!
Nobody managed to make the plane completely invisible - the techniques of the “stealth” technology are in clear contradiction with the laws of aerodynamics. Work on partial reduction of visibility is not critical - the risk of being detected is still high.
Paradoxically, measures to drastically reduce visibility can be implemented on previous-generation aircraft — the practice is confirmed: Super Hornet production fighters, Silent Eagle and Silent Hornet advanced F-15SE aircraft.


F-15SE Silent Eagle.

"Floods" on the engine nacelles - internal compartments for weapons. Changed tail - Keels deflected to the sides for better dispersion of radio waves


- Super maneuverability! Tell about it Su-27 and its modifications Su-35.

- Multifunctional! Tell the creators of the Strike Eagle F-15E about this.

- Supersonic cruising speed without the use of afterburner!
Can. It will take "only" super-power (and voracious) engines. In principle, the only significant difference of the "fifth generation". Another question - how big is the need for such abilities? And the price paid is not too high?

Analyzing the requirements for the "fifth generation", it becomes obvious - they are literally "taken from the ceiling." What could really come in handy: unmanned aerial combat, absolute invisibility for any means of detecting the enemy - are still attributes of science fiction. What the modern industry offers under the guise of a “fighter of the new generation” is nothing more than an extremely complex and extremely expensive machine, whose tasks are duplicated by conventional planes with much greater efficiency (cost / effect).

Here it was possible to put an end, if not for one important circumstance:

Fighters "fifth generation" really exist! But this has nothing to do with the F-22 "Raptor".

Who are these mysterious machines? "Dry" PAK FA? Chinese prototype J-20?
No, a new generation of fighters appeared long before the creation of the PAK FA. It was a lengthy systemic process that took on the final form of the order of 20 years ago.

The aircraft itself has not undergone changes - the engines, the glider - everything has remained the same. Maybe the whole thing in avionics - high-tech "stuffing" of the aircraft? And again, by. Radar stations, INS, fly-by-wire (electrical remote control system) - there were no major changes noted. The increase in the performance of on-board computers and the appearance of "glass cabins" did not lead to a revolution in the aircraft industry. Which generation is the aircraft - 4 + or 4 ++ does not have as much value as is commonly believed.

The changes affected, first of all, organizational issues - the new tactics and special techniques made it possible to dramatically increase the power of modern aviation.

What does all this mean, comrades? Meet our first guest:



KC-10 Extender (extension) is an air tanker based on the DC-10 passenger airliner. 11 fuel tanks, 90 tons of aviation fuel. The tanker is designed to interact with tactical aviation: a telescopic filling bar and a hose-cone system allow you to transfer fuel to any of the military aircraft of the NATO countries. The capacity of the filling system is 5678 l / min (boom) and 1590 l / min (hose-cone). The tanker is capable of simultaneously transmitting fuel to three aircraft. In the upper part of the fuselage has a neck for refueling the tanker.

240 air tankers (500 with the National Guard and Air Force reserve) is where the source of US Air Force power is hiding.


"Elephant Parade". Tankers KC-135 at Mildenhall (UK)

To hell with fighters "Raptor"! Refueling systems open up absolutely fantastic prospects for tactical aviation: an armada of tankers allows you to quickly group forces and deliver a massive strike to any point on the planet. Patrol over any region of the Earth or “air bridge” for emergency troop transfer to the other hemisphere ... Refueling systems are located on almost all American aircraft - combat fighters and bombers, long-range radar detection aircraft, transport vehicles, and helicopters. Experiments are underway with drones.

Today, the Russian Air Force has 19 air tankers Il-78 (based on the Il-76 military transport aircraft). Also, Su-24 front-line bombers can be used as air tankers (the Sakhalin UPAZ-1A suspended refueling unit).

Pilots of the bomber aviation squadron of the air base of the Western Military District (ZVO) after the 18-year break performed flights with refueling in the air

- Head of the Information Support Department, Press Service of the Western Military District in the Baltic the fleet Vladimir Matveev, December 2012

Let us be objective: are there many pilots of the Russian Air Force capable of refueling in the air at night? In full radio silence mode? After all, these are standard tricks of American pilots.


Russian media and official sources regularly publish sensational comparisons between the Raptor and the Russian PAK FA. It is simply amazing how scandalous the fighters of the “fifth generation” have acquired - planes that have not made a single combat departure and have a dubious value in the realities of modern conflicts. At the same time, the air refueling systems - one of the pillars on which the modern air force keeps - are given very little attention.

Star cluster

Our next guest, although not related to the fighter aviation cohort, demonstrates the real priorities of the US air force. This plane has never been shown on TV, the Discovery and Impact Force programs are not filmed about it. In contrast to the advertised "Raptors", it always remains in the shadow. While the F-22 and the PAK FA pose at air shows, this machine quietly performs its demanding work: the demilitarized zone along the 38 parallel on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, border areas of Iran, and North Africa are its responsibilities.



Usual transport board of the USAF? No, this is an E-8 Joint STARS (Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System) - an aeronautical long-range surveillance and targeting system designed to recognize and classify ground targets at any time of day under any weather conditions, as well as to coordinate fighting and two-way exchange of information with ground forces in real time. Scout and air command post all in one.

In the case of a real armed conflict, it is necessary to “bring down” it in the first place - otherwise this gadёnysh will calculate and hand over all. Ji Stars patrols several dozen kilometers away from the battlefield, scanning the terrain with AN / APY-3 side-view radar, thermal imagers and high-resolution cameras — dozens of operators aboard the Ji Stars monitor the enemy’s movements quickly warning their own troops about possible ambushes, evacuation directions and about any changes in the situation. There is an assumption that it was “Ji Stars” who calculated the tuple of Colonel Gaddafi.





Detection, control of ground units, multichannel satellite communications, signal relaying and drone control - there are no analogues of this aircraft in the world.
Today, the US Air Force has a dozen E-8 "Ji Stars". And it has much more value than the notorious Raptor fighters. Alas, no work on creating analogs of the American "Ji Stars" is being conducted - everyone is busy discussing the "fifth generation" fighter.

Game set "Young Scout"

Versatility is an indispensable quality of modern combat aviation.
But to those who are preparing for an air battle, there is no need to carry with them a ballast in the form of an aiming complex for work on ground targets (for example, the LANTIRN system weighs half a ton)!
On the other hand, it is impossible to do without LANTIRN during a departure to attack - the complex allows you to make supersonic throws at extremely low altitude, pinpoint and identify point ground targets. At any time of the day, in difficult weather conditions.

How to solve a difficult dilemma?

The solution was the ingenious concept of quick-detachable suspension kits. Aiming navigation containers, reconnaissance equipment, conformal fuel tanks, electronic warfare modules, towed trap systems, fasteners, locks and a wide range of outboard weapons for all occasions. All systems are mounted on standard external suspension components and do not require changes in the design. *
* except for conformal fuel tanks


My name is Quasimodo!
Ugly humps on the back of the F-16 - conformal fuel tanks that turn the aircraft into a strategic bomber

Such an approach provides the aircraft with exceptional versatility and helps to improve precisely those abilities that are required to accomplish each specific mission. Removable modules can be combined in any order, hang the same blocks on different types of aircraft (standardization and savings!), And if necessary, easily replace a damaged or faulty unit with a new one (simplicity, ease of use). At the same time, after installing the sighting and navigation container, any F-16 acquires detection capabilities comparable to the F-22 and F-35 super-aircraft.

As a result, we get a relatively simple platform aircraft and a removable set of equipment. This concept has brilliantly established itself in all the wars of recent years. Suspended containers LITENING, LANTIRN and SNIPER XR are successfully used on all types of fighters, attack aircraft and strategic bombers of NATO countries.


Navigation AN / AAQ-13 and sighting AN / AAQ-14 containers of the LANTIRN system (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night).
Combines radar and front-view thermal imagers, a laser rangefinder, optical tracking sensors and a missile line-of-sight correlator.


For example, the already mentioned LITENING is used in the USAF to equip F-15E, F-16, A-10, B-52 ... If necessary, the container can be hung under the wing of any Harrier or F / A-18 deck aircraft. The allies are interested in the system - LITENING is compatible with the on-board electronics of the Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, Grippen aircraft ...

The creators of the "fifth generation" fighters do the same, but in a much more complicated and costly way. They propose to initially equip the aircraft with super-electronica, mounting the blocks inside the fuselage. As a result, the price of the aircraft takes off to the skies, and half of the installed systems are usually used as ballast.

Surprisingly, such important systems were left out of the midst of violent disputes about the capabilities of Raptor and the PAK FA. Instead of discussing truly meaningful things, senseless debates around the “fifth generation” of fighters continue from year to year, which, in fact, does not solve anything in modern warfare.


The sighting container of the SNIPER XR system under the fuselage of the strategic bomber B-1B Lancer


Author:
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 6 May 2013 06: 20 New
    10
    The capabilities of this fighter are greatly exaggerated - an experienced pilot on the MIG29 using proven tactics is quite capable of withstanding the F-22.
    1. Canep
      Canep 6 May 2013 08: 00 New
      10
      I think that an experienced SU-35 pilot will shoot down the F-22.
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 6 May 2013 13: 17 New
        34
        Quote: Canep
        I think that an experienced SU-35 pilot will shoot down the F-22.


        Yes, not about that article. The question is how to shoot down, at what distance to shoot down, and how to fly to the Raptor. Modern warfare is not individual combat in the air, but the work of detection, target designation and suppression systems. And you do not need to consider the coolest aircraft as a proud single "wolf" in the sky - there is a lot of everything around that will not allow the pilot to even reach the target. The 080808 war showed that a single plane or system in a war does not last long.
      2. Engineer Schukin
        Engineer Schukin 6 May 2013 16: 00 New
        -4
        To "think" in such a matter, you need to be at least a specialized specialist.
        are you one
    2. Argon
      Argon 6 May 2013 10: 11 New
      +5
      I don’t know, I don’t know yet for the naval Super Hornets the 22nd source of hemorrhoids, and the MiG at the moment (9-12da and 9-13) is the Peace Dove, given that there are practically no R-77s in the troops and there was no active radio interference station.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 6 May 2013 10: 54 New
        +8
        Quote: ..
        Dumb-headed “Kharmas” will kill all microwaves and radio transmitters in the area, but several of them will surely burst near the radar of the anti-aircraft complex, taking him out of the game.


        Oleg, my applause, I didn’t want to read the hackneyed topic, but I saw your authorship and once again I enjoyed reading



        1. _CAMOBAP_
          _CAMOBAP_ 7 May 2013 13: 49 New
          +5
          The article, of course, is interesting - and the questions are posed correctly, but ... In which case "thousands of stupid" Kharmas "will fly to destroy our microwave ovens and along the way radar? Correctly - only in the event of a full-scale war. And then what will fly towards these" Harmas "? That's right, missiles with nuclear warheads will fly, on the other hand, too, by the way ... How will it all end? But no one knows for sure - whether it’s a planetary apocalypse, or something else - but that no one will doubt Therefore, we don’t need to stretch my legs “on clothes” - today we don’t need hundreds of air tankers and thousands of “Harms” - they are the Yankees who bring “democracy around the world”, let’s carry them, maybe they’ll tear oneself. We need technology , we need modern military equipment in reasonable quantities, but first of all - nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles that can overcome any missile defense system, and then the discussion of the “thousands” of HARMS will remain only in theory. But, I repeat, the article is interesting and in my opinion - I am not special in aviation and air defense - informative. To author - "+"
    3. Bronis
      Bronis 6 May 2013 10: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      MIG29 using proven tactics is quite capable of resisting the F-22.

      Yeah, 9-12 with P-73. Of course, one can recall the P-77 ... But only the aircraft’s capabilities in detecting each other are far from equal ... not even the notorious EPR, but the radar.
      Theoretically, of course, melee is also possible. But this is not a likely outcome. Especially one on one. Until close combat, "live" is necessary. Yes, and these machines of different weight categories, which have been separated for decades ... It’s better to compare with Su-35, all the more so since the 29’s will not remain in the Air Force soon, except for the “abandoned” Algerian
    4. Joker
      Joker 6 May 2013 14: 28 New
      25
      Well comrades, let the hatred begin! We are getting better, but they are worse, we are the smartest, and they are dumb. Yes, we have everything intelligently, and they have one solid cut. Started right? wink But in fact, we are very far behind the USA and no matter how cool the T-50 is, but it still does not exist in the army, but the F-22 already has 200 pieces, we would have bought at least 2050 200 T-50. It is time to air defense to modernize the C-400 and C-500, I do not think that in the event of a massive attack on us we can fight back, there will not be enough missiles. Tanks without cover from the air will quickly kill, our army is poorly trained, armed and equipped, the new equipment did not even begin to arrive, it is still in development. So we have something to strive for and I think that our army will not be stronger than we will praise our own and lower the American from this. We are still working on the Soviet backlog, but how will it end so what will we do? The current generation is no smarter than the Americans.
      1. Santa Fe
        6 May 2013 15: 04 New
        +8
        Quote: Joker
        T-50, but it still does not exist in the army, but F-22 already has 200 pieces, we would have bought T-2050 at least for 200 50.

        It is much more important that they purchase new tankers, AWACS aircraft, create universal sighting and navigation containers of the LANTIRN type
        Purchased at least 50-100 pieces of Su-34 and Su-35

        And PAK FAs may not be purchased at all - in fact, it has dubious advantages over fighters of the 27-x family (Su-30, Su-35), at a double price.

        As one of the commentators remarkably remarked:
        Quote: ziqzaq
        These generations, in my opinion, are simply a marketing move to promote a product ...
        A real generational change will occur when new materials with phenomenal properties are discovered (invented), or new physical principles can significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 7 May 2013 17: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It is much more important that they purchase new tankers, AWACS aircraft, create universal sighting and navigation containers of the LANTIRN type

          This, of course, is all very necessary.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And PAK FAs may not be purchased at all - in fact, it has dubious advantages over fighters of the 27-x family (Su-30, Su-35), at a double price.

          But it is very doubtful. The Su-27M (Su-35) was late for mass production by 20 years. Now this obsolete aircraft is needed only as an intermediate type.
        2. old man54
          old man54 9 May 2013 21: 24 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: Joker

          A real generational change will occur when new materials with phenomenal properties are discovered (invented), or new physical principles can significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft


          Golden Vyshy words! You can change the interior upholstery in a car 20 times, repaint it, simulate the design of the body and optics, but essentially nothing can be changed. Here it is! The desire to knock money out of buyers of all stripes, that’s what drives the manufacturer and developer of the aircraft. :) That's when the aircraft will begin to move at least roughly like UFOs in the Earth’s atmosphere, then it will be possible to say - another generation has appeared!
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 45 New
        -14
        Have you finished Shoot him before the ranks for alarmist!
        1. Joker
          Joker 6 May 2013 17: 45 New
          15
          Shoot him before the ranks for alarmist!

          I just try to really assess the situation, nothing more. Have I lied somewhere? Is our army worse equipped than the American? Worse, and by a lot. Is our army worse equipped? Worse, we have just started to produce something competitive on Izhmash, and if we had AK at the level, then for the rest we are losing, and it’s time to update the AK. Is our aviation worse? -Much worse. Fleet? Worse. Of course, we win in tanks and in air defense. Armored cars, we lose a lot. Helicopters are losing. Well, am I panicking? I just say it as it is. We are 30 years behind the United States, but even now when we rearm, the United States buys more of us in the army. I think in such an issue cheers-patriotism is not appropriate.
          1. Scythian 35
            Scythian 35 6 May 2013 18: 12 New
            +3
            speaking right!!! It is not necessary to bend your fingers and tell what kind of cool airplane we will have, but to create it and as quickly as possible. T-50 This is just a prototype without an engine without avionics, and we need a real airplane !!!
            1. viktorR
              viktorR 7 May 2013 12: 11 New
              0
              Do not worry about both avionics and engines (and so they are, but there will be a newer one), everything is / will be. The problem is that even on our territory we often lose information wars, and people like you and the Joker only help our enemies with their hysterical / depressing presentation of material, you probably forgot what it was 10-15 years ago with Russia? Do you think this goes without a trace and without consequences? Or do you think this is corrected at the click of a finger? The main thing is progress. Now you will say that he is slow or not like you, “the strongest expert in this field” wants. But then again, let's start with the fact that you are not afraid of the last piece of bread to eat up and do not live in a hut, and if not a lazy person, then doing what you love, you can now live more or less dignified. This is all to the fact that under Stalin everything was decided quickly and efficiently during the five-year period, in the West they were already amazed how they were so backward after the revolution / war that they were so quick to create industry or fly into space first. This is to the fact that before they paid for speed with living conditions, maybe somewhere even by the life of the people, but still in the name of the safety of this people. Now there is (thanks to Stalin for this) the strategic nuclear forces, which allows all the same, such excessive stresses for the people of the country can not bear.
          2. viktorR
            viktorR 7 May 2013 11: 57 New
            0
            Well, let’s say that there can be no conflict between Russia and any more or less strong state, and if it does, then there will be a nuclear one. And if you look at the degradation of the US strategic nuclear forces, then Russia with its strategic nuclear forces looks very good, I am silent about nuclear weapons. The meaning of the fifth generation aircraft is new technologies, which may not be very disruptive, but necessary for a breakthrough.
            It’s not worth saying that we are 30 years behind the Americans, this is not so, if you mean technology of course. But in terms of mass production, of course we are lagging behind, but the road will take the road, and is it necessary to produce something so massively? We are still not Americans, we are not going to sow democracy around the world.

            Z.Y. You Joker began to write a lot about the fact that everything is fine with us, and everything is bad with us, and we are 30 years behind them. It used to be that you didn’t notice this, but now in all branches you just write this, create an information pump ..?

            Z.Z. I don’t know why they blamed Avenger711, he seems to be saying everything correctly, maybe the authority of the Joker rating has succumbed to it?
    5. T-100
      T-100 6 May 2013 22: 27 New
      +1
      Yes, even for a moment, 21, everything is decided by electronics. A powerful locator, a clever mother of rocket and you can even shoot down the F-35.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 10 May 2013 18: 36 New
        0
        So on the F-35 just all of this is at the highest level.
  2. Marconi41
    Marconi41 6 May 2013 06: 42 New
    19
    Entertaining reading! Maybe the author is right. 5th generation fighters are very unsuitable for large-scale military operations. Indeed, during the war, an airplane is still a consumable. They will be shot down in any case. Now imagine that an insulating tape costs not 20 rubles, but 20 tr !!! No matter how sticky she is - who needs it?
    Nobody argues with this, so if there was a big mess now, the most efficient aircraft would be generation 4 and 4+ aircraft. I think so ...
    1. Forget
      Forget 6 May 2013 09: 02 New
      +3
      You think correctly ... even the bow is still in service ..
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 46 New
        -1
        Yeah, in Crysis 3 it was even introduced as a new weapon. : D
    2. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 6 May 2013 10: 37 New
      +4
      Quote: Marconi41
      5th generation fighters are very unsuitable

      These generations, in my opinion, are simply a marketing move to promote a product ...
      A real generational change will occur when new materials with phenomenal properties are discovered (invented), or new physical principles can significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft .......
    3. Beck
      Beck 6 May 2013 10: 47 New
      +6
      Quote: Marconi41
      5th generation fighters are very unsuitable for large-scale military operations. Indeed, during the war, an airplane is still a consumable. They will be shot down in any case. Now imagine that an insulating tape costs not 20 rubles, but 20 tr !!! No matter how sticky she is - who needs it?


      This is your thinking on the experience of 2 MV. Today's conflicts, even major ones, will not last for 3-4 years. The whole strategy is designed for speed.

      In the United States since the 70s, and now all modern armies of developed countries have been dominated by the concept of air-ground battle. An example of Iraq. Within a month, aviation bombed the front line, rear, and infrastructure. and then, during the week, the land units picked up the remnants of the demoralized.

      Let F-22 and F-35 roads, like PakFa. And let them remain by the end of the month of hostilities, but the task will be completed. Logistics, infrastructure, reserves, logistical support will be destroyed.
      1. krokodil25
        krokodil25 6 May 2013 11: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: Beck
        In the United States since the 70s, and now all modern armies of developed countries have been dominated by the concept of air-ground battle. An example of Iraq. Within a month, aviation bombed the front line, rear, and infrastructure. and then, during the week, the land units picked up the remnants of the demoralized.

        This is a strategy for the banana republics, remember the real real war of the United States after the 2nd World War, and even there one can argue there wasn’t even a real clash even with an approximately equal rival.
        1. Beck
          Beck 6 May 2013 11: 33 New
          +3
          Quote: krokodil25
          This is a strategy for the banana republics, remember the real real war of the United States after the 2nd World War, and even there one can argue there wasn’t even a real clash even with an approximately equal rival.


          For banana republics F-22, F-35, PakFa are not needed. Banana republics and MiG-15 with F-86 will not see.

          And I talked about 70 years. And he gave an example with Iraq. When a large, well-armed Iraqi army operating according to the 2 MV strategy templates was crushed to pieces in a month.
          1. Rider
            Rider 6 May 2013 12: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            Banana republics and MiG-15 with F-86 will not see.


            Beck, are you really that ... uh gullible?

            you take an interest in what the Yankees fly in avgan, there are naval f18 and army needles.
            and after all, spirits not only have no aviation, they don’t even grow bananas.
            and the site had a selection of materials on which Soviet aircraft flew in this “banana” republic.
            more careful with statements.

            By the way, how long have you become my compatriot?
            like you used to have a shtatovsky badge?

            wink
          2. Alekseev
            Alekseev 6 May 2013 20: 03 New
            +1
            Well, how can you compare the Iraqi army and coalition forces led by the United States!
            Well armed, what was there that kind of particularly good? T-72 first releases?
            Aviation and air defense systems are so incompatible at all that Saddam perfectly understood.
            The strategy has nothing to do with it.
          3. viktorR
            viktorR 7 May 2013 12: 18 New
            +3
            In general, I agree with you), but! All the same, the infrastructure didn’t particularly suffer in Iraq, and in Yugoslavia, as far as I know, there was a failure in this regard, and if it weren’t for our top-level leaders, then the United States would be encouraged no worse than Vietnam, I think. The same thing happened in Iraq, they just bought Iraqi generals, and business then ...
        2. Aleks21
          Aleks21 6 May 2013 16: 34 New
          +4
          Vietnam Air Defense! There sometimes 10 returned 3 strategic bombers! :)
      2. 11Goor11
        11Goor11 6 May 2013 11: 36 New
        +5
        Beck
        This is your thinking on the experience of 2 MV. Today's conflicts, even major ones, will not last for 3-4 years. The whole strategy is designed for speed.

        Hi Beck.
        Tell the fighters of the Iraq and Afghan war about this speed, they will listen to you with interest.
        I remember the same narcissistic Yankees like you, boasted that "in just half a month, just a few special forces won the Afghan war, which the whole Soviet army could not overpower" - the usual empty ... (no) empty American arrogance. And so many years have already passed, and the simple Taliban, armed mainly with hatred, stubbornness and selflessness, constantly crumble the super-duper tech army of the United States.
        And you all stutter something about imminent victories, advise your American sponsors to defeat their own stupid arrogance, because they are stepping on the same rake, constantly breaking their foreheads.
        1. Beck
          Beck 6 May 2013 12: 23 New
          +5
          Quote: 11Goor11
          And you all stutter something about imminent victories, advise your American sponsors to defeat for a start their own stupid arrogance, because they are stepping on the same rake, constantly breaking their forehead.


          This is a patriotic mania. If my opinion is not mine, then someone paid. I’m not telling you that you get money from a bank where the Communists put them in 1925, on a rainy day.

          Iraq fought twice and was beaten twice in a short time. In Afghanistan, it’s not a war, but a partisan movement and it is dying down. No wonder the United States plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2014, and is already preparing for this. (Most likely they need a transshipment point in Aktau for this).

          And further. It is always difficult to fight the guerrilla movement of the regular army. Our troops in Afghanistan have experienced this, and the United States is now experiencing it. The Basmach movement in Central Asia was finally broken only in 1933. And why? A gang of basmachi flies into the village. The cavalry regiment stands 10 kilometers from the village. But until the notification, coordination passes, orders will pass, while the whole regiment rises and extends to the village, the Basmachi and the trace has gone cold. The Basmach movement was liquidated only when the decision-making authority of the military unit was transferred to the squadron commanders. And the squadrons themselves became independent. Only then did the squadrons manage to intercept or catch up with the gangs.

          By the way, our troops also wanted to use this experience in Afghanistan. I know for sure that a squadron was created with horses trained to go to bed. And the soldiers were armed with sabers. But I don’t have data on the combat use of such a squadron.

          Last thing. If you want to communicate, exchange opinions, with me, give up these false manners - paying the State Department, sponsors, agents and the like rubbish.
          1. Rider
            Rider 6 May 2013 12: 40 New
            +2
            Quote: Beck
            In Afghanistan, it’s not a war, but a partisan movement and it is dying down.


            oh thank you Beck, you know how to have fun.
            1. Beck
              Beck 6 May 2013 13: 00 New
              +4
              Quote: Rider
              By the way, how long have you become my compatriot? Like you had a staff badge before?


              And this 11Goor11 guilty, never forgive. I encrypted his comments and sent him to the State Department, but he found out everything and brought me to clean water. Here the CIA, for my cover, gave me the flag of Kazakhstan. Only shh ...! This is a secret. (In general, this is a Beeline conductor, something is confusing).

              Quote: Rider
              you take an interest in what the Yankees fly in avgan, there are naval f18 and army needles.

              Quote: Rider
              oh thank you Beck, you know how to have fun.


              Well then what? Do not read context or deliberately simplify. Of course, the United States uses aircraft in Afghanistan. But all these "invisibles" are intended for a big war, and not for partisan ones.

              Chio, you do not know that hostilities have a different form. The form of confrontation between the armed forces and the form of guerrilla warfare. In any case, both there and there War.
              1. Rider
                Rider 6 May 2013 13: 20 New
                0
                Quote: Beck
                Well then what? Do not read the context


                you just make statements that are not true.
                but simply put, either you are mistaken, or deliberately ... uh, err.

                then your sabers do not fly, then the needles.

                Well, about the "attenuation" of the guerrilla warfare, this is completely from the category of a joke.
                In Agana, entire provinces are already taking control of spirits.
                and you are "attenuation."

                very funny.
                1. Engineer Schukin
                  Engineer Schukin 6 May 2013 16: 08 New
                  -2
                  Man-patriot, where did you get such deep knowledge about the events in Afghanistan, given that you can’t even learn the Russian language?

                  Take the trouble to explain what is "avgan"?
                  1. Rider
                    Rider 6 May 2013 17: 13 New
                    +5
                    Quote: Engineer Schukin

                    Take the trouble to explain what is "avgan"?


                    SW Mr. Engineer, preferably at the beginning of the post, insert a quote from the person to whom you are responding.
                    in VO an incomprehensible system of comment branches.


                    and Agan (if the question is for me) is Afghanistan.
                    if you are attached to one letter, then please go to sites discussing spelling.
                    probably they will be interested.

                    with uv.
          2. Selevc
            Selevc 6 May 2013 12: 58 New
            +1
            The fight against partisans is usually very difficult and long ... Since it is impossible to distinguish a civilian from a partisan ...
            1. Rider
              Rider 6 May 2013 13: 22 New
              +2
              Quote: Selevc
              Since it is impossible to distinguish a civilian from a partisan ...


              and most importantly - no reason.
              urine them with hellfire from a drone.
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 6 May 2013 13: 31 New
                +2
                Quote: Rider
                and most importantly, there’s no reason. urine with hellfire from a drone.

                If there is no need to distinguish, then we must admit to ourselves that we are at war with the entire population :)))
                1. Rider
                  Rider 6 May 2013 13: 51 New
                  0
                  Well, actually it is.

                  Afghanistan is firmly in first place in terms of drug consumption.

                  opium wars 2.0
          3. 11Goor11
            11Goor11 6 May 2013 12: 58 New
            +1
            Beck
            Last thing. If you want to communicate, exchange opinions, with me, give up these false manners - paying the State Department, sponsors, agents and the like rubbish.

            But in fact?
            "A short-lived war of the super-technological Aria of the USA, the most correct and always conquering and acting for the sake of universal good !!!"
            :) ???
            It does not work out transient wars, the US army destroys sovereign countries for the sake of fleeting profits justifying their actions by combating terrorism, in fact producing even more terrorists from the entire civilian population that harbors hatred of the invaders.
            But to fight against such a population, wedding processions, students in schools, the bazaar crowd, people riding somewhere on the bus and not suspecting anything, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are needed, enough drones, and for operators this is one fun, How is a computer game?
            As for your sponsors, I do not believe that a person in their right mind, possessing all the facts, will be such a committed Americanist.
            Here or
            1 money or
            2 false, cynical malevolence or
            3 intellectual inability to perceive facts, or
            4 lack of objective information.
            You don’t fit under the last two options, of the first two, I chose the most harmless.
            Because any American who finds out about hundreds of people having been killed by drones who just happened to be next to a “possible” terrorist begins to feel anger. And if among them there is a “man” declaring: “Destroy ALL of them, so that they would not get to holy America” (there are some) - then what kind of attitude does he deserve? Does he have a human face that this is a lack of intelligence, moral qualities, or simply "professional cynicism"?
            1. Beck
              Beck 6 May 2013 13: 29 New
              -7
              Quote: 11Goor11
              As for your sponsors, I do not believe that a person in their right mind, possessing all the facts, will be such a committed Americanist.


              The US does not destroy countries. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq exist. Not only bloody dictators.

              And I would be satisfied if the bloody dictators of Hussein, Gaddafi dropped anyone. For example, Russia, Georgia, Zanzibar, the Vatican or someone else. For me, the main thing is not who threw off, but the fact that there were no more two dictatorships on the planet.

              Your 4 logistic raskladki about my motives of course purely yours personally. But personal opinions are based on a world outlook, the worldview of education and training pledged from childhood, which develop a scale of values ​​- what is good and what is bad. And this scale cannot be the same for all people. But it can change in one direction or another, and this is also natural, only in communication. And communication is the same human need as food and water. And sites, subconsciously, and not just for commerciality, are created for communication, and not for abuse and accusations.
              1. REZMovec
                REZMovec 6 May 2013 15: 17 New
                +4
                Hello Beck!
                Reading your comments earlier - you thought a rather objective person (although, honestly, not always). But after reading your judgments about Hussein and Gaddafi (and others like them), I realized - you are either really a “custom pro-Amerian type”, or are in the clouds, and again, star-striped !!! Imagine what happened and what happened now in the same Iraq, in the same Libya ... There were two rather secular countries, the region was calm, and now ??? Don't you think that your beloved Yankees didn’t remove the dictators, but sod the CHAOS? In muddy water it’s very simple “FOR FREE” to get hold of oil. What was the blame for Saddam? Destruction by chemical weapons of 88 people in the distant 80s? And how many Iraqis died during the "arrival of democratic forces"? How did the Libyans live? Think sucks ??? I will answer you - no !!! And this is not unfounded - he talked personally and repeatedly with Libyan engineers. How are ordinary Libyans now? What to do with well-armed gangs? Now the fucking democrats of the transitional government themselves do not know what to do, how to stop this clan war ... And you are dictators! .. Where Uncle Sam appeared - the end of peace and tranquility. No, you are clearly an Amerovian entrancer !!! Myself, in Kazakhstan, do not want such a democracy ??? Or are you there "fifth column"?
                Answer if there are arguments.
                I hope no offense. I just wrote on emotions.
                1. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 6 May 2013 15: 22 New
                  +6
                  Quote: REZMovec
                  What was the blame for Saddam? Destruction by chemical weapons of 88 people in the distant 80s? And how many Iraqis died during the "arrival of democratic forces"? How did the Libyans live?

                  Former US President Carter and another must also be hanged for using chemical weapons in Vietnam, which killed at least 1.5 million people.
                  1. illarion
                    illarion 7 May 2013 01: 15 New
                    +1
                    The war ended at 75, and Carter has been president since 77.
                2. Beck
                  Beck 6 May 2013 16: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: REZMovec
                  Imagine what happened and what happened now in the same Iraq, in the same Libya ... There were two rather secular countries, the region was calm, and now ???


                  Secular, civilized countries primarily mean election and succession of ruling elites. As well as freedom of speech and other, to some extent executed, provisions. As in Russia - regular elections and at least discussion on the site.

                  Hussein. He came to power by the military coup of the Baath Party (he was 5 on the leader list) in 1968 and since then there have been no free elections in Iraq. Hussein headed the special services and carried out purges, such as repressions in the 30s in the USSR. In 1970, Hussein seizes all power. It is drawing closer to the USSR to obtain loans and weapons, and at the same time it is repressing members of the Communist Party of Iraq. In 1980, it unleashes a meaningless 8th war with Iran. In 1990, occupies Kuwait. The world community has been asking Hussein to withdraw troops for a whole year. In the end, the World Community, represented by US-led coalition forces, threw Hussein out of Kuwait. Allied forces did not go further. Inspired by the Iraqis, they rose up against Hussein, but the US troops did not help them and Hussein poisoned his people with chemical weapons.

                  Kadaffi.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 6 May 2013 17: 19 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Beck
                    Cadaffy


                    Kadaffi. He seized power by a military coup in 1970. After the seizure of power, he introduced Sharia-based laws. He organized repressions against the Communists and all other dissenters. Those who managed to emigrate were killed by the special services of Kadaffi after 1980 in Italy, in England, in Greece, in Germany. In his Green Book he brought together Islam and the theoretical principles of Russian anarchism. Gaddafi provoked conflicts with Sudan, Egypt, Chad, Somalia. Kadaffi intelligence agencies organized a series of terrorist attacks against third countries. In particular, a cafe was blown up in Germany, killing 200 Americans, and a civilian plane was blown up in England over Lockerbie.

                    And after all this, Hussein and Gaddafi are secular rulers.

                    Quote: REZMovec
                    In muddy water it’s very simple “FOR FREE” to get hold of oil.


                    If about the USA. 80% of consumed US oil is bought in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia. And why would haul from afar. Are you going to get milk from Moscow to Petersburg?
                    Both in Iraq and in Libya, life is getting better. It may not be right after the war. Kampuchea now lives better than under Pol Pot. And there were no amers. The Vietnamese forces helped the Campuayans throw off the tyrant. And now in Chile they live better than under Pinochet.

                    I replied. And now you refute, argue that none of this happened.
                    1. Rider
                      Rider 6 May 2013 18: 06 New
                      +2

                      do not drag on Gaddafi all as "dead"
                      1. Rider
                        Rider 6 May 2013 18: 20 New
                        +2
                        add

                        I barely found this link.

                        all searches with tags: lokberi airplane explosion - give your point of view.
                        that is, Gaddafi is to blame for the explosion.

                        Well, consider, the plane banged, imposed sanctions, and then cleaned the colonel himself.
                        And why would haul from afar. Are you going to get milk from Moscow to Petersburg?

                        you exaggerate.
                        The United States (or rather its top) was not captured by oil sources for importing them into the United States.
                        IT NEEDS FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER ITS SALES.
                        THEY ON THIS BUTTERS DO.
                        And IT'S NOT AT ALL FOR GASOLINE CHEAPER IN THE USA.

                        There was an interesting situation when the US ARMY is at war, PAYS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE USA

                        And US OLIGARCHS GET PROFIT.

                        even so, I think the US flag would suit you better.
                      2. Beck
                        Beck 6 May 2013 19: 14 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Rider
                        The United States (or rather its top) did not capture oil sources for import into the United States. I NEED FINANCIAL CONTROL FOR ITS SALES.


                        In the colonial era, all the resources of the imperial colonial countries were selected. Now everything is bought. And buy cheaper in Venezuela than in BV.

                        Oil. Given the speed of scientific and technological progress of the 20th century, which is only accelerating over the years, oil will lose its strategic importance. Probably in ten years. Other forms of energy are mastered in leaps and bounds.

                        Financial control primarily depends on the ECONOMY. If tomorrow the share of the global economy of 30%, which the United States has today, will be in Russia, or China, or Nepal, or Kazakhstan. That financial control will be over these countries, and the whole world will be flooded with either rubles, or yuan, or rupees, or tenge. Without ECONOMY, no one can designate their world currency. Of course, Kazakhstan cannot achieve this, but Russia can. Therefore, we are building the EurAsEC. There will be ECONOMY, namely the gross national product, and not the amount of oil, there will be better technologies, and a better army and a better life. And for this it is necessary to work and adopt the best that is in the world, and not bark enviously from behind every corner and from under every bush to succeed.

                        The oligarchs. Unscrupulous bankers, wealthy fraudsters are everywhere. And they must be fought against by legal law. If there are cattle thieves in Kazakhstan, this does not mean that Kazakhstan is a thief as a state.

                        Something like this, if briefly.
                      3. Rider
                        Rider 6 May 2013 19: 52 New
                        +3
                        back, when you say, it feels like you ... uh, broadcast the Air Force movie.

                        I say it again.
                        US OLIGARCHES NOT GOING TO BUY OIL OF BOMBING COUNTRIES.

                        THEY SELL IT.
                        for fun, google whose companies got oil concessions in Iraq.

                        Well, about finances and finally funny.

                        The world with the BIGGEST BUDGET DEFICIENCY IN THE WORLD drives the world’s finances.
                        and which for this very world prints UNSECURED DOLLARS.

                        (purely funny)
                        I read that the issued dollars would be enough to buy up the WHOLE EARTH OF THE BOW.
                        (meaning values ​​and industry)

                        Well, you continue to believe in an "honest economy"
                      4. Beck
                        Beck 7 May 2013 12: 33 New
                        -2
                        Land, well, and "clung" to me, but it should be. On that site, on that and communication.

                        Quote: Rider
                        THEY SELL IT. For the sake of interest, google whose companies received oil concessions in Iraq.


                        Yes, what kind of companies would be, but most likely those that offered the best conditions, and the Iraqi government chooses the most favorable. And I know, two months ago two news went through all the channels, - Iraq concluded an oil deal with Lukoil for $ 2 billion and concluded a contract with Rosoboronexport for the purchase of military equipment for $ 3 billion. And the United States does not blather as it is a business, commercially profitable agreement for Iraq. So other companies offered worse conditions and higher prices.

                        Quote: Rider
                        The world with the BIGGEST BUDGET DEFICIENCY IN THE WORLD rules the world’s finances. and which for this very world prints UNSECURED DOLLARS.


                        The US has a budget deficit. And many countries have it. This is one of the phenomena of the economy. Of course it is better when it is not there, but this does not always work out. I am not an economist, but the approximate scheme is as follows. The first president Reagan began to fulfill his election promises, he asked the US Federal Reserve to allocate, on loan to the US government, an additional amount outside the budget.
                        The Fed agreed and printed additional dollars of the requested amount, somewhere not less than a billion. Since then, each resident has requested a loan from the Fed. Fed and printed. So, to this day, the amount of trillions of dollars has accumulated. This is the DEBT of America. And, what this essentially means, but what it owes to itself. This is if you transfer your money from the right pocket to the left and the left pocket will be due to the right.

                        Now about printing money. Maybe this will cause some consequences, but today, economists do not know what could be caused. And most importantly. The global economy, in the line of currency has changed compared to the mid-20th century. It was then believed that the currency should be provided with all the wealth of the state. Now the laws are different, I don’t know which ones, but providing the currency with property has become unnecessary. As if the currency lives its own life. And I repeat, when Kazakhstan or Russia will produce 30% of the world gross product, then Kazakhstan will print tenge as much as it wants. Or Russia rubles as he wants. And the whole world will seek to acquire precisely rubles or tenge.
                      5. Rider
                        Rider 7 May 2013 19: 22 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Beck
                        asked the US Federal Reserve to allocate, on loan to the US government, an additional amount out of budget.
                        The Fed agreed and printed additional dollars of the requested amount, somewhere not less than a billion.


                        colleague Beck, I will a little dispel your pink fantasies about right-handed pockets.

                        http://perevodika.ru/articles/21027.html


                        I draw your attention to the fact that all sources are foreign
                        not just the fantasy of conspiracy theory fans
                        (to whom I comb myself).
                      6. old man54
                        old man54 9 May 2013 22: 12 New
                        +2
                        Well, what kind of nonsense are you, Beck, talking about the world, and not only economy, I’m sitting here. :)) As for the “other laws”, now it is :)) I don’t want to comment already! :)
            2. REZMovec
              REZMovec 7 May 2013 16: 37 New
              +1
              About the US and oil.
              Yes what you say! You don’t need to carry your own oil at all, but ALL oil fields in the USA are CANNED !!! Do you not know this, or is this news for you? The last barrel of oil on Earth will be obtained by the Americans. Regarding alternative types of fuel, I’ll tell you this - for a long time it would be possible to switch to them, in the automotive industry, at least. But!!! BP, Shell, etc., etc. LOBBY all these developments. And this is world capital - he "rules the ball" ...
              Do not compare Kampuchea with Libya or Iraq - Pol Pot was just a mentally ill subhuman. Yes, the SRV army liberated Cambodia, BUT !!! Pol Pot, who killed a third of the population (I don’t remember exactly, but about THREE MILLION people), was not executed and died peacefully in his bed after living, if memory serves, for more than 90 years.
              Chile. But can you tell me how such a "creepy dictator" Pinochet, in the shortest possible time, raised the national GDP SEVENTEEN? The victims of his regime were about 3 thousand people. Yes, he was tried, but again, he raised his country to a fairly high economic level, compared with its neighbors. And who told you that they live better in Chile than under Pinochet? Although, yes, it’s better - the whole world began to live better for thirty years. I note that Pinochet voluntarily handed over power when he saw that the country was developing and the heirs would lead it along the right path ... By the way, in childhood, I also considered him a bad person, but it turned out ...
              Forest is cut - chips fly ...
              I feel sorry for you, to be honest. Well, LOVE you America! Why not there yet ???
              1. Beck
                Beck 7 May 2013 17: 52 New
                -1
                Quote: REZMovec
                You don’t need to carry your own oil at all, but ALL oil fields in the USA are CANNED !!!


                After the accident in the Gulf of Mexico, part of its US deposits were unsealed. In general, if I want to buy hay, although I have my own, who cares. Well, do not sell me hay, business then.

                Quote: REZMovec
                Pol Pot, who killed a third of the population (I don’t remember exactly, but about THREE MILLION people), was not executed and died quietly in his bed


                And this is very foul. If I had the will, I myself would suffocate him.

                Quote: REZMovec
                how such a “creepy dictator” Pinochet, in the shortest possible time raised the national GDP SEVENTEEN? The victims of his regime were about 3 thousand people.


                It was possible to raise GDP without killing innocent people. No matter how bad Allende was in the economy, he was the legitimately elected president. But he was bad, because he was a socialist and wanted to introduce a socialist economy in Chile that is not viable in principle. But Allende was lawfully chosen and had to be removed in the elections.

                Quote: REZMovec
                I feel sorry for you, to be honest


                Well, that’s why such a pantalik, hangover or insanity makes you feel sorry for me. I tell you that matchmaker, brother, fake? I am a simple, unfamiliar interlocutor.

                Quote: REZMovec
                Tell me, please, Beck, and Kazakhstan is a secular country?


                We have like you. Authoritarian power, but not a bloody dictatorship.

                Quote: REZMovec
                with a proposal to officially limit the life of the head of state,


                You carefully read what you gave out. What nonsense - LIMIT TIME LIFE. This or spiritual representatives, having tapped their forehead on the floor, during prayer, have become numb. Or the news feed didn’t come out of place. Or something else so awkward.

                Quote: REZMovec
                The special services of America themselves are organizing all this. And September 11, and Boston, and an earlier explosion in a shopping center ...


                And not only this. I will add. They did not build a collider near Geneva, but underground Hollywood. Now they are driving films from there about the subatomic structure of the universe, quarks, there, gluons, mesons. Generally litter our brains.

                Quote: REZMovec
                Try to convince me, which is unlikely to succeed ...


                Now I will not even try. Free will. Handcraft craft. Stubborn hardness.
          4. REZMovec
            REZMovec 7 May 2013 16: 10 New
            0
            Tell me, please, Beck, and Kazakhstan is a secular country? Or, too, Nazarbayev "Bloody dictator"? In power for two decades without a break. You even figured out how to limit the "democratic" presidency. Quote from the news feed: “The Union of Muslims of Kazakhstan and the Muslim Committee for Human Rights in Central Asia came up with a proposal in Kazakhstan to officially limit the life of the head of state, Lenta.ru reports.

            According to the authors of the idea, the country should be governed by a person no older than 80 years. In accordance with their plan, the corresponding restriction should be prescribed in the country's constitution, indicating in the same place that the death penalty awaits violators.

            The president of Kazakhstan is currently held by 72-year-old Nursultan Nazarbayev. He has been managing the republic for over 20 years, currently practicing his fourth term. According to the agency, the authors of this initiative do not plan to apply it to the current president of Kazakhstan. They propose to extend the rule on executions to the next leaders of the republic. "

            How shoud I understand this???

            Now to "our sheep."
            Yes, Hussein came to power through a military coup. And the current government of Iraq came in what way ??? On the bayonets of the coalition? No??? And how many people died, Iraqis? Saddam's victims are a handful compared to the mountain of corpses from "your favorite democrats." Somehow, not convincing. And constant clashes are not decreasing in Iraq, but are on the increase. Is it so good in the "new" Iraq for ordinary people, compared with the "regime" of Hussein?
            Gaddafi is not an angel, but under him Libya turned into a single state, where there were no constant religious-clan-family bloody conflicts. He gave people FREE water in sufficient quantities, gave FREE medicine, provided annual financial assistance to every citizen of the country and much, much more. Now "democratic forces" have come to power, again, on coalition bayonets and at the hands of mercenaries. So what? Did the Libyans heal better? How many thousands of them lost their lives at the hands of wild mercenaries and French commandos? Do you know why Sarkazi played the "first violin" in this matter? Gaddafi, like a FRIEND, allocated Sarkazi "big bucks" for the election campaign of the latter ... And this was contrary to the Law of "democratic" France. So it was necessary to close Muammor’s mouth ... Draw conclusions, gentlemen !!! And on the account of terrorism from Libya during the reign of Gaddafi - all this was done by the hands of the amers themselves.
            Anticipating your protests, I want to ask: - who organized the terrorist attacks in the states over the past 15-20 years ??? You want to say that al-Qaeda and others like her ??? You are either naive or ... I will not say anything. The special services of America themselves are organizing all this. And September 11, and Boston, and an earlier explosion in a shopping center ...
            You, Beck, apply the “double standard” beloved by the West. Without a hard hand like Stalin, Hussein, Tito, Gaddafi, Assad, the same Nazarbayev and Lukashenko, there will be no order. This is especially true for the Arab countries and the CIS countries.
            Try to convince me, which is unlikely to succeed ...
        2. old man54
          old man54 9 May 2013 22: 01 New
          0
          Quote: REZMovec
          Don't you think that your beloved Yankees didn’t remove the dictators, but sod the CHAOS? In muddy water it’s very simple “FOR FREE” to get hold of oil.


          I almost agree! But ... when do you all understand that oil is of interest to them insofar as they need global INDIVIDUAL TOTAL domination !!! And the chaos itself is created for this, so that there would be a reason to climb everywhere and establish their own rules!
      3. Avenger711
        Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 49 New
        +3
        Rule number 1, if the West called someone a dictator, then a good person for his backgammon was, at least.
        1. Engineer Schukin
          Engineer Schukin 6 May 2013 17: 05 New
          -2
          thank you for not even denying your inability to use thinking and reason.
      4. old man54
        old man54 9 May 2013 21: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Beck

        The US does not destroy countries. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq exist. Not only bloody dictators.

        And I would be satisfied if the bloody dictators of Hussein, Gaddafi dropped anyone. For example, Russia, Georgia, Zanzibar, the Vatican or someone else.


        You’ll be surprised, Beck, but the most bloody, vile, hypocritical and dodgy regime today and probably already like 50/70 is your favorite USA! :)) Not the same scary thing that is covered in tattoos and with a dumb, bent with a knife, "murka" where he’s not singing, scaring people in the dark corners, but the most dangerous and terrible is the one who, under the guise of piety and decency, hides anger, self-interest, hypocrisy and treachery! It seems to be an adult already, it's time to start to understand such things. :)
  3. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 6 May 2013 13: 13 New
    0
    you are right in part, but we are watching the conflict in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. In Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, if they deduce as claimed.
    1. Beck
      Beck 6 May 2013 14: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      you are right in part, but we are watching the conflict in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. In Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, if they deduce as claimed.


      Quote: huut
      Beck, this is your thinking of those times - exactly as you said then)


      You gave some incorrect examples. I talked about the modern armies of developed countries. The armed forces of Iraq were defeated in a month. Then partisan actions began. Soviet and American troops entered Afghanistan a month later partisan operations.

      Call me military conflicts, after the Korean War, where the troops of Russia, the USA, Europe would dig trenches along the entire front. Their strategic calculations changed to speed, based on new technical capabilities, new weapons. The trenches dug only the armies remaining in the strategy at the level of 2 MV. The 8 year war between Iraq and Iran is evidence of this. And if the local conflict develops into a global one, then the trenches in general in FIG will need anyone, everything will be decided in minutes. And the trench will have only the function of the grave.
      1. Rider
        Rider 6 May 2013 18: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Beck
        And if the local conflict develops into a global one, then the trenches in general in FIG will need anyone, everything will be decided in minutes.



        the fact is that the 3rd World War began in the first Desert Storm.

        if you want evidence, please.
        what fits the definition of "world war"
        this is a war in which many countries are participating

        so we consider: Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, second Iraq, Libya, right now Syria.
        and who opposed them - the United States, England, Canada, Germany, France, Israel (and this is only the NATO heavyweights apart from small things like Georgia and other Holland)

        move on, the number of losses - all this together will pull more than one million.

        Well, the amount of money spent, there, too, trillions of dolaria pulls.

        and as you can see no nuclear weapons.

        but you probably think of the “world war” as the one in which the 2nd Belorussian, 3rd Ukrainian, and Transbaikal fronts will take part?
        1. Beck
          Beck 6 May 2013 19: 35 New
          +1
          Quote: Rider
          what fits the definition of "World War" is a war in which many countries are participating, so we consider: Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the second Iraq, Libya, right now Syria. and who opposed them - the USA, England, Canada, Germany, France, Israel (and it's only the NATO heavyweights apart from the little things like Georgia and other Holland)


          You have combined military conflicts of different times. Also, a limited war between two coalitions is also not a world war.

          WORLD WAR A war of large coalitions, blocs, unions of states, in which all the leading states of the world are directly or indirectly involved and which extends to all or most of the continents, waters of the oceans and seas. Such a war is waged, as a rule, for a long time with extremely decisive goals, takes on a global scale, the most fierce forms and is accompanied by huge destruction and numerous losses of the armed forces and the population of the warring parties. Its results usually lead to drastic changes in the entire world military-political situation.

          This is a world war. But there is one exception. The modern world war will not be long. About 30 minutes. Flight time of strategic missiles. Then there will be silence and silence of Reason.
          1. Rider
            Rider 6 May 2013 20: 21 New
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            You combined different time conflicts


            really?
            let's look at 2MB in this aspect
            so.
            1 09 41 - Poland
            everyone believes that the world began precisely with it, but however, only Germany and Poland fought, the conflict ended in a month and a half.
            IS THIS WORLD WAR?
            but in my opinion this is the same (in your opinion)
            limited war

            but then on September 3, England and France declare war on Germany.
            BUT MILITARY ACTION DOES NOT HAPPEN.
            What is World War II?
            and only in May 40 did a conflict really affect world powers.
            but it ended in a month.
            if there were no attacks on the USSR and the United States and Japan entered the war, these conflicts could be called "limited."

            well, from your definition
            lope there are countries included in NATO?
            in the coalition from which NATO countries gouged Iraq?
            But did lugs of countries deal with Yugoslavia?
            and how many countries are participating in the “counterterrorist appropriation” in Afghanistan?
            and so we have the regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans.
            and the seas - the Mediterranean, Red, Indian Ocean. few?

            Well
            Quote: Beck
            The modern world war will not be long. About 30 minutes


            this mulka came up with (and you believe) the tipus that unleash wars FOR THE PROFIT.
            just think, will the BEINGS that MAKE MONEY IN BLOOD begin to unleash a NUCLEAR WAR?
            WHAT PROFIT CAN I GET FROM RADIOACTIVE DESERT?

            Do not worry, there will be no nuclear war.
            it’s just people who own 60% of world capital, and will continue to try to lure the remaining 40.
            http://oko-planet.su/politik/politiklist/166066-mirom-pravyat-147-bankirov-i-oli
            garhov.html
            1. Beck
              Beck 7 May 2013 13: 01 New
              0
              Quote: Rider
              1 09 41 - Poland believes that the world began precisely with it, but only Germany and Poland fought, the conflict ended in a month and a half. Is this a world war?


              If the conflict ended in Poland, then that world war would not be called. This was the beginning after which England and France declared war on Germany. And subsequently other countries became involved. Even Tuva, it was an independent state until 1945, like Mongolia.

              The war in Iraq and Yugoslavia was fought by coalitions, but other continents, oceans and seas were affected. World powers such as Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa and others did not get involved in the war.

              There is one postulate in the theory of Marxism-Leninism with which I agree. This is an uneven economic development. There was a time the ball was ruled by the Roman Empire, then Spain, then England with Europe, now the USA. And it is likely that in 10 years there will be China. So you that switch to Chinese bankers. And after 20 years, it is entirely possible that Russia will become the economic hegemon of the world. So, you will blame Russian bankers and Russian leaders of the largest firms for everything inherent in the turmoil economies. What is supposedly Russian Ivana robbing the whole world. It’s ridiculous.
              1. Rider
                Rider 7 May 2013 19: 31 New
                0
                Yes, that’s all nonsense.
                Before the attack on the USSR, the war was a purely European showdown, with a limited theater of military operations and very insignificant losses.

                as for the 3rd world which is already going on, is it not the USA Canada England France Israel that is not a world power?
                and now there is an escalation in Syria and the USA and, accordingly, NATO can creep in for Israel


                Well, about the bankers.
                the current owners of the financial world have been steering for at least 200 years, and there are no and are not expected to believe that Chinese bankruptcy will be replaced by Chinese bankruptcy by Russian bankers.
                Well, in the first answer I threw you the links - enjoy.
  4. leon-iv
    leon-iv 6 May 2013 14: 21 New
    0
    The Basmach movement was liquidated only when the decision-making authority of the military unit was transferred to the squadron commanders.

    But the truth, as always, is more cynical. They were recognized and given power, that's all. Why fight if you can buy.
  • Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 6 May 2013 11: 50 New
    +3
    Like BE 10-year-old wars with banana republics, contrary to the whole concept of quick wars voiced by you)))
  • huut
    huut 6 May 2013 12: 51 New
    +3
    Quote: Beck
    This is your thinking on the experience of 2 MV. Today's conflicts, even major ones, will not last for 3-4 years. The whole strategy is designed for speed.

    I remember reading that the PMV didn’t even reach the trench in my thoughts, it was planned to solve everything in a hurry.
    WWII was also planned without delay (however, it was like that before the appearance of the eastern front). And the generals in those days shouted about speed and several months.

    Beck, this is your thinking of those times - exactly as you said then)
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 53 New
      +2
      And it would not have come if not for the miscalculations of the German command in France. By the way, for reference, in RTS in multiplayer this is also quite common, although units and the same battle can happen very differently. So one should speak about “modern warfare” very carefully, it can take completely different forms, for example, one can expect positioning after mutual heavy losses in aviation and tanks.
  • Selevc
    Selevc 6 May 2013 13: 39 New
    +1
    Modern wars are also very different - both wars in the Gulf were relatively fleeting - since there was a clear imbalance of forces ... the US and NATO love to fight with overwhelming superiority over the enemy ... But the conflict in Syria dragged on because the conflicting parties have already comparable forces and a clear winner will not be visible for a long time ...
    The USA, Israel and the West as a whole are afraid of military conflicts with a long active phase - as this guarantees a large flow of coffins to the aggressor country !!! The Ghost of Vietnam is still alive !!!
    Therefore, in the case of North Korea and Iran, we do not see real blows - only intimidation, political howl and economic pressure ...
  • Santa Fe
    6 May 2013 14: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Beck
    Let F-22 and F-35 roads, like PakFa. And let them remain by the end of the month of hostilities, but the task will be completed

    US Air Force pilots will beat you for such reasoning)))

    For comparison - the loss of US aviation in Vietnam (Air Force, Navy, ILC) ~ 3000 aircraft and 5000 turntables
    That way no F-35 will be enough, especially Reptors, of which 180 pieces are all

    Secondly, recently the amers have become accustomed to single losses - instead of walking through the air defense systems and enemy fighter barriers, asymmetric responses are used (economic embargo to maximize attenuation of victims, SLCM, HARM, etc., etc.)
    1. Beck
      Beck 6 May 2013 15: 14 New
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      US Air Force pilots will beat you for such reasoning)))


      Well, that is their business. And if one on one, you will need to see who beat whom.

      The Vietnam War for the USA, as it were, is “half-war”. Jungle, partisan movement fueled by the North. Air raids. And of course the loss. My opinion. If the United States fought a full-scale war with Vietnam, including North Vietnam. They would occupy all of Vietnam in a month or two. The Communists of the North would have gone into the jungle, and Soviet fighters and R-75 anti-aircraft missiles could not be put there. The war would go over to guerrilla action, how long is another matter. But the amers did not go to a full-scale war with the North. Then China and possibly the USSR could be involved. And this is a threat to nuclear proliferation.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 6 May 2013 15: 23 New
        +1
        But the amers did not go to a full-scale war with the North.

        the game was not worth the candle
        This war shows what happens when the isolation of the theater of war is impossible. In fact, the rear of Vietnam was safe
        Amer is not stupid, and now they are trying by hook or by crook to isolate the theater.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 54 New
      0
      Che, right? There was a book somewhere ...
  • Klim
    Klim 6 May 2013 18: 58 New
    +1
    This is your thinking on the experience of 2 MV. Today's conflicts, even major ones, will not last for 3-4 years. The whole strategy is designed for speed.
    Before 2MB, the same thing was said about the timing.
  • Watchman
    Watchman 6 May 2013 07: 44 New
    0
    We’ll also see what will happen to the F-35, because they must replace the F-16 workhorses.
  • Rus86
    Rus86 6 May 2013 07: 48 New
    +2
    different points of view must be considered.
    not the fact that they will be correct, but it's worth considering.
    but there was an article, the idea was that where we copied (technologies, ideas), were in parity, but where we went our own way, we were always ahead.
  • Canep
    Canep 6 May 2013 07: 56 New
    +1
    Crawling through C-300 is pure suicide. And no "Raptor" is not a panacea here - the US Air Force pilots will refuse to sit in the cockpit, but the one who ordered the breakthrough of enemy air defenses with the help of "Raptors" is awaiting a tribunal.

    I agree with the author 100%. Here constantly appear comments about the invincibility of the F-22, and that it is almost completely invisible, and that the C-300 will not see it, etc. And also that we are hopelessly behind the Americans in creating the 5th generation fighter. Despite the fact that the Americans themselves did not bother to test it in combat conditions, at least in the same Afghanistan controlled. Is it worth repeating the moves of the Americans?
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 6 May 2013 11: 06 New
      +6
      Quote: Canep
      at least in the same controlled Afghanistan


      Seryozha, why the hell is he there? The Taliban don’t fly anything, there is no radar station, everything is destroyed at the airfields, let’s fly over Iran and we’ll take a look
      1. Canep
        Canep 6 May 2013 13: 21 New
        0
        But at least see if he can shoot or not?
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 6 May 2013 11: 08 New
      +6
      No one ever claimed that the Raptor is invisible to ground-based air defense systems, you can see it, but the distance at which you can see it will be much less than if it were a valid F-15E. In addition, you need to understand that the United States once received the S-300 and had the opportunity to practice how to overcome it, in addition, the US Air Force has experience in training air battles with the MiG-29 and Su-30, they know the capabilities of airborne radars, etc. Our pilots do not know anything about the F-35, nor about the F-22. This refers to strengths / weaknesses, EPR data, etc.
    3. ed65b
      ed65b 6 May 2013 12: 07 New
      +4
      And with whom was he to fight in Afghanistan? With kites? All these raptors and lightings are demonstrators of military power and technology. That's all. Yes, and it’s a pity probably to send such a scumbag to the war, and so it’s like walking around to admire, they say what are we highly developed ah? - I'll try to catch up. The arms race, as always, is simply at a higher technological level. The Union didn’t fall apart for a long time and the 5th generation had some kind of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and probably in space that the thread was barging for fear of enemies, but for now it’s only zenith with Gazprom and Abromovich with Chelsea and Vekselberg, it erases money in Skolkovo and Ryzhiy tolan him in Nano helps. It is hard to get up when weights and on the legs and ticks bleed.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 6 May 2013 14: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: ed65b
        and surely in space that the thread barged in fear of enemies,


        It was Soviet scientists who stopped the arms race in space by proposing to place several buckets with bolts into orbit - one explosion and space shrapnel around the earth will stop all this commerce with navigation, meteorology and other crap
        1. ed65b
          ed65b 6 May 2013 16: 34 New
          0
          Yes, and the sand in the orbit of the mirror of the lasers sniff.
    4. Pimply
      Pimply 6 May 2013 12: 11 New
      0
      Raptor is a means of air superiority. What kind of Afghanistan if it is a fighter? Who to catch in the air?
      1. Santa Fe
        6 May 2013 14: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        Raptor is a means of air superiority. What kind of Afghanistan if it is a fighter? Who to catch in the air?


        The first is F-15E is regularly used in Afghanistan
        A sighting container is hooked onto the suspension and used as bombers

        Really F-22 is afraid to get dirty pens))) Take more - throw further!
        Sorry to use the aircraft for 300 million as a dumb bomb carrier? Hehe
        Yes, according to the versatility of the machine, the "fourth generation" is plugged into the belt of any "raptor" - unlike him, they are suitable for any type of conflict.

        ps / in real aerial combat (surprise factor, group combat, support for EW and AWACS aircraft) f-22 is unlikely to be more effective than the proven F-15 of any modification, or, say, Su-35
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 6 May 2013 14: 50 New
          +4
          Oleg, you need to remember when the Raptor was created, the seal of the Cold War rests on it with a heavy burden. He is like a supercar in the garage of a rich man, insanely expensive, it is prestigious to appear on it in society, but most of the time he is in the garage, because for everyday life there are cars simpler and cheaper. Why did we enter the race for the 5th generation without the entire range of air support? On the one hand, it’s silly and impractical, on the other hand, the brains of designers should work ...
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 6 May 2013 14: 59 New
            +1
            On the one hand, it’s silly and impractical, on the other hand, the brains of designers should work ...

            but the fact that unlike the F-22 PAK FA is a prototype for a series of machines.
        2. Odysseus
          Odysseus 7 May 2013 16: 52 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          First - F-15E is regularly used in Afghanistan

          You mix flies with cutlets. The F-15E specializes in percussion tasks. The F-22 is a clean fighter.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          ps / in real aerial combat (surprise factor, group combat, support for EW and AWACS aircraft) f-22 is unlikely to be more effective than the proven F-15 of any modification, or, say, Su-35

          Americans constantly train like that. Of course, F-15 has no chance. I'd better say nothing about the chances of Su-35 ...
          1. Santa Fe
            7 May 2013 17: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Odyssey
            F-15 specializes in strike missions. F-22 is a pure fighter.

            F-15E is the most advanced man-made aircraft ever. Powerful, versatile and efficient.

            Installation possible, including: 8 UR class air-to-air AIM-7 Sparrow (AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Piton-4)
            Quote: Odyssey
            Americans constantly train like that. Of course, F-15 has no chance. I'd better say nothing about the chances of Su-35 ...

            one on one? I do not argue

            but what would be the result in real aerial combat - quantitative superiority (nevertheless, instead of the 1 raptor, you can build the 2 Needle)))
            + external target designation
            + EW tools
            + special techniques (bait, ambush)

            Why such a bad opinion about the Su-35? (we will accept equal training for pilots)

            In the end, there is another simple, relatively cheap and effective solution: F-15SE
  • kot11180
    kot11180 6 May 2013 08: 14 New
    +1
    one way or another, but we need to make a 5th generation airplane, otherwise in 5-10 years there will be a huge lag behind the West in technology and the level of technology, and now we have a su-35
  • mojohed
    mojohed 6 May 2013 08: 52 New
    -1
    About tankers, and most importantly, the author of the article correctly noted their number. About reconnaissance and target designation aircraft, too, but one must also understand that if these planes are shot down, the f-22 and f-35 will also lose any advantages over the su-35, for example.
    Super-speed and super-maneuverability can also help a pilot, for example, a pak-fa (t-50) in front of a troika or two of f-16 or f-15 going to it, whose flight characteristics are slightly worse. In my opinion, it is necessary to develop not separate directions (PAK-Fa, PAK-DA strike complex), but the concept of the formation of military aviation as a whole. Identify priority goals in the event of a war, work out maneuvers, electronic warfare and anti-aircraft warfare systems.
    We conceived correctly with tanks - they create a platform, and modules are already installed on it.
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 6 May 2013 09: 31 New
      +2
      The concept of wars has changed over the years, and Kalashnikov is still reliable and efficient.
      This is what I need: it is necessary to create weapons that dictate the rules of war or are equally effective in various scenarios, and not invent rules and create weapons for them.
      The creation of a narrowly targeted and therefore not suitable weapon is the way of the USA and we do not need this way because we do not have a pocket printing press and we cannot use projections for 5 years such as stealth 117 and blackbirds. We are able to create simpler and more effective weapons, which nullifies all the efforts of the enemies. And so it was the whole recent history.
      The main thing is that we have enough of these weapons, and not as it is now, and this is exactly the main problem of Russia regarding weapons.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 6 May 2013 08: 53 New
    +2
    Actually a question about what article?
    About a suitable tactical aviation with amers?
    So it is and so is known to all. And we have an unattainable level of integrated air defense for which these HARMs mean little. And they will not be able to reboot the system.
    Threat A F-22 is a very suitable high-altitude interceptor who would not say anything.
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 6 May 2013 09: 35 New
      0
      God forbid, do not check in practice which is more effective, a shield or a sword :)
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 6 May 2013 11: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: leon-iv
      And we have an unattainable level of integrated air defense for them


      You mean the Shell in the complex with the S-300? God forbid that it be so, otherwise you can overcome the 8 km of the affected zone HARM yourself in seconds


      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 6 May 2013 14: 20 New
        +1
        You mean the Shell in the complex with the S-300? God forbid that it be so, otherwise you can overcome the 8 km of the affected zone HARM yourself in seconds

        AAA my Moscow, and here the shell, I mean the strapping of the air defense of the air forces, air defense of the country the air force.
        All this is echeloned and covered by the SBN where necessary. And then we like to pickle 100500 tomahawks and raptors and one s-300 in the middle of the field.
  • Nitup
    Nitup 6 May 2013 08: 57 New
    +6
    F-22 probably wasn’t used because the United States simply didn’t fight against countries with a powerful echelon air defense system and with its 5 generation aircraft
    1. Santa Fe
      6 May 2013 14: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Nitup
      F-22 probably wasn’t used because the United States simply didn’t fight against countries with a powerful echelon air defense system and with its 5 generation aircraft


      But F-15E fighters are constantly used
      The “Eagle” hooks the LANTIRN container to the belly, takes tons of bombs under the wing of the 4 - and another Iraq or Afghanistan flies

      It only says that that f-22 is a narrowly professional machine - interceptor fighter. Unlike F-15 and F-16, which are suitable for all types of conflicts. At the same time, in real aerial combat (using AWACS and EW) - f-22 is unlikely to be more effective than the proven killer F-15 (modification of F-15SE).
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 6 May 2013 15: 00 New
        +1
        F-15SE

        IMHO is one of the best western cars. Thank God they don’t buy it
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 7 May 2013 16: 47 New
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          IMHO is one of the best western cars. Thank God they don’t buy it

          Americans better know which planes they need smile
          Why do they need obsolete F-15?
          1. Santa Fe
            7 May 2013 17: 52 New
            0
            Quote: Odyssey
            Why do they need obsolete F-15?

            why do they need the obsolete Super Hornets and Silent Hornets?))

            Boeing’s vice president Vivek Lall announced that two F / A-2011 fighters will be presented at the Aero India 18 exhibition, which will start its work on the basis of the Elahank Air Force (Bangalore) the other day.

            One of these aircraft, which also has the Silent Hornet designation, is equipped with conformal fuel tanks, advanced engines, an SM / LW multi-angle laser missile warning system (spherical missile laser warning), an internal weapons compartment, and a new cabin with an integrated infrared station.

            This fighter is touted as the new generation of Super Hornet, which will have enhanced combat survivability, situational awareness and effectiveness.


            US thematic media call this JSF-killer wink
  • Azaat
    Azaat 6 May 2013 09: 01 New
    +1
    The ugly humps on the back of the F-16 are conformal fuel tanks that turn the aircraft into a strategic bomber.
    Honestly, I don’t remember at what air show, when correspondents turned to the developers, why their plane doesn’t fly, it turned out that both the humps are plastic and the plane seems to be not the same. Fiction all these tanks because either the speed will be wrong, or the plane is not the same. Then it’s better to develop supersonic bombers that the SGA does not have.
    1. OTAKE
      OTAKE 6 May 2013 10: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: Azaat
      The ugly humps on the back of the F-16 are conformal fuel tanks that turn the aircraft into a strategic bomber.
      Honestly, I don’t remember at what air show, when correspondents turned to the developers, why their plane doesn’t fly, it turned out that both the humps are plastic and the plane seems to be not the same. Fiction all these tanks because either the speed will be wrong, or the plane is not the same. Then it’s better to develop supersonic bombers that the SGA does not have.

      Of course fiction .. not flying
      1. Rider
        Rider 6 May 2013 12: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: OTAKE
        Of course fiction .. not flying


        surprised that this was not written by a "professor"

        he is always on guard ... uh allies.

        wink
        1. OTAKE
          OTAKE 7 May 2013 06: 58 New
          -1
          surprised that this was not written by a "professor"

          I am for him. :)
          he is always on guard ... uh allies.

          What does the "interests", "allies" have to do with it .. Just brought the fact that the plane is very good, even excellent, and quite worthy of fulfilling its tasks
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 6 May 2013 09: 10 New
    +2
    The article is suggestive. I would like more information on this topic.
  • avt
    avt 6 May 2013 10: 05 New
    +1
    People mixed up in a heap ... The author, in my opinion, has not decided what he will write about, about the Amer fighter and his opponents, or about the aviation system as a whole with all its components request In general, it’s his right to name the material, in my opinion it turned out a little messy and the heading does not match, well this is my personal opinion. It’s one thing that pleases - we will not drown carrier-based aircraft and aircraft carriers today. laughing
  • lazy
    lazy 6 May 2013 10: 29 New
    +2
    there is a saying “the king plays the suite”, and as I understand it, the article says that with the “suite” it’s a bit shaky, but as the saying goes, “one is not a warrior in the field”, and no matter what kind of child prodigy the plane is, we need fuel refills and airborne reconnaissance aircraft and reb aircraft, but here we have problems. not all of this will be enough.
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 6 May 2013 11: 01 New
      +4
      Quote: lazy
      with the "retinue" we somehow hirovato
      after reading there was an unpleasant "sediment" all the same how far the Americans went from us .. only 500 tankers

      To date, the US Air Force has a dozen and a half dozen E-8 "G Stars".

      I wonder if we have something similar?
      PS.
      I hope we have a worthy answer to the thousands of "charms" and not only in the form of inflatable troops.
      The special pride of our developers is the life-size S-300 inflatable anti-aircraft missile system. Everything, as in the present, is an installation of four containers with missiles, a tractor transporting them, a control station on a Ural car, a radar, and a diesel power station. And even on the windows of cars - a special reflective film that simulates glass. A modern inflatable rocket launcher layout is made of lightweight fabric with special properties. On a Bologna basis, experts applied a layer of material that conducts electric current. As a result, the “XNUMX” made of metallized fabric became indistinguishable from a real combat vehicle for reconnaissance radar.

      http://www.polymerbranch.com/phorum/viewtopic.html&f=8&t=980&archive=1&page=5
      1. Rider
        Rider 6 May 2013 12: 32 New
        +1

        for

        lazy

        Scoun


        relax guys, all these tankers and AWACS aircraft are designed for war somewhere far away (COLONIAL WARS).
        since Russia is not going to conduct long-range military expeditions, there is not so much need for them.
        Well, if only our strategists "around the corner" refuel, and cover.

        and so with all of the stated tasks, ground-based infrastructure handles.
        read how many ground-based radars in Russia recently put into operation.
  • nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 6 May 2013 11: 15 New
    +1
    Lazy is right. They have it all designed, manufactured and flies.
  • nok01
    nok01 6 May 2013 11: 21 New
    +6
    But the Amers have 187, and Russia has 2-3 experienced T-50s and several dozen Su-35s, that’s all the math .. And it’s understandable that these planes were not created to fight the Arabs!
    1. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 6 May 2013 15: 54 New
      -3
      The supersonic T-50 can hammer with long- and medium-range missiles, but fu-22-no. And this is official information. Yes, in general, I, fu-22, for the 5th generation I do not accept.
      1. Reasonable, 2,3
        Reasonable, 2,3 7 May 2013 01: 56 New
        0
        The official report of “Sukhov”, I did not understand, what I do not like ?.
  • Reasonable, 2,3
    Reasonable, 2,3 6 May 2013 11: 28 New
    +3
    The article is directed against the t-50. We don’t need a 5th generation aircraft. Yes, generally technical progress. We still need to upgrade the donkey and that's all right. Idiocy.
  • unclevad
    unclevad 6 May 2013 11: 34 New
    +9
    All our backlog is in the absence of our own modern electronics. Without the element base it is impossible to create a full-fledged modern AWACS system, I'm not talking about Joint STARS. Ours recently upgraded one A-50, so noise all over the world. A A-100 will be delivered only from 2016. Now in Russia, various industries are opening, only the element base and processors are coming from abroad. Where do we buy LCD matrices? We install French-style thermal imagers on tanks, I think this is not the first freshness of development. At MELZ I saw components of domestic thermal imagers piled in a heap as unnecessary. Now there is a business center. Our nanotechnology and the glamorous scientific center Skolkovo, managed by chubais of various kinds, are known only for inspections and financial scandals. This is bitter. It's time to equate all this to treason! Otherwise, in the confrontation with the "democratizers" we will not have to simply.
    Sorry, not quite in the topic, it’s painful.
  • Ducksar
    Ducksar 6 May 2013 11: 49 New
    +5
    The idea of ​​the article is understandable (and you can even agree that the lag is very serious), although it is presented spontaneously. As for 500 refuellers, everything is clear, the whole essence and policy of the United States is offensive wars, 800 bases around the world (part of it is an air base), and each one has a certain number of refuellers, to create a network, so to speak, of a non-stop flight for combat aircraft. Our strategy, and the mentality itself, has always been different, the opposite emanating from defensive actions. Therefore, there is no need for refuellers as such (although the size of the country is obligatory), as opposed to this, there were 250 military airfields throughout the country (which almost all became extinct), located and built to cover the entire territory with a blanket. I looked at a lot of satellite images, at the once alive and working airfields, they were even built original, take-off and tracks suitable for it, which in turn have branches for each aircraft .. so the area of ​​the equipment is larger and it’s more difficult to hit it. And now, they want to leave 27 and put all the cars in a row - it's sad.

    And as for the AWAC, everything is correct, it is necessary to increase and improve.
    1. Rider
      Rider 6 May 2013 12: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: DucksWar
      And now what, they want to leave 27 and put all the cars in a row


      something it reminds me of ...

      не 22.06.41
      at exactly four o’clock

      ?
      1. Ducksar
        Ducksar 6 May 2013 13: 39 New
        +1
        I hope this does not happen. Enough of such surprises to my homeland.
  • Vanaik
    Vanaik 6 May 2013 11: 59 New
    +1
    I think the author of the article does not very well imagine the main idea of ​​a 5th generation fighter. In my opinion, the main idea of ​​such a machine is the ability to carry out tasks for quite some time while being in conditions of partial or complete autonomy. And if it’s more accurate then to act without the use of reconnaissance aircraft, UAVs, and long-range radar detection aircraft, that is, to perform specific tasks completely from defining a target to its recognition and complete or partial defeat. Of course, if you use even the most modern SU-35 with various systems that are wearable on an external sling, you can achieve such results, but from here there is such a minus as a decrease in the flight characteristics of the machine itself and, as a consequence, a decrease in its efficiency.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 May 2013 13: 57 New
      -2
      Quote: Vanaik
      operate without the use of reconnaissance aircraft, UAVs, and early warning aircraft

      Opt-out of Sentry E-3?

      First of all, it's crazy - no Reptor radar can be compared with the 9-meter radar of an AWACS aircraft

      Secondly, why do this? Amer have no shortage of aircraft AWACS - one "Sentry" 32 pieces + 11 squadrons of naval E-2 "Hawkai"
      Quote: Vanaik
      the main idea of ​​such a machine is the ability to carry out tasks for quite some time while being in partial or complete autonomy

      Where is he, darling, going away))
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 6 May 2013 17: 05 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Where is he, darling, going away))

        Americans now have the biggest headache: cyber espionage and cyber terrorism. The Chinese got it. Some American leaders say that the F-22s are not taking part in the hostilities because the Chinese stole the Raptor codes.
        1. Reasonable, 2,3
          Reasonable, 2,3 7 May 2013 01: 51 New
          0
          This is a grub. He said well.
        2. old man54
          old man54 9 May 2013 22: 54 New
          0
          details, please?:)
  • fatty
    fatty 6 May 2013 12: 11 New
    0
    and to neutralize tankers and aircraft, the drill is armed with the r-37, and the ks-172 is tested.
  • Nevsky
    Nevsky 6 May 2013 12: 15 New
    +4
    After the article, you get the feeling of wrapping yourself in a blanket and crawling into the cemetery ...

    For the author:

    1. The comment was deleted.
  • maksuta
    maksuta 6 May 2013 12: 31 New
    +2
    we sing loudly: the armor is strong and the tanks (T-50, SU-35, SU-34) are our fast ... Calm down. In AI, too, no suckers live. maybe we are specially embroiled in tales of defective raptors, srapters, and we are glad to praise ourselves.
  • scliss
    scliss 6 May 2013 13: 11 New
    +4
    1) As soon as the amers use their 200 F-22s in real hostilities, their true performance characteristics, which are classified, will be revealed. Russia and China will immediately work out counteraction tactics.
    2) Using F-22 is expensive.
    For these two reasons, amers do not give their advantage to universal study. Why trump a six when you can cover an ace?
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 40 New
    0
    Yes, the air defense really does fall in mass, but simply mass launches of missiles, which, by the way, are not numerous, will greatly increase the number of frags of various kinds of "Tungusks" covering the S-300, and even count on launching out of reach of the air defense system, at least naively. The air defense systems are almost unlimited in missile weight, unlike the aircraft, there is nothing to oppose the airplane with the promised 400 km range at the S-400.

    By itself, the author greatly exaggerates the capabilities of guided weapons; laser smoke will not help through smoke, and no one has canceled the clouds.

    The irony about endless ammunition is completely incomprehensible. If some lousy F-16 is carrying a 500 kg container with equipment, and even a couple of tons of fuel, then how much of it has an allowable load on ammunition? Plus the aerodynamics are spoiled. The F-15E is a more serious unit, and it almost does not fly without hanging tanks, i.e., the F-15E’s ability to deliver a bomb load is at least 2 times lower than that of the Su-34, which will carry exactly up to 8-10 tons. "just the pylons", namely the combat load. Moreover, it will carry it at a low altitude, and for this purpose it also reduces some shaking armor and PGO. Apparently we were fools, what the Su-27 did, and the Indians and the Chinese are such fools that they buy it and even try to produce it in their own various modifications. And they also acquire aircraft carriers and do not know that Oleg Kaptsov has declared aircraft carriers targets.

    Unfortunately, people here do not always understand how to interpret global trends. The mass character of fighter-bombers is mainly related to their cheapness and the ability to at least somehow fill all the niches in small air forces. In the serious Air Force, no one will hang a container on the Su-35 for attacking ground targets, and this equipment will just be placed inside special aircraft. And not the fact that it is more expensive, compared to a top-class fighter, the container is inexpensive. But it will be expensive to produce equipment based on the assumption that for each aircraft a set for air combat, a kit for attacking ground targets, a kit for something else there. And also to teach pilots everything right away. Oh well. For Su-34 class machines, it is much easier to put all the necessary equipment into the car without spoiling the aerodynamics and in the event of military operations, operate not with airplanes, but with bombing and fighter squadrons. The trick is that such squadrons can even be built on the same materiel, especially if you really have everything you need on containers, but prepare it in different ways. And the pilot standing in the F-16 air defense may not know anything about LANTRIN.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 6 May 2013 16: 41 New
    +1
    about tankers, tankers in the USA solve tactical tasks in conditions when it is difficult to get the planes closer, but I somehow can’t imagine how a massive tanker fleet can help us. Firstly, in the event of war, our task will be to destroy the enemy Air Force, which will have to be solved in its airspace, or on the approaches, in general, not rushing about for a couple of thousand kilometers, of which one and a half thousand above the sea. And for this, tankers are not needed, a tanker can only help in a completely safe airspace. Someone might say that tankers are needed to deploy fighter jets, well, as long as the enemy builds forces somewhere in Poland or in Turkey, you can safely overtake the “dryers” from somewhere in Kamchatka, with a couple of landings, and at each airport pilots will be waiting for hot food, warm beds, toilets torn to shine and a warehouse with a couple of thousand tons of fuel. In the meantime, they fly to the airfields with which they will work, you may have to throw rockets from the rear. What is easier, to build fifty fueling stations, or a couple of dozens of airfields with an untouchable fuel supply in case of airlift? VTA and tankers have generally no special tasks for operational displacements of large forces. So our clients for air filling stations are only strategists and anti-submariners.

    Regarding invisibility, the less you shine, the closer you need to come to attack and the easier it is to break the grip. Regarding the implementation of stealth technologies on 4th-generation machines, it is possible and necessary to implement, but you can’t hide weapons or various reflectors on them.

    Cruising supersonic is useful when intercepting, existing aircraft are not capable of flying for a long time afterburning.
    1. mazdie
      mazdie 7 May 2013 00: 09 New
      0
      good drinks soldier soldier soldier soldier
      Totally agree!
  • postman
    postman 6 May 2013 16: 59 New
    0
    Herr Oleg Kaptsov finally decided to "get down" from the theme of the Falklands and aircraft carriers, and to upgrade .. good
    I will allow myself a series of caustic remarks (by its stupid nature)
    Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov


    Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
    Not a single aircraft in aviation history has been presented with such fanfare as the formidable Reptor fighter.

    straight remake with tape (s) ru from 19:19, August 31, 2011 "Dear and useless". Cried

    B-2 Spirit?
    well or Consolidated B-24 Liberator
    or B-52 ????

    You come simply from TODAY's value of the dollar. F-35 way more critical comes out

    Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
    the military spent $ 60 billion to create an aircraft for which there are no suitable tasks!

    Spent not military, military only issued TTZ.
    No one imagined that the USSR would fall apart and our air forces would degrade so quickly.
    A flywheel launched (jobs, voices, profits)
    Note: for F-117 they found (Panama), they will find for him a bent F-22
    Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
    A simple survey should be asked here: What did you expect? Twelve guidance channels. Six speeds of sound. The mass of the warhead is 150 kg.


    While all this is a theory, there is no combat use of the S-300, as is the F-22.

    Read the S-200, how they worked out the opposition of SR-71, HARM and others like them.
    Something is not heard, similar works on f-22 are not visible, some advertising statements.
    Igor Raufovich here, for example, on TV (on a program from Kaptsov, uh, that is, from Solovyov) AN OPEN AND PUBLICLY stated that he would have shot down a Chelyabinsk meteorite, had it been on the S-400 highway. Here is a clown.
    Everyone "ate," said Ku.
    I just couldn’t get through, I wanted to find out everything with what he was going to detect, accompany, issue the target on purpose at a speed of 42km / s, well, essno, how to intercept (C-9000 probably?)?
    Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
    in a salvo of HARM anti-radar missiles aimed at radio sources. Rockets are launched by ballistic trajectories

    you are not good at HARM AGM-88, and in a ballistic trajectory then.
    It's cool to see how an air-based missile will be launched along a ballistic trajectory
    1. postman
      postman 6 May 2013 17: 04 New
      0
      № 2
      Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
      while the carrier aircraft themselves remain outside the range of the air defense system

      Well, you must first know where let it go (at least azimuthally at 5 degrees),
      as well as the maximum launch range of 100 +/- 4 km.A SAME S-400?
      Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
      Dumb-headed Harmas will kill all microwave ovens and radio transmitters in the area,

      legends and superstitions for preschool children. Send you a diary of a Yugoslav air defense officer?
      Power microwave, transmitter .... and radar.
      Do not flatter yourself, otherwise mobile phones will kill everything
      Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
      Сasks: Guys, what else do you need? Immortality and endless ammo?


      Progress is this. Remember, at first it was:
      "Well, why? Why don't people fly like birds?"
      / I hope for your erudition - I do not quote the source. OR?

      Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
      it becomes obvious - they are literally “taken from the ceiling”.

      That asked generalsthen got, with technological limitations essno (Death Star)
      1. Santa Fe
        6 May 2013 18: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Postman
        Well, you first need to know where to let go (at least azimuthally in 5 degrees),

        These are the targets of satellites, UAVs and RT reconnaissance aircraft (RC-135 Rivit Joint, EP-3 Aries, etc.)
        Quote: Postman
        as well as the maximum launch range 100 +/- 4 km. And what about the S-400?

        but what about the radio horizon?
        Quote: Postman
        legends and superstitions for preschool children

        even adult uncles believe in them
        once in Afghanistan, I’d turn off my cell phone. like a microwave.
        figs knows him - remember the story with long-distance space communication systems (23 W transmitter at a distance of 18 billion km)
        Quote: Postman
        Progress is this.

        Quote: Postman
        What did the generals ask

        Quote: ziqzaq
        A real generational change will occur when new materials with phenomenal properties are discovered (invented), or new physical principles can significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft
        1. postman
          postman 6 May 2013 19: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          but what about the radio horizon?

          All the same. In Euclidean space, without it, NEVER ... recourse
          I wrote.
          To see and give TSU. Different things.
          64N6 type all-round radar for detecting targets
          OJSC Scientific Research Institute of Measuring Instruments
          Russia, 630099,
          Novosibirsk, st. Gorky, 78
          Тел. (383-2) 18-21-57, 23-16-75
          Факс (383-2) 18-09-61
          Email: [email protected]


          SAM S-400 "Triumph":
          Target detection range reaches 600 km. The firing range of the S-400 reaches 400 km at altitudes of up to 30 km and about 60 km with the defeat of ballistic targets of medium and short range. Unlike foreign competitors, it is capable of hitting aerodynamic targets moving at low altitudes, up to 5 meters.
          REALLY FINAL (RLO 64N6E):
          Detection range of aerodynamic targets of the MiG-21 type, km 260

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          once in Afghanistan, I’d turn off my cell phone. like a microwave.

          It must be turned off, the current falling under the distribution from the Chekists, and so ... in Afghanistan, there is even a donkey with a donut, or ri source.
          SAR level of mobile phones
          The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Canada’s Department of Industry (IC), and regulatory agencies in several other countries have adopted a SAR rating of 1,6 W / kg based on 1 g of body tissue. In the countries of the European Union, a SAR norm of 2 W / kg for 10 g of tissue has been adopted.

          Well now, and estimate this power and who will be able to detect it (for 100 km, and even with a carrier flying 700 km / h, HZ at what altitude and AVAILABLE .... well, there is a rotor and a stator, and moreover). Well and a microwave.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          (23 W transmitter at a distance of 18 billion km)

          Yes, this is a masterpiece. There is even better ():
          [img] https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_saZYxaQy6c/UYfHVvfKMoI/AAAAAAAAAME/M7Al

          YiS-hJ4 / w1052-h342 / Snapshot stupid.JPG [/ img]

          nothing is molded:
          http://topwar.ru/27589-ssha-uspeshno-ispytali-giperzvukovuyu-raketu.html#comment
          -id-1129136


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: ziqzaq
          A real generational change will occur when new materials with phenomenal properties are discovered (invented), or new physical principles can significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft

          Well, not quite like that.
          "M / y 1st and 2nd breaker is small," we look at the history of XX, XXI, how many generations of aircraft? Have you invented something new?
          Regarding generations ... the Athena project?
          Do not need any mothers with phenomenal properties .....
          1. Santa Fe
            6 May 2013 21: 09 New
            -1
            Quote: Postman
            Detection range of aerodynamic targets of the MiG-21 type, km 260

            at what height should the MiG be?
            Quote: Postman
            Well now, and estimate the power of this and who will be able to detect it (for 100 then km, and even from a carrier flying km / h 700 so, HZ at what altitude

            and if the missile is in homing. with 5 kilometers.

            The death of Dudaveva - EMNIP rocket was aimed at the satellite phone channel
            Quote: Postman
            (23 W transmitter at a distance of 18 billion km)
            Yes it is a masterpiece. There is even better

            do you doubt
            Quote: Postman
            http://topwar.ru/27589-ssha-uspeshno-ispytali-giperzvukovuyu-raketu.html#comment


            -id-1129136

            2800m / s = 8.19Max
            Quickly for a briefcase and to school, to the preparatory class

            In my opinion, everything is correct (we won’t start to rely on 0.01)
            Quote: Postman
            We look at the history of XX, XXI, how many generations of aircraft? Have you invented something new?


            1 generation of jet engines (MiG-15) - invented (brought to a sane state) turbojet engine, swept wing

            2 jet engine coating (MiG-21) - microelectronics, compact radar, air-to-air air defense

            The 3 generation is the same fiction as the fifth (it simply did not exist - the MiG-23 belonged to the 2 + generation, in the USA 4 immediately came)

            4 generation (F-15 Cy-27) - unique aerodynamics, radars with headlamps, new engine technologies (heat-resistant materials, high level of technological performance). Link 16. precision weapons

            Each generation was radically different from each other in terms of performance characteristics (speed, range, maneuverability), weapons and detection systems.
            But the main thing - there was a real NEED in generational change (results of battles - life is the best teacher)
            1. postman
              postman 6 May 2013 22: 31 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              at what height should the MiG be?

              I think everything is 10
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              and if the missile is in homing. with 5 kilometers.

              no, even if there are 100 phones
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The death of Dudaveva - EMNIP rocket was aimed at the satellite phone channel

              did you compare your finger ...
              Thuraya SG 2520 Operating frequencies: for reception -1525-1559 MHz, for transmission -1626,5-1660,5 MHz, Peak power at the edge of the service area - 2 W (33 dBm)
              a) the more so they knew about where he was
              b) went through the incoming channel, not the outgoing
              d) And FIG IT KNOWS whether it was at all and HOW. Do not believe Koretsky, a jerk and a fellow countryman
              ==
              Mobile 0,01-0,5 W
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              do you doubt

              in masterpieces or 23 watts per 18 million km?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              In my opinion, everything is correct (we won’t start to rely on 0.01)

              Here I am blind deer (also seen after the holidays), for some reason I counted km / s ...
              I WILL GO SORRY
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Each generation was radically different from each other in terms of performance characteristics (speed, range, maneuverability), weapons and detection systems.

              What did I deny?
              The thought was: cardinal changes in materials science and chemistry-WAS NOT.
              I answered
              Quote: ziqzaq
              Real generational change will happen when will be open(invented) or new materials with phenomenal properties, or new physical principles allowing to significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft.
              There were shifts - YES
              New physical principles were “discovered” - no
              1. Santa Fe
                7 May 2013 00: 41 New
                0
                Quote: Postman
                I think everything is 10

                Well, what is the argument about?
                aviation can ignore the “300”, “400”, “500” indices and do whatever it wants (the main thing is not to become impudent and not to protrude to great heights)
                Quote: Postman
                23 TU at 18 000 000 000km?

                me honestly surprised by such things
                Drive 17000 years on a car at a speed of 100 km / h (non-stop), then look back and try to see the light of the refrigerator lamp at the beginning of the journey.
                Quote: Postman
                The thought was: cardinal changes in materials science and chemistry-WAS NOT.

                were
                heat resistant alloys, composites, microelectronics and radio engineering. new aerodynamic schemes (static instability, etc.), the development of engine building. new design methods, welding, gluing, - the evolution of the entire technological cycle
                everything is squeezed out of existing technologies - ahead of NANO and new physical. principles (joke) - but, in any case, the fifth generation fighter should have more differences.

                so that an attempt to fight 4 with 5 was a guaranteed victory for 5. The same as if the F-15 wants to fight the MiG-21.
                1. postman
                  postman 7 May 2013 13: 19 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Well, what is the argument about?

                  Radiolocation by a radio horizon is not limited in the general case.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  were

                  Is not :
                  Quote: ziqzaq
                  A real generational change will occur when either new materials with phenomenal properties are discovered (invented), or new physical principles can significantly improve the performance characteristics of the aircraft.

                  Yes, and do not belong to the epoch-making (everything was practically known at the end of XIX).
                  in the 20th century, except that semiconductors and nuclear energy.
                  About what you write is empiricism / Erfahrungszahl, Erfährungsbeiwert, Probekoeffizient
                  An example for you: AvtoVAZ knows: glue, welding, chemistry, materials science, composites = LET CREATE ICE, like Mercedes, or at least like Kia.

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  so that an attempt to fight the 4th with the 5th is a guaranteed victory of the 5th

                  So far, there are only "authoritative" opinions that 4 ++ will easily overwhelm 5.
                  That's when there will really be a collision, then we'll see.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 7 May 2013 13: 30 New
          0
          but what about the radio horizon?


          At an altitude of several kilometers? The plane there will shine like a Christmas tree, so that the shock machines are doomed to fly at low altitude gardens.
    2. Santa Fe
      6 May 2013 17: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Postman
      straight remake with tape (s) ru from 19: 19, 31 August 2011 "Dear and useless." Cried

      read it. but completely different ideas come up there - "a fighter to gain air superiority in the near future will not be required"

      may be required. Aiming containers are dismantled from the F-15E pendants - and they will receive an interceptor that is in no way inferior to the F-22
      Quote: Postman
      well or Consolidated B-24 Liberator
      or B-52 ????

      what do these? nobody ever doubted their necessity.
      and the planes, to be honest, turned out great - the B-52 has been serving for half a century, and it’s not going to resign
      B-24 was assembled at Willow Run - 1 aircraft per hour, 18 000 heavy four-engine vehicles over the years of WWII
      Quote: Postman
      what was he going to detect, accompany, issue the target on target at a speed of 42km / s, well, essno, than intercept (C-9000 probably?)?

      stop alarming immediately!
      Ashurbeyli knows the right decision
      Quote: Postman
      You are poorly versed in the HARM AGM-88, and indeed in the ballistic trajectory.
      It's cool to see how an air-based missile will be launched along a ballistic trajectory

      "Wild caresses" and so on.
      The second method is used to defeat remote targets. In this case, the parameters of the radio-emitting target are preliminarily entered into the PRR guidance system and launched along the ballistic trajectory to the maximum range in the direction of the intended target location.

      CURRENT STATE AND PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIRCRAFT ANTI-RADAR ROCKETS OF NATO COUNTRIES
      http://commi.narod.ru/txt/2000/0314.htm
      1. postman
        postman 6 May 2013 18: 36 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        these with it?

        This is for this:
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Not a single aircraft in the history of aviation has been presented with such fanfare,

        With no less "pomp" were extolled, and maybe with more?
        TV (in our understanding) and Internet was not. Well, I’ve put more pressure on B-2, these are by the way tax
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        http://commi.narod.ru/txt/2000/0314.htm

        The source is so-so ...
        Is it commie from commies or from KOMI (republic)?
        1.Glossary of Allied Weaponry
        Ballistic missile A guided rocket-powered delivery vehicle for use against ground targets. A large portion of its flight is in a ballistic (freefall) trajectory. Ballistic missiles are an optimal delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction because it is difficult to deter them.
        2.Technologies for Future Precision Strike Missile Systems -Introduction / Overview
        Eugene L. Fleeman Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
        School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
        Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0150, United States [email protected]
        3.The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998
        s.254,256,257
        WELL AND IF YOU CAN "pick out"
        4. "Navy Training System Plan for the AGM-88 HARM and AARGM Systems", US Navy, 2002 (formerly public, but access now restricted to authorized persons only)
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 7 May 2013 13: 34 New
        0
        F-15E as an interceptor is much inferior to F-22 in speed.
        1. postman
          postman 7 May 2013 20: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Avenger711
          F-15E as an interceptor is much inferior to F-22 in speed

          Uhh.
          How is it?
          15: 2650 km / h/ 1480 km / h (small) / Maximum rate of climb on the ground 254 m / s
          22: 2100 km / h/ 1710 km / h (small) / Maximum rate of climb above the ground> 280 m / s

          Where is “inferior” and where is “strong”?
          15: Maximum take-off weight: 30845 kg
          22: Maximum take-off weight: 37606 kg
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 May 2013 21: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Postman
      give the target to the target at a speed of 42km / s

      Please explain where such a speed?
      1. postman
        postman 7 May 2013 00: 52 New
        0
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Please explain where such a speed?

        Well, probably from the physics of our world: gravitational constant + acceleration in the gravitational field of large objects (Jupiter for example)
        1. The speed of the Earth in its orbit around the sun is approximately 30 km / s / even if something SOMETHING will "hang" along the road "-booms-30km / s relative to the coordinate point of the Earth /
        2. The movement of the solar system around the center of the galaxy takes place at a speed of 220-250 km / s/ even if something SOMETHING "hangs" along the road "... and so on

        This is also for passing, or tangent
        .
        Oncoming to 72 km / s
        Asteroids (Icarus, 1950 DA or 2012 DA14) about 20km / s
        Comets from 20 km / s (Lexel is considered the fastest known, 47 km / s, if not mistaken)
        Meteorites (meteoroid) 50km / s (- / +)
        Tungusky (1908) according to NASA calculations speed ENTRANCE TO THE ATMOSPHERE 18 km / s (rather than 30 km / s as you thought)
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 7 May 2013 10: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Postman
          Well, probably from the physics of our world:

          So it's about space or dense layers of the atmosphere? Such a rate of entry into dense layers is possible, but movement in dense layers at such a rate is doubtful.
          1. postman
            postman 7 May 2013 12: 21 New
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            So it's about space or dense layers of the atmosphere?

            Space and speed of entry into the atmosphere (for Tungusky and Chelyabinsk: the rest have not yet entered)
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            but movement in dense layers at such a speed is doubtful.

            1. This is a 70% stone made of iron, it is destroyed if it doesn’t matter or not, it’s not a thin-walled la
            Not possible for the creations of human hands.
            2. This has already happened and reached the surface, it all depends on: mass, size, composition
            http://topwar.ru/24352-chelyabinskiy-bolid-prodemonstriroval-nashu-uyazvimost-pe
            red-kosmicheskoy-ugrozoy.html # comment-id-929524


            In dense layers, he will "die". He does not pull to Yukotansky

            - explosion height from 19 (NASA) to 50 km (Ru press, Ministry of Emergency Situations).
            - Speed ​​from 54 (NASA) to 000 km / h (Ru Press, Ministry of Emergency Situations).
            - TNT equivalent from 10 (NASA) to 000 tons (!!!)
            - Size from 17 (NASA) to 55 m ...

            But in order to move at an altitude of 15 km / s (before the explosion) 19 km, the entry speed is 42 km / s
            Dear Russian businessman, Director General of the military NGO “GSKB Almaz-Antey” OJSC in 2000—2011, Doctor of Technical Sciences, after ascertaining the speed of entry into the atmosphere of the World Cup (42km / s), “authoritatively” said: S-400 would intercept if it was somewhere nearby. / And the beam of sheb was added some money and the S-500 was put /
            I mean it
            But even if we take 15 km / s and 19 000 m, when it was already “burning” - WOULD CAPTURE?
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 7 May 2013 22: 47 New
              0
              Quote: Postman
              Space and speed of entry into the atmosphere

              Thanks, that’s more clear.
  • postman
    postman 6 May 2013 17: 05 New
    0
    № 3
    quote = Posted by Oleg Kaptsov] What does all this mean, comrades? Meet our first guest KC-10 "Extender": [/ Quote]
    far from the first ....
    Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker with tail number 61-0312 [b] made its first flight on August 14, 1962 [/ b] and also performed combat missions as part of the Air Force even in 2013.
    KC-10 seems to be from McDonnell Douglas and in 1980?

    [quote = Posted by Oleg Kaptsov] Our next guest, E-8 Joint STARS (Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System) [/ Quote]
    there were a lot of them (and there are), [b] and nothing new here [/ b].
    Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor (with Rostock radar - С4), 1937 from Tank’s “uncle”



    Mohawk OV-1? and RV-1D

    Sentinel R1 (ASTOR)

    [quote = Posted by Oleg Kaptsov] This plane is never shown on TV; the Discovery and Shock Force programs are not shot about it [/ Quote]
    show, show, yeah, at school of young pupils study




    [quote = Posted by Oleg Kaptsov] conformal fuel tanks that turn the aircraft (F-16) into a strategic bomber [/ Quote]
    [b] Yes? [/ b]
    PTB for F-16: 1 × 1 136 l or [b] 2 × 1 402 l [/ b]
    KTB (CFTs) for him [b] 1 703 l [/ b]
    was 301 liter (per tank) of kerosene [b] re-qualified [/ b] F-16E / E Block 60 ("Viper" 2100) into a strategist?
    [b] Lucky UAE [/ b], + 300 liters, cartilage and already has a "strategic" carrier
    [b] Help: [/ b]
    Tank production was in demand only a few years later when the United Arab Emirates Air Force needed a new strike aircraft capable of solving [b] operational tasks on the theater of operations, which, in turn, assumed a combat radius of about 1500 km. [/ b]
    what
    ============
    I hope not strained? he "reproached" the whole, I write this. NOW BANNED
    1. Santa Fe
      6 May 2013 18: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Postman
      Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor (with Rostock radar - С4), 1937 from Tank’s “uncle”

      Maud. 4 is 1942 year
      But it was an ordinary radar sight. Not at all similar in purpose to VKP E-8

      The rest of the cars you brought didn’t stand in versatility with the JStars.
      Quote: Postman
      PTB for F-16: 1 × 1 136 l or [b] 2 × 1 402 l [/ b]
      KTB (CFTs) for him [b] 1 703 l [/ b]

      With an empty weight of 900 pounds, tank set holds 450 gallons (ca. 3,050 pounds, or 2,271 liters) of additional JP-5 / 8 fuel.
      Quote: Postman
      far from the first ....
      Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker with tail number 61-0312 [b] made its first flight 14 on August 1962 year

      the first to refuel [b] on a combat mission [/ b] was KB-29 (29 on May 1952)

      Although this technique was known even earlier. For example:
      22 September 1950: For the first time across the Atlantic in a jet fighter (F-84E Thunderjet) Colonel US Air Force David Shilling flew without landing. The flight from Manston, Kent, to Limestone, Maine, was carried out with three air refueling. Refueling aircraft took off from Prestwick (Lancaster), Iceland (Lincoln) and Goose Bay, Labrador (KB-29)

      Why did Extender remember it? Because he is best suited for tactical via
      1. postman
        postman 6 May 2013 18: 47 New
        +1
        1941 Fw 200 C-3 / U4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But it was an ordinary radar sight. Not at all similar in purpose to VKP E-8

        Tell this to the Duke of Marlborough.

        Winston Churchill called the Fw 200 The Scourge of the Atlantic

        This is not a current airborne radar. Although what could have been better in those days?

        The aircraft was used for naval patrolling and reconnaissance, searching for allied convoys and warships that could become targets for submarines.
        Winston Churchill called the Fw 200 The Scourge of the Atlantic

        Equipped with
        FuG Rostock Search Radar
        Telefunken FuG 200 Hohentwiel Marine Radar;
        some are equipped with FuG 203b Kehl III remote control missiles and Hs 293 missiles.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the first to refuel

        Well, I mean about the serial tanker
        1. Santa Fe
          6 May 2013 19: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Postman
          Winston Churchill called Fw 200 "The Scourge of the Atlantic"

          Command Atlantic
          but the E-8 is still different - both in its purpose and, of course, in technological design

          as well as the Benz motorota and Toyota Camry
          Quote: Postman
          Well, I mean about the serial tanker

          Isn't KB-29 serial? EMPIP released them more than Extenders
  • andris_74
    andris_74 6 May 2013 19: 03 New
    0
    So many "air" and rafa can not see request on vacation chtoli?)))
  • parovozovo
    parovozovo 6 May 2013 19: 06 New
    0
    I largely agree with the author. My only question is: why do people promote the 5th generation? To cut the budget? request
  • uzer 13
    uzer 13 6 May 2013 20: 04 New
    0
    F-22 is very expensive to manufacture and operate an aircraft. This, of course, is an intermediate option, and it will soon leave the race. But it did its job, it worked on the technology of 5 generation fighters. The F-35 is also not yet finalized, but the work they’re continuing over it. If you simply compare one aircraft with another, then the F-35 may even be inferior in some ways to the fighters of the 4+ and 4 ++ generations. Just don’t forget that this is not just a fighter. It was created in order to work in a single system of combat reconnaissance and information complex with a common control system, and this is a completely different calico.
  • Axel
    Axel 6 May 2013 20: 51 New
    +2
    An article in the style of a la 90s sugar has disappeared from store shelves, academics are acting on all channels to prove which sugar is harmful. Missing meat is the same. Oil has fallen in price, why do we need the 5th generation of fighters, because the raptor is idle.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 6 May 2013 21: 49 New
    0
    Great article. Actually.
    1. a jacket
      a jacket 7 May 2013 00: 51 New
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Great article. Actually.


      Informatively - about nothing. And so - talented and witty.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 6 May 2013 23: 40 New
    0
    not technology wins the battle. professional man wins the battle.
    1. Axel
      Axel 7 May 2013 01: 28 New
      0
      Not always, for example, in the US Army, shooting training is an order of magnitude higher than in the other army in the world, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were often found dead due to the fact that the store was trying to insert the wrong side in the heat of battle.
  • regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 7 May 2013 00: 17 New
    0
    here amers have to do justice to the planes from the point of view of design, they are pretty beautiful especially stealth type B2 and flying wings like it (I can judge as an artist) but in essence how pretty stupid stuffed out by nowhere electronics and also expensive ones come out so kind of dummy with It’s cool, but it’s really nice to work and work with the gut. And I want to say that by and large their military aircraft industry is first of all embroidered with PR action advertising in front of a taxpayer and only then look at the functionality like what kind of invincible handsome men we are building the main thing to grab money and then we'll see well that's something like this)) ps with no reason I didn’t want to offend our dear aviation industry, everything as a rule is combined in the right proportions price quality functionality (of which current there is one white swan what to say BEAUTY))
  • regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 7 May 2013 00: 22 New
    0
    here amers have to do justice to the planes from the point of view of design, they are pretty beautiful especially stealth type B2 and flying wings like it (I can judge as an artist) but in essence how pretty stupid stuffed out by nowhere electronics and also expensive ones come out so kind of dummy with It’s cool, but it’s really nice to work and work with the gut. And I want to say that by and large their military aircraft industry is first of all embroidered with PR action advertising in front of a taxpayer and only then look at the functionality like what kind of invincible handsome men we are building the main thing to grab money and then we'll see well that's something like this)) ps with no reason I didn’t want to offend our dear aviation industry, everything as a rule is combined in the right proportions price quality functionality (of which current there is one white swan what to say BEAUTY))
  • a jacket
    a jacket 7 May 2013 00: 45 New
    0
    ОThe detected positions of the air defense systems are crushed in a simple way: by volley of HARM anti-radar missiles aimed at sources of radio emission. Missiles are launched along a ballistic trajectory, while homing - the carrier planes themselves remain outside the range of the air defense system, and the number of Kharmas issued usually goes to thousands.
    Uh, dear. Everything is more complicated. A lot.
    1. Axel
      Axel 7 May 2013 01: 16 New
      0
      Use two planes first bait second attacks. Doomsday War showed how REB blinded all air defense
  • 320423
    320423 7 May 2013 02: 50 New
    +2
    the fifth generation, the sixth is all f .. but the main thing is a proven and working SYSTEM. And the more versatile it is, the easier it is to adjust it to the current task. Amer may not be able to conquer which country, but they can now really drive into the Stone Age anyone can - let them see things realistically.

    PS: the meaning of my post is not sprinkling ashes on my head, but I will learn to soberly assess threats and build a competent military policy.
  • Temer
    Temer 7 May 2013 04: 18 New
    0
    First neighing, and then .... The article looks more like a humorous advertisement for the Amer Air Force
  • viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 7 May 2013 05: 43 New
    0
    A normal article with very good analytics is a bonus for the author, but the presence of the 5th generation in the USA can and should be considered as a further step in the development of promising technologies and weapons. It’s better to let it stay longer than not reach it.
    An example of a repeated hacking of Syrian air defense says a lot, well, a lot.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 7 May 2013 16: 45 New
    +2
    Contradictory article: On the one hand, the author rightly draws attention to the importance of such components of air power as refueling aircraft and control and target designation aircraft.
    We are often forgotten about this. On the other hand, the article doesn’t "run into" the F-22 at all when contrasting one component of the Air Force with another.
    Air power must be integrated. As for the F-22
    1) In its current state it is a clean fighter. It would be absurd to use it in those wars waged by America. It is even more absurd to evaluate aircraft only by the criterion of whether it participated in the war. For example, the Su-27 was never used anywhere (except for the mythical Eritrean conflict), it would be ridiculous on this basis to say that this is an unnecessary plane.
    2) The capabilities of the F-22 are constantly tested during the U.S. Air Force exercises. It knocks down the F-15, F-16, F-18 without any chance for them.
    1. 12061973
      12061973 7 May 2013 20: 49 New
      -1
      Su-27 participated in the Armenian-Azerbaijani war, one of them shot him down and shot a Russian pilot.
    2. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 8 May 2013 07: 35 New
      +1
      It is true that the F-22 is a Cold War machine - super in performance, but not very necessary in modern conditions. Therefore release air superiority fighterand turned in favor of a more universal F-35.

      Refuellers are a good thing, but complete with stealth aircraft is quite remarkable.
      1. Santa Fe
        8 May 2013 13: 39 New
        0
        What an interesting picture
  • Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 8 May 2013 07: 14 New
    0

    Crawling through C-300 is pure suicide. And no "Raptor" is not a panacea here - the US Air Force pilots will refuse to sit in the cockpit, but the one who ordered the breakthrough of enemy air defenses with the help of "Raptors" is awaiting a tribunal.

    As far as I know, in the list of weapons F-22, there are no means to suppress air defense. These funds are in the F-35 and others, but not F-22.
  • asbaev
    asbaev 8 May 2013 16: 46 New
    +1
    Thank you, the article is informative. Once in advanced stereo systems, all kinds of instruments for playing were required, for cassettes, discs, vinyl discs. And now only the input for external media. The simpler the better it works.
  • papik09
    papik09 11 May 2013 03: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    By the way, how long have you become my compatriot?
    like you used to have a shtatovsky badge?

    But he changed his place of residence, tired of the poor fellow watching the spread of democracy around the world, and so he moved to Kazakhstan. laughing Or maybe he is a spy? wassat
  • Samarin
    Samarin 7 December 2016 01: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Joker
    we would have bought at least 2050 200 T-50

    schazz .., first, it will be necessary to do for China, for them Su-35 is not enough for us