Military Review

Drive a predator. To the shame of the F-22 "Raptor"

68
Drive a predator. To the shame of the F-22 "Raptor"



Recently a very interesting video appeared on the network. It captures a training air battle between the French Rafale fighter and the American X-NUMX fighter of the F-5 Raptor generation. And oddly enough, in this training match the pilot of the American fighter (who is considered the best fighter to achieve air superiority) turns out to be a bit! And not just once, but with the 22: 4 score in favor of the French in a series of five training battles!



Training fights took place in 2009 in the sky of the UAE as part of a training program for pilots aviation NATO and NATO partner countries - ATLC (Advanced Tactical Leadership Course - advanced tactical leadership). And it’s no coincidence that the video made a lot of noise on the network. F-22 is still considered an unsurpassed air fighter, with which it is simply useless to compete with fighters belonging to previous generations. In addition, the Americans until recently hushed up the results of these battles, talking about other training fights in the sky of the UAE. And after the appearance of the video, they began to clumsily make excuses, claiming that the F-22 had suspended fuel tanks (PTBs) that worsened the maneuverability of the aircraft and its radar visibility. But in the video shot from the cockpit of the French fighter, no PTBs are seen on the Reptor. It is clear why the Americans preferred to keep silent about such a “click on the nose” - and even deceive the public, while retaining the “Reptor” status of an invincible fighter.

However, do not underestimate the F-22. The video did not appear on the network by chance, and most likely is a kind of advertisement for the French car in the hope of export contracts. Yes, "Raptor" confounded, but not at all in the role in which it can be seen in real air combat. Training battles in the skies of the United Arab Emirates took place over a short distance and according to a scenario different from the tactics of F-22.

Americans do not intend to let the "Raptor" in the melee, especially "one on one". They prefer to use it as an interceptor at medium and long distances, where the F-22 units, using air reconnaissance data from control planes (E-3 "Sentry" or Boeing 737 AEW & C), should "shoot" the enemy from a long range. This is due to the fact that the F-22 aircraft is very expensive and embodies the prestige of the US Air Force and their “invincible” image. The loss of the F-22 in battle will simply destroy the concept of American military aviation as the best and most advanced in the world. Therefore, the “Raptor” will never be allowed into close combat, where much depends on the skill of the pilot and “military luck,” and not on the perfection of technology. In a real battle, the “Raptors” will operate in the passive mode of their radar systems and will evade close proximity with the enemy. So that the symbol of American superiority is not accidentally shot down.

But at medium and long range - F-22 remains a very serious opponent. It has reduced visibility in some ranges of radio waves and in the infrared part of the optical spectrum. This makes it difficult not so much to detect it as to confidently seize this goal. weapons. It is capable of approaching the target of an attack at supersonic cruising speed, which reduces its time in the range of ground-based air defense systems and allows it to “escape” from enemy fighters. He has very sophisticated means of communication and an onboard reconnaissance-strike complex, which allows him to work on targets without his own unmasking radiation (in a passive mode). All this gives the F-22 advantages, but makes it only an element of American air reconnaissance and strike systems. An element with a fairly narrow function, but effective within the framework of the effectiveness of the complex itself. Separated from aerial reconnaissance and control assets, the Raptor loses a significant part of its advantages.

What should be interesting for us in this leak?

First, the fact that the “Raptor” can be beaten even by planes that are at least half a generation behind. True, in order to confidently beat him, it is required to deprive him of certain advantages. First of all, the remaining elements of the airborne reconnaissance and strike complex: long-range radar detection and control aircraft (airborne early warning systems, often called Avaksami), as well as communications and data exchange with external sources. Here, electronic warfare (EW) and long-range air defense systems are of particular importance. At present, domestic EW and air defense weapons are sufficiently effective to counter US air complexes. It is only necessary to saturate the armed forces with them in the required volume.

In addition, the domestic Air Force has large-radius air-to-air missiles that exceed all Western counterparts in range: the R-37, the RBB-BD, the KS-172 and some other designs. It is difficult to talk about their effectiveness at a large distance against F-22, with reduced radar visibility. But the control planes for these missiles are a wonderful target, actively radiating and perfectly emitted against the background of interference. And without them, F-22 loses most of its advantages.

Secondly, the air combat recording leaves no stone unturned in the statements of the Americans about the "super-maneuverability" of F-22. The French "Rafale" during the battle is practically glued and hangs on the tail of the "Raptor". And the pilot "Raptor" can not do anything about it. Of course, the French pilot has to maneuver quite actively - the soundtrack gives a good idea of ​​the overloads. Nevertheless, the flight characteristics of the French car are head and shoulders higher than that of the American “fabulously maneuverable” F-22. This means that in close combat, domestic fighters, which have always been famous for their unsurpassed maneuverability, will not leave Chances to the Raptor. And the main thing for our pilots will be to reach the close range of the battle, using the means of protection and maneuver to disrupt the F-22 attack from a long distance. This should be considered in the training of pilots.

Thirdly, the statements of Americans about the "invisibility" of F-22, which were already put under great doubt, are now clearly debunked. The French “Rafale” repeatedly and confidently captures and accompanies the “Raptor” with its onboard sighting system. At least at close range. And although on the frames it can be seen how several times the radar of a French car loses F-22 tracking, but the full optical system helps to keep track of it even when leaving the Rafale front hemisphere. It is worth noting that the optoelectronic sighting systems complement the radar systems on all domestic fighters, even the 4 generation. And if, actively maneuvering or being at an angle that is inconvenient for irradiation, the “Raptor” can disrupt the capture and tracking, then the optical radar systems completely cope with it.

It is necessary to thank the French pilots and activists promoting Rafale to foreign markets for the extremely interesting and instructive leak. It is necessary to draw the right conclusions from it.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_26530/
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 29 June 2013 06: 31 New
    +4
    Americans preferred to keep silent about such a “click on the nose” - and even deceive the public, while preserving the “Reptor” the status of an invincible fighter
    A couple of days ago, we had the same information about the F-35, now about the F-22. It certainly pleases, but why would that be all? So like a company
    T-50 and so we are waiting!
    1. experienced
      experienced 29 June 2013 10: 05 New
      +8
      What should be interesting for us in this leak?

      What needs to be put on the wing more than their aircraft, to modernize those that remain of the USSR and to increase the pilots' raid. And do not believe the "leaks"? hi
  2. wasjasibirjac
    wasjasibirjac 29 June 2013 06: 36 New
    +5
    well flew! this also needs to be learned
    1. Che
      Che 29 June 2013 09: 12 New
      +6
      There is an antidote to any poison. We will learn to bring them down from a distance without coming into contact. Get out. The pilot is breathing heavily, not frail overload.
      1. Berkut752
        Berkut752 22 March 2017 19: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Che
        There is an antidote to any poison. We will learn to bring them down from a distance without coming into contact. Get out. The pilot is breathing heavily, not frail overload.

        "There is an antidote to any poison." well said. Soviet bomber pilots managed to go into an air battle with enemy fighters. And what about the overloads, the PURPOSE OF FIGHT and HAZARD of the pilots, the overload from 6 to 9 units, affects here. There were cases when after training air combat pilots climbed out of the plane, and blood flowed from the eyes, ears, nose and anus.
  3. andrei332809
    andrei332809 29 June 2013 06: 38 New
    +5
    the advertisement is engine of the trade. bad advertising, it's still advertising. and amers for such embarrassment somewhere in the near future will substitute the paddling
    1. Nick
      Nick 29 June 2013 06: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: andrei332809
      .a amers for such an embarrassment somewhere in the near future will substitute frogmen

      It’s a well-known thing, debt by payment is beautiful ... But the main thing is that the French proved the lack of raptor advantage in close combat and suggested tactics to combat this “miracle” of technology ...
      1. Delink
        Delink 29 June 2013 07: 00 New
        +1
        I think the amers will substitute the Franks more than once. They will also require them to purchase their F-22s.
        1. 0255
          0255 29 June 2013 12: 09 New
          +1
          F-22 export is prohibited. Although the Japanese require the United States F-22 instead of a flying iron F-35
          1. alex popov
            alex popov 29 June 2013 19: 16 New
            +6
            Will the Japanese now insistently demand the F-22? Purely from the author’s reasoning: F-22 is just a link in a huge complex, without which they are just a “good target” for level 4+ aircraft. The main opponent of Japan is China. In service with China, there are something more interesting than the Raphaels and Typhoons. And the "single" f-22s are inferior to the 4+ generation (I proceed from the fact that the level of pilot training is comparable). It turns out that for full effectiveness the Japanese will have to purchase the WHOLE COMPLEX! Will the Japanese think? I would think. It really hurts "oats of roads" ....
            Well, the French, of course, a deep bow. Pleased from the heart.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 30 June 2013 00: 12 New
            0
            The Japanese wanted a clean fighter.
  4. selbrat
    selbrat 29 June 2013 07: 41 New
    +4
    "retaining the Reptor's status as an invincible fighter." As I understand it, he didn’t fight anywhere, therefore he was invincible. Or participated somewhere? Maybe someone will correct.
    1. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog April 3 2017 17: 00 New
      +1
      Papuasov na blignem vostoke gonyal tol'ko nu i lisogo na aerodrome)
  5. Averias
    Averias 29 June 2013 07: 46 New
    12
    I thought about this video for a long time. On the one hand, the myth of "coolness" and the unsurpassed American technology and the army - has become a byword. The video is real proof that not only the United States knows how to make equipment and train pilots (after all, you must admit, a lot of things depend on the pilot). On the other hand, the F-22 is a serious plane, anyway. if it does not change the memory, then it was the first to install a jamming system and block digital channels of data transmission using a satellite (I don’t know how effective this system is). The banal comes to mind, the pilot screwed up. Or is it such a cunning "feint with ears", misinformation, to show a potential adversary "weakness". But this is somehow childish, and the cost of the aircraft is such that the question arises - why then did it at all? It is quite possible that these aircraft will undergo major modernization in the near future. And this battle was created in order to consolidate the opinion that this is all that he can. Strengths and weaknesses, and then present the unexpected. Moreover, this video was clearly taken apart every second by high-level specialists. Although ...., in a virtual battle with our SU-35, our aircraft also came out victorious with multiple superiority. But then ours, ours, forgive me, if you wish, they can also show aerobatics on a “stool” (I do not want to belittle the dignity of the French). In general, there is somehow a sediment of suspicion in the soul.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 29 June 2013 10: 55 New
      13
      When the Americans wanted to create a melee aircraft, they created it, F16. And F22 is the implementation of the concept “I saw earlier - I killed earlier”, which they did. There was data, in this version of the action, at a distance, F22 stacked opponents in packs. So they implemented the basic concept, but the fact that the plane has some drawbacks - and which one does not.
      1. alex popov
        alex popov 29 June 2013 19: 26 New
        +3
        The Indians have already debunked the myth of the “invincibility” of both the F-15 and F-16 as part of the Cope India-200 and Red Flag exercises on the Su-30 MKI. They didn’t put F-35 against them (strangely, but what about PR7))) Now the French have “dropped” the F-22.
        Time will tell how much this is “recoverable damage” or “boss, mustache is gone”. In the meantime, F-22 is a "hero of non-existent wars."
  6. Smersh
    Smersh 29 June 2013 07: 48 New
    0
    I can’t imagine what our planes would do with them
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 29 June 2013 21: 21 New
      +3
      Judging by the minuses to your question, there is an opinion that they would have spread out on the bones and sent to the Field Museum in Moscow, on the street. Union.
      But in fact, the question is really interesting.
      Throughout the history of fighter aircraft, aircraft were created with their own advantages and disadvantages. Especially vividly this confrontation can be observed in air battles during the Second World War, it is interesting to read the works of Pokryshkin.
      I think that the same thing wakes up with the Raptor, but in reality the tactics of using our machines against each other will only evolve after real contact by trial and error on each side. In the meantime, their tactics go unnoticed, detect at a long distance and destroy. A kind of hunter dinosaur. Here, as I understand it, the tactics of a small mammalian rodent briskly slip away from the giant’s gross movements and due to its prowess, it clings tightly with “small teeth” to the clumsy fleshy ass of that same hunter. Woe to our planes, if they can’t slip at a long distance, woe to the Americans, if ours slip through, I will compete with different concepts and philosophy of air combat.
  7. djon77
    djon77 29 June 2013 07: 55 New
    +3
    The article is written in the spirit that even this rafal managed to defeat the raptor, and if it’s rafal, then the rest are all the more so. Just who said that rafal is a bad plane? By the way, why is silent about the speed of warfare? created from flesh and blood on a raptor including. and at a speed of about a thousand, there can be no talk of any super-maneuverability.
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 29 June 2013 08: 40 New
      +1
      The video didn’t look, right?
      Because a thousand there and does not smell.
      1. djon77
        djon77 29 June 2013 08: 42 New
        0
        how is it defined?
        1. alban33
          alban33 29 June 2013 11: 36 New
          +3
          look at the ILS)))))
  8. uzer 13
    uzer 13 29 June 2013 08: 12 New
    +2
    Once again, it was confirmed that maneuverable close-range aerial combat has not lost its relevance at present, and that Russian military aircraft construction is moving in the right direction. The Americans sinned even earlier by hiding information about training air battles against Russian fighters had a brag.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 29 June 2013 20: 43 New
      -1
      Quote: uzer 13
      Once again, it was confirmed that maneuverable aerial combat at close range did not lose its relevance


      How was this confirmed?)
  9. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 29 June 2013 08: 22 New
    +2
    Each aircraft has its own mission ... some sort of specialization. The use of RAPTOR - involves tactics "arm length", i.e. without approaching the enemy, destroy him. Attempts to create an unsurpassed station wagon were successful only on paper. Always had to sacrifice something. And modern wars, primarily local ones, also require successful close combat. Indeed, in local wars, mainly states involved are not able to acquire RAPTORS immediately after launching them in the series ISRAEL Exclusion. In other cases, at best, the armament is equipped with military equipment of the previous generation. Therefore, RAPTOR should be considered, first of all, as a weapon of large wars, and not local clashes. From this point of view, our euphoria from the results of the air battle of RAPTOR and RAFAEL is somewhat premature. I am glad more electronic battles between the Raptor and our SU-35! But our plane is still an improved 4th generation aviation. T-50 should show even better results.
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 29 June 2013 08: 44 New
      0
      In this case, this weapon is defensive and not offensive ... or offensive but only on Bananostan! For who will let you deploy the entire system?
      Or maybe the amers have AWACS invisibility which no one knows?
      And what about data exchange in the context of the use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear? Is the Khryap capable of realizing his advantage in a REAL big war, when REP is not necessary? all communication channels are “noisy” due to the powerful e-mag. radiation?
      I absolutely do not want to say anything bad about the enemy’s technique, but just ask questions .. uncomfortable
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 29 June 2013 20: 48 New
        +2
        Quote: We refund_SSSR
        In this case, this weapon is defensive and not offensive ... or offensive but only on Bananostan! For who will let you deploy the entire system?

        Quote: We refund_SSSR
        Or maybe the amers have AWACS invisibility which no one knows?

        And what will not give them? Who will hit AWACS if they keep at a distance inaccessible to enemy missiles and radars?
        Quote: We refund_SSSR
        And what about data exchange in the context of the use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear? Is the Khryap capable of realizing his advantage in a REAL big war, when REP is not necessary? all communication channels are “noisy” due to the powerful e-mag. radiation?

        Not only the raptor will have big problems with EMI, and indeed, if it comes to that, the planes will not be painfully needed.
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 29 June 2013 16: 31 New
      0
      Israel also does not have F 22. It has rights to F 35.
    3. patsantre
      patsantre 29 June 2013 20: 45 New
      -3
      Quote: KazaK Bo
      I am glad more electronic battles between the Raptor and our SU-35!


      But didn’t they lose by drying? It seems like the F-35 and the F-18 won, and the loser lost ... in any case, these electronic battles do not take into account even half of the capabilities of the aircraft, and nothing can be judged by them.
  10. buzuke
    buzuke 29 June 2013 08: 25 New
    +1
    there are no ideal systems, i.e. without weaknesses. this is not like 100% efficiency. one can only strive for this. I think our magnificent planes will have weak points. the main thing is to know how to use the enemy’s weaknesses, and how to cover your own. but just to blame someone else’s is somehow not solid
  11. ed65b
    ed65b 29 June 2013 08: 31 New
    +2
    Yes, the raptor was positioned as an apparatus for long-range combat. there is nothing surprising in this.
    1. Airman
      Airman 29 June 2013 11: 38 New
      +3
      Quote: ed65b
      Yes, the raptor was positioned as an apparatus for long-range combat. there is nothing surprising in this.


      No need to compare the pistol and the sniper rifle, you still compare how the MIG-31 will look against the SU-35.
    2. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 29 June 2013 21: 25 New
      +2
      I agree, the same thing as comparing the MiG31 and Su27 - which one is better? The correct answer: the question is not correct, the planes are designed for different purposes.
  12. the polar
    the polar 29 June 2013 09: 39 New
    +6
    The article is objective, and it is very clearly shown that the Raptor is a remote battle weapon, moreover, in a systemic connection with electronic warfare and early warning systems, and in quantity there are much more tactical units. In short, to complete a combat mission, they will need to fly out with at least a dozen sides immediately. So the task of our military-industrial complex and science is to provide the Air Force with effective airborne electronic warfare systems and long-range air-to-air missiles, for destroying primarily AWACS. I would like to note that the Raptor, due to its low maneuverability, will not be able to actively support the ground forces, as It will fall into the coverage area of ​​early warning and visual observation by air defense systems; moreover, this will inevitably lead to participation in close combat with front-line aircraft.
  13. Orik
    Orik 29 June 2013 10: 30 New
    +2
    I was pleased, BUT the SYSTEM always wins the war, and not individual episodes.
    1. Airman
      Airman 29 June 2013 11: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Orik
      I was pleased, BUT the SYSTEM always wins the war, and not individual episodes.


      The war consists of separate episodes, and if you lose them, then you won’t win the war.
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 29 June 2013 22: 09 New
      0
      Right. And the American system is not tied to relatively small and relatively cheap aircraft, but to large, indescribably expensive, and incredibly necessary flying combat gears in battle. Our task is to develop reliable tactical schemes and suitable weapons to knock out these whales with a multiple guarantee, as the Americans say overkill.
      Then it will be possible to land the 22 quite reliably taking advantage of the advantages of our machines. So alas. Beautiful air battles in the style of Pokryshkin will play a very small role. The main thing will be either a massive breakthrough to AWACS aircraft, without a fight, just on limited missile defense maneuvers, and "despite the losses," that is, a good result —15 of our shot downs, one (but the same) of them. Either the same breakthrough, but ours were shot down altogether, and the rocket got the plane of the American AWACS. Scary, but how else? Or victory will generally be achieved by the destruction of their satellite constellation ...
      He was a king of heaven. Before ... Now, sadly, the situation is fundamentally changing.
      1. yehat
        yehat 24 March 2017 12: 42 New
        0
        Yes, everything is already done. Missiles were created and delivered to the warehouses, which AWACS will get from afar - about 400 km. I don’t remember the weight of the rocket, either 1500, or 700 kg - almost any modern heavy fighter can be launched. And passive sensors provide enough information to detect the vector from where the AWACS glows.
        PAK FA can also carry it on an external sling.
  14. APASUS
    APASUS 29 June 2013 10: 41 New
    +3
    The Americans will not set up their Raptor in close combat. This machine is NOT INTENDED FOR AIR BATTLE, it is a branch of American military combat technology. A plane for launching missiles at long distances
    1. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 12: 45 New
      0
      Well, about not intended - it's you in vain. Yes, she has a specialization, but MiG-23 aircraft can do little against him. Only the 4th generation and even the best can bend it.
      for example, the Chinese J-7 can’t; the J-11 (a sub-copy of the su-27) also has big questions.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 24 March 2017 18: 09 New
        0
        Quote: yehat
        Well, about not intended - it's you in vain.

        Why are all American aircraft stuffed with radars, radiation detection sensors, rangefinders, smart missiles, stealth technologies, in order to converge in close combat?
        Previously discovered, before hit the target, and after Vietnam, this is their main battle tactics.
  15. krpmlws
    krpmlws 29 June 2013 10: 59 New
    +3
    Quote: APASUS
    The Americans will not set up their Raptor in close combat. This machine is NOT INTENDED FOR AIR BATTLE, it is a branch of American military combat technology. A plane for launching missiles at long distances

    So you need to think about how to substitute it for close combat. It is necessary to continue to actively develop your own systems of airborne warning systems and electronic warfare systems, both specialized and integrated.
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 29 June 2013 17: 21 New
      0
      Quote: krpmlws
      So you need to think about how to substitute it for close combat. It is necessary to continue to actively develop your own systems of airborne warning systems and electronic warfare systems, both specialized and integrated.

      I think that a new class of weapons, something like an electron beam gun, is suitable for dealing with such machines.
      It is necessary for him to burn the electronics on take-off ..........
  16. krez-74
    krez-74 29 June 2013 11: 25 New
    +1
    For every F-22, we have our own Pokryshkin!
    1. Denis
      Denis 29 June 2013 13: 25 New
      +5
      Quote: krez-74
      For every F-22, we have our own Pokryshkin!
      It would be good!
      But they don’t appear out of nowhere. And to compare the hours of the training raid of the times of the bad, totalitarian and strongly abused USSR and the current, not to mention the fact that 10-15 years ago it was.
      And to prepare a pilot for more than one day or even a year
      1. krez-74
        krez-74 29 June 2013 13: 49 New
        +2
        Everything is clear, and missed a lot, and lost a lot, BUT! Russia has always taken savvy, unpredictability, and many other qualities that Western people do not have at all.
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 12: 46 New
      0
      on aerocobra?
  17. Ulysses
    Ulysses 29 June 2013 12: 12 New
    +1
    in order to confidently beat him, it is required to deprive him of some advantages. First of all, the remaining elements of an airborne reconnaissance and strike complex: airborne early warning and control aircraft (AWACS, often referred to as Avaxs), as well as communications and data exchanges with external sources.


    From it is a weak link, which will either force the F-22 to engage in close combat, or will have to dump, which is equivalent to losing.
  18. Andrey_K
    Andrey_K 29 June 2013 12: 22 New
    0
    And although the frames show how several times the radar of the French car loses tracking

    Here is an interesting detail.
    "Invisibility" can still, with the right angle, break away from the escort.
    What does this mean?
    That the following tactics are possible: a plane, upon detecting that missiles were launched through it, can turn off the engines, turn to its missiles and the enemy with its most uncomfortable angle, and break off the escort hook.
    Or even apply a “dashed” flight:
    Gain speed and accelerate, and then enter invisibility mode (with the engines turned off, turning the stealth angle to the enemy).
    Then, even if the enemy detects him at a long distance, then in the disguise phase, the missiles will lose their target.
    PAKFA also has (according to rumors) an additional masking system - plasma.
    Probably it cannot be switched on permanently, but it’s possible to get off the escort and knock down fired long-range missiles from the target.
    Thus, it is quite possible that the battles between the "invisibles" will take place at close range, and there is an advantage in over-maneuverability.
    1. Airman
      Airman 29 June 2013 17: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey_K
      And although the frames show how several times the radar of the French car loses tracking

      Here is an interesting detail.
      "Invisibility" can still, with the right angle, break away from the escort.
      What does this mean?
      That the following tactics are possible: a plane, upon detecting that missiles were launched through it, can turn off the engines, turn to its missiles and the enemy with its most uncomfortable angle, and break off the escort hook.
      Or even apply a “dashed” flight:
      Gain speed and accelerate, and then enter invisibility mode (with the engines turned off, turning the stealth angle to the enemy).
      Then, even if the enemy detects him at a long distance, then in the disguise phase, the missiles will lose their target.
      PAKFA also has (according to rumors) an additional masking system - plasma.
      Probably it cannot be switched on permanently, but it’s possible to get off the escort and knock down fired long-range missiles from the target.
      Thus, it is quite possible that the battles between the "invisibles" will take place at close range, and there is an advantage in over-maneuverability.

      As far as I know, starting an aircraft engine (this is not a car, you won’t start it right away) requires a strictly defined sequence of operations, and takes a certain time, and without an engine maneuverability sharply worsens. Let the pilots comment on this.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 29 June 2013 21: 18 New
      0
      The plasma disguise system is generally a myth.
    3. Botanologist
      Botanologist 29 June 2013 22: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey_K
      the aircraft, upon detecting that missiles were launched on it, can turn off the engines, turn to the missiles and the enemy with its most uncomfortable angle and break the escort hook.


      Rave. You don’t even turn on the engine so effortlessly on the “corncracker”, but on the fighter - it’s some kind of weed you got caught.

      Quote: Andrey_K
      Then, even if the enemy detects him at a long distance, then in the disguise phase, the missiles will lose their target.


      And if the missiles are not with thermal guidance, but a radar? They don’t care about the engine, their radar is working to capture.


      Quote: Andrey_K
      PAKFA also has (according to rumors) an additional masking system - plasma


      Where do you collect rumors? Such systems do not exist in nature at all. Something somewhere in the lab work out, then in the sky they ....

      In general, do not fantasize. Everything is simpler and more ordinary.
    4. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 12: 47 New
      0
      PAKFA also has (according to rumors) an additional masking system - plasma

      it does not provide camouflage, but interferences for guidance and accurate tracking.
      the answer to the question of whether there is our plane, it does not complicate.
  19. 0255
    0255 29 June 2013 12: 44 New
    +3
    When the Americans created the F-4 Phantom, they also thought that he would shoot down enemy planes from afar, and the matter would not come to close combat. And in Vietnam, the Phantoms were defeated, and with their quantitative superiority and better training for their pilots. The phantom was superior to MiGs in avionics, but in close combat it was still shot down even by MiG-17s, created under Stalin. Now the Americans are stepping on the same rake. Maybe in 1990 it was necessary to choose the YF-23? Although the YF-23, it seems, was also not very maneuverable, but more speedy and invisible.
    You can recall the limitation of the altitude of the F-22 to 7,6 km so that the pilot does not suffocate. In the event of war, send even the old Tu-95MS to bomb the United States at a maximum altitude of 12 km for them - the American F-22 pilots probably gasp for nothing, without ever reaching them.
    And why in the USA they are developing the invisible F-15 Silent Eagle, because the F-22 should replace the F-15.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 29 June 2013 21: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: 0255
      Now the Americans are stepping on the same rake.


      It’s not a fact that now they are also going in the wrong direction. Until we see in practice, we don’t know.
      Quote: 0255
      You can recall the limitation of the altitude of the F-22 to 7,6 km so that the pilot does not suffocate.


      It has already been removed, as far as I know.

      Quote: 0255
      And why in the USA they are developing the invisible F-15 Silent Eagle, because the F-22 should replace the F-15.


      For export. And why did we develop the Su-35?
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 12: 55 New
      0
      Phantoms Defeated
      at first they didn’t put guns on them, often they met with the enemy in the configuration for the attack and were defenseless. There were defensive battles - they defended the B-52 and others. If phantoms were used purely as air defense, then their effectiveness would be much higher.
      YF-23?
      he was further sharpened by stealth at the expense of flight performance characteristics.
      F-22 ... so that the pilot does not suffocate
      the problem was, but the Americans gradually resolved it. I emphasize, have decided.
      why in the US are developing

      because the F-22 is very expensive both in operation.
      it cannot be used on a scale that Americans need
      Americans took into account the experience and the F-35 should go into operation almost two times cheaper (which is also not enough!)
  20. albai
    albai 29 June 2013 13: 31 New
    +2
    “Blind” and “drown out” the raptor and do whatever it is with him. Personal training of US pilots, their concern for their own z-ts, not the desire to confront the enemy equal or better in class, obviously leads to defeat. I was surprised when I heard from the guys who visited their all kinds of Bragg forts, Norfolk, etc. Pilots like a bar come in, sit in chairs, put on their hands, put on their gloves, fasten their belts, wipe their sweat, and they take off, when they arrive, everything is in the opposite order. Neither materiel, nor work on technology, nor communication even with his technician, is even more so. And of course, in case of emergency "combat" situations, they strictly follow the instructions, and not by necessity. And there is no motivation other than the size of the salary. That is why all amers of any kind of troops, with losses of over 10%, immediately leave the battlefield. And do not fight to the end. Hope only for technology. Therefore, they abandon their wounded, do not keep on the lines, surrounded, knock on their elders. Reptiles, all their films on military subjects, team spirit, mutual assistance, pride in the division, etc. etc. full bullshit. And only thanks to big money they are worn with a baton all over the world. And then they will soon end.
    1. Botanologist
      Botanologist 29 June 2013 22: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: albai
      there is no motivation other than salary.


      And after my personal communication with the US Air Force pilots, I have a completely different opinion. They are not vegetables, as you are trying to imagine, but very capable, trained and evil fighters. So it’s better not to show them the backside - they’ll blow on the tonsils.
  21. xzWhiteWolf
    xzWhiteWolf 29 June 2013 13: 52 New
    -2
    Therefore, the “Reptor” will never be allowed into close combat, where much depends on the pilot’s skill and “military fortune”, and not on the perfection of the equipment.

    Who wrote this nonsense? Does it depend on technology? It is clear that they don’t like to conduct training battles against our planes, because in melee combat they are 95% victorious.
    And long-range combat is interesting on what, according to the author, depends on? Probably not from long-range missiles and good radar?
    But if we take into account that our new planes have better radars ... They make new missiles that are not inferior to foreign ones and have higher range missiles, it turns out that the F-22s were built either as a symbol, or they had not finished off their Indians and decided a couple of tribes bomb in your home and in Africa with expensive toys.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 29 June 2013 21: 32 New
      -1
      Quote: xzWhiteWolf
      But when you consider that our new aircraft have better radars ... They make new missiles that are not inferior to foreign ones and have higher range missiles, it turns out that the F-22 was built either as a symbol

      And which of our planes have better radars, and better than anyone at all?
      Those of our missiles with greater range are not suitable against fighters.
      And due to stealth, finding it from afar will be a very difficult task.
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 13: 02 New
      0
      you are not demonstrating knowledge of the features of the F-22, but trying to make assessments
      its advantage is in the operation of a complex of passive sensors. In battle, he turns on the radar only in emergency cases. And this machine performs its mission very well. You just need to understand that he is the tip of the iceberg and his invulnerability is based on the fact that he is covered by a whole group of other aircraft, which suffer losses.
  22. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 29 June 2013 15: 06 New
    +9
    As a former military man, I treat these kinds of articles with distrust. It’s so simple and easy to discuss the flaws of a potential adversary’s technique ... In this regard, I know one rule that my older comrades have long taught me: respect the future enemy, learn to defeat him. Do not underestimate the potential adversary. Do not expect anything good from this.
  23. Zomanus
    Zomanus 29 June 2013 15: 21 New
    +1
    In short, an asymmetric response to the raptors will be to knock out “peers” over long distances. It is knocking out, not jamming, because for subtle counteraction we still have a weak base. But it would be very nice to make hypersonic of short range precisely for knocking out AWACS.
  24. bremest
    bremest 29 June 2013 15: 46 New
    +2
    Do not underestimate the enemy .......
    Rafal spins well in close combat. I personally saw his somersaults at the 100th anniversary of the Air Force. The host truth noted that he does all this with the afterburner constantly on, and over-maneuverability is the result of the application of PGO. Our Mig-35M2 did everything better and without afterburner.
    F-22 is not for close combat, you won’t go for a ram. It is important to develop a concept for neutralizing this tactic of air combat.
  25. barbiturate
    barbiturate 29 June 2013 17: 18 New
    +2
    well, the French always knew how to make melee vehicles, “saw a“ mirage ”do not lie down“ a well-known phrase, already then (mid-60s) maneuverable French cars accompanied American phantoms in the Arab Israeli war and fought with MIG-21. Just F-22 was in a position for which it was not intended. In a real aerial battle, the matter will come to a contact fight, all the same, the F-22 will be the first to see the enemy and the first to use weapons.
  26. Marconi41
    Marconi41 29 June 2013 17: 20 New
    +2
    Eco not seen: Rafal shot down the F-22 in close combat! So the Raptor never positioned itself as a super-maneuverable aircraft. So this fight is not correct. If these 2 cars are parted at 300km in the corners and given the opportunity to use all their weapons, then Rafal does not shine.
    The elephant is also afraid of mice, but it is unlikely that the last siege of an elephant.
  27. Constantine
    Constantine 29 June 2013 17: 35 New
    0
    It’s a pity that they didn’t call ours wassat There would be 2 clips wassat
  28. homosum20
    homosum20 29 June 2013 18: 19 New
    0
    I am a purely civilian (reserve major, air defense). I can’t understand why a missile from a long distance cannot be launched by an air defense system? And cheaper, and will not fall.
    1. sashka
      sashka 29 June 2013 18: 53 New
      0
      Quote: homosum20
      I can’t understand why a missile from a long distance cannot be launched by an air defense system?

      Decide and you are a dead man .. What is there to understand ..? There are no rules in war. Savvy and Russian Avos. Everything else is in YOUR HANDS ...
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 13: 05 New
      0
      because there is no target tracking, and letting a rocket into a square along a bearing from a great distance having approximate coordinates without predicting the course - what is the probability of hitting it? she is extremely low.
  29. sashka
    sashka 29 June 2013 18: 51 New
    0
    Let it be a bad plane. Suppose .. How many new technologies had to be invented and implemented. We had our own project "Buran". In which the whole Country has invested. How do we know what they "picked" there? PAK FA is not a fountain for them either. Who knows what We are picking ... It’s all known that our hands are long and we dig deep .. And plus more developments of the USSR .. Is this how to comment on this? Is it a pity or that you need ..? I personally don’t know .. Pliz ..
  30. akkash
    akkash 29 June 2013 21: 04 New
    0
    !!!
    The normal load of the F-22 is 30 tons, and the rafal has 20 tons.
    And it’s clear to me that in melee Rafal Rapotra will break like a hot-water bottle.

    Learn the materiel.

    P.S. There is no information on the results of the battle at distances of 100 and 50 km.
    1. Hariva
      Hariva 29 June 2013 23: 15 New
      0
      Wow! With all due respect, but trying to build comparisons on the mass of the machine is a complete shlacht.))) According to your logic, the 5th Lyvochkin should be given a net account of su 27)))))
      Learn performance characteristics in general, not just take-off weight.
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 March 2017 13: 08 New
      0
      I remember there were demonstrations at the air show in France — rafals are so peppy and nimble and the F-18 - like an iron, only one detail - on the F18 there were all kinds of suspensions of 9 tons.
      and who is cooler? bully
  31. akkash
    akkash 29 June 2013 21: 10 New
    -2
    F-22 is the same as the MiG-31 for long-range combat.
    It is not intended for a dog svara.

    If a heavy SU-27 against a light MiG-29, or a heavy SU-35 against a light MiG-35 converged in close combat, a light fighter would have won.

    And so that a light fighter does not get too close at the SU-35, long-range missiles are included in the ammunition.

    Dear forum users, this article has divorced you. And you “ate” and did not feel disinformation.
  32. Semen Semyonitch
    Semen Semyonitch 29 June 2013 21: 37 New
    0
    ... Today, domestic means of electronic warfare and air defense are effective enough to counter American air complexes. It is only necessary to saturate the armed forces with them to the necessary extent ...
    The keyword is saturate ...
  33. Letterksi
    Letterksi 29 June 2013 22: 06 New
    +1
    The F-117 myth was dispelled in due time, and so successfully, that the amers removed the F-117 from service ahead of schedule. I think the myth of the F-22 will also blow
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 30 June 2013 00: 14 New
      0
      Proof ahead of schedule.

      117 were shot down not because of his technical actions, but because of the error of the pilots and template actions.
  34. Severok
    Severok 30 June 2013 16: 59 New
    0
    Thanks to the author for the interesting and well-presented information. At the Yankees, everything always rested on the advertising and profit of corporations.
  35. Odysseus
    Odysseus 30 June 2013 19: 27 New
    +1
    It’s quite understandable why the French posted this video “from an anonymous user” on the network — they PR-yut Rafal: they sell it expensively, it sells badly, it’s necessary to advertise.
    But the conclusions made by the author of this opus based on this video look, unfortunately, not substantiated.
    1) The raptor can not interact with Avax. The strategy for using it is based on its stealth, Avax will only unmask it. Moreover, Americans are promoting the use of the Reptor as a kind of mini-Avax. It's hard to say how realistic this is, but the author’s idea to beat Avax to fight the F-22 is definitely not works.
    2) We do not have new long-range missiles in combat units. Again we compare weapons actually in service with Wishlist
    3) We don’t know the conditions of the Raptor’s training fights with Rafal nor their real results. Based on this video (if it’s true), we can only say that Rafal can defeat the Raptor in his neighbor. Which is actually not surprising.
    4) The most harmful thing is the author’s propaganda of close combat. Instead of creating normal modern aircraft and their communication systems in a single battlefield network, the author advertises us the grandfather "dog dumps" of the Korean War.
    This is all the more strange when you consider that the amers make planes for the "neighbor" perfectly. For example, in the 60-70 F-5, it was sure that all Soviet fighters in the neighbor were bludgeoned. However, it didn’t even occur to them to say that with it we could shoot down new Soviet fighters with powerful locators and medium-range missiles.
    5) If we talk about the neighbor, it is completely incomprehensible why this is our planes have always been famous for "unsurpassed maneuverable qualities"? We had a variety of aircraft, both maneuverable and not very good. But if we talk about today, it is absolutely impossible to guarantee that our aircraft will have an advantage in the near field over Rafal.
    It is also unclear how Rafal actually differs from the Raptor for us. Both of them are planes of the NATO military unit.
  36. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 30 June 2013 20: 32 New
    +1
    This is due to the fact that the F-22 aircraft is very expensive and embodies the prestige of the US Air Force and their “invincible” image. The loss of the F-22 in battle will simply destroy the idea of ​​American military aviation as the best and most advanced in the world. Therefore, the “Reptor” will never be allowed into close combat, where much depends on the pilot’s skill and “military fortune”, and not on the perfection of the equipment. In a real battle, the "Reptors" will operate in the passive mode of their radar and will avoid approaching the enemy for a short distance. So that the symbol of American superiority is not accidentally shot down.


    yeah, he’s all the same netakuzh and omnipotent !! Well, you really had to create such a prohibitively expensive airplane, which someone is not going to put into battle without cover, because in the melee it turns out to be knocked down by everyone! Well, if the current is for the sake of prestige, and for working with long and medium-distance ones, it will give something simpler and cheaper, I think it’s more efficient and it wasn’t fun to show off building such an expensive and (maybe) not so inevitable car!
  37. 0255
    0255 21 July 2013 22: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Odyssey

    For example, in the 60-70 F-5, it was sure that all Soviet fighters in the near were bludgeoned, but it didn’t even occur to them to say that with its help we would be able to shoot down new Soviet fighters with powerful locators and medium-range missiles.

    and why did they take their F-5 out of Vietnam, leaving the Phantoms to be torn apart by the MiG-am-21?
  38. Andrey Panov
    Andrey Panov April 26 2017 15: 10 New
    0
    Something painfully easily leaves 22, and the intervals when it is not visible are large. With its speeds, I have to knock down rafal for a long time! Playing cat and mouse.