Military Review

Advanced Super Hornet showed a significant increase in stealth performance and combat radius

99
Advanced Super Hornet showed a significant increase in stealth performance and combat radius

The three-week test of the Advanced Super Hornet demonstrator by Boeing and its partner Northrop Grumman showed that the fighter can effectively counteract threats for several more decades thanks to improvements that make it less noticeable to radar and allow it to have significantly increased combat radius. This is stated in the press release of the company "Boeing" from 28 August.


During the 21 flight in St. Louis and the Patuxent River (Maryland), which was launched on August 5, conformal fuel tanks were tested, a suspension container of internal accommodation weaponsAs well as some enhancements, each of which can be installed on existing Super Hornet Block II aircraft or new build.

Reduction of aircraft radar signature, incl. hanging container for the internal placement of weapons, led to a 50% reduction compared with the stealth requirements of the US Navy to the available options "Super Hornets". Tests have also shown that conformal fuel tanks increase the combat radius of the aircraft by 130 miles and in total is over 700 nautical miles.



Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. slavik_gross
    slavik_gross 30 August 2013 13: 08 New
    +1
    Well, the flag in their hands and our drum ...
    1. alone
      alone 30 August 2013 13: 11 New
      +2
      the flag can be not only in hand, well, and somewhere else)))
      1. Renat
        Renat 30 August 2013 15: 45 New
        0
        Forgot to say a kick in the ass for complete completeness.
    2. Radoslav
      Radoslav 31 August 2013 01: 02 New
      0
      It's okay, they scared me with a bare ass, and we’ll kill him, not the first time we have such a routine
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 31 August 2013 04: 33 New
      +1
      stupid bells and whistles, insignificant ... some restyling ... lol
  2. Professor
    Professor 30 August 2013 13: 10 New
    +6
    making it less noticeable to radars

    I didn’t notice this.
    1. B_KypTke
      B_KypTke 30 August 2013 14: 14 New
      +5
      It is noticeable that the underwing pylons were removed and hung up a container for armament, as well as the lantern was gilded before the first binding. Yes ... and also the air intake has become rectangular.
      1. yanus
        yanus 30 August 2013 15: 11 New
        +1
        And the sense of partial gilding of a lantern? The non-gilded part when irradiated from above as one large angular reflector.
        A hanging container is something interesting, but challenging. The main one is how much will it light up at the opening? And how much will the BC decrease?
        1. loft79
          loft79 30 August 2013 16: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: yanus
          And the sense of partial gilding of a lantern?


          As far as I understand, they need stealth when exposed from front to bottom. When the Hornet goes on the attack. The main thing is to hit first. Well, then - the usual Super Hornet.
        2. clidon
          clidon 30 August 2013 16: 42 New
          +1
          And when irradiated from the front, it will help.
        3. rolik
          rolik 31 August 2013 00: 36 New
          0
          Quote: yanus
          A hanging container is something interesting, but challenging. The main one is how much will it light up at the opening? And how much will the BC decrease?

          It seems that the aircraft is overloaded. It looks like a donkey on which everything that is possible was loaded.
      2. True
        True 30 August 2013 22: 37 New
        +1
        And the nozzles are not flat, the angles are straight between the surfaces.
    2. Burbulator
      Burbulator 30 August 2013 15: 14 New
      +3
      Tell me, have Israeli pilots in their history ever "laid eyes" on the SuperHornet? Not a bad plane after all.
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 August 2013 15: 43 New
        +5
        Quote: Burbulator
        After all, a good airplane in essence.

        A F-15 is better. That is where the reason is.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 31 August 2013 04: 30 New
          +1
          the reason is that these are different types of aircraft, and their tasks are different, a fighter cannot be "better" than an attack aircraft ... and vice versa.
          1. Professor
            Professor 31 August 2013 08: 00 New
            +1
            Aircraft are about the same and both work on ground targets.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 30 August 2013 20: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      I didn’t notice this.

      Hello dear Professor!
      You, so educated, didn’t notice !? Ah ah ah!
      The corners were rounded off, the weapon was hidden in the container, so the RCS decreased, but you did not notice. Want to please your colleagues? Be sincere, do not humiliate yourself with "ignorance" of the obvious.
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 August 2013 21: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        You, so educated, didn’t notice !? Ah ah ah!

        Are you so witty ...

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The corners were rounded off, the weapon was hidden in the container, so the RCS decreased, but you did not notice. Want to please your colleagues? Be sincere, do not humiliate yourself with "ignorance" of the obvious

        The corners are not usually rounded on stealth, but are sharpened; weapons are not hidden in containers, but in the internal compartments. EPR decreased? Well, it used to glow like a steam locomotive, and now like a diesel locomotive, well, it’s just invisible.

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Be sincere, do not humiliate yourself with "ignorance" of the obvious.

        Enlighten the obvious. How much has the ESR decreased?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 31 August 2013 20: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          Enlighten the obvious. How much has the ESR decreased?

          The article states that "The reduction in the aircraft's radar signature, including the pod for internal weapons placement, resulted in a 50% reduction over the US Navy's stealth requirements for available Super Hornets."
          F / A-18E / F is not a stealth fighter (such as the F-22), the ESR of the Super Hornet from the front camera angles is an order of magnitude smaller than the ESR of the previous generation fighters and is about 1,2 sq.m. Consequently, it decreased to 0,6-0.8 sq.m
    4. Radoslav
      Radoslav 31 August 2013 02: 08 New
      -1
      a Jew, however, thinks correctly, however.
  3. Far East
    Far East 30 August 2013 13: 14 New
    +1
    Who will believe them! Means they will come to them! laughing
  4. buzuke
    buzuke 30 August 2013 13: 14 New
    +3
    masturbation is all about how to not make hanging devices - the plane is the same anyway. there’s nothing new and functional, and here’s the Kama Sutra from the old
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 30 August 2013 21: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: buzuke
      there’s nothing new and functional, and here’s the Kama Sutra from the old

      They also have "new" ones, but, like everyone else, the amers took the path of squeezing everything out of the airframe, equipping the modifications with new bells and whistles. The colleague loft79 correctly noted: to hit first, and there, perhaps, there will be no one to somersault with - "Phoenixes" will do their job.
      In this regard, we are still losing, but in this situation it may not even reach close maneuverable combat ("dog dump"). IMHO.
  5. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 30 August 2013 13: 18 New
    +7
    f-35 can be merged. Deck option for sure.
  6. Vtel
    Vtel 30 August 2013 13: 49 New
    +1
    the fighter can effectively counter threats for several decades, thanks to improvements that make it less visible to radar

    They will not hide from our high-altitude detectors, let the crafty amuse themselves and hold on to the lever of the catapult.

    "The 96L6E all-altitude detector is designed to provide information support for the S-300 air defense system and promising air defense systems, including when air defense units conduct independent combat operations with high efficiency, as well as for use in RTV subunits. High tactical and technical characteristics of the radar are provided by the principles laid down in it. construction and used technical solutions.

    The radar has various modes of viewing space, which allow it to detect almost all types of aerodynamic targets - airplanes, helicopters, cruise missiles (including those made using the Stealth technology) and WTO equipment in the entire range of altitudes and speeds of their use. The radar also provides a mode for detecting targets flying along ballistic trajectories at speeds up to 2800 m / s. "
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 30 August 2013 17: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Vtel
      They will not hide from our high-altitude detectors, let the crafty amuse themselves and hold on to the lever of the catapult.

      American military experts, and the AUG commanding staff, are well aware that the days of the weak Russian fleet are over. They are also well aware that the radar of Russian ships is in no way inferior, for example, to the well-known SPY systems on ships of the US Navy.

      http://warfiles.ru/show-37593-rossiya-mozhet-pomoch-sirii-kontrolirovat-vozdushn
      oe-prostranstvo.html
      I think our experts are considering options for the least costly counteraction to the blows of the United States and Co. .. and do it silently and quietly ... because it’s better to say a little and do a lot than talk a lot and do nothing.
  7. tomket
    tomket 30 August 2013 14: 04 New
    0
    and a lot of milk gives cow ??? ... ugh, how many weapons are placed in this very container? the kind of cluster of missiles and bombs that usually hang decks do not fit, or are there compact ammunition?))))) But if this is a container for reconnaissance, well, I was surprised too ....
    1. lucidlook
      lucidlook 30 August 2013 14: 36 New
      +4
      There are 4 seats for missiles or option 2 missiles and 2 bombs. Light rockets are attached from the inside to the side doors, which open outwards at about 45 degrees. And bombs and heavy missiles, in fact, to the container itself (closer to its mount).

      In any case, the little thing is convenient, given the desire for a comprehensive reduction in radio visibility. The point is that this modification can be exported.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 30 August 2013 19: 41 New
      -1
      In the F-35, they also do not fit.
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 August 2013 14: 16 New
    +4
    It is possible that before us is the future of American carrier-based aviation. It would be simply monstrously interesting and I would be very grateful if someone from knowledgeable people would compare the characteristics of this superpuperavanedsedpchel with our Mig-29K / Mig-35. I know the table values ​​of the Superhornet and the Mig-35 myself, but what will be new on the new hornet from avionics and so on and how do these planes really relate to each other?
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 30 August 2013 15: 33 New
      +4
      On avionics hornet obviously cooler.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 30 August 2013 20: 18 New
      +1
      To begin with, when taking off from the deck, the Advanced Super Hornet will clearly have advantages in flight range and combat load, because it takes off with the help of a catapult, and in this case, it can be figuratively put on the thrust-to-weight ratio. The MiG-29K takes off from a springboard and therefore strongly depends on the thrust-to-weight ratio, the greater the load, the less it is, respectively. Carrier speed and wind speed are also important. Since Kuznetsov walks with "broken legs", there are more than 16 knots. does not give out, so it is difficult to expect help from him.
  9. lucidlook
    lucidlook 30 August 2013 14: 19 New
    +5
    Somehow it eluded the author’s attention that, among other things, the new modification will also include new GE-F414-EPE engines with a 20% increase in traction.

    In fact - another carnation in the lid of the coffin F-35
  10. USNik
    USNik 30 August 2013 14: 29 New
    +4
    It turns out to be a good time-tested car, and that means "F-35, let's go bye!" Well, at least for carrier-based aircraft for sure.
    Here are the Boeing and Northrop advertising Wishlist:
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 30 August 2013 14: 37 New
      +2
      Um, and the container is very interesting. And he hangs only one, can a pair be attached?
      1. Northerner
        Northerner 30 August 2013 15: 00 New
        +3
        Road train with containers in the air!
    2. bereg
      bereg 30 August 2013 15: 21 New
      -5
      F35 to the deck is funny. there is no such budget in the world)
    3. 0255
      0255 30 August 2013 16: 42 New
      +3
      Northrop-Grumman released an advertisement for the F-35 with their electronics shooting down the Russian Su-35 or MiG-29/35 and thereby saving Eurofighter from being shot down. Therefore, both the F-35 and the new Hornet will be brought to them. After all, the Americans will still take the F-35.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 30 August 2013 16: 55 New
        +3
        Northrop-Grumman issued an advertisement as F-35 with their electronics knocking down the Russian Su-35 or MiG-29 / 35 and thereby saves Eurofighter from being shot down.

        Those. not only can they only advertise, have they also lowered Eurofighter? Good allies ...
    4. clidon
      clidon 30 August 2013 16: 44 New
      0
      This is just for export. The US fleet wants cars more modern.
  11. Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 30 August 2013 14: 38 New
    0
    "a suspended container for the internal placement of weapons" - how cool is it, and they shield the engines with a super secret, invisible, intelligent and very cold "plasma" probably they wanted to "hit" the countries of the 5rd world, not otherwise ...
  12. individual
    individual 30 August 2013 15: 18 New
    0
    The best "Stealth" is in the hangar, how to hide it in a capsule and not stick it out.
  13. Manager
    Manager 30 August 2013 15: 21 New
    0
    As long as our air defense systems are not informed that these planes are stolen, they will shoot them down!
    But in addition to jokes, I do not believe in this Stealth Shmels and so on.
  14. alexng
    alexng 30 August 2013 15: 44 New
    -2
    Something amepy screwed up with the fifth generation soft-boiled and decided to do pliz-pliz-pliz. Crushed, however, completely. It seems that the virtual pseudo-economy is malfunctioning and the stone flower does not come out from the Yanyk, since he is not Danila the master at all.
  15. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 30 August 2013 15: 46 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    making it less noticeable to radars

    I didn’t notice this.

    Because it is hardly noticeable! laughing
  16. TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 30 August 2013 15: 48 New
    +1
    it's called: hopelessness. there is no hope for either the f-22 or the f-35 - a waste of time and money. and if they had not removed the f-4 from service, then they would have been cutting "stealth" out of it. but most likely this is not done for their own needs, because they themselves realize that this is complete nonsense, but for export: the f-18 technology is debugged, processed a little with a file, hung a "stealth" cardigan, and now, the light version of the 5th generation ready. it may work for third world countries ... or it may not work. This is not their first experience. there is one more drawback of "stealth": f-15 (some kind of secretive hunter or whatever), which was even supplied ... of course to the Arabs, but who else needs it.
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 August 2013 15: 52 New
      +4
      Quote: TS3sta3
      this is called: hopelessness. neither f-22 nor f-35 hopes, for them, no

      You broadcast nonsense. This is called practicality. The Americans B-52 is still in service, like the U-2. Despite the fact that they have B-1, B-2 and UAVs ...
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 30 August 2013 16: 09 New
        +2
        The Americans B-52 is still in service, like the U-2. Despite the fact that they have B-1, B-2 and UAVs ...

        Yeah, from that B-52 that was then, there remains, God forbid, only the fuselage. U-2 has also undergone so many changes that it is time to be called U-3 (Ksati, still sits down and takes off using directions from a nearby supercar?).
        B-1 did not quite work out, but even so. B-2 is monstrously expensive. What nafig practicality ????
        But the UAV yes .... multiplied, even there are already not enough operators.
        1. clidon
          clidon 30 August 2013 17: 43 New
          +3
          But what are the problems of B-1 and B-2 if they already exist (at any price) and do a good job of their tasks.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 30 August 2013 18: 53 New
            0
            And what are the problems of B-1 and B-2 if they already exist (at any price)

            You yourself answered your question. The price of the application. The B-1, for example, does not have a second bomb gate, closer to the tail. The B-2 has a huge price, both on its own and in its operation.
            1. clidon
              clidon 30 August 2013 23: 03 New
              0
              What is the dysfunction of the second B1B bomb walker?
              B-2 and abilities have extraordinary. You have to pay for everything.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 31 August 2013 09: 29 New
                0
                What is the dysfunction of the second B1B bomb walker?

                But it is simply not used. And why, it is explained very vaguely - either because of the weight distribution, or because of non-working devices.
                1. clidon
                  clidon 31 August 2013 13: 04 New
                  +1
                  It has been used for a long time. ) There were some jambs with the installation of a Tomahawk carousel there, so they shoved the tank (this is me from memory, you want to look for details on the net), but now everything that is not getting there is quietly pushed there. Even in the non-modernizable (more precisely Block D) version there (in the third compartment) there is a 16-cell JDAM "spinner", for example.
                  So this is a great machine for its purposes, the functionality of which is expanded non-sour with an enviable frequency
      2. clidon
        clidon 30 August 2013 16: 58 New
        0
        This is primarily an attempt to earn money.
      3. Scoun
        Scoun 30 August 2013 17: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Professor
        This is called practicality.

        Well, of course practicality ... but where did you see the "nonsense" then?
        Quote: Professor
        they have B-1, B-2

        please tell me the cost of one B-2?
        so here practicality from hopelessness ...
        22- do not do any more 35th generally turned out "shitty"
        1. clidon
          clidon 30 August 2013 17: 45 New
          +1
          When were those B-2s made? How much was planned, and how much did? F-22 just do not make out of pragmatic considerations - the plane is expensive and almost two hundred as it was considered enough.
          Scolding the F-35 without having his TTX in hand is simply ridiculous.
        2. Professor
          Professor 30 August 2013 21: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: Scoun
          please tell me the cost of one B-2?

          Yes, even though it will be made of moonstone. He copes with his task of breaking through air defense with a bang, there were no losses in the battle, and the old B-52 follow him and finish off. Thus, he has already recaptured his money.

          22- do not do any more 35th generally turned out "shitty"

          The rest are still many years hard to plow to plow to reach the level of these "shitty" people.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 30 August 2013 21: 39 New
            +2
            He copes with his task of breaking through air defense with a bang, there were no losses in the battle, and the old B-52 follow him and finish off. Thus, he has already recaptured his money.

            This is where did he beat off his money? Against the Afghans on donkeys? Or against Iraqis with air defense in the form of shotguns? Where and when did this plane break through air defense at least once ??? Was real air defense, and not that appearance, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya?
            The rest are still many years hard to plow to plow to reach the level of these "shitty" people.

            Let's get there. The only difference is that now apply F-22 ... nowhere. Just stupidly not where. This is an expensive toy. Yes, the Americans got a lot of experience designing this car. But they did not find where to use it.
            1. Professor
              Professor 30 August 2013 22: 01 New
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              This is where did he beat off his money?

              Wherever the Americans have fought since.

              Quote: Wedmak
              Let's get there.

              Then let's talk. hi
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 30 August 2013 22: 12 New
                0
                Wherever the Americans have fought since.

                It remains to add that since the 1945 of the year (somewhat defeating Japan), the Americans have never fought against a real, well-armed enemy. And when there were episodes of meeting with such - shamefully fled.
                1. clidon
                  clidon 30 August 2013 23: 07 New
                  +3
                  It is now easy to say that they say that they have never fought anywhere. I remember in 1991, domestic experts loudly trumpeted about 100 thousand coffins for Americans from Iraqi soldiers. Then fanfares abruptly faded and the region’s most powerful army ceased to be praised and called a worthy adversary. )
                  1. Scoun
                    Scoun 2 September 2013 11: 23 New
                    0
                    Quote: clidon
                    I remember in 1991, domestic experts loudly trumpeted about 100 thousand coffins for Americans from Iraqi soldiers.

                    Aren't you the professor's "bot"?
                    "to him about practicality, he is about the moonstone."
                    A beautiful phrase about Americans, you literally give your wish for the real ...
                    speaking of Americans .. you somehow strangely forget about about 40 more countries participating in that company.
                    between the multinational force (MNF) (led by the United States, under a UN mandate) and Iraq for the liberation and restoration of Kuwait’s independence. The conflict is known for the unprecedented scope of the use of aviation (not in terms of the number of aircraft, but in terms of the impact on the course of hostilities), “smart” and high-precision weapons, which, according to many experts, marked the beginning of a new era in military art (also thanks to wide coverage of the process of hostilities in the media, called the "television war").
                    1. clidon
                      clidon 2 September 2013 15: 44 New
                      0
                      I don’t know who you call professor here, but if you read above, I answered the phrase
                      It remains to add that since 1945 (somewhat defeating Japan), the Americans have never fought a real, well-armed enemy.


                      Take an interest in the contribution of those 40 countries, the vast majority of them and the Iraqi have not seen a living during the whole war.)
  17. Professor
    Professor 30 August 2013 16: 17 New
    +5
    Quote: Wedmak
    What nafig practicality ????

    It is such, while flying they will be exploited, sold to third countries, stored in the desert or converted into flying targets. This is called practicality - squeeze everything out of technology. In the USSR they didn’t think about this - thousands of planes were allowed for scrap. For example, where is the MiG-21? They no longer have a market?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 30 August 2013 16: 43 New
      +1
      Thousands of aircraft were allowed for scrap.

      Why ... Mig-17, in my opinion, was remade into radio-controlled targets. True, after the collapse of the USSR, many planes simply rotted, there was no money for their maintenance.
      For example, where is the MiG-21?

      Some countries still serve. There is a modernization of the MiG-21BIS. Please, buy. But why is he part of the Russian Air Force?
      You directly compared the B-52, where the airframe’s life lasts for decades and the fighter, whose generations are replaced more and more often.
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 August 2013 16: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: Wedmak
        True, after the collapse of the USSR, many planes simply rotted, there was no money for their maintenance.

        And before the collapse, almost all of the 21st were destroyed, but they could still fly like they fly in other other countries. No practicality. And not the fighters in the USSR did not survive, went to the pots. In Israel, almost until the year 2000, the Dakota flew.

        Quote: Wedmak
        You directly compared the B-52, where the airframe’s life lasts for decades and the fighter, whose generations are replaced more and more often.

        Well, where are the Soviet peers B-52 or U-2?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 30 August 2013 17: 08 New
          +2
          And before the collapse, almost all 21s were destroyed, but they could still fly like they fly in other other countries. No practicality.

          Yeah, because the MiG-23, MiG-25, and then the MiG-29 and Su-27 came into service. What for were there planes that could not adequately fight the enemy planes?
          In Israel, almost until the 2000 year, the Dakota flew.

          Did Israel face the same threat as the USSR? With US subsidies, which is something they are afraid of ... they flew in the trash.
          Well, where are the Soviet peers B-52 or U-2?

          Tu-95MS is that already in the same age as the B-52 is not suitable? We had no U-2 analogues, but let's contrast him with the enemy - the MiG-25. If not for Belenko, stabbed his goat, they would still have flown. And so I had to make a new MiG-31.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 30 August 2013 19: 47 New
            0
            Tu-95MS are 1980s, as it were.
            The MiG-31 itself is a variant of the MiG-25.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 30 August 2013 20: 50 New
              +1
              Tu-95MS are 1980s, as it were.

              B-52G and B-52H are generally 90. It's not about upgrades, but about the age of the aircraft base.
              1. clidon
                clidon 30 August 2013 23: 08 New
                0
                B-52 is the 60s. Tu-95MS 80s. For some reason, they did not consider it possible to upgrade the Tu-95 of the 60s.
          2. Professor
            Professor 30 August 2013 21: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            What for were there planes that could not adequately fight the enemy planes?

            On a fig? Here are the Americans who are remaking their stoichki for a penny into flying targets. From the MiG-21 would have been a glorious UAV or KR.

            Quote: Wedmak
            Did Israel face the same threat as the USSR?

            With much greater threats - its existence, and every 10 years a real war.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 30 August 2013 21: 42 New
              0
              Here the Americans are now remaking their stoichki for a penny into flying targets.

              Flag them hands. They riveted so many planes that they themselves do not know where to put them. Only you forgot to say how many of these old men their life in the desert, in the cemetery.
              From the MiG-21 would be a glorious UAV or KR.

              There are big doubts about this. Apparently it was not economically profitable.
              1. Professor
                Professor 30 August 2013 22: 08 New
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                in the desert, in the cemetery.

                For a beautiful graveyard word? This storage facility and not many planes are disposed of, the rest are on conservation.




                Quote: Wedmak
                There are big doubts about this. Apparently it was not economically profitable.

                Apparently no one even calculated socialism.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 30 August 2013 22: 15 New
                  -2
                  For a beautiful graveyard word? This storage facility and not many planes are disposed of, the rest are on conservation.

                  No ... how many of these devices are suitable for flight? Some of them are dismantled into spare parts for flight boards. And part, just out of date, but there is no money for disposal.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 30 August 2013 22: 20 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    No ... how many of these devices are suitable for flight? Some of them are dismantled into spare parts for flight boards. And part, just out of date, but there is no money for disposal.

                    Your distortions begin to bother. Most aircraft in storage are on conservation and in flight condition. If necessary, they are extracted and sold / transferred to third countries. Without tension, they converted the F-4 and F-16 into flying targets ...
                    There is no money for the disposal of expensive color in the United States? What do you smoke?
                    1. Wedmak
                      Wedmak 30 August 2013 22: 41 New
                      0
                      There is no money for the disposal of expensive color in the United States? What do you smoke?

                      Yes, this is the same color ... Well, well ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. olegff68
          olegff68 30 August 2013 17: 40 New
          +1
          Quote: Professor

          Well, where are the Soviet peers B-52 or U-2?

          Throughout the country in the form of monuments stand.
          Well this is to the question of practicality.
        5. kagorta
          kagorta 30 August 2013 19: 37 New
          +2
          Neither need so categorically professor. And the Tu-95?
          1. clidon
            clidon 31 August 2013 13: 05 New
            +1
            Tu-95MS is a relatively new machine. Their release lasted a year until 1992.
        6. Avenger711
          Avenger711 30 August 2013 19: 46 New
          +2
          In those countries, they do not fly from a good life.
        7. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 30 August 2013 21: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          Well, where are the Soviet peers B-52 or U-2?

          It is not strange TU-95MS in the ranks so far. Created, like B-52, in 1955 year. Had a bunch of modifications.
          1. clidon
            clidon 31 August 2013 13: 06 New
            0
            It has already been said - this is a relatively new aircraft.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 30 August 2013 19: 45 New
      0
      The Soviet MiG-21s flew for some time as training, but there was no reason to keep the junk in the shrinking Russian army, there were enough new MiG-29s and Su-27s, and for exporting cars it was dofig. At the same time, the MiG-21 has a good service life of 10-15 years.
  18. Horde
    Horde 30 August 2013 18: 22 New
    0
    look pindo_sy took their planes repainted in normal colors, and our idiots were forced to paint in stupid gray. Now they are like people in white, but we are in chocolate.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 30 August 2013 18: 54 New
      +1
      motrit pindo_sy took repainted their airplanes in normal colors

      This is a prototype, it can even be painted in a rainbow color, if only it would attract attention.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 30 August 2013 19: 15 New
    0
    And in the decimeter range, after modernization, is it as clearly visible as before, or are there any changes for the better?
  21. APASUS
    APASUS 30 August 2013 19: 35 New
    +1
    Decrease in the radar signature of the aircraft, incl. hanging container for the internal placement of weapons, led to a 50% decrease compared with the stealth requirements of the US Navy to the available options for "Super Hornets"

    I am often surprised by the imprisonment of Americans under stealth technology.
    After all, the signature of the aircraft is important when using modern radars, and they usually fight with countries that are known to be technically weak air defense. Here are such curiosities from the court as in Yugoslavia. The ultra-modern F-117 was hit by a missile of the S-125 "Neva" complex, let's say so not modern
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 30 August 2013 20: 54 New
      0
      They themselves are vicious Pinocchio ... there was nothing to drive airplanes along the same corridors, tea is not the E-95 track. Here are the Serbs and guarded around the corner. And against scrap, there is no admission. laughing
    2. Professor
      Professor 30 August 2013 21: 18 New
      0
      Quote: APASUS
      .Here from the court such curiosities as in Yugoslavia. The supermodern F-117 was hit by a missile of the S-125 "Neva" complex, let's say this is not a modern

      You forgot to add: one F-117, only one. Considering the number of sorties, an airplane performs its task perfectly. good
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 30 August 2013 21: 46 New
        0
        Considering the number of sorties, an airplane performs its task perfectly.

        Given their cost, performance characteristics, performance characteristics and results of application - they did not justify their purpose. Therefore, they were quickly decommissioned. If you compare with the same F-15 - a very successful aircraft, heaps of modifications, and still continues to be used. F-117 ... how is he remembered in history? Flying iron, was shot down by the ancient air defense system, decommissioned. Yes ... great plane ....
        1. Professor
          Professor 30 August 2013 22: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          Given their cost, performance characteristics, performance characteristics and results of application - they did not justify their purpose.

          Not tired of bothering you? How much did Soviet aircraft cost? Who ever thought that?

          Quote: Wedmak
          Because they were quickly written off

          Quickly? The terms of service in the studio and together we laugh how it was written off when the replacement came.

          Quote: Wedmak
          F-117 ... how is he remembered in history?

          At least by the fact that he repeatedly broke through the air defense of different countries, despite the fact that 1 (one) aircraft was lost in battle.

          Quote: Wedmak
          If you compare with the same F-15

          With what, with what to compare? Do they have the same tasks? You still compare Ferrari and BelAZ ... fool
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 30 August 2013 22: 29 New
            -1
            Not tired of bothering you? How much did Soviet aircraft cost? Who ever thought that?

            It’s you trembling, I’m talking. But Soviet aircraft, and indeed equipment, always cost several times less than their American counterparts. With similar performance characteristics.
            Quickly? The terms of service in the studio and together we laugh how it was written off when the replacement came.

            F-117 25 years
            Start of operation October 1983
            End of operation 22 April 2008 year
            F-15E 25 years
            Start of operation April 1988 of the year
            It is still in operation! No one is going to write off. A new modification has appeared.

            Replacing F-117? You are joking? She is? Or was it?

            With what, with what to compare? Do they have the same tasks? You still compare Ferrari and BelAZ ...

            Yes, probably it was necessary to indicate a modification ... F-15E. Both work mainly on land. Both drums. Only one is made using stealth technology and works on important objects, and the second is an ordinary bomber with smart weapons.
            1. Professor
              Professor 30 August 2013 22: 42 New
              -1
              Quote: Wedmak
              It’s you trembling, I’m talking. But Soviet aircraft, and indeed equipment, always cost several times less than their American counterparts. With similar performance characteristics.

              Just do not worry about the prices of Soviet and American aircraft with similar performance characteristics in the studio.

              Quote: Wedmak
              Replacing F-117? You are joking? She is? Or was it?

              First, only the absolute amateur can compare Ф-117 and Ф-15. These aircraft have different tasks.
              Secondly, the replacement of the F-117 is already in service. The F-22 entered service with the 2005 and it is capable of performing the same tasks as the legendary F-117.

              Quote: Wedmak
              Yes, probably it was necessary to indicate a modification ... F-15E. Both work mainly on land. Both drums. Only one is made using stealth technology and works on important objects, and the second is an ordinary bomber with smart weapons.

              You should go to teach materiel. The B-52 can also "work on the ground", and only on the ground. So what? Let's compare it with the F-117? Why was the F-117 created?
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 30 August 2013 22: 51 New
                0
                Just do not worry about the prices of Soviet and American aircraft with similar performance characteristics in the studio.

                Too lazy to look.
                First, only the absolute amateur can compare Ф-117 and Ф-15. These aircraft have different tasks.

                Oh really?
                Secondly, the replacement of the F-117 is already in service. The F-22 entered service with the 2005 and it is capable of performing the same tasks as the legendary F-117.

                What, what????? F-22 replacement F-117 ???? Yes, you seem to smoke something strong too!
                The B-52 can also "work on the ground", and only on the ground. So what? Let's compare it with the F-117? Why was the F-117 created?

                I have already answered you. Both F-117 and F-15Е are both attack aircraft. They differ only in secrecy, but in tactics of application.

                As for the F-22 ... this aircraft is an air superiority fighter. Dot. On the ground, he’s like a chicken paw ... And call it a replacement for the Goblin ... it looks like you should teach the materiel.
                1. rolik
                  rolik 31 August 2013 00: 47 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  . And call it a replacement for Goblin ..

                  Correction, "Cockroach")))))
                2. Professor
                  Professor 31 August 2013 08: 04 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Too lazy to look.

                  So there is a trembling. I’m not interested in talking with you when I want to read someone’s fantasies I read the Strugatsky. hi
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 31 August 2013 09: 31 New
                    0
                    Yes, for God's sake ... you yourself did not bring a single fact, not a single figure, but you require something from others ...
                  2. rolik
                    rolik 31 August 2013 09: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    I read the Strugatsky.

                    Can I guess ...... "F ... idy city of St. Petersburg" go and read)))))))
                    Damn, here it is political correctness, even the original name of the work had to be written through the dots))))) Well .... IDEAS))))))
              2. 0255
                0255 31 August 2013 00: 57 New
                +2
                F-22 entered service in the 2005th and he is able to perform the same tasks as the legendary F-117.

                Americans F-22 did not dare to apply even in Libya, it is used as an interceptor. F-117 could not conduct a maneuverable air battle, although it was possible to suspend air-to-air missiles on it.
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 30 August 2013 22: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        You forgot to add: one F-117, only one. Considering the number of sorties, an airplane performs its task perfectly.

        In those days, this is nonsense!
        After all, the United States positioned it as the most modern in the world produced using Stealth technology.
        1. Professor
          Professor 30 August 2013 22: 25 New
          +1
          So he was. Now there is more modern.
          1. rolik
            rolik 31 August 2013 01: 01 New
            +2
            [quote = professor]. Now there is more modern [/ quote
            Unable to fly normally F-22, and F-35 preparing to drain.
            Super stealth technology, slammy mattresses with us, but why when they shoved them they did not read about how easy it is to find these aircraft. It’s not enough brains for that. All that was needed was to sniff and burp quickly, and to sit down for riveting expensive pieces of normally flightless junk. If only thanks to Peter Yakovlevich Ufimtsev, for the gift)))))))
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 August 2013 20: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        one F-117, just one. Considering the number of sorties, an airplane performs its task perfectly.

        The Americans positioned it as "invisible" to enemy radars, and therefore "invulnerable". The downed F-117 dispelled the myth of the invulnerability of the "invisible", this is similar to the defeat of the Nazis near Moscow in the winter of 41. And after that it doesn't matter how many sorties he made, bypassing the areas of the air defense facility in the south. He lost the information war, when the whole world on TV showed the lieutenant colonel of the Yugoslav army on the wreckage of the "night hawk", telling that it was necessary to do "a little improvement" and even on old complexes it would be possible to shoot down "invisibles".
        1. clidon
          clidon 31 August 2013 20: 47 New
          0
          It's funny that he was called invisible by us or in the yellow press. Translated from English "stealth" is "inconspicuous". Therefore, no one doubted that they could be shot down. And there is no doubt that it is relatively difficult either then or now.
    3. clidon
      clidon 31 August 2013 08: 31 New
      0
      Well, yes, after thousands of successful sorties in Iraq and Yugoslavia, one managed to bring down.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 31 August 2013 09: 36 New
        +1
        Well, yes, after thousands of successful sorties in Iraq and Yugoslavia, one managed to bring down.

        Yeah, there is another side. After hundreds of F-117 sorties, their contribution to the effectiveness of NATO aviation was ... God forbid, 5%. That is, the concept of a nightly inconspicuous bomber in the form of the F-117 did not justify itself. Meet a fighter - a corpse, fall into the radar network - a corpse, fly like an iron, an electronics failure - you can’t even plan on the field ... As a result, after much torment, it’s decommissioned.
        1. clidon
          clidon 31 August 2013 13: 08 New
          0
          Yes, 5% of the volume, but in terms of the importance of goals, they are by no means 5% of the work of the Air Force.
          The submarine will meet with the destroyer-corpse, it will be discovered by sonar - the corpse. And what are they all building like fools?
          By the way, F-117s are still flying. In whose interests and how much is the "big secret". )
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 31 August 2013 16: 07 New
            0
            Yes, 5% of the volume, but in terms of the importance of goals, they are by no means 5% of the work of the Air Force.

            Yes, but in the conditions of the "Yugoslav Air Defense" the F-15E could do the same job. And with the same efficiency.

            By the way, F-117 are still flying.

            Seriously? Does everyone study the method of edge waves?
            1. clidon
              clidon 31 August 2013 16: 49 New
              0
              Yes, but in the conditions of the "Yugoslav Air Defense" the F-15E could do the same job. And with the same efficiency.

              Do you know the thoroughly tactical situation over the then Yugoslavia? Or does it seem so to you?

              Seriously? Does everyone study the method of edge waves?

              Who knows? This information is generally obtained only through spotterami.
  22. individual
    individual 30 August 2013 23: 00 New
    0
    There is no limit to perfection, but the ideal is not attainable.
  23. aleshka1987
    aleshka1987 31 August 2013 11: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: yanus
    And the sense of partial gilding of a lantern? The non-gilded part when irradiated from above as one large angular reflector.
    A hanging container is something interesting, but challenging. The main one is how much will it light up at the opening? And how much will the BC decrease?

    When the container lights up at the opening, you have already been started! I think it is clear which of the following conclusions follow.
  24. 0255
    0255 31 August 2013 13: 04 New
    0
    People, in 1969, the Soviet scientist Prangshvili came up with how to spot stealths - you need to configure the existing radars so that so that they find the "trail" in the air, which leaves behind a plane in flight! And the "trail" in the air is left by absolutely all aircraft, and the F-117, and the F-22, and the B-2, and the F-35, and the F-15 Silent Eagle, and the F / A-18 Silent Hornet, and also not included in the series X-32 and YF-23. And they wrote that the radars of the A-50 and Su-35 aircraft also detect stealth.
    And Zoltan Dani showed that stealth can be shot down. In Yugoslavia, another F-117 was lost, its loss was recognized by the Americans as non-combat. Or maybe he was shot down by the same Serb Gvozden Dukach on the MiG-29, which the United States categorically denies? Or was it "removed" from Strela MANPADS? How many planes did the Americans write off after their wars against backward countries for non-combat reasons?
    According to data not recognized by the United States, in Iraq during the "Desert Storm", one F-117 was shot down from the "Osa" air defense system. But if the United States does not recognize this, then it is not a fact that he was not shot down.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 31 August 2013 16: 11 New
      0
      You can detect stealth much easier ... Stupidly put two or three spaced radar. The signal reflected from the stealth to the source will certainly not go, but it will go to another radar. And everything will be in full view - shoot.
      1. clidon
        clidon 31 August 2013 16: 51 New
        0
        And the stability of this system will greatly increase? When making one radar, or communication lines between them (which should be very long), again you have to fumble in the sky with your eyes. Yes, and problems with target designation will be as before. There is another way - meter radars, the same result, with the same problems.
  25. Druid
    Druid 31 August 2013 18: 57 New
    0
    F / A-18 finally became a strike aircraft, from a fighter, and initially it was a fighter-bomber (attack aircraft, judging by Idex A), less and less, the same parsley and the latest modifications of the initially "clean" fighters F-16 and F- fifteen. In fact, in addition to the fighters of the National Guard and Raptors, the United States will soon have no pure superiority fighter left, everything is focused on the war with the third world countries.
    Of course, you can remove these tanks, but then you get a painfully expensive fighter.
    1. clidon
      clidon 31 August 2013 19: 14 New
      0
      Now there will be no clean fighters for gaining air superiority - the same F-22 is also designed to perform strike missions. Exactly like the T-50. And stealth functions will not prevent this Hornet from shooting down planes.