US military aircraft: the most powerful in the world

263
US military aircraft: the most powerful in the world


In the ranks of the Air Force of America - 2157 combat aircraft, but their number is minimal for the entire history aviation, and the average age is the largest in the last hundred years

US Air Force along with fleet form the basis of the country's military power. Contrary to popular myths, the Americans are quite capable of successfully waging a tough contact war on land. But they certainly will not fight, without achieving dominance in the air. In addition, aviation provides the United States Armed Forces with the highest strategic mobility, not a single country even comes close to the United States in this regard. Therefore, the development of the Air Force is given extremely great importance, it is this type of armed forces that becomes the "center of attraction" of the main innovations in American military construction. Thanks to this, the United States can win the war with one aircraft over the vast majority of the countries of the world, without involving the ground forces and the navy.

How is the structure of the US Air Force

The USAF has ten commanders (eight target and two territorial) and the National Guard Air Force. The latter is formally intended to protect the territory of the country, but since such a task is not worth 200 years already, the National Guard is constantly involved in interventionist operations.

Unlike Russia and China, in which each of the components of the “nuclear triad” are included in certain types of aircraft, the US has two components (ICBMs and strategic bombers) are part of the Air Force.

The main structural units of the Air Force are the air armies (BA), consisting of air wings (equivalent to regiments), which, in turn, are divided into squadrons. Moreover, the air armies, wings and squadrons may not have a single combat aircraft and no weapons at all, but the names are still used.

Global Strike Command (Headquarters Barksdale, Louisiana) includes both components of US strategic nuclear forces (SNFs). In the composition of the Command - two air armies. The 8-I VA is armed with all the strategic bombers B-52H and B-2A. The 20-I VA (Cheyenne, Wyoming) incorporates all the Minuteman-3 ICBMs.

Space Command (Peterson, Colorado) includes the Aerospace Center, the Center for the Development of Space Innovation and two air armies. 14-I VA (Vandenberg, California) is "space itself", responsible for the implementation of military space programs. 24-I (Lackland, Texas) is responsible for conducting cybernetic and, more broadly, information warfare.

Combat aviation command (Langley, Virginia) includes all combat aircraft (except strategic and reserve components) deployed in the main territory of the United States. It consists of three air armies (1-I, 9-I, 12-I) and the Center for the development of methods for the combat use of Air Force aviation. The air transfer command (Scott, Illinois) includes a center of transfer and 18-th Air Army, which includes almost all of the US military transport and refueling aircraft. The Training Command (San Antonio, Texas), as the name implies, trains Air Force flight and technical personnel. It includes 2-I and 19-I VA, an aviation university, a medical center.

The MTO Command (Wright-Patterson, Ohio) is engaged in the material, technical and scientific support of the Air Force. It has a Research Laboratory and eight Centers - aerospace systems, flight tests, support for global transfers, nuclear weapons, security, aircraft, electronic systems, engineering research.


Fighter F-15E based on Leikenhit.


The Air Force Special Operations Forces (MTR) Command (McDill, Florida) is responsible for the aviation support of the special operations of the US Armed Forces.

The command of the Air Force Reserve (Robins, GA) is a kind of "spare Air Force" stationed in the continental US. Parts of the reserve are constantly operational and undergoing combat training for the same programs as the regular Air Force. Many wings and reserve air groups are directly “affiliated” with the wings of the Combat Aviation Command and the Air Transfer Command, equipped with the same aircraft and deployed on the same IAB. The reserve command has three air armies. 4-I VA (March, California) is a reserve for the Air Force Command. 10-I VA (Fort Worth, Texas) is a reserve for Combat Aviation Command. The 22-I VA (Dobbins, GA) is a reserve for Air Transfer Command and MTR.

The US Air Force Command in Europe (Ramstein, Germany) incorporates the 3 Air Force. It includes 31 fighter wing (Aviano, Italy; armed with F-16 fighters), 48 fighter wing (Leikenheath, Great Britain, F-15C / D / E fighters, HH-60 helicopters), 52-e fighter air wing (Spangdahlem, Germany, F-16), 86 air wing (Ramstein, transport aircraft), 100-e acre (Mildenhall, UK, refueling machines KS-135R).

The command of the US Air Force in the Pacific (Pearl Harbor, Hawaii) has four air armies. Two of them are deployed outside the United States (in Japan and the Republic of Korea), and two in the enclave states (Alaska and Hawaii). 5-I VA (Yokota, Japan) includes 18-e wing (Kadena, Okinawa, F-15C / D, KC-135R, E-3, HH-60G), 35-e wing (Misawa, F-16), 374-e wing (Yokota, transport aircraft and helicopters). The 7-I VA (Osan, Republic of Korea) includes the 8-e wing (Kunsan, F-16), the 51-e wing (Osan, A-10 attack aircraft). The 11-I VA (Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska) includes the 3-e wing (Elmendorf, F-22A fighters, DRLO E-3В planes, transport planes), 354-e ICRs (Eilson, F-16). The 13-I VA (Pearl Harbor) includes the 15-e wing (Pearl Harbor, F-22, transport aircraft).

The Air Force of the National Guard, as mentioned above, is formally designed to defend the territory of the United States, therefore, in peacetime, parts of them are subordinate to state governors. However, in reality, they are regularly used in operations abroad, as they are equipped with the same technology and are trained under the same programs as the regular air force. The NG air forces of each state have from one to five wings and air groups. In total, they have 81 air wing, three communication groups, one reconnaissance group, two groups of cybernetic operations, one group of special operations.

What planes are in the ranks

The US Air Force has the world's largest number of aircraft of all classes and many types.

In addition to airplanes and helicopters of the regular units, the reserve, and the National Guard, a significant number of US Air Force vehicles are stored at the Davis-Montan base (AMARG, Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group, Aviation and Space Technology Repair and Restoration Group), from which many of them can be returned to service (although the base Davis-Montand has the unofficial name “Cemetery”). In the future, to reduce about these aircraft and helicopters will be said that they are on the AMARG.

The only type of ICBM in the US Air Force is LGM-30 ("Minuteman-3") of mine-based, carrying from one to three nuclear warheads each. They are in service with the 20-VA command of global strikes in the number of 450 units. In addition, there are from 57 to 98 non-deployed missiles of the same type, which are gradually spent during the tests.

Heavy mine-based ICBMs LGM-118 (MX), capable of carrying 10 warheads each, removed from service. At the same time, there are from 51 to 63 non-deployed missiles of this type, which are gradually converted into space launch vehicles “Minotaur-IV” to launch military satellites.

The basis of the American strategic aviation aircraft are B-52H, each of which carries up to 20 cruise missiles. 78 bombers of this type are in service, on the AMARG - another 13, as well as 97 airplanes of the previous modification B-52G. Although the last B-52s were released in the 1960 year, they will remain in the US Air Force until the 2040-s. The B-52H has more than 1,4 thousands of AGM-86B / C / D cruise missiles and more than 400 AGM-129A.

The second strategic bomber of the US Air Force is the B-2A, built using stealth technology. Able to carry only nuclear bombs, as well as a variety of conventional weapons. As part of the Air Force is 20 aircraft of this type, of which one is used as an experimental.


Heavy fighter F-XNUMHA "Raptor".


Strategic bombers B-1B retooled for use in non-nuclear purposes. The system has 62 B-1B, on the AMARG - another 18.

The well-known “invisible” F-117 aircraft has a “fighter” designation (F-fighter), but is not able to conduct air combat due to the peculiarities of aerodynamics and the lack of on-board radar. Therefore, in essence, he is a tactical bomber. The X-NUMX F-52A vehicles have been withdrawn from the Air Force, but remain in storage at their military base, Tonopah (Nevada), in a fully combat-ready state and can be quickly returned to service.

The United States Air Force has 300 A-10 attack aircraft in the ranks, while the AMARG still has 207. The location of another 23 aircraft of this type is unknown, perhaps they are converted into combat UAVs. In the future, it is the combat UAVs that are supposed to replace the manned attack aircraft. At the same time, all the A-10 front-line combatants are expected to be brought to AMARG in the near future.

The Special Operations Forces Command (SSO) is armed with 25 armed AC-130 transport aircraft (7 H, 18 U; on the AMARG - another 1 N) used in counterguerrilla and special operations.

The F-22А Raptor fighter is currently the only regular fighter of the 5 generation in service in the regular units in the world. In total, the USAF has 187 vehicles of this type.

The F-22 was intended to replace the F-15 Eagle, which, in turn, was the first fourth-generation fighter adopted in the world. Currently, the X-NUMX of the F-253 fighter (15 C, 217 D) remains in service, while the AMARG still has the 36 (187 A, 72 B, 9 C, 97 D). In addition, there is a shock version of this F-9 “Strike Eagle” aircraft with limited air combat capabilities. In the system there are 15 machines of this type.

The fifth generation lightweight fighter intended to replace the F-16 fighter jets and the A-10 attack aircraft is the F-35A. It is supposed to produce for the USAF 1763 aircraft of this type, but while the program is far behind schedule, only the 33 F-35А entered service. However, it is the only combat aircraft currently being produced for the US Air Force.

The most massive American fighter remains the F-16. 981 aircraft of this type are now in service (2 A, 2 B, 817 C, 160 D), on the AMARG - another 605 (323 A, 52 B, 216 C, 14 D). In addition, nine aircraft (2 A, 7 C) converted into aerial unmanned targets QF-16. It is possible that they can be used as combat UAVs.

On the AMARG, the X-NUMX of the F-297 Fighter "Phantom" of various modifications, including the QF-4 target aircraft, remains.

As mentioned above, combat Drones should in the future replace, at a minimum, manned attack aircraft. Currently, the US Air Force is armed with 207 MQ-1 Predator UAVs and 104 MQ-9 Reaper UAVs. However, these machines are able to operate effectively only if the enemy has no air defense, so they cannot yet become full-fledged substitutes for combat aircraft.

In the ranks of the US Air Force are four air command posts E-4В on the basis of the Boeing-747. The AMARG stores the 11 EC-135 (A BCP based on Boeing-707, which in the Air Force is designated C-135).

There is an 31 E-3В / С long-range radar maintenance aircraft (DRLO) (also based on Boeing-707) (on AMARG - 1 E-3G), of which 18 is formally placed at the disposal of NATO. These 17 airplanes are legally the only “general-wide” machines, the rest of the equipment belongs to specific countries.


B-52H bomber.


The Air Force has X-NUMX RC-22 and 135 RC-11В electronic reconnaissance planes, four E-26A communication and retransmission planes and a significant number of reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft 11 Beach-40 (MS-350W), 12 E-17C, 8 -2A, high-altitude reconnaissance 9 U-29S and four training TU-2S, as well as two Open Skies aircraft OS-2В (135 on AMARG), ten ice reconnaissance aircraft LС-1Н (on AMARG - 130 LC-1R 130 LC-3F); Meteorological reconnaissance aircraft 130 - 22 WC-2 (135 C, 1 W; another 1 B on AMARG) and 1 WC-20 (130 H, 10 J).

Most US Air Force combat aircraft have their own electronic warfare equipment (EW). Specifically for ECM purposes, 22 EC-130Н / J are used, some of which can also be used for psychological operations.

The main tanker of the US Air Force is based on the Boeing-707 KS-135: 402 machines are in service (54 T, 348 R), on AMARG - 190 KC-135. In addition, there are 59 more modern KS-10A (based on DC-10).

The basis of the military transport aircraft of the United States are super-heavy aircraft C-5, heavy C-17 and medium C-130. 74 C-5 (22 A, 34 B, 2 C, 16 M), 222 C-17A and 377 C-130 (1 E, 260 H, 116 J) are currently on line. On AMARG - 34 C-5A and 136 C-130.

For transportation of the highest officials of the state and the leadership of the Armed Forces, two aircraft are used: VC-25A (Air Force One, presidential aircraft-VKP based on Boeing-747), 11 С-40 (Boeing-737), 11 С-32 (" Boeing-757 ”), as well as 24 C-37A, eight C-20 and two C-38A (three modifications of the Gulfstream passenger aircraft).

The SSO command uses foreign-made light transport aircraft: 39 U-28 (Swiss PC-12), 17 C-146 (German Do-328) and 16 C-145 (Polish M-28).

For rescue purposes, the USAF uses 40 HC-130, 102 HH-60G and 30 CV-22B converters.

The MTR command uses 58 MC-130 airplanes designed for disembarking, supplying and evacuating special forces groups operating in the enemy rear.

The US Air Force (mainly - the training command) is armed with X-NUMX training aircraft T-178, 1 T-496 of various modifications (on the AMARG - also 38), 150 T-446. T-6A is received to replace the T-6.

The vast majority of US helicopters are in service with ground forces and navy. The Air Force has 90 UH-1 and 15 UH-60. The MTR Command is armed with 6 Russian Mi-8 helicopters.

Modernization at any cost

Thus, the United States Air Force has 450 ICBMs, 2157 combat aircraft and 311 combat UAVs, while on the AMARG there are also 1486 combat aircraft. They represent a gigantic combat power. Nevertheless, the number of combat aircraft in the ranks of the US Air Force is currently the lowest for the entire period after the end of World War II, and their average age is the largest in the entire history of American aviation (that is, more than 100 years). Of the combat aircraft that are currently in service with 2157, the Air Force received a total of 2000 (285 F-181A, 22 F-33A, 35 F-61C / D, 16 F-10Е) from the 15 of the year. At the same time, only F-35А is currently being produced, the production program of which is very much behind the original schedule, and the price of the aircraft has many times exceeded the originally planned one. Most of the planes in service were made in 1970 — 1980's. The rate of elimination of aircraft significantly exceeds the rate of receipt of new ones. This gives rise to such an unexpected problem as the lack of combat aircraft, if necessary, to wage a large-scale war.

Apparently, the United States will be forced to carry out the F-35 program at any cost (in the direct and figurative sense), since it has no alternative. In addition, combat UAVs will be created, and not only specialized ones, but also very likely, a significant part of the F-16 and A-10 will be converted into such ones. In any case, in the foreseeable future, serious competition from US aviation will be made up by the Chinese Air Force, and the United States will not be able to achieve decisive superiority over the Russian Air Force.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

263 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gagarin
    +24
    April 2 2014 15: 20
    AT THIS NUMEROUS Tricky W ... PU WE WILL FIND YOUR NON-STANDARD ANSWER.
    1. +64
      April 2 2014 15: 45
      sincerely happy for the Americans, really achieved outstanding success in the aircraft industry (in Alaska, planes are often used instead of cars and many have pilot IDs), although people like Sikorsky have also contributed to this ........... the pulse of the American aircraft industry, strain our scouts and designers to exclamations: ........ "This is not an airplane, this is a UFO !!!" ........ more often sounded at the sight of the flight of our MIGs and SUShek. We have a very good touch. The state needs to organize support for flying clubs, so that the youth will have the same rise as in the 30s and small aircraft become more accessible
      1. +23
        April 2 2014 15: 57
        And who has the best air defense?
        1. +19
          April 2 2014 16: 49
          They don’t need it, so for the trade union, because they started all the last wars not at home and started the first, so they plan to continue.
          1. +7
            April 2 2014 20: 08
            Quote: tilovaykrisa
            They don’t need it, so for the trade union, because they started all the last wars not at home and started the first, so they plan to continue.


            Each Achilles has its own heel ...
        2. +2
          April 2 2014 19: 12
          Quote: svetlomor
          And who has the best air defense?

          Air defense is a complex of forces and means including both ground and air means. The main task of destroying enemy aviation is performed by aviation, ground-based air defense systems only carry out drifting apart scattered groups of aircraft without general control.
          Therefore, the US air defense is now the strongest despite the fact that the ground component is not so numerous.
        3. platitsyn70
          +8
          April 2 2014 19: 52
          And who has the best air defense?
          and our air defense is better and ours give data that they can bring down 60-65%, and Australians give data that our air defense will hit 80-85%, excluding the s-500, which will soon be put into service.
          The S-500 system, which is under development, will be able to destroy medium-range missiles, operational-tactical missiles, as well as shoot down missiles in near space and thus will carry elements of strategic missile defense, said the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force for Air Defense, General Lieutenant Sergey Razygraev, - The S-300 system currently in service, for example, is not capable of destroying an operational-tactical missile in speed
          1. +8
            April 2 2014 20: 34
            Quote: platitsyn70
            and the Australians give data that our air defense will bring down from 80-85%, excluding the S-500, which will soon be adopted.

            This is believed by the only Australian Kopp, a great inventor and dreamer, penetrated by the power of thought into the holy of holies of the Russian military-industrial complex ...
            1. Login
              0
              April 4 2014 23: 45
              Papa Carlo.)
              1. Kassandra
                0
                April 18 2014 14: 23
                maybe just dough gave, enlightened ...
      2. +7
        April 2 2014 16: 03
        Yeah, I ventilated it in flying clubs ... Training is only paid, I need about 350000 rubles for an amateur, but this is for flying clubs, I went into the pool, asked if they were training professionally, they answered no.
      3. +3
        April 2 2014 21: 05
        Quote: strannik595
        The state needs to organize support for flying clubs

        As always, everything is new, well-forgotten old. We started at least from aircraft modeling circles, and thereafter
      4. +3
        April 2 2014 21: 59
        It has long been noted that the Anglo-Saxons all science and art are moved by emigrants, up to a maximum of the second or third generation. And then the nature is resting.
      5. +7
        April 2 2014 23: 05
        Quote: strannik595
        [center] We have a very good touch. The state needs to organize support for flying clubs, so that the youth has the same rise as in the 30s and small aircraft become more accessible


        We traditionally have air defense stronger. Apparently not all were jerks such as Khrushchev, and someone realized that from scratch it would not work to win the arms race with America, and we had to look for how to neutralize the US Air Force. Now we have what we have. And we have air defense of such a level that no one has ever dreamed of. So no matter how the Hroshas were not the Air Force from America, they would not send them under our air defense.

        Article minus. it is necessary to glorify the native armed forces, and not the potential aggressor.
    2. Alexey
      +3
      April 2 2014 16: 20
      Quote: Gagarin
      FIND YOUR NON-STANDARD RESPONSE

      threaded
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. +3
      April 2 2014 16: 29
      One vigorous bomb on this "CEMETERY" and there is nothing in storage
      1. +3
        April 2 2014 18: 19
        One tornado is enough ...
      2. +1
        April 2 2014 20: 07
        There is nothing on AMARG anyway. Because there are no kamikaze pilots
    5. W1950
      +1
      April 2 2014 16: 49
      A little more S-400 and all aviation metal.
      1. +4
        April 2 2014 18: 44
        The new 100 complexes are being prepared by ours.
        1. +9
          April 2 2014 19: 57
          Quote: polite people
          The new 100 complexes are being prepared by ours.

          Total Until 2020 year planned to put 28 Regiments - 56 divisions by 8 PU in each division.

          Total 448 Launchers
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. Stalker
      +18
      April 2 2014 19: 56
      AT THIS NUMEROUS Tricky W ... PU WE WILL FIND YOUR NON-STANDARD ANSWER.

      I agree . New is forgotten old .... This "Stealth" figs how to find ... laughing
    8. +6
      April 2 2014 19: 59
      US military aircraft: the most powerful in the world

      The air defense of the Russian Federation is the most powerful in the world.
    9. +3
      April 2 2014 20: 07
      unfortunately for this they have 1000 more combat aircraft in the navy hidden (((
    10. +15
      April 2 2014 20: 59
      Yes, where are they against our guys laughing
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Stalker
        +3
        April 2 2014 21: 23
        Yes, where are they against our guys

        They, unlike the Russians, do not know how to die for their land, for their people ..... soldier
        1. +5
          April 2 2014 22: 55
          Quote: Stalker
          Yes, where are they against our guys

          They, unlike the Russians, do not know how to die for their land, for their people .....

          Hatchery. What gives the ability to die? The Japanese, won, how few people knew how, and what?
          The training of pilots of the US Air Force is traditionally on the level. Numerically superior, quality, at least. no worse. Where does such optimism come from?
          Plus fleet aviation, which is prepared much better than the Air Force. Do not forget about NATO allies. So far, we have only one answer to all of this: nuclear deterrence forces, mainly Strategic Missile Forces.
          1. +3
            April 3 2014 04: 40
            They have at least a pilots raid level higher, and this is one of the main indicators of the preparation of the Air Force. With us, he was recently at the level of Third World countries.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Stalker
            0
            April 3 2014 20: 01
            Hatchery. What gives the ability to die?

            The desire to capture as many enemies as possible is purely Russian anger ... soldier
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 3 2014 20: 43
              Why anger?
              unkindly just as always smiling they come up ...
          4. Kassandra
            -1
            April 3 2014 20: 51
            Qualitatively worse, the flight school, as such, is inferior.
            Navy aviation is better prepared than the U.S. Air Force to only land on an aircraft carrier. The LTX aircraft themselves are much worse.
            The ability to die sometimes gives victory, including for those who did not have time.
        2. +1
          April 3 2014 04: 39
          Not quite sure that this is a reason for pride. It is better to be able to prevent such a development of events, so that later you do not have to die for your homeland.
    11. -4
      April 3 2014 04: 02
      Minus already for the title of the article.
  2. +21
    April 2 2014 15: 21
    Powerful aviation, but without computer systems, it will go blind and be completely helpless. So here you have to prepare a blow.
    1. -5
      April 2 2014 15: 26
      Most will fall apart. And America has too many debts.
      1. +3
        April 2 2014 15: 40
        And argue the cons?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. vvg
        vvg
        +8
        April 2 2014 17: 20
        These debts practically do not play a role. The US controls the economies of all countries, does what it wants
        1. +2
          April 2 2014 22: 28
          The article says that the age of aviation is quite large. Inevitably (!!!) the moment of development of the resource will come. The upgrade will require funds.
          America will not be able to endlessly raise the level of public debt - will have to cut the budget for the military industry.

          The same goes for even the latest technology. This is an obvious fact.
          I do not understand the reasons for the general disagreement with my upcoming post.
        2. +2
          April 3 2014 00: 26
          Quote: vvg
          These debts practically do not play a role. The US controls the economies of all countries, does what it wants

          And de it is seen. Countries support the dollar, because they are used to it, and a change of system is fraught with shocks. If the debts did not play a role, the USAF would not twitch, and Merkel would not talk about the yuan with the Chinese.
          1. +1
            April 3 2014 00: 53
            You're right. The fact that the economy of most of the countries of the world is closely connected with dollar payments, settlements, domestic foreign exchange reserves, etc. substantially supports the US economy and partially keeps the country from default. But it does not cancel debts.

            Actually, the United States is already cutting back on financing in many areas of its life, but still their spending on the military industry is very high.
            True, so far the public debt will increase (and why should it decrease? While there is no such premise!) The military lobby will have to moderate its appetites.
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +16
      April 2 2014 17: 01
      The F16 aircraft cannot be controlled directly through the American AWACS, only through F15 or F22. Without control, American pilots generally do not fly. Refusal of a heavy fighter leads to a lack of control of the lungs. F22 will not perform management tasks, as in this case it loses all the advantages of invisibility and becomes a paper tiger. Conclusion The US Air Force at the present stage is not intended for serious wars, with which we can congratulate ourselves. However, the domestic aviation fleet needs to be increased, and with good acceleration, not disdaining 4 ++ versions
      1. +3
        April 2 2014 18: 15
        Bullshit city.
      2. +1
        April 2 2014 19: 21
        Quote: GregAzov
        F16 airplane cannot be controlled directly by American AWACS

        Which modification of the F-16 did you mean?
  3. johnsnz
    0
    April 2 2014 15: 21
    Neh fucking heap of iron
  4. +23
    April 2 2014 15: 22
    In the ranks of the Air Force of America - 2157 combat aircraft, but their number is the lowest in the entire history of aviation, and the average age is the largest in the last hundred years.


    Apparently, so far, the technical state of the US Air Force is still firmly in the spirit of "1988 USSR", and there are no prerequisites for a sharp slide by 1994 sad because there is no tagged one.
    1. +18
      April 2 2014 15: 30
      Our labeled spot was only on the head, while the American one had a whole body spot wink
    2. +8
      April 2 2014 15: 45
      Quote: Nevsky_ZU
      for there is no one labeled.

      will be. It’s not hand-to-hand fighting with them, as many people want and sometimes because of anger, but I really need to help them with the tagged
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. potap48a
        -5
        April 2 2014 16: 58
        All of these pellets listed in the article easily and naturally go astray when approaching the territory covered by air defense equipment of the late USSR. So let them cram their Air Force in one place. Papuans can frighten them, and more. And with the B-2, they coolly went wild.
        1. 0
          April 2 2014 18: 16
          Argue your vyser.
          1. +1
            April 3 2014 00: 36
            Quote: potap48
            All of these pellets listed in the article easily and naturally go astray when approaching the territory covered by air defense equipment of the late USSR. So let them cram their Air Force in one place. Papuans can frighten them, and more. And with the B-2, they coolly went wild.

            Quote: patsantre
            Argue your vyser.

            link too lazy to look, see the latest aerial studies of the bourgeois in Russia, the whole calculation of the raptors and some c400 deficiency in Russia
        2. +1
          April 3 2014 04: 45
          Knowing this perfectly well, they did not go against us by military means, but culturally and economically, took advantage of the weakness of the then government of the USSR and began to instill in the population a love of everything Western. And they did not lose, the most powerful country collapsed without a single shot, and then it was flooded with consultants and CIA officers. It is done. And 2000 aircraft were not needed.
    4. +4
      April 2 2014 16: 08
      Quote: Nevsky_ZU
      In the ranks of the Air Force of America - 2157 combat aircraft, but their number is the lowest in the entire history of aviation, and the average age is the largest in the last hundred years.


      Apparently, so far, the technical state of the US Air Force is still firmly in the spirit of "1988 USSR", and there are no prerequisites for a sharp slide by 1994 sad because there is no tagged one.

      How not and what Barak Huseynovich than not a candidate? In the states, crisis after crisis and crisis is driving, and not only economically. In parliament, the elderly senility as it was at the end of the USSR. So what are we waiting for.
      1. +9
        April 2 2014 19: 12
        How not and what Barak Huseynovich than not a candidate?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  5. +5
    April 2 2014 15: 24
    ... A good selection .. And lope in the Russian Federation missiles and PU S-300 and other missile defense ????
    1. +20
      April 2 2014 15: 47
      "Russia has no bombs, no shells! If there were, would it have occupied Crimea without firing a single shot? There is only one politeness and little green men with beautiful, wise eyes ....)))))" ...
      1. +1
        April 2 2014 18: 46
        And how much pressure? A silent hint that ... oh, oh.
        Like, I'll show you.
        Tactics work.
      2. Yurgen
        +1
        April 3 2014 07: 35
        I don’t know how anyone, I am personally jarred when our soldiers are called "green men". Serdyukovshchina gives it away.
        1. 0
          April 4 2014 06: 30
          Come on, we love them so we call them. In addition, they are without identification marks, so they cannot be called the army of any country. Therefore, they are called "green men".
    2. +20
      April 2 2014 15: 47
      Quote: aleks 62
      ... A good selection .. And lope in the Russian Federation missiles and PU S-300 and other missile defense ????

      Mattress makers will never converge with ours in direct contact air combat. They just have no chance. They will work from afar with tamahawks. And here armor divisions covering the S-300 and S-400 will be relevant as never before. Let me remind you that the main fighter aircraft of the Russian Federation consists of MIG-29, MIG-31, SU-27, SU-30, and now the incoming SU-35. And all this fraternity is completely superior to F-15, F-16, F-18. I also note that the F-35 does not go in any comparison with the SU-35. The only thing we should be afraid of is the F-22, but the Mattresses will not be let into the sky until it is them. In other words, in order to crack the sky over our territory, they will lose their main striking power. And do not write about the fact that they will detect our fighters earlier. I will answer NEFIG. The Russian Federation has its own AWACS aircraft that can quickly be deployed in a dangerous direction and become a keen eye for our fighters. The main thing now is that the army should receive at least 200 T-50s in the configuration that is spelled out in those assignments.
      1. +23
        April 2 2014 16: 27
        Quote: PROXOR
        Let me remind you that the main fighter aircraft of the Russian Federation consists of MIG-29, MIG-31, SU-27, SU-30, and now the incoming SU-35. And all this brotherhood is completely superior to F-15, F-16, F-18.

        Let me remind you that at the disposal of the Russian Air Force there are only 22 Su-35s, which are not yet fully operational, but which really potentially cover the F-15 F-16 and F-18 like a bull sheep. Let me remind you that the Su-30, which are capable of fighting on equal terms with the "Needles", are still fewer in our country, but have just arrived, so the technique of their use is now hardly worked out in the troops. Let me remind you that even for these vehicles there are no modern medium and long-range air-to-air missiles.
        I’ll also remind you that the upgraded Su-27, which received the proud title of Su-27СМ, have been upgraded very economically and therefore in their avionics are much inferior to the latest versions of the F-15, F-16, F-18, but even we have less than a hundred. Let me remind you that the rest of the Su-27 we have with the avionics that they were given at birth, and are much inferior to not the last - the FIRST modifications of the F-15 and F-18. Let me remind you that with the exception of two dozen quite modern MiG-29СМТ, which we got under the Algerian contract, the rest of the MiG-29 fleet is the same junk as the Su-27.
        At the same time, let me remind you that thanks to the idiotic policy of "Comrade" Serdyukov, the number of operating military airfields has been greatly reduced in our country. even aviation, which is crowded and is a very tempting target for a first strike. Although this issue is now being resolved. That we have only a few modernized A-50Us, that the MiG-31 is an interceptor and not a fighter for gaining air supremacy, that more or less large-scale exercises have just begun to be conducted in our country, but even there, before the exercises of the USSR level far from it, that we are not doing well with specialized reconnaissance aircraft and electronic warfare, etc. etc. I will not remind.
        1. +6
          April 2 2014 16: 36
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Let me remind you that at the disposal of the Russian Air Force there are only 22 Su-35s, which are not yet fully operational, but which really potentially cover the F-15 F-16 and F-18 like a bull sheep. Let me remind you that the Su-30, which are capable of fighting on equal terms with the "Needles", are still fewer in our country, but have just arrived, so the technique of their use is now hardly worked out in the troops. Let me remind you that even for these vehicles there are no modern medium and long-range air-to-air missiles. And let me remind you that the modernized Su-27, which received the proud title of Su-27SM, are modernized very economically and therefore in their avionics are much inferior to the latest versions of the F-15, F-16, F-18, but even we have less than a hundred of them. Let me remind you that the rest of the Su-27s we have with the avionics that they were given at birth, and are much inferior not to the last - the FIRST modifications of the F-15 and F-18. Let me remind you that with the exception of two dozen quite modern MiG-29SMTs, which we got under the Algerian contract, the rest of the Migov-29 fleet is the same old as the Su-27. At the same time, let me remind you that thanks to the idiotic policy of "Comrade" Serdyukov, the number of operating military airfields has been greatly reduced in our country. even aircraft that are crowded and present a very tempting target for a first strike. Although this issue is now being resolved. That we have only a few modernized A-50Us, that the MiG-31 is an interceptor and not a fighter for gaining air supremacy, that more or less large-scale exercises have just begun to be conducted in our country, but even there, before the exercises of the USSR level, far from it, that we are not doing well with specialized reconnaissance aircraft and electronic warfare, etc. etc. I will not remind.

          Nirazu will not question your words. However, I note that as you yourself said, we have several modernized A-50Us. And these are the eyes of the entire wing. Mattress makers have no more advantages.
          To the question of MIG-31. Yes it is an interceptor. And I honestly don’t understand why we need to conquer our sky. Its task is to launch long-range air-to-air missiles. And we have them.
          In addition, I will say. That despite the fact that now we are quantitatively and qualitatively inferior to the mattresses, the battle with our Air Force and Air Defense will leave them without teeth.
          1. +16
            April 2 2014 18: 04
            Quote: PROXOR
            However, I note that, as you yourself said, we have several modernized A-50Us. And these are the eyes of the entire wing. Mattress makers have no more advantages.

            Dear PROXOR, Americans have long been accustomed to the systemic and integrated use of their Air Force. They have, if you wish, a beautifully played ensemble in which each machine knows its own score. They have a huge role played by intelligence of all kinds, including radio intelligence. They have specialized support aircraft, electronic warfare and all that. And we have? Understand, no matter how chic the double bass you have, and you won’t replay the orchestra alone.
            Americans now have a system. Moreover, a system with a capital C, which they honed and with which they crushed such difficult nuts as the air defenses of Iraq and Yugoslavia were. And our system, alas, is "slightly" in the rubble, as a result - see the loss of the Air Force in the war 08.08.08. Georgia's air defense, in general, is also not a toy, although before the air defense of the same Iraq, it is like it was before China on all fours. But it was built on our own technology, the capabilities of which we know, but the result?
            Today, the support of hostilities plays an almost greater role than the hostilities themselves. And here we are - alas - not yet on horseback. And given the fact that we are numerically and qualitatively inferior to the US Air Force, in the event of a conflict today, our Air Force will simply be cut, although of course it is far from nothing.
            Quote: PROXOR
            To the question of MIG-31. Yes it is an interceptor. And I honestly don’t understand why we need to conquer our sky. Its task is to launch long-range air-to-air missiles. And we have them.

            And the task of the R-33 AIR-AIR long-range missiles on the MiG-31 is the destruction of low-maneuverable objects, such as strategic bombers and enemy AWACS planes, (if my memory serves me - target overload up to 4 ze, if maneuvers with large overloads - will not take ) A seeker on the R-33 is semi-active, and requires illumination of the aircraft's radar and adjustments from it. And the power of the radar signal decreases in proportion to the square of the distance, like so? Well, "in the furnishings" of an imported AWACS, an electronic warfare plane almost always goes, so think about the distance from which the MiG-31 radar will "penetrate" its interference. And this despite the fact that some versions of AMRAAM have a range of 120 km, and now it seems to be 180, but I'm not sure. The MiG-31 will not be able to fight the enemy's fighters, but alas, they can. Your sky will quickly become a stranger if the US Air Force appears in it.
            Now, if we do bring the number of modern aircraft, such as the Su-35 and T-50 in the troops to several hundred, if the long-awaited newest missiles RVV-MD, RVV-SD and RVV-BD en masse go to the troops, if the A-50 passes the same modernization, if, in addition to them, the A-100 "Premier" is put into operation, if the S-400s receive a couple of dozen more regiments, if the troops receive enough modern electronic warfare and radio-electronic warfare systems of land and air bases, if they restore the network of airfields, if they drive all this on exercises as in the good old Soviet times, only even cooler, then ... Then - yes, what you are talking about will become reality.
            1. +1
              April 2 2014 19: 34
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Now, if we bring the number of modern aircraft, such as the Su-35 and T-50

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              if the A-50 will undergo modernization, if the A-100 Premier is added to them, if the S-400 receives a couple of dozen more regiments,

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              if the troops receive enough modern ground and airborne electronic warfare

              If all this is not connected by a single data transmission system, then this is a waste of money. The "potential enemy" is all right with this.
              1. +3
                April 2 2014 20: 01
                Quote: Nayhas
                If all this is not connected by a single data transfer system, then this is a waste of money

                Unified data transmission system, respected Nayhas, is taken for granted hi
                1. +1
                  April 2 2014 20: 06
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Unified data transmission system, respected Nayhas, is taken for granted

                  Something I have not heard about our successes in this area. It is she and GLONASS that should be the priority areas ...
            2. +2
              April 2 2014 20: 04
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Air defense of Iraq and Yugoslavia.

              What are you stopping? Continue - Vietnam Air Defense.
              1. 0
                April 2 2014 20: 30
                Then the Air Force was quite different from what it is now.
              2. +3
                April 2 2014 20: 32
                Please check someone thread another.
                Quote: Setrac
                Vietnam Air Defense.

                So tell in all the chilling details when this ground-based air defense of Vietnam crashed US aircraft
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 3 2014 01: 55
                  in Linebaker-2
                  therefore, they left there, stopping it one day.
                  1. +1
                    April 3 2014 06: 24
                    Yeah, but for some reason, after Linebaker-2, North Vietnam quickly sat down at the negotiating table.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 3 2014 13: 44
                      ... and America left Vietnam.
                      it means there was something to sit down for and for what - you don’t know what requirements the Americans had before they lost more than one hundred aircraft at once in one day.
            3. 77bob1973
              +1
              April 2 2014 22: 11
              In order to act like this, Americans need to at least have a common border with Russia on the theater of operations and at least a network of airfields. The fact that aviation in the United States in the corral is a fact, remember how many companies produced planes after the war, about a dozen, now these are a few units not a complete hand, the golden age of aviation has passed!
              1. Kassandra
                0
                April 3 2014 02: 01
                F-22 and therefore deployed mainly in Alaska
                they have plans to simply knock out the entire fuel and energy complex on the eve of winter. Russia is not Miami, they believe that after 2 months, half of the Russians freezing will die, half will surrender, not daring to answer if their nuclear warms.
            4. +1
              April 3 2014 00: 46
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              all kinds of intelligence play a huge role

              hinting, and why did they oversleep Crimea?
              1. 0
                April 3 2014 05: 11
                Does it hurt them to strain for it ?! They won Ukraine only in words and help, so everything is logical.
              2. +1
                April 3 2014 06: 25
                And what, the US Air Force was used to cover the Crimea ?! wassat
              3. The comment was deleted.
            5. Kassandra
              0
              April 3 2014 01: 01
              it was built on non-export technology
            6. Kassandra
              -2
              April 3 2014 01: 54
              MiG-25y calmly shot down Mirages, Phantoms, F18 and F15х
              1. +2
                April 3 2014 06: 33
                Quote: Kassandra
                MiG-25y calmly shot down Mirages, Phantoms, F18 and F15х

                Considering that there is still no confirmed victory over the F-15, your statement sounds somewhat strange.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 3 2014 13: 49
                  there are many, see the wiki on the general losses of NATO in military conflicts and not in the article about him
                  the first were shot down from the MiG-23MLD over Lebanon in 1983-84
                  about SR-71 they also write that they flew to the SF reconnaissance for only 3 weeks in the early 70s, and not all the time, because just there one was dumped with the MiG-31 in 1987.
              2. +1
                April 3 2014 11: 42
                Quote: Kassandra
                MiG-25y calmly shot down Mirages, Phantoms, F18 and F15х

                Kindly provide links, or at least where and when these air battles took place.
                1. Kassandra
                  -1
                  April 3 2014 13: 57
                  from what is in mind
                  http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/planes/russia/mig/mig-23/livan-1.htm
                  also in the wiki there are articles on all conflicts indicating the type of aircraft and the number of losses, it is better to look for it in English as "list of losses" or "list of aircraft losses"
                  the F-15 had only one advantage - a slightly greater thrust-weight ratio due to twin-engine. all the rest were in the MiG-23MLD because of the wing with variable sweep. In terms of thrust-weight ratio, the F-14 was able to catch up to it only in 1994 when the MiGs were already decommissioned or converted into shock MiG-27s. F-16 and F-18 were not competitors at all. You can just compare the performance characteristics.
                2. Kassandra
                  -1
                  April 3 2014 14: 03
                  The F-15 is a MiG-21 dedicate killer created according to the results of the Vietnam War when, against a possible MiG-21 strike on ships or the protection of bombers, the Americans had to keep 21-3 times more mixed-type airplanes in MiG-4 patrols in dangerous directions (combination phantoms and crusaders mainly)
                  in Lebanon, he collided with the MiG-23 and not the MiG-21, although there were also cases of downs from the latter.
                  Arabs generally loved more than the 21st, because the first MiG-23s were delivered to them in an export version without a radar, as usual.
        2. +4
          April 2 2014 16: 44
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I’ll also remind you that the modernized Su-27s, which received the proud title of Su-27SM, are very economically modernized and therefore are very inferior in their avionics to the latest versions of the F-15, F-16, F-18, but even we have less than a hundred. Let me remind you that the rest of the Su-27 we have with the avionics that they were given at birth, and are much inferior not to the last - the FIRST modifications of the F-15 and F-18.

          Please argue, Andrey, and so I can come up with inferior steps. At least a link.
          1. +6
            April 2 2014 18: 28
            Quote: Army1
            Please argue, Andrey, so I can come up with

            Why come up with? Just remember that behind the radar stands on our Su-27 (H001) then go here https://vk.com/album-16604023_117916989 and see the military secret - the flight manual Su-27SK. there is just about the radar there, and not only. If you are very lazy - see here https://vk.com/photo-16604023_181874358
            And then google AN / APG-63 (V) 1 / 2 / 3, which are on the F-15.
            If you are too lazy to google - I will say that these radars approximately correspond to Н011 "Bars", which are installed on the Su-30. Compare H001 and H011 here http://kaf401.rloc.ru/files/BRLSChars.pdf
            Aviation Week and Space Technoledge (AW&ST), 2000 / 02 / 07
            argues that
            The maximal effective tracking range of the fighters for RCS = 1m2 target:
            F-15C (AN / APG-63 V2): 144 km
            Those. the target with the EPR 1 square meter will see from 144 km. N001 sees a target measuring 3 sq.m with 100 km

            PS Minus is not from me. When they ask me culturally, I answer culturally hi
            1. Kassandra
              -1
              April 3 2014 02: 08
              But about the aliens from Prokopenko are not there?
              the radar on the F-15 was slightly worse than even on the MiG-23
              1. +1
                April 3 2014 06: 34
                Quote: Kassandra
                the radar on the F-15 was slightly worse than even on the MiG-23

                Blessed is he who believes.
                1. Kassandra
                  -1
                  April 3 2014 14: 08
                  believe me, what is it against? you really want to ...
                  The radar of the instant, all other things being equal, has a smaller view, but it’s twice the best resolution, so I saw the needles in close formation, but they weren’t. need to explain what this might lead to? and why do they even fly like that?
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Kassandra
            -3
            April 3 2014 02: 04
            Yes, there is no reference, GDRovsky MiG-29 radars saw the B-2, and they began to move from plates to phased radars Fki only in 2006
        3. -5
          April 2 2014 18: 22
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I’ll also remind you that the modernized Su-27s, which received the proud title of Su-27SM, are very economically modernized and therefore are very inferior in their avionics to the latest versions of the F-15, F-16, F-18, but even we have less than a hundred. Let me remind you that the rest of the Su-27 we have with the avionics that they were given at birth, and are much inferior not to the last - the FIRST modifications of the F-15 and F-18.

          And I advise you to think about this. The Russian Air Force will have to face rather than F or B, but J, which in many ways are clones of SU.
          And against stowage in the belt of a shahid, the Air Force is generally useless.
          1. +1
            April 2 2014 18: 30
            Quote: Nagan
            and J, which in many ways are clones of SU.

            Who is the clown soo?
            1. +1
              April 2 2014 20: 43
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: Nagan
              and J, which in many ways are clones of SU.

              Who is the clown soo?

              Do not try to pretend to be a clown, it does not suit you.
              And about the Sukhoi clones - well, at least Shenyang J-11 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 or Shenyang J-15 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15. They have already set their sights on buying samples of the Su-35, which will certainly be copied and there will also be a J-some number.
              1. +2
                April 2 2014 21: 12
                Quote: Nagan
                Do not try to portray a clown, you do not suit

                And you try to communicate so that you can be understood without resorting to a myelophone.
                it was about the families Ф-15, ф-16, and ф-18. And suddenly you write
                Quote: Nagan
                The Russian Air Force will have to face more likely not with F or B, but J,

                For example, the Japanese copy of the F-15 came to my mind - the Mitsubishi F-15J / DJ Eagle and the American F-16CJ Wild Weasel
        4. +8
          April 2 2014 18: 33
          > And let me remind you that the modernized Su-27, which received the proud title of Su-27SM, are modernized very economically and therefore in their avionics are much inferior to the latest versions of the F-15, F-16, F-18, but even we have less than a hundred of them.

          ZGRLS see without problems any stealth missiles, planes, ships on 3 000 km. If Russia has closed the perimeter of such stations, then without any other AWACS and on-board electronics, all American planes will be detected and their coordinates will be sent to fighters.

          And here it doesn’t matter whether the avionics on them are old or new if the missiles are of high quality
          1. +4
            April 2 2014 20: 29
            Quote: xtur
            ZGRLS see without problems any stealth missiles, planes, ships on 3 000 km. If Russia has closed the perimeter of such stations, then without any other AWACS and on-board electronics, all American planes will be detected and their coordinates will be sent to fighters.

            :))))) Dreaming out :))))
            Firstly, ZGRLS outside the radio horizon do not have the ability to identify targets. Those. You will see a lot of different points - but that’s all :) Which of them is the enemy, which of them is a friend and which is neutral is unknown. Secondly, ZGRLS are HUGE STATIONARY objects that are very easy to disable at the very beginning of the conflict
          2. +1
            April 2 2014 20: 35
            Firstly, how do you know about the distance at which they detect the so-called stealth?
            Secondly, the whole thing needs to be integrated into one system. I have not heard anything about the integration of ZGRLS and fighters, this is a very high level and not the fact that you need it. The question is whether ZGRL can provide the proper level of detection accuracy for missile guidance. I'm not sure about that.
        5. Kassandra
          -2
          April 3 2014 01: 00
          Since when has the F-15 become better than the Su-27go?
          1. +3
            April 3 2014 11: 16
            Well, let's get it right. First - at the time of the birth of the Su-27
            The first thing that is always a plus for the Su-27 is maneuverability. Go here http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/su27mh.html download "the maneuverable characteristics of the Su-27" and study. In short, the Su-15 has an overwhelming advantage over the F-27 (+ 30% to maneuverability):
            1) Only with short-term vigorous maneuvering
            2) with only a very limited speed range, not higher than 600 km / h
            In terms of long-term steady maneuvering, the Su-27 at speeds of 300-800 km / h at an altitude of 4-7 thousand m has the same capabilities as the Eagle, at an altitude of 2-4 thousand m at speeds up to 600 km / h it exceeds 10%, at a speed over 600 km / h - inferior to 10-15%. Thus, the Su-27 has no overwhelming advantage over the F-15 in maneuverability, and when approaching transonic speeds it is even slightly inferior to the F-15.
            The excellent and amazing aerobatics that the Su-27 rotates are produced at relatively low speeds, which is why, in fact, it covers all other planes like a bull-sheep at all Su-27 air shows. Only a battle is not an air show where you can fly at 500 km / h and below. In battle - they don’t understand.
            But the Su-27 had such a gorgeous thing that the F-15 did not have - OLS, that is, an optical-location system consisting of a laser rangefinder and an infrared search and sight system, which made it possible to fight enemy fighters without the participation of radar at all. And the Su-27 was also armed with the R-73 - perhaps the world's best short-range air-to-air missile system in the mid-late eighties, and even later.
            And the combination of the Su-27’s not inferior, but somewhat superior maneuverability, plus the OLS, plus the helmet-mounted aiming system, plus the P-73 allows us to diagnose the significant and even though not overwhelming superiority of the Su-27 over the F-15 in the near air battle (BVB)
            At the same time, the F-15S and D had an AN / APG-63 radar, which in its performance characteristics approximately corresponded to our H001. But the American has a built-in electronic warfare station, we have the suspended (and hefty) Sorption. An American can shoot a Sparrow and jam at the same time, we cannot, since Sorption interferes with its own radar. Therefore, the Americans, sadly enough, were superior to ours in long-range air combat (DVB)
            But, while the United States only had Sparrow with a semi-active GSN in service, it wasn’t so scary - missiles with PAGSN were generally ineffective in the air, as a rule DVB switched to BVB, and here the Su-27 was on horseback.
            So until the end of the 80's, everything was more or less normal, and our Su-27 was stronger than the F-15.
            And then the ass started.
            Back in 1982, we stopped trying to make H001 something better than AN / APG-63, because it became clear that the Americans were doing their best to improve the AN / APG-70. But it didn’t work out with the new radars, and therefore and continued to put H001.
            1. +1
              April 3 2014 11: 16
              At the same time, the USA already installed AN / APG-15 at the late F-70C / D (and then altogether re-equipped all the F-15), which had a fundamental difference from the H001 - with its help it was possible to adequately see ground objects. Thus, the F-15 gained versatility, ceasing to be a clean fighter. But for an air battle, AN / APG-70 was better than AN / APG-63 - it saw better enemy vehicles on the background of the earth, had better noise immunity. As a result, the appearance of AN / APG-70 + Lantirn made the F-15 a universal machine, while the Su-27 remained a pure interceptor. And that’s all - the end of 80's!
              In the future, the advantage of the Su-27 in the BVB melted away, and the lead of the F-15 in the DVB increased. In 1991, the United States adopted and drove AMRAAM with an active seeker into service, now the F-15 has a truly effective DVB system. Now the F-15 had the ability to fire missiles at the Su-27 from afar, force the Sorption to be turned on (by stunning its own radar ) and, even if the attack fails, either break away and try again (the Su-27 does not see it) or enter the BVB but from there, from where the F-15 is needed. At the same time, the improvement of sighting devices and the appearance of new versions of the AIM-9 Sidewinder reduced the advantage of the Su-27 in the BVB.
              Ours answered RVV-AE, which roughly corresponded to AMRAAM, but in connection with the collapse of the Union, RVV-AE was never seen in the troops.
              Further worse. starting from 2002 r, the next generation radar began to be installed on the F-15, AN / APG-63 (V) 1 and 2 (re-equipped with 186 machines), which in its qualities corresponded approximately to our Bars N011 (such as on the Su-30) AN / APG-63 (V) 1 + new versions of AMRAAM + improvement of REP actually gave full priority to F-15 at medium distances, and the new AIM-9X Sidewinder surpassed our P-73.
              According to the results of training battles with the Indian Su-30, it turned out that in general these are aircraft of about the same class, sometimes we are them, sometimes they are us :) The Su-30 has an advantage in maneuverability, it has more advanced than the Su-27 OLS , better radar (H011) and all this together allows us to talk about the superiority of the Su-30 (especially if you give him medium-range SD with AGSN). But the Su-30 is a much more formidable car than the Su-27. Respectively...
              1. +3
                April 3 2014 12: 56
                In fact, evolution looks like this. First, the United States creates its own F-15, we have no equivalent fighters. Then ours create the Su-27, which turns out to be better than the F-15. The Americans are modifying the F-15 and bringing it up to the level of the Su-27 (in aerial combat), plus they make it a station wagon. Our answer is the Su-30, which (if the Soyuz was preserved and the Su-30 appeared on time) would have decently surpassed the F-15 in the air (a new airborne radar, engines with UVT, a new OLS and other goodies, although it would be inferior to it in capabilities "on the ground" , but alas - the Union collapsed and everything is stuck. The Americans are carrying out the second modernization of the F-15 and are far ahead of the Su-27. We are finally waking up and starting to produce the Su-30 and Su-35, but ... we just woke up -only
                1. Kassandra
                  -1
                  April 3 2014 15: 21
                  Not at all.
                  at first the USSR made the MiG-15 because of which the B-29 and generally everything except the F-86 and F9F stopped flying, and the latter could more or less compare with it only at the very end of the Korean War
                  Then the United States created the B-36 powerful KOU which due to shells with proximity fuze could shoot down MiG-17s from afar and started flying over the USSR again, so they made the Su-9 (second) and Su-11, the MiG-21 appeared much later.
                  Then they wanted to make the XB-70 what they immediately did the MiG-25, the plane from which the f-15 pilots are still shaking when it is rolled past them on taxiways.
                  Then the USSR Navy wanted an aircraft carrier and for it they made the MiG-23
                  Then Harrier put an end to the dominance of the MiG-23 on the sound. And modifications of the F-15 (due to its twin-engine) made after 1988 are supersonic.
                  Then the USSR finally completed the MiG-29, Su-27 and Yak-141, as TsAGI did not crap. In connection with what the country, it was decided to cancel the whole.
                  The MiG-29 was still supplied abroad to Su only with the personal permission of Bori the All-Drinking, and NATO has not yet entered any country that has it. MiG-29e were suppressed by a colossal numerical superiority, otherwise it would not be interesting to "fight" only in the style of collateralmurder.com.
                  and the Yak-141, which flew from the USSR, America bought for 500 thousand tanks, made 400 billion on it, is still playing with it and it does not fly in version "B". and will not fly. Everything goes according to plan...
                  F-22 is a plastic drummer. Subsonic F / A-117 was faceted for what?
                  1. +2
                    April 3 2014 15: 49
                    Kassandra, are you from parallel reality?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    what they immediately did the MiG-25, the plane from which the f-15 pilots are still shaking when it is rolled past them on taxiways.

                    And a lot of Mig-25 filled F-15? :)
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Then the USSR Navy wanted an aircraft carrier and for it they made the MiG-23

                    wassat Just no words.
                    Nothing that MiG-23 began to do in 1961, when it wasn’t enough for us to have aircraft carriers - helicopter carriers not laid down?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Then Harrier put an end to the dominance of the MiG-23 in subsonic.

                    belay What a horror :)))) And then the Yak-38 came and dispersed everyone
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Mig-29 was still delivered abroad, and Su only with the personal permission of Boris the All-Drunk, and NATO still has not crawled into any country that has it.

                    Well, yes - 8 Su-27 Angola and 18 Su-27 Ethiopia make the United States sweat cold ...
                    But I’m serious with you ...
                    1. Kassandra
                      -1
                      April 3 2014 16: 21
                      More than the opposite.
                      There were several aircraft with the name MiG-23. First there was a MiG which was later called the E-8, by the way it was the best. But this is precisely what is being sacrificed ... The MiG-23 chassis, unlike the Su-17, is in high speed.
                      Algerian Air Force mostly.
                      Then, with the Yak-141 dishonors copied F35. And even earlier, they ripped off the British on the AV-8 - small-shavens don't go for him.
                      Seriously troll with you. Stop living on this one, and the Disney Channel.
              2. Kassandra
                -1
                April 3 2014 14: 56
                The Su-27 was left in the armed forces by the net interceptor of the Politburo, for political reasons.
                Even the MiG-29 radar is not just against the background of the earth - it sees stealth.
                If this is true, although glider aerodynamics are difficult to spoil, then Indian aircraft for equipment and engines are all the same export aircraft. Exported to China is even worse. Conformal tanks from the F-15 Su-27 can never be made.
                1. +2
                  April 3 2014 15: 57
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Even the MiG-29 radar is not like on the background of the earth - it sees stealth

                  (yawn) If this is still the same Serbian bike about the downed F-117 - thank you :))))
                  Mig-29 did NOT shoot down F-117. He was shot down by an old Soviet air defense system, whose radar was operating on meter waves that had not been used for 100 years and therefore the stealth was not sharpened against them.
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  If this is true, although glider aerodynamics are difficult to spoil, then Indian aircraft for equipment and engines are all the same export aircraft. Exported to China is even worse.

                  So that you know - the BEST is exported from us, something that combat pilots do not see.
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    April 3 2014 16: 33
                    the release of the B-2 was stopped after, after the unification of Germany, the NATO members simply looked at the radars of the MiG-29 GDR Air Force
                    nothing better is exported from new weapons; otherwise, some Arab or Korean will again fly where the plane is and everyone will know everything about us. especially those who just do not need.
                    1. +2
                      April 3 2014 16: 49
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      the release of the B-2 was stopped after, after the unification of Germany, the NATO members simply looked at the radars of the MiG-29 GDR Air Force

                      Well yes. Bullshit that the Americans did their best to test the Gadjer Mig-29 in 1990 g, preparing for a desert storm, and the production of B-2 was completed in 1999 g ...
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      nothing better is exported from new weapons

                      I say - a parallel universe.
                      We are lagging behind in a number of important areas in electronics, and the Indians and other Algerians want to get the best, so we supply them with equipment with the best world "minced meat", for example, in the same Su-30, part of the electronics is French
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 3 2014 17: 17
                        bullshit - they were interested in aerobatic performance and on MiGs in Iraq there was another avionics. they bothered to look at the B-2 radars later (after one was shot down, though from the ground) and after that they did not glue any new glider.
                        the last Air Force bought in 1997 for a third of the price.
                        you lag behind, I do not mind. can they still sell their "friend or foe"?
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 3 2014 17: 57
                        just meaning to look at these B-2? they are invisible! they were previously irradiated at the frequencies of the Soviet radar at the White Sands range, the signature was removed and the EPR was measured, everything should be fine ... then, in order to look at it, you need to have it in Germany or take it to the MiG states.
                      3. +1
                        April 3 2014 19: 31
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        just meaning to look at these b-xnumx? they are invisible!

                        So, ok :))) Let's tell me where the info comes from. If not Serbia, then 99 from 100 what is it from here
                        The test pilot Larry Nielsen participating in this program nevertheless made it clear in an interview with Robert F. Dorr (an employee of the World Air Power Journal) that the N-019 radar (developed by the Phazotron NGO) installed on the MiG-29 sees B-2 even against the backdrop of the earth !! In his opinion, one can almost certainly assume that the MiG-31 and Su-27 radars are also capable of selecting such a target, and at a much greater range.
                      4. Kassandra
                        -1
                        April 3 2014 19: 41
                        from many sources
                        a dissertation on how a stealth-seeing radar works has long been on the Internet.
                      5. +2
                        April 3 2014 19: 49
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        from many sources

                        Give links. It's not interesting to talk with a person who makes one unconfirmed statement after another.
                      6. Kassandra
                        -1
                        April 3 2014 20: 17
                        Should I type for you in Google?
                        the radar that sees against the background of the surface is different from the one that does not see what?
                        stealth generally provided how?
                        if possible, write from your head yourself. because from the link to some kind of "special coverage" already ..
                      7. +2
                        April 3 2014 21: 51
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Should I type for you in Google?
                        the radar that sees against the background of the surface is different from the one that does not see what?

                        After all, the "expert" was imposed on my head ....
                        I do not need evidence that Mig-29 saw against the backdrop of the land of B-2. I’ll tell you a military secret - from some angles and distance the B-2 will not see what the Mig-29 radar is the Tu-154 radar.
                        Because stealth technology doesn’t make the plane invisible. They make it LESS DISTINCTIVE, but it works in certain angles and at certain, again, distances.
                        I will reveal the second military secret. For Americans, it is NOT SECRET what I wrote about stealth above. It is in the minds of eccentrics unfamiliar with the basics of physics, "stealth" is perceived as a kind of invisibility that will fly past you, but you will not even notice
                        B-2 is primarily focused on operations against ground-based air defense. In general, no one was going to send the B-2 directly to the mouth of enemy fighters without cover. Moreover, even the United States in the 80 of the last century, so you know, believed that the B-2 were dangerous complexes C-300, Buk and Tor.
                        And all this (surprise-surprise!) I know. And I demand a reference to the fact that the USA STOPED B-2 RELEASE after it turned out that Mig-29 was seeing it.
                        Because in fact, they did not stop production, but only reduced it from 133 to 75 machines. And it didn’t happen because the Air Force wanted it so, but because one salesman let slip to journalists, and public opinion (which sincerely believed that B-2 was point blank) was hysterical :))) Congress had to react. The reason for the rejection of this amount of B-2 was the return to the B-1 program
                        http://airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b2.html
                        In general, there’s a link from you to the source in which you deducted that the B-2 was discontinued after the exposure of that Mig-29 radar, or I think that you merged
                      8. Kassandra
                        -2
                        April 3 2014 23: 04
                        crying Do you need a copy of the Pentagon meeting minutes, isn't it? Well, call them. Although it is better to merge ...
                        Stealth is translated as "stealth" (mission profile). Don't you know English Yazyk? Low observable is F22. Therefore, no American public could go into hysterics about the fact that the B-2 was visible in the optical range.
                        So will you write what exactly is stealth technology or will we assume that you are stuck and it’s time to go to moderator for a plunger?
                        crying
                      9. +2
                        April 4 2014 07: 17
                        No reference
                        I congratulate you
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 4 2014 07: 52
                        That is, you are just an Internet worm that does not know English and do not know how to stealth?
                      11. 0
                        April 5 2014 14: 56
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        That is, you are just an Internet worm that does not know English and do not know how to stealth?


                        Kassandra, when you cease to be a troll. Your statements must be supported by facts, and not be a pile of empty words.
                        I completely agree with Andrey from Chelyabinsk Yes !
                      12. Kassandra
                        -1
                        April 5 2014 21: 59
                        +100500 for ..........deleted by moderator Apollo and demagoguery ...
                        Well then, you, trollik, once arose, write how stealth is done. And for what the F-117 was faceted.
                        Or "step back with him foot by foot and not looking back" like those Argentine pilots of yours.
                        Facts - 1982, 23: 0
                        He, like you, is not from Chelyabinsk; he was simply shell-shocked.
                      13. 0
                        April 7 2014 11: 30
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well then, you, trollik, once arose, write how stealth is done.


                        Not a specialist to know how it is done. But it’s elementary that by the absence of other protrusions and the parallelism of the sides of the airframe. Almost nowhere radars could detect an aircraft with stealth technology. Even the F-117 was detected at close and low distances using a thermal imager Philips, as well as the smart strategy of the Serbian military. If, following your logic that the MiG-29 detects stealth, maybe the PAK FA project will stop fool ??

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Facts - 1982, 23: 0


                        Actually 21: 0 and your "invincible, super-maneuverable" Sea Harriers were in fact opposed by attack aircraft and bombers with no radar. from any position.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        He, like you, is not from Chelyabinsk; he was simply shell-shocked.


                        You're right, I live in the North Caucasus.
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 7 2014 21: 52
                        Can. This is a 1980s airplane made at the same time as Phobos Grunt.
                        They discontinued the release of F-22 (which by the way is not faceted) and F117. The latter was even decommissioned after losing a quarter of their fleet.

                        From 23: 0 to 21: 0 - the difference is not big, it's still not "at least" 21: 3.
                        In fact, half of the subsonic harriers were radarless, and the first to receive a star from them were the radar supersonic Mirages, which were on all radars, and which, unlike the harriers, just had "all-round" Matra missiles with the GOS radar (better than the American AIM -7 Sparrow). The Israelis trained the mirage pilots (they trained all Argentinean pilots). After the stars, the Falklands immediately "had no targets" for the mirages, although the war went on for another 1,5 months. Then the supersonic daggers, which were guided from Neputna, with their more advanced Israeli safrir missiles with IR seeker, which are also not attack aircraft, were then received as a star. Dagger is the same fighter as a mirage. It was obtained from it by removing the radar in order to lighten the aircraft as much as possible and to catch up with the MiG's flight characteristics. Not understanding the first part of the Marlezon ballet after the fiasco of mirages, the FAA sent "skinny" daggers to deal with the harriers. Despite the threefold quantitative advantage, the effect was the same.
                        Then the same subsonic but not over-maneuverable and therefore also defeated Skyhawks flew in silence to attack and to bomb, from which the MiGs had problems by the way in the Israeli war, and which did not forbid dropping bombs from harriers -
                        Skyhawk is, for the rest, the same subsonic plane as Harrier, but it is without ATS.

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        You're right, I live in the North Caucasus.

                        And I thought you were on the North Bronx. Or in Tora Bora, cave number 13.
                      15. +1
                        April 4 2014 07: 17
                        No reference
                        I congratulate you
                      16. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 4 2014 07: 53
                        Why do you need her at all?
                      17. 0
                        April 7 2014 11: 32
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Why do you need her at all?


                        So that VTOL fans will learn to stick to facts and not dreams ... laughing
                      18. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 7 2014 21: 12
                        Here, wake up and stick to it - Falklands, 1982, 23: 0
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Kassandra
              +1
              April 3 2014 14: 47
              With the superiority of the Su-27go, even the Americans do not argue. You are definitely not from there :-)))
              Actually, they began to do F-22 because Eagle against Su absolutely did not drag. There were no formal duels between Dry and Eagle in the USA. In the US, Su is even in private collections, and not only from Ukraine.
              I saw a Su-27 flying in combat. He Needle is superior not only in close maneuverable combat, but in general throughout. Due to the integrated layout and statically unstable aerodynamics.
              All maneuverable aerial fights take place on the fly, otherwise the pilot will be crushed by overloads. Supersound is needed so that the plane as a cleaver leaves in the interception area.
              On electronics instead of pouring reductions:
              - compare the area of ​​the antennas
              - note that they only started moving to the headlamps from plates in radar radios in 2006
              US missiles even inferior to France.
              FLIR on F-15 outboard.
              1. +1
                April 3 2014 16: 11
                Quote: Kassandra
                With the superiority of Su-27go, even Americans do not argue

                The US military usually recalls the "superiority" of the Su-27 when it comes to shaking money out of Congress. Here they tell terrible tales about the creepy Su-27, yes :)
                Quote: Kassandra
                There were no formal duels between Drying and Eagle in the USA.

                Surely. And what did they tell you about them? :)
                Quote: Kassandra
                He Needle is superior not only in close maneuverable combat, but in general throughout. Due to the integrated layout and statically unstable aerodynamics.

                Yeah. And now there is a very small nuance - all these statistical instabilities and integralities are interesting only at supercritical maneuvering angles, the so-called super maneuverability. Which drill pilots are strictly forbidden in my opinion even with the installation of blockers.
                Quote: Kassandra
                All maneuverable aerial battles take place on the fly, otherwise the pilot will be crushed by overloads.

                900 km / h is also a subsonic.
                Quote: Kassandra
                On electronics instead of pouring reductions:
                - compare the area of ​​the antennas
                - note that they only started moving to the headlamps from plates in radar radios in 2006

                M-dya ... It's okay that H001 is a Cassegrin antenna, i.e. the same "plate"?
                Quote: Kassandra
                US missiles even inferior to France.

                ... and France on its knees begs the Russian Federation for P-27, right?
                1. Kassandra
                  -2
                  April 3 2014 16: 58
                  no, you can just turn on the match of the national football league and see how the howl begins when the rescue F-22 flies over the field
                  It is important, this beats.
                  Integration is the general architecture of the aircraft, and without static stability at speed it’s just impossible to control at supercritical angles.
                  Turning speed drops very quickly. Up Su pulls better. Limiters stand so that overload does not kill. unless of course someone has gone further and this is not a vise on ...
                  Somehow it can withstand the early Su only the Israeli F-15, which was super-boosted by engines and from which everything was removed, has never been tried to do anything universal from the anorexic F15. Tanks if anything - removable, confrmny.
                  On the knees of France tried to beg for mats sshantsy, England did not allow pride. But exoset codes were torn.
                  Now the MiG-29’s link to link loss with opponents will be 1k3 (the most dangerous is Rafal), according to Su's flight instruction, there is only one - to leave the battle by all available means.
                  From the MiG-25, there was only one method - disruption of guidance with a decrease.
                2. Kassandra
                  -2
                  April 3 2014 17: 07
                  on the antennas of "what" the fact that in the American Air Force phased array was massively appeared 25 years later
                  don't give white to black
                  cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studie
                  s / studies / vol47no3 / article02.html
                  and not all was stolen and then bought technology
        6. best_stas
          0
          10 March 2015 14: 42
          So I read you Andrey and came to the conclusion that you are not from Chelyabinsk, but some kind of "bender" or something like that !!!! Praise here and trudge from YANOK! You will say, they say, I'm just objective, etc. ....., yes, no !!!!! Let's go to Ukraine, carry on your propaganda there !!!! Good girl, damn it !!!!! Our planes have no and will not be equal, another thing is that it is not enough , bye .....! Russia, forward !!!!!)
      2. SV
        SV
        +1
        April 2 2014 19: 08
        komentu +, however
        The only thing we should be afraid of is the F-22

        evokes conflicting feelings, a very very muddy machine in terms of capabilities (they don’t shine anywhere, only from the words of amers and excessive secrecy). If the 22nd is so super-technological, then what kind of parsley is from the 35th, which from their words is its simplified version (at least based on it) ???
        1. +2
          April 2 2014 20: 17
          Quote: SV
          If the 22nd is so super-technological, then what kind of parsley is from the 35th, which from their words is its simplified version (at least based on it) ???


          Well, I don't think that if the Yankees keep silent about him, this does not mean his weakness. The F-22 is still, in terms of the total number of possibilities, the most powerful western fighter for air combat. So far, it has no equal among production fighters. Only our PAK FA will be able to take away from the Raptor the title "unmatched in the world." I hope that work on the PAK FA is in full swing, and that by 2017-2018 it will already be in our aviation good !
        2. 0
          April 2 2014 20: 37
          Bullshit city.
          Quote: SV
          If the 22nd is so super-technological, then what kind of parsley is from the 35th, which from their words is its simplified version (at least based on it) ???

          This has nothing to do with reality at all. Absolutely different planes. I am prescribing educational program for you.
    3. 0
      April 2 2014 17: 55
      PU - more than 2000, doh ** I in general, but only a small part of them are operated.
  6. +5
    April 2 2014 15: 24
    Good help. It is necessary, with the development of our aviation, to develop DLRO, electronic warfare aircraft, and jamming aircraft. This is the right, anemic path, they do not need a lot, so you can do it quickly.
  7. +2
    April 2 2014 15: 26
    Quote: johnsnz
    Neh fucking heap of iron


    But essentially?
  8. +3
    April 2 2014 15: 27
    on 1m photo in my opinion the parking of decommissioned aircraft or canned
    1. +6
      April 2 2014 16: 09
      I somehow studied HD shnye photos of this base, some planes are propped up and generally without feathers and ailerons, some have no landing gear or glass. No wonder this base is called a "cemetery", it is clear that the sump is notable, the costs of the military-industrial complex and the bureaucracy, as well as some of the drank of the Pentagon guys.
  9. vladsolo56
    +3
    April 2 2014 15: 29
    Moreover, they also lack pilots, and the number is reduced annually. The crisis however.
    1. +5
      April 2 2014 16: 39
      We need to revive flight schools, too. Raise V.P.K and soon
      1. vladsolo56
        0
        April 3 2014 06: 02
        Quote: GradusHuK
        We need to revive flight schools, too. Raise V.P.K and soon

        the point is not that it is necessary to revive, the point is that today the military profession is not attractive, most prefer finances and jurisprudence. Based on the fact that only those who could not enter more prestigious universities will go to military schools, then why do we need such military men? I am convinced that when enrolling in military schools, we need control not only on knowledge or on health, but also very serious control on moral, psychological indicators. Enough to pick up everything that no one needs.
  10. +2
    April 2 2014 15: 29
    Powerfully, you will not say anything. We must catch up. Technically, we at least do not lose by models. We are inferior in quantity and, possibly, in tactics. The amerikosov had a lot of opportunities to work out the schemes of using aviation in local conflicts of the last decades. We must catch up. "Either we do it, or they will crush us." I. Stalin.
    1. +6
      April 2 2014 15: 36
      "We are inferior in quantity and, possibly, in tactics." I agree about the number, but tactically it's a question. They have not participated in real air battles with an equal enemy since the days of Vietnam, if only on computers, and banana countries without normal air defense can bomb everyone ...
      1. +4
        April 2 2014 15: 50
        Quote: kostyan77708
        "We are inferior in quantity and, possibly, in tactics." I agree about the number, but tactically it's a question. They have not participated in real air battles with an equal enemy since the days of Vietnam, if only on computers, and banana countries without normal air defense can bomb everyone ...

        I completely agree with you. all the more ours were already attacking them in the SCHAM in training battles in the early 90s. Then the mattress covers were flying with might and main on their new F-15E. Our guys were on the SU-27. The F-15E were utterly defeated. Drying by maneuver and more thrust-armed.
      2. +4
        April 2 2014 16: 16
        I agree back. And still. The same bombing of Yugoslavia helped, for example, work out the interaction of attack aircraft and fighter escort. It is clear that the Serbs did not have a normal fighter cover, but the Americans were obliged to work out the interaction.
        1. +3
          April 2 2014 19: 20
          Yes, I beg you! Yugoslavia had Dvina and Pechora in service, they could only dream of s-300.
          in addition, 16 MiG-29s, even with the support of 60 MiG-21s, could hardly counter US aircraft.
      3. 0
        April 2 2014 19: 39
        Quote: kostyan77708
        In real air battles with an equal enemy, they have not participated since Vietnam

        In what real air battles with an equal enemy ... even if with previously weak Russian pilots participated?
        1. +1
          April 2 2014 20: 11
          Quote: Nayhas
          In what real air battles with an equal enemy ... even if with previously weak Russian pilots participated?

          The point of the claims is that it is not known how the vaunted American control system will behave in a battle with a real enemy. Will the Americans be able to fight "the old fashioned way" if some segments of their control system suddenly start to fail, or even lie down? And how to break this publicized control system, Russia has. In this regard, Russian aviation is more stable.
          1. +3
            April 2 2014 20: 30
            Quote: Setrac
            Will the Americans be able to fight "the old fashioned way" if some segments of their control system suddenly start to fail, or even lie down?

            Your question is from the "maybe" series. The United States Air Force, the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps have tested their control systems in real combat against a real enemy. You can endlessly discuss how much this opponent was weaker, it is not important.
            Moreover, they also tested these systems in numerous exercises with the participation of the Allied Air Force and not only. Against Rafaley, against Gripenov, against Su-30 and MiG-29.
            The Russian Air Force does not have ANY experience in counteracting the Air Force even the weakest enemy, not to mention the enemy having a unified control system. Our pilots never modeled air battles against military aircraft of the countries of Europe and the USA, because they had never met them in the air. The only case was in the Lipetsk aces when they conducted training battles against the F-15. But it was only a close fight to which one still needs to survive. And after that you affirm that
            Quote: Setrac
            But what is there for Russia to violate this publicized management system with? In this regard, Russian aviation is more stable.

            What is your statement based on? With the same success, we can say that the Russian national football team is in no way inferior to the best teams in the world, they also run, they also kick the ball ...
            1. -3
              April 2 2014 20: 41
              Quote: Nayhas
              What is your statement based on?

              There are many examples, for example, missile launches by the Americans drove the Syrian coast.
              1. 0
                April 2 2014 21: 50
                Quote: Setrac
                for example, missile launches by the Americans drove the Syrian coast.

                Are you talking about the fact that the Israeli Ankor target rocket (6.5m long solid-fuel rocket) launched with the F-15 was identified by the SPRN in Armavir as two ballistic missiles flying towards Syria? What is outstanding here? Maybe on the contrary a sign of imperfect equipment?
                1. 0
                  April 2 2014 23: 09
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  You mean the fact when the Israeli target rocket Ankor


                  Well, it’s not quite so ... Here:

                  “A well-informed diplomatic source told As-Safir newspaper that“ The US war against Syria began and ended the moment two ballistic missiles were launched, leaving behind conflicting information - when Israel denied the launch and Russia confirmed it. continued until an Israeli statement was released indicating that the missile launches were carried out as part of a joint Israeli-US exercise, and that the missiles then fell into the sea, and the launches themselves were not related to the Syrian crisis. "

                  Here: http://www.i-rsi.ru/news/Rossiya_sbila_dve_ballisticheskie_rakety_SSHA_v_Sredize
                  mnom_more /

                  And you can still google.
            2. Login
              0
              April 4 2014 23: 44
              It was a joint maneuver, not a battle. Poghosyan came up with this battle story.
              1. Kassandra
                0
                April 5 2014 03: 54
                There was a training battle. On camera, his participants talked about him. Joint maneuvering takes place at the shows of aircraft.
                What else can you think of?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Login
                  0
                  April 5 2014 06: 30
                  And what proof do the participants have? The Americans did not say anything about "battles".
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    April 5 2014 21: 40
                    Evidence must be notarized?
                    The Americans then did not get into any country that has Su. MiGs were suppressed by a numerical superiority of 100k1.
      4. 0
        April 2 2014 22: 12
        In real air battles with an equal enemy, they have not participated since Vietnam

        08.08.08/34/XNUMX Americans and Israelis were preparing the army of Sukashvilli, everyone knows this. Our losses of the Air Force are significant ... But! There is one super important point. Su-XNUMX went through their air defense like a knife through oil.!. And destroyed the main radar air defense rodent. And all thanks to the Khibiny's on-board electronic warfare system. This leads to a very important conclusion: our electronic warfare is quite at a level exceeding kosher and ovsky.
        If our planes are invulnerable from the United States air defense systems, even a small number of them will be able to solve the problem of superiority in the sky with the quantitative support of RVV missiles.
  11. +5
    April 2 2014 15: 31
    There is a lot of rubbish, that’s the result of the Cold War. They all need to be kept and this eats up a lot of money.
  12. +5
    April 2 2014 15: 32
    Therefore, they pay great attention to the air defense forces in Russia, I am still a supporter of the fact that there will be no World War III, but local military operations will be, and for example, the Israeli Armed Forces are sharpened for such military conflicts and how many battles have already been won by them. And the world powers only support their armed forces at the level of "deterrent", the United States does not count the aggressors' concept of "deterrence" at all.
  13. +5
    April 2 2014 15: 34
    That would not oppose the US Air Force, but today their aircraft are really at a high level. And landing it will be expensive.
    1. +1
      April 2 2014 16: 10
      Expensive, does not mean impossible. We hit at their weakest point, a critical dependence on high technology for both command and control and technology.
  14. +4
    April 2 2014 15: 35
    I don’t understand what the trick is, if you are either intimidating as information, then there is only one answer. And we are the army, the hedgehog was scared naked booty.
  15. +2
    April 2 2014 15: 37
    Yes, you cannot knock them off with a slingshot. And they will have to demolish something, sooner or later they will climb on their own, stopping pushing sixes and jackals in front of them. It’s necessary to prepare.
  16. +3
    April 2 2014 15: 37
    a lot of iron, and enough aircraft !! the question is what will be the answer, if that !!
  17. postman
    +1
    April 2 2014 15: 37
    Quote: Author
    In the ranks of the Air Force of America - 2157 combat aircraftbut their number is minimal in the history of aviation, and the average age is the largest in the last hundred years

    September 2012 = 2025 , now even less +
    B-1B Lancer (64 in service in 2013)
    B-2A Spirit (20 in service in 2013)
    B-52H Stratofortress (78 in service in 2013)
    +
    US Air Force A-10A / C / OA-10A Thunderbolt II 345
    A-10 and OA-10 aircraft (191 in the army, 106 in the ANG, and 48 in the AFRC, all options) in 2013

    Quote: Author
    In the ranks there 62 B-1B,

    B-1B Lancer (64 in service in 2013), there were no write-offs
    ===========
    Source:
    http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2013/May%202013/
    0513facts_figures.pdf
  18. +2
    April 2 2014 15: 39
    Battles are not won by quantity. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted.
    1. +4
      April 2 2014 19: 41
      Quote: fly fishing
      Battles are not won by quantity. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted.

      That's right, quality, which is abundant in the US Air Force.
  19. +1
    April 2 2014 15: 40
    And if you disable their entire orbital group, and I think that ours in the zagashnik has an effective way to do this, then all this will turn into a very expensive pile of iron, in a heap with all their boxes and missiles
    1. +3
      April 2 2014 19: 47
      Quote: kostyan77708
      And if you disable their entire orbital group, and I think that ours in the zagashnik has an effective way to do this, then all this will turn into a very expensive pile of iron, in a heap with all their boxes and missiles

      And where is the famous mention of a bucket of nuts? One blogger said that Proton is standing on Baikonur, loaded with buckets with M27 nuts, the locals regularly dug them, but next to the workshop for their production and nuts they pour in time. So we have a remedy against Kostya Sapr ... damn it the wrong way ... against the mattresses of the mattresses!
      1. Eugeniy_369k
        0
        April 2 2014 22: 57
        Quote: Nayhas
        we have a remedy against Kostya Sapr ... damn it wrong way ...

        For humor +++++
        laughing laughing laughing
  20. +4
    April 2 2014 15: 40
    Aviation, of course, is deciding a lot now, but is it worth it now to simply act according to the slogan: "Catch up and overtake" ... It should be wisely. To develop not only conventional aviation, but also unmanned aircraft, finally to create an air spacecraft, there are many tasks and there is something to do ... We cannot take quantity yet, we must take quality ...
  21. +2
    April 2 2014 15: 41
    All of that is 2157 aircraft. ??? So we need to have. with k = 0.5 5000 thousand missiles with a margin. Well???? Only 5 thousand for lemon. And they have 2157 billion. The difference is clear. ??? Is there a calculator?: ?? Count. How much are they.
    1. +6
      April 2 2014 16: 32
      I don’t know how it is now, but before, on the S-75 and S-200 we were armed with missiles with YABs to combat the mass raid of enemy aircraft. There is no need for a direct hit. It seems somehow.
    2. +2
      April 2 2014 16: 41
      Quote: Signaller
      So we need to have. with k = 0.5 5000 thousand missiles with a reserve

      Yes, less, because of this number there are many aircraft, relatively combat ones - transport, command, refueling, etc. etc....
      1. +1
        April 2 2014 18: 28
        More, much more .. Add 3700 naval aircraft.
        And consider the principle of uneven distribution of forces along the front - i.e. Air defense needs to cover all borders and strategic targets within the country, spreading a thin layer of forces, and no one bothers the attacking side to choose the moment and place of the attack and have, say, 3000 aircraft in the main direction against 300 missiles
        1. 0
          April 2 2014 20: 16
          Quote: Tlauicol
          moment and place of attack and have in the main direction let's say 3000 aircraft against 300 missiles

          This is not physically possible, but you will not put all three thousand aircraft at one airport.
          1. 0
            April 3 2014 05: 42
            even in one war did aviation operate from one airport? And then, what is easier - to throw 2000 SAM systems somewhere in Kamchatka? - Or assemble 1000 aircraft in Alaska and Japan? + aircraft carriers, SLCMs from ships and submarines (they now need to dispose of the old Tomahawks), Harmas, planning bombs, drones, etc., etc. - and all this needs to be brought down ?!
            You will not be full of SAMs alone
    3. 0
      April 2 2014 20: 44
      2157 is only combat (armed) and only in the Air Force. How will you launch missiles from your hand? Do you also suggest abandoning aviation?
  22. Aptimist
    +3
    April 2 2014 15: 41
    Find then find! Again the question is when ??? How about the Fritz? Then God forbid to step on the same rake again !!!
    We must now move and already give the result !!! we need internal competition for design bureaus of aircraft manufacturers. and we have their way completely driven to the baseboard. Citizens are not at all!
    Our aviation industry reminds me of a plane with one wing, one is military aviation and the sieve. and the second wing, the civilian is completely absent !!!
    And what would be ahead, would have long mastered hypersound and access to space!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Aptimist
      +2
      April 2 2014 16: 34
      Uh, they don’t like the truth here !!!
      1. -1
        April 2 2014 20: 17
        Quote: Aptimist
        Uh, they don’t like the truth here !!!

        And why love her, is she unsightly?
    3. Yurgen
      +1
      April 3 2014 07: 45
      On April 8, at the initiative of the Defense Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, closed hearings are to be held - the president of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Mikhail Poghosyan, is expected. Possible "debriefing" with subsequent organizational conclusions.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        April 18 2014 15: 56
        so what was it like? just really interesting
  23. +1
    April 2 2014 15: 46
    hmm f-22 in alaska ...
    the first 5th generation fighter ...
    and since NATO = USA ...
    that location of the most advanced technology indicates the most potential enemy ...
    we have that the most likely adversary of NATA-polar bears ...
    although...
    there, through the Bering Strait, there are also Brown Bears ...
  24. Roman-kzn
    +2
    April 2 2014 15: 46
    Well done author! Very brief, accurate and understandable.
  25. +5
    April 2 2014 15: 53
    The only thing that would be worth borrowing from the amers is their attitude to technology. The one that is now mothballed on the so-called. "Cemetery" is still quite combat-ready, and in which case it can be used. Or sold to third world countries. With us, if anything, it's a write-off, and under the knife. Or "cannibalism" when recruiting. Please do not judge strictly according to the article "Praise of enemy technology")))
    1. +2
      April 2 2014 16: 19
      I would have looked at their conservation in the extreme north
      1. +1
        April 2 2014 20: 46
        Just an excuse. What prevents to store canned food in the south?
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 6 2014 01: 22
          it is necessary not just in the south but in the desert.
          in the article this is generally written.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  26. +3
    April 2 2014 15: 53
    Their number of aircraft x quality (flight hours + training) of pilots = hope of victory. Maybe we will lose a couple of battles, but no one has torn us to pieces like the British Empire. Yes, they lost the meat from the abdomen (see map of the USSR) but the ridge is whole, and the meat will grow. And what is left of the British? So a remnant that will probably break in half soon. And ... our Air Force zone of special attention ... our pilots are the best in the world !!!
  27. +7
    April 2 2014 15: 54
    The main thing here is different, we are ahead in terms of air defense systems, sort of like, and this is the main thing. It’s all cool and do not count, and an excellent rocket comes out cheaper than any plane, and all kinds of fu-22 and fu-35 are generally much cheaper .. To develop an expensive aircraft is one thing, but use it against an enemy with advanced air defense, this is another.
    So comrades are going the right way, developing their air defense.
  28. +8
    April 2 2014 15: 55
    Quote: "Thanks to this, in the vast majority of countries in the world, the United States can win a war with one aircraft, without involving the ground forces and the navy."
    Well, why is it so stupid to lie? 3 months almost with impunity bombed Serbia so what? Yes, whining, there was no victory. And remember Libya or Iraq - there the main force is the tanks, infantry and hordes of bandits hired by the United States. Now let us recall August 2008 - in 5 days a small Russian group sprayed the Georgian army without having such powerful aircraft as the United States. But we have competent tankers and infantry.
    At one time, Soviet air defense systems perplexed the United States Army in Vietnam. And if they tried to crush Russia with aviation, as they did in Libya and Serbia, then Russian air defense would halve the so-called fleet in a week. coalitions, without even involving their aircraft.
    1. +4
      April 2 2014 16: 00
      I would say that if they attacked the whole lousy, then at least half a geyropa (population) would be halved and a surprise would come to the mattresses, maybe not even one
    2. SV
      SV
      +1
      April 2 2014 20: 15
      then Russian air defense would halve the so-called fleet in a week coalitions, without even involving their aircraft.


      Pentagon analysts write the same thing in an analytical note to Congress ...
    3. 0
      April 2 2014 21: 26
      And how can one not recall the US hysteria about selling s-300 to Iran.
  29. +2
    April 2 2014 15: 55
    Damn it, I read the article and it became scary smile
    1. +1
      April 2 2014 16: 57
      Quote: horoh
      Damn it, I read the article and it became scary smile

      Do not piss, what we do not say does not mean no.
  30. Luger
    +5
    April 2 2014 15: 56
    The author is well done, but I want to scratch the back of my head, the superiority in the sky is obtained by the amers. As many here said it is necessary to develop air defense systems, but aviation also needs to be developed in parallel with air defense, otherwise the imbalance is all the same, and for some reason everyone is silent about US allies such as the French, Germans and a lot of all who would like to join the air battles too.
    That such a high morale of commentators is certainly good, but it still needs to be fueled by common sense, and a cold mind. By the way, in my opinion, making a deeply echeloned and modern defense of air defense is easier than sculpting new aircraft, and pilots are also needed.
  31. +4
    April 2 2014 15: 58
    A country that on its territory fought only with the Indians (and even that did not win, but drunk and bought) will certainly have superiority in the number of aircraft. BUT! Quantity is not always quality, hell would they have unfolded if it had not robbed the whole world, including us, well, and in conclusion, we must remember that we wake up and only from this someone has enuresis, diarrhea and insomnia! Get up a huge country!
  32. +4
    April 2 2014 16: 01
    Well, we have the best air defense systems in the world.
  33. +1
    April 2 2014 16: 11
    Quote: Gagarin
    AT THIS NUMEROUS Tricky W ... PU WE WILL FIND YOUR NON-STANDARD ANSWER.
    Not so simple. Do not think that you can throw US caps. They have more types of weapons than ours. But striving for peace, for peaceful coexistence is necessary. IMHO
  34. Rubmolot
    +7
    April 2 2014 16: 11
    Well, scared ...
    The air forces of any army do not win the war. And the completely bombed territories remain enemy territory. Only the foot of a soldier is able to capture this territory.

    Jan ижižka
    Do not be afraid of the enemy, do not pay attention to the quantity!
    1. 0
      April 2 2014 20: 28
      I note, Jan ижižka knew a lot about war! soldier
  35. Vtel
    +1
    April 2 2014 16: 12
    They have many airplanes, there will soon be no one to fly them, they are completely blue.
    1. +4
      April 2 2014 17: 39
      Quote: Vtel
      They have many airplanes, there will soon be no one to fly them, they are completely blue.

      They say that Alexander the Great had an entire army of blue (or rather, bi ..) but that didn’t stop them from conquering everything they wanted
      1. -1
        April 2 2014 20: 19
        Quote: DoctorOleg
        They say that Alexander the Great had an entire army of blue (or rather, bi ..) but that didn’t stop them from conquering everything they wanted


        This is fiction, no one knows what was the army of Alexander the Great.
        1. -1
          April 2 2014 20: 50
          Anyway, Alexander the Great is a fiction. No one knows if he was. So you saw him live?
  36. +3
    April 2 2014 16: 18
    Yes, a decent fleet of vehicles. But are they ready to lose it in a conflict with a strong enemy, with a developed air defense system? Bombing defenseless Serbia is easy, but how they and our army imagine it.
  37. +6
    April 2 2014 16: 25
    A large number is not a great skill. But with skill in the US Army, there are big problems. Even Suvorov said: "You must win not by numbers, but by skill!"
    1. 0
      April 2 2014 20: 51
      And what is this vyser based on? Their pilots now have an annual raid 2 times larger than ours, and the total time 4 times.
  38. 0
    April 2 2014 16: 30
    What about American aviation and C-400, who is who?
    1. +3
      April 2 2014 16: 34
      Quote: VNP1958PVN
      What about American aviation and C-400, who is who?

      Who is stronger, a whale or an elephant?
      I’ll just remind you that ground-based air defense NEVER defeated aircraft (although sometimes it caused the most sensitive losses)
      1. +4
        April 2 2014 16: 44
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Who is stronger, a whale or an elephant? I’ll just remind you that ground-based air defense NEVER defeated aircraft (although sometimes it caused the most sensitive losses)

        Because ground-based air defense is not set for the main shield but the secondary one. Again, the question remains of the quantitative and qualitative indicator of ground-based air defense against an attacking wing. It is not necessary to smack up the defense of one battery of ground air defense with 50 airplanes. Correct me if I am mistaken, but it is with so many isravites that broke through the S-300s that Greece has. See what would be the chances of the same 50 aircraft with 5 batteries counteracting. And the older S-300, and the newer S-400. Modern pelenator installations of ground batteries will detect the enemy air wing long before they come at a distance of the shot. As an example, before NATO aircraft appeared in the Iraqi sky, its ground-based anti-aircraft batteries ironed the tomahawks, and only 10 of them reached the result of XNUMX fired missiles.
        1. +3
          April 2 2014 18: 01
          I support the fellow countryman, and I want to add that our concept of defense is based on the joint actions of IA, air defense systems with simultaneous attacks on enemy airfields.
        2. +1
          April 2 2014 20: 02
          Quote: PROXOR
          See what would be the chances of the same 50 aircraft with 5 batteries counteracting. And the older S-300, and the newer S-400

          And these batteries will stand next to what? They will be carried out one by one. Another thing is that these batteries will be in addition to the aviation group. The lack of air defense allows enemy aircraft to freely conduct reconnaissance, choosing the best options for airstrike, revealing the location of the air defense system.
        3. +3
          April 2 2014 20: 37
          Quote: PROXOR
          Because on the ground air defense the task is not the main shield but the auxiliary

          That's right, therefore the question "who will win - the US Air Force or the S-400" does not make sense, since the S-400 will lose a priori. This is the same as asking "Who will win - Yamato or the US Navy?" It is clear that the FLEET will win, although the Yamato is more powerful than any US battleship.
          A completely different matter is an air defense system, whose ground component is built around the C-400, but includes EW, RTR, interceptors, AWACS, ground and air, etc. etc. Because give the country enough C-400 and C-300 of the latest modifications, Su-35, A-50 and A-100, planes and all the necessary support, link this into a single system - and I will not envy the USA :)))
      2. +4
        April 2 2014 17: 26
        in Vietnam, air defense forced to change the entire tactics of aviation, imagine the outcome of the war, do not have the Vietnamese S-75.
        1. +1
          April 2 2014 21: 06
          Quote: Vadim12
          in Vietnam, air defense forced to change the entire tactics of aviation

          Yes, and pretty much plucked US planes. But that is all
          Quote: Vadim12
          Imagine the outcome of the war, do not have the Vietnamese C-75.

          The same. EMNIP losses from air defense systems even in the most productive periods never exceeded 40% of the total losses of the US Air Force - but there were few such periods
      3. +1
        April 2 2014 20: 21
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I’ll just remind you that ground-based air defense NEVER defeated aircraft (although sometimes it caused the most sensitive losses)

        Moscow 1941th year.
        1. 0
          April 2 2014 20: 37
          Quote: Setrac
          Moscow 1941th year.

          There is a pure merit of aviation.
          1. 0
            April 2 2014 20: 42
            Quote: Nayhas
            There is a pure merit of aviation.

            Yeah, air defense aviation.
            1. -1
              April 2 2014 21: 59
              Quote: Setrac
              Yeah, air defense aviation.

              Well, yes, not anti-aircraft gunners smashed the Luftwaffe ...
              1. +1
                April 2 2014 22: 21
                Quote: Nayhas
                Well, yes, not anti-aircraft gunners smashed the Luftwaffe ...

                Luftwaffe pilots fighter aircraft.
        2. +1
          April 2 2014 20: 38
          Quote: Setrac
          Moscow 1941th year.

          And who broke the Luftwaffe there ?! wassat
          1. 0
            April 2 2014 20: 46
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And who broke the Luftwaffe there ?!

            Air defense is a defensive system; it does not break anyone; it protects.
            1. +1
              April 2 2014 21: 04
              I write
              I’ll just remind you that ground-based air defense NEVER defeated aircraft (although sometimes it caused the most sensitive losses)

              You answer me
              Quote: Setrac
              Moscow 1941th year.

              How do you order to understand your words? German air defense won the ground, or not?
              1. 0
                April 2 2014 22: 42
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                How do you order to understand your words? German air defense won the ground, or not?

                Air Defense Forces were able to protect Moscow from the attacks of the Luftwaffe. Which suggests that the protective functions of air defense are quite real.
  39. Leopold
    +1
    April 2 2014 16: 42
    Capitalism's favorite word is competition. The US Armed Forces is a vivid example of the lack thereof.
  40. Ermek
    0
    April 2 2014 17: 00
    in the RG there was an article about a Serbian air defense officer, how they met in an ambush with an "arrow" "tomogavki" predicted the routes of passage of the Kyrgyz Republic. Amers, in addition to the Air Force, have aviation for the ILC and the Navy, plus "six" in NATO
  41. Ermek
    0
    April 2 2014 17: 02
    in the RG there was an article about a Serbian air defense officer, how they met in an ambush with an "arrow" "tomogavki" predicted the routes of passage of the Kyrgyz Republic. In addition to the Air Force, amers have aviation for the ILC and the Navy, plus a fleet of "sixes" in NATO
  42. +1
    April 2 2014 17: 14
    Quote: PROXOR
    Modern pelenator installations of ground batteries will detect the enemy air wing long before they come at a distance of the shot.

    Yeah, something like Groler will just hang out, especially so that life does not seem to be honey
    1. Kassandra
      0
      April 7 2014 20: 36
      so he and they too can be blinded, and this is easier, because their equipment should fly and not ride.
  43. +4
    April 2 2014 17: 17
    The strength of amers is not even in the number of combat sides, but in the state of the aircraft industry. Having entered the Second World War without tanks and with poor aviation, they stamped so much equipment that they provided for themselves and the British, and we got it. The factories of Boeing, Lockheed and others are by no means standing still, and how soon, during the threatened period, they will switch from the production of passenger aircraft to combat aircraft - that is the question. Private pilots are mobilized and trained. We have practically no reserve pilot training (as before in DOSAAF), we have gathered to invite civilian pilots from abroad, the aviation industry is also not on the rise (or rather on the rise, but when compared with the 90s). Until all this is revived, we will be objectively weaker. Patriotism is a necessary and very useful thing, hurray-patriotism - on the contrary. Tasks ahead - unplowed field.
    PS It is worth counting among the amers far from the weak aviation of the fleet and the Marine Corps.
    PPS Who can explain the use of the F-16 in an unmanned version (except for the target).
    1. 0
      April 2 2014 20: 18
      Quote: vch62388
      PPS Who can explain the use of the F-16 in an unmanned version (except for the target).

      Yes, it seems only as the target was planned. Starting this year, 126 boards should be redone.
      Well, in the future, of course, they can be used as false goals at least. They know how to spin in the air ...
  44. +1
    April 2 2014 17: 20
    f-117 brought out, kept ready. But frugality is good quality. With the development of computers, they may well be converted to drones and tossed into a banana republic.
    1. +1
      April 2 2014 18: 07
      This is vryatli, the F-117 started having problems with the composite fuselage and planes a long time ago, after a number of accidents it was put on a joke, and then taken to the "reserve". Storage in the desert will not add durability to them.
  45. vvg
    vvg
    0
    April 2 2014 17: 20
    Who would doubt that the states have the best army
    1. +3
      April 2 2014 18: 48
      Quote: vvg
      Who would doubt that the states have the best army

      The most numerous, yes! Technically prepared - yes. But as for the statement, the best one, I doubt it ... How many years has this "best army" been fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban, a powerful grouping, if I'm not mistaken, of 100 thousand people? The result is zero at best.
      1. Kassandra
        -3
        April 3 2014 01: 15
        no, no and NO.
        Bundeswehr and PLA
        the same Abrams is a scrap compared to the Leopard (although the gun on it is from him, German).
        The Air Force is the largest in China, the highest quality in the Russian Federation, then Israel.
        1. -1
          April 3 2014 13: 06
          Well, you carry crap.
          1. Kassandra
            -1
            April 3 2014 16: 02
            you have crap in your pants, and the Bundeswehr in Kholodnaya was 3/4 of NATO’s ground strike forces in Europe.
            They were not allowed to have strong Air Force and Navy so that the Nazis would not rebel in the event of something.
            Abrams is a tank with English armor and a German cannon; unlike leopards, nobody buys it for their money. Egypt they got as humanitarian aid. the driver in it is simply a suicide bomber, since it will not be able to crawl out of a lined with a tower on its side.
            1. 0
              April 3 2014 21: 01
              Quote: Kassandra
              The Air Force is the largest in China, the highest quality in the Russian Federation, then Israel.

              Is there any data on the quantitative composition of the Chinese Air Force? All sources that happened to read indicated figures inferior to the US.
              Quality - Russia? Do not make me laugh. Most of the fleet is outdated. The same amers have everything upgraded to the level of 4+ and ++, and only they have the 5th generation in a substantial amount. Our drying and instant of the first modifications will be disassembled into pieces. And there are very few new planes capable of fighting on equal terms with their fighters.
              I'm not talking about their annual raid, 2 times greater than ours, and the total, which is more than 4 times.
              On proven tactics, coherence and integration of systems.
              On the superiority in the means of AWACS and the huge tanker fleet.
              1. Kassandra
                0
                April 3 2014 21: 38
                Of course there is. The Americans are already desperately nervous. Some Dryers of all modifications are already ok 1000pcs. This is closed data on the nuclear arsenals of the PRC, but judging by indirect evidence of at least 4000 nuclear warheads.
                The Americans modernized their engines in the 90s and avionics in 00x (they partially finally replaced the PAR headlights), and they tried to catch up to the Soviet level. In addition to the F-22, there are currently no threats to the Russian Federation. From the combined link of the MiG-31 and Su-27 with OVT (not even Su-35), even they have no chance.
                The USSR still had a stealth seeing radar; the United States seems to still not have it.
                MiG-29 link to link will suffer 1k3 losses only against the Rafales. To dump a single old Su without loss, you need 3-4 times the superiority of the F-15x.
                There is a Soviet flight school. The best in the world. IP and Avax are. No worse and appeared earlier.
                Pilots have recently flown a little - yes. The Russian tanker fleet, like the BTA, is also not small.
                If they could, then they would have come a long time ago.
                1. 0
                  April 3 2014 23: 27
                  Sorry, but this is an unreasonable chatter. We can do without cons, however.
                  So maybe you can show this source, where it says that there are about 1000 pieces of sushi (meaning their copies, as I understand it)? I have never met such numbers anywhere. The same goes for nuclear arsenals. What are the indirect signs?
                  Regarding avionics avionics. They already have AFARs on the F-15, on the F-18 too (though this is not the Air Force), which is the Soviet level to hell, we still fly with slotted ones. And the detection range is no longer in any comparison. The same goes for missiles, there is nothing to answer on the AIM-120D with a range of 180 km.
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  MiG-31 and Su-27 with OVT (not even Su-35) even they have no chance.

                  Theoretically, the raptor will detect them earlier (even if it’s more powerful at the MiG radar station, the F-22 compensates for this by stealth), it will launch missiles earlier too (about the aim-120d I wrote above. Our missile anti-maneuver fighters are not good). So your statement is very bold and stupid.
                  Where does this nonsense about the loss ratio come from? Tell me, where do you get the information from? It seems that you come up with yourself. Rafal has an excellent avionics, the MiG has 30 years ago and generally can not be compared. In addition, rafal is good in melee. Even the non-existent MiG-35 in places against its background looks a bit poor.
                  There is no Soviet flight school for 24 years. The best is just your opinion, here you can argue endlessly.
                  They did not come to us just because of nuclear weapons. So yes, come. Except air defense could equalize the chances. Without it, our Air Force would be torn to shreds.
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    April 4 2014 01: 10
                    Maybe I'm sorry.
                    The fact that the FAR appeared in American radar a quarter of a century later is this not an argument?
                    1000 pieces, both copies and sold there by the Russian Federation, Ukraine and other republics, including re-export quite far away. Now they rivet another 600 to 1000 pieces, but a poor kachetva of those who are not able to climb out due to vibrations can be pulled out in 2 max. On white, they sell worse than Indian ones, without PGO.
                    According to the Chinese Air Force from Wikipedia. You just need to carefully look at the table and the explanations for it. And then the Americans too will forget to count the Su-30 or self-assembly.
                    According to the nuclear weapons of the PRC, indirect signs are the number of launching sites in their tunnel system. In general, is it not alarming that there is no direct data? And that they do not participate in any treaties and consultations other than the Non-Proliferation Treaty (with the exception of Pakistan, that is, they even spat on this treaty)? because everyone in the disarmament of the USSR just forgot about them during perestroika :-) They were disrespectful and very busy.
                    Last seen the Soviet / Russian flight school less than half a year ago.
                    Nuclear weapons were not used in Daman, at the Dzungarian gates and in other places; it has long been not the worst, although such pumping also happens. Moreover, even with such an environmentally dirty one. But without a nuclear-classical, the remaining 2% of the population and the US Armed Forces will certainly not be destroyed, if only radiologically.
                    The Soviet level is that the Soviet MiG-29go radars even the B-2 see how it rose.
                    And why just nonsense? From different sources. From very different.
                    What freak did bl.action rockets become indignant when the Americans began to have a butchert with the AIM-9X only?
                    In your opinion, an all-perspective rocket is what?
                    1. 0
                      April 4 2014 09: 39
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      The fact that the FAR appeared in American radar a quarter of a century later is this not an argument?


                      When the MiG-31 came to us - yes, it exceeded everything that existed in terms of detection range, etc. But if you compare - compare with analogues. MiG-29 with F-16/18 and Su-27 with F-15. On ours are still slotted. They already have AFARs, although not at all. And the rest of avionics? Cockpit? Lantirn? Here we are lagging far behind.
                      Judging by the same wiki, China has 1100 fighters. By the number of AWACS / tankers they lag even further (from the USA). Where is the leadership?
                      The fact that there is no direct data on the number of their nuclear weapons does not make it possible to draw conclusions about its quantity.
                      Any radar can see the B-2 and other stealths. The only question is the distance at which they are seen. You would at least bother to find out what ESR reduction is and how it works.
                      Well, show me at least one source that says that the MiG-29 is tearing rafals in the ratio of 1 to 3. It seems to me that this is nothing more than wet fantasies.
                      DB missiles are not suitable for such a load that their restriction on overloads allows attacking only large aircraft, such as bombers and AWACS, and KR. They do not pull fighters for overloads.
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 5 2014 02: 35
                        they have plates more than half still, and that afar that has a stealth does not see
                        on rafals - read here,
                        rockets - nothing like that. it is abandoned by AIM-54 because of this
                        And what are the exact conclusions about the number of nuclear warheads in China that America urgently hired its judges to crawl their nose into googlemaps and look for their starting positions?
                        Well, you were asked in what ways the EPR is reduced.
                        F-117 facet why? What does the airwriter write about this?
  46. 0
    April 2 2014 17: 21
    Where did the F-18 go?
    1. 0
      April 2 2014 17: 35
      F-18 in the Air Force has never been, only in the fleet and in the Marine Corps.
    2. +1
      April 2 2014 19: 02
      Quote: leon17
      Where did the F-18 go?


      Hornets and Super Hornets only in the US Navy.
      1. 0
        April 2 2014 20: 19
        Quote: supertiger21
        Hornets and Super Hornets only in the US Navy.

        And ILC.
        1. 0
          April 2 2014 21: 31
          Quote: Nayhas
          And ILC.


          In the KMP, the main combat aircraft A-8 Harrier II, about the fact that there and the F-18 is nowhere to be heard ... request
          1. 0
            April 2 2014 21: 55
            Quote: supertiger21
            about the fact that there and the F-18 is nowhere to be heard ...

            Well, as if 14 fighter-assault squadrons on the Hornets fly ....
          2. +1
            April 2 2014 21: 56
            Quote: supertiger21
            , about the fact that there F-18 is not heard anywhere

            They have it, have it.
  47. Arh
    -2
    April 2 2014 17: 25
    As far as I know, we have the best helicopters, the best planes !!! ***
  48. -1
    April 2 2014 17: 25
    [quote = Rubmolot] Well, scared ...
    The air forces of any army do not win the war. And the completely bombed territories remain enemy territory. Only the foot of a soldier is able to capture this territory.

    Owing to my work, I had to evaluate the level of training of an ordinary Ovsk soldier at once. Believe me, it’s at a very good level. I served in the Russian army and there is nothing to compare.
    1. SV
      SV
      0
      April 2 2014 20: 34
      In the words of General Pebed (in Transnistria): until two times he gets a Russian in his ear he won’t even turn ...
    2. Kassandra
      +1
      April 3 2014 01: 18
      maybe in the wrong part served?
      then what to do with the Bundeswehr?
  49. +5
    April 2 2014 18: 10
    And here it seems like a real state
    1. +2
      April 2 2014 18: 55
      There will never be a big nuclear war, even if people want it, higher forces will not allow this. Believe me.
      1. 0
        April 2 2014 20: 29
        Quote: Jamal1974
        There will never be a big nuclear war, even if people want it, higher forces will not allow this. Believe me.

        Yeah, and meteorites will not fall anymore and there will be no more ice ages. higher powers, they are so kind.
    2. Kassandra
      +1
      April 3 2014 01: 39
      from 14:30 you can not watch - nashism
    3. Yurgen
      0
      April 3 2014 08: 14
      Balm for the soul.
  50. Oml
    +3
    April 2 2014 18: 11
    Quote: vvg
    Who would doubt that the states have the best army


    The army is not only weapons. Germany and Japan at one time it was also better, but as a result? !!
    1. Kassandra
      -1
      April 3 2014 01: 50
      and as a result, both came and broke the USSR
      Japan, by the way, too, they surrendered after they had lost their most combat-ready army in Manchuria and were unable to take out their bacteriological weapons of mass destruction. Under the immediate threat of a chain capture of its islands, the SA following its landing through a narrow strait in Hokkaido. Korean ports to which to go by sea she captured successfully.
    2. 0
      April 3 2014 19: 57
      what kind of weapons did Germany and Japan have better ????
      1. Kassandra
        0
        April 3 2014 20: 39
        from mass to WWII,
        Germany has tanks, armored personnel carriers, armored personnel carriers, machine guns, submarines, jet aircraft, dive bombers, and chemical weapons (not used).
        in Japan - Battleships, submarines, bacteriological weapons, Zero fighters (throughout most of the war).
  51. +2
    April 2 2014 18: 12
    here everyone writes “we will catch up with them, we have a backlog” or “we have very cool air defense” and so on .. but no one thought that what the hell is the use of so many planes in the US Air Force????? After all, they still need to be delivered to Russia, these flying canned goods.....and the USA does not have the means to deliver all these flying “mass graves” to us...flight range? All this will not be achieved under its own power, we need aircraft carriers.....and aircraft carriers are useless against Russia, unless they are stationed in our Black Sea.
    1. +4
      April 2 2014 20: 42
      Quote: Free Island
      but no one thought what the hell was the use of so many planes in the US Air Force????? They still need to be delivered to Russia, these flying canned goods

      Ooooooo!!! This is a question of questions! How will the stupid Yankees “deliver” their numerous planes “to Russia”? Will they themselves not reach the air bases of Poland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Norway, Turkey, Lithuania, etc.?
      1. DMB-78
        -1
        April 3 2014 07: 42
        Quote: Nayhas
        Will they themselves not reach the air bases of Poland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Norway, Turkey, Lithuania, etc.?

        So the question is about the US Air Force.
  52. Oml
    +1
    April 2 2014 18: 14
    Prospects in developments, technologies, as well as the skill and courage of warriors.
  53. 0
    April 2 2014 18: 23
    The best aircraft designers, aircraft and complexes, as well as the people who assembled these unique masterpieces, and finally, the pilots of the design bureau and the leading and trailing pilots of the Russian Air Force, the best, the best, the best... and the best in space, and this is all Russia.. ..be proud!!!!!
  54. +1
    April 2 2014 18: 32
    The size of the Air Force is truly impressive. But, as has already been said, the addition of new ones does not cover the retirement of old ones. And despite the optimism of the states themselves, there are a lot of questions about the F-35. In general, their Air Force is not as scary as it might seem at first glance But the most important thing is that we do not miss this opportunity! Our main potential enemy provides us with a real opportunity to catch up with ourselves! And apparently ours will not miss it - the renewal of our Air Force is in full swing.
    1. +1
      April 2 2014 18: 59
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      The size of the Air Force is truly impressive. But, as has already been said, the addition of new ones does not cover the retirement of old ones.

      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      In general, their Air Force is not as scary as it might seem at first glance. But the most important thing is that we do not miss this opportunity! Our main potential enemy provides us with a real opportunity to catch up with ourselves! And apparently ours will not miss it - the renewal of our Air Force is in full swing on the move.


      Anything is possible, but we most likely will not catch up with them in numbers. Firstly, the budget will not support it. Secondly, we do not need such a quantity of aircraft, since we have no plans to “spread democracy”.

      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      And despite the optimism of the states themselves, there are a lot of questions about the F-35.


      Despite the over-optimism of our commentators about the lumbering "penguin", the F-35 is currently one of the most dangerous NATO fighters in the future. We have only a prototype fighter that can surpass the 35, and this is the PAK FA. And among light fighters The F-35 has no analogues yet, and is more likely to theoretically shoot any of them.
  55. -2
    April 2 2014 18: 44
    Quote: zmeigavrila
    Owing to my work, I had to evaluate the level of training of an ordinary Ovsk soldier at once. Believe me, it’s at a very good level. I served in the Russian army and there is nothing to compare.

    What kind of jingoism? Do you really believe that NATO soldiers will come to us in the Urals? Have you ever been to the forests of Russia, hunted, lived??? They sit there damn it on the shores of warm seas and s.t.s.u.k.o pretend to be unpretentious, insidious and effective cyborgo-drones - yes, all of you there (whether Europeans, Americans, Jews or Azeris) are soft as .. no matter where there in the forests for us))) we’ll bury it here. Aviation 2000 with a lot of pieces (!), they are in our sky))) will they be fueled by clouds?
    1. w2000
      +2
      April 2 2014 19: 10
      Such tasks are not set in modern war. The main forces of strategic deterrence are destroyed: missiles, aircraft, airfields, ships, ports, command posts, large industrial centers, and strikes are carried out on the capital. They remove the country's leadership, bringing puppets to power. And the fact that partisans with small arms and rebellious settlements will remain somewhere does not interest anyone. Aggressors are only interested in oil and gas wells and pipelines. If not for nuclear weapons, such a war against Russia would have begun back in the 90s and 2000s.
  56. 0
    April 2 2014 18: 51
    Quote: Aptimist
    We need to move now and produce results!!!

    We're already moving. It’s just that there can’t be a good result in 2-3 years, while nothing has been done for 20 years. I hope our groundwork is high-quality and we will not deviate from the chosen path, but on the contrary, we will intensify our work in this direction.
  57. w2000
    +5
    April 2 2014 19: 01
    There is no need for mischief; the United States truly has the most powerful air force. The aircraft and helicopters of the Navy, Marine Corps and Army Aviation have not yet been indicated, which is approximately 1500 aircraft and 3000 helicopters. In total, the forces of the United States, NATO and their non-NATO allies, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea, exceed Russia in the number of combat aircraft by more than 15 times.
  58. Max_Damage
    0
    April 2 2014 19: 32
    Screwed citizens!
  59. Leshka
    -1
    April 2 2014 19: 48
    targeted strikes and there will be nothing left of them
    1. 0
      April 3 2014 08: 27
      Well, well, funny joke...
      1. Kassandra
        -1
        April 3 2014 14: 15
        every joke has a fraction of a joke.
        none of their aircraft can operate from the ground except Harriers. Soviet - half, including the MiG-29.
        Concrete roads are working and GoodbyeAmerica...
  60. +4
    April 2 2014 19: 54
    Not a very clear article. Either intimidate or with delight?
    Any comparisons in this topic can only be made comprehensively - taking into account air defense forces, theater of operations, ground technical systems, support, etc. Well, at one time we saw these crowds in Vietnam, and in Korea, and in Egypt, and in Syria, and who knows where else. Our air defense has proven itself brilliantly, but I’m not even talking about our aviation.
    I don't believe in serious American fighting spirit. We got used to fighting, like playing computer games. They may develop serious qualities only when they defend their own land. Which hasn't happened yet.
  61. EsTaF
    +2
    April 2 2014 20: 06
    Weird criticism.
    Crap. You go to the “crossroads” - all the potatoes are either from Israel or somewhere else. But not ours. What aviation industry!?
    The states are competition within. different markets. from agricultural to computer. And with us everything is under control.
    Bureaucrats and laws on taxes and other inspections - in no other country in the world is accounting reporting as developed as in Russia. The question is - nachua!!!
    Airplanes, b...
  62. +1
    April 2 2014 20: 15
    Of course, the Yankees have a hell of a lot of iron, but according to them, we have the best air defense in the world. But what is pleasing is that they do not have devices like our Tu 22M3, which inadvertently (during joint exercises) tore to smithereens their vaunted air defense system with Patriots and other scrap metal. And the main thing is that, as A.V. Suvorov said : “The Russians always beat the Prussians.”!
  63. +3
    April 2 2014 20: 40
    An acquaintance in the Bundeswehr is serving in Afghanistan - he told how the Americans recently conducted exercises there, after the “polite people”... They went on alert, began to move out to where all units were supposed to, and then General Dempsey (conducting the exercises) gave an introduction - the enemy had disabled the orbital grouping, and gave the command to turn off the satellites. After 20 minutes, the exercises ended... Because it turned out that the US military without the GPS system can no longer read maps or navigate the terrain... In general, as I understand it, they will now take on the same thing for their army...
  64. vst6
    0
    April 2 2014 20: 43
    What is in storage does not count, where will they find so many pilots?
  65. +1
    April 2 2014 21: 09
    We must not only rejoice at the problems of the US Air Force, but also make every effort to update and increase our Air Force fleet.
  66. 0
    April 2 2014 21: 22
    Quote: Nevsky_ZU
    Apparently, the technical state of the US Air Force is still firmly in the spirit of “1988 USSR”, and there are no prerequisites for a sharp slide towards 1994, because there is no mark of its own.

    Well, how, how?
    Obama is marked in his own way, with color winked
  67. +3
    April 2 2014 21: 57
    Quote: w2000
    Such tasks are not set in modern war. The main forces of strategic deterrence are destroyed: missiles, aircraft, airfields, ships, ports, command posts, large industrial centers, and strikes are carried out on the capital. They remove the country's leadership, bringing puppets to power. And the fact that partisans with small arms and rebellious settlements will remain somewhere does not interest anyone. Aggressors are only interested in oil and gas wells and pipelines. If not for nuclear weapons, such a war against Russia would have begun back in the 90s and 2000s.

    Yes, it’s good (((tasks are set + theorists + strategists (( - calm down already defeatists “it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines..." The Wehrmacht (planned, imbued with schemes and plans, a standard of methodicality)))), according to Barbarossa it is obliged was to disrupt the evacuation of the defense industry beyond the Volga with massive Heinkel raids + gouge the industrial sector to Kazan in 1941! So what? The General Staff stupidly drinks vodka and doesn’t monitor US plans? Yes, super analysts sit in VO - they compare numbers from Google (((wearing “US propaganda” glasses “Where do we go for the poor demobilization of the SA, but even I can imagine the development of a massive strike with “high-precision” ones - ours will detonate 5-10 warheads of 1-2 megatons each outside the atmosphere, right above the rats (what will happen to the orbital group), then with tactical ones directly according to orders AUG in the oceans + at all bases in Europe, Japan, Turkey and Korea, nuclear charges will be detonated above the waves of B-52 aircraft - shock wave + EMP, in a word, no one will interfere, everyone understands - mutually assured destruction!
    ))) now minus the alarmists
    1. 0
      April 3 2014 17: 32
      Quote: Sergey Sitnikov
      "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines..."

      This also applies to us.
  68. +1
    April 2 2014 22: 08
    The other day, the United States announced that it was stopping production of the F-22 Raptor..... You can guess about the reasons, perhaps a mysterious incident in Jordan played a role? According to some media reports, the United States deployed 5 F-22 aircraft to Jordan. And then one winter, flying from a Jordanian airfield, unexpectedly crossed the state border and continued its flight over the territory of Syria. At this time, the escort ship of the aircraft carrier Nimitz, the cruiser Princeton, from the Red Sea, fired sequentially 4 Tomahawk missiles at some targets in Syria... At least they crossed the border and continued their flight over Syrian territory. What and how the Americans planned has not been clarified; their representatives are silent. All four missiles were shot down by Syrian air defense, and the Raptor ran into the Pantsir air defense system of the first modification... The Syrians did not achieve a direct hit on the dodging aircraft, but a close explosion of the missile near the hull was enough. As a result, the F-22 crashed near the airfield while attempting to land... The Jordanian authorities immediately closed their skies to the United States. The Americans were forced to admit the loss of the F-22 through gritted teeth...

    As for the F-35, the ban on flights over 7000 feet (2.5 kilometers) has not yet been lifted due to the cause of cabin depressurization that has not yet been found, and in addition, ALL flights have been stopped at the moment due to the appearance of microcracks both in the engine nozzles and in the center section of the aircraft. ...

    In addition, American experts consider the aircraft's Achilles heel to be the ALIS computer system, which was given too much power over the F-35. For example, ALIS is capable of grounding an aircraft indefinitely if it detects any problems with the aircraft.

    If hackers manage to penetrate the network on which ALIS depends, it is possible that they could take out the entire F-35 fleet. This would render the aircraft, the most expensive set of combat assets, completely useless. But what if...
    1. +1
      April 2 2014 22: 40
      Could you please provide a link to the Syria incident?
      I really like the summaries about tooth extraction in the USA!
      1. Kassandra
        -2
        April 3 2014 03: 01
        here's another one from the old one
        airbase.ru/hangar/planes/russia/mig/mig-23/livan-1.htm
        and the f35b should now only fly if there is a landing strip nearby within reach - then what’s the point in it? It will most likely never be accepted for service, or a small number of which will then be removed from it.
      2. Kassandra
        0
        April 3 2014 03: 05
        on YouTube, accounts are simply banned for mentioning that war, and when asked “why?” They even replied to fuck off because this is an American site (although there is no flag on it), and they will defeat us anyway.
        no pinch!
    2. +2
      April 3 2014 13: 10
      Where does infa come from?
  69. +1
    April 2 2014 23: 50
    In fact, the US Air Force is already faced with a shortage of pilots. Despite all sorts of motivations, I’m not particularly eager to join the Air Force now. This is understandable, it’s very possible to put your head where the thread is in hot yellow Africa. And for the number that is located in the “cemeteries”, you won’t find such a lot of pilots overnight. In Vietnam, quite modest air defense forces crushed a very impressive number of aircraft.
  70. 0
    April 2 2014 23: 54
    But we are better anyway. good
  71. MLC 56
    0
    April 2 2014 23: 56
    I wonder how many planes the United States will be able to produce given that Russia undermined the US economy in 2014.
    1. +1
      April 3 2014 13: 11
      In my opinion, the ruble is depreciating...
  72. Sergio Miranda
    +3
    April 3 2014 01: 05
    Quote: Geisenberg
    Article minus. it is necessary to glorify the native armed forces, and not the potential aggressor.

    Why the minus?!! For trying to analyze the state of the air force of a potential enemy?
    Unfortunately, the American Air Force is currently more numerous and technically superior to us.
    1. Kassandra
      -1
      April 3 2014 01: 12
      You opened a new thread, he won't see your reply.
      Chinese ones are more numerous. The Russian ones are still qualitatively better than the American ones.
  73. Sergio Miranda
    -1
    April 3 2014 01: 10
    Of course, Russian 5th generation and 4++ generation aircraft are superior to their Western counterparts, but so far there are too few of them in service.
    1. Kassandra
      -1
      April 3 2014 02: 17
      Only the first modifications of the Su-27x are outdated. in the sense that in order to dump 3-4 F15 or F18 on him alone (then it’s possible without losses).
      and not a single F-31 will ride away from a mixed combat group of MiG-27 and Su-22. Therefore, not so long ago the production of engines for the MiG-31 was destroyed.
      1. 0
        April 3 2014 21: 59
        Quote: Kassandra
        Only the first modifications of the Su-27x are outdated. in the sense that to put 3-4 F15 or F18 on him alone you need


        I don’t agree here! The first modifications of the Su-27 are, of course, still good, but they are inferior to the modern modifications of the F-15C and F-15E, with the latest avionics, and an increased combat load and radius. The Su-30SM should be put up against such ones, i.e. To. The 27th is already performing worse with them. The latest modification of the 15th has recently appeared - the F-15SE "Silent Eagle", which, among other things, has a greatly reduced EPR. The Su-35S is considered our counterweight to it.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 3 2014 23: 31
          To make it pull better, they install other engines; the Su-27 differs from the Su-30 in its airframe.
          The F-15SE is a twin with conformal tanks that also reduce ESR anti-radar swamps, which is designed to operate on the ground. If he doesn’t know how to throw them off while moving, then anything will knock him down.
          1. 0
            April 12 2014 14: 55
            Quote: Kassandra
            The F-15SE is a twin with conformal tanks that also reduce ESR anti-radar swamps, which is designed to operate on the ground. If he doesn’t know how to throw them off while moving, then anything will knock him down.


            If you are not familiar with the materiel, then I would like to remind you that conformal tanks have been on the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1986. They are not new for the F-15SE; what is new is the slightly changed angles and outlines of the airframe in previously irradiated parts. In the conformal ones the tanks have continuous internal compartments that can accommodate only up to 4 AIM-9 or AIM-120 missiles. The internal compartments are another plus for the stealth of this aircraft. For example, the Su-35S does not have such compartments, which increases its EPR in long-range combat, Silent Eagle has an advantage here. Like the Su-35S, the F-15SE is considered a 4++ generation fighter.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 15 2014 12: 16
              What is new is that these tanks reduce the EPR. Unlike the previous ones.
              1. 0
                April 15 2014 16: 33
                Cassandra, please go to Wikipedia. There are three separate articles, one about the simple F-15 Eagle, the second about the F-15E Strike Eagle, the third about the F-15SE Silent Eagle. Read them all, and then prove to me what you want. Finally understand that the F-15 has many modifications.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 15 2014 18: 54
                  if you go there you will see that the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle is still Developed from the F-15E Strike Eagle (which is still in development)
                  Why did Strike suddenly need conformal tanks?
                  Have you already figured out their version about the purpose of the facet in the pedivika article about the F-117?
                  1. 0
                    April 17 2014 18: 23
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Have you already figured out their version about the purpose of the facet in the pedivika article about the F-117?


                    Let’s write about the F-117 on another thread, here I’m telling you about the F-15.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    if you go there, you will see that the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle is still Developed from the F-15E Strike Eagle (which is still in development) why did the Strike suddenly need conformal tanks?


                    You argue for the sake of arguing. You don’t want to admit the truth, a certain pride is stopping you. I told you about the differences between the F-15E and the F-15SE. I’m not going to chew it a second time. If you haven’t sunk to that level wassat , then be kind - admit the truth.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 17 2014 22: 23
                      1. How about you answer about the A-117 at least here?
                      2. Nobody argues with you troll. What the difference was was written from the very beginning, you just put it out there.
                      So why are the F-15E conformal containers boring at all?
                      1. 0
                        April 18 2014 19: 25
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. How about you answer about the A-117 at least here?


                        Already answered on another thread. Each thread is on a specific topic.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. Nobody argues with you troll.


                        Learn to behave with your interlocutors. And why are you wasting your precious time with me, you are now missing out on your other troll victims. And if “no one argues” with me, then keep your posts far away from me.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        So why are the F-15E conformal containers boring at all?

                        Increasing the fuel supply. And not containers, but tanks. You still haven’t explained to me about the “non-existence” of the strike modification of the F-15.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 18 2014 20: 05
                        answered incorrectly

                        from whom will he learn? from you?

                        Why is this increase in fuel supply necessary?
                        Everything was explained to you at the very beginning - adding removable PTB (in this case conformal) to the aircraft is not its modification.
                      3. 0
                        April 18 2014 20: 15
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        from whom will he learn? from you?


                        You taught me to be rude and troll! Thank you for that Yes ))) lol

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Everything was explained to you at the very beginning - adding removable PTB (in this case conformal) to the aircraft is not its modification.


                        And I’ve been trying to explain to you, your gardening brain, for several days now that this is not the only difference between the F-15E. fool
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 19 2014 08: 34
                        true true?

                        The fact of the matter is that the only thing they came up with for this purpose was a “modification”... so that all the boys would underestimate the possibility of quickly repurposing (in half an hour) all F-15s for strike missions.
                        if the F-15 is not a twin, then this will only limit the range of weapons used, but not the very possibility of working on the ground. because the radar of any F-15, like the F-4, sees targets against the background of the earth.
    2. Kassandra
      -1
      April 3 2014 02: 21
      Padontel, why would a fighter or striker hide a weapon in the internal compartments? at the same time increase the midsection, and then carry air? Isn't it easier to make fiberglass rocket bodies <:-/
      He actually has a TV set to rosin people in Moscow.
      1. Kassandra
        -1
        April 3 2014 03: 10
        If anyone has any questions, the metal of the warhead's striking elements (if it is there) is cheaply made invisible just like the stealth itself - by superimposing an interfering mesh, or simply the top layer of shrapnel is made incomplete, simulating its effect.
      2. 0
        April 13 2014 17: 24
        Quote: Kassandra
        Padontel, why would a fighter or striker hide a weapon in the internal compartments? at the same time increase the midsection, and then carry air? Isn’t it easier to make fiberglass rocket bodies <:-/the TV is actually used to rosin people in Moscow.


        I’ll explain in the simplest language, internal compartments are the best way to reduce ESR armed aircraft.Both we and the Americans are creating internal compartments for 5th generation fighters.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 15 2014 07: 04
          Quote: supertiger21
          at the same time increase the midsection, and then carry air? Isn't it easier to make fiberglass rocket bodies?


          In the internal compartments, they usually carry something pure bombers like the B-2 or B-29, or strikers like the F/A-117, and not fighters or fighter-bombers - they then, after bombing, do not turn into a pure fighter.
          External fire safety tanks were also invented for a reason.
          1. 0
            April 15 2014 16: 29
            Quote: Kassandra
            In the internal compartments, pure bombers like the B-2 or B-29, or strikers like the F/A-117, usually carry something, and not fighters or fighter-bombers - they then, after bombing, do not turn into a pure fighter. External PTBs were also not invented just.


            I was actually talking about the 5th generation of fighters.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 15 2014 17: 31
              You didn't speak, you wrote.
            2. Kassandra
              0
              April 15 2014 19: 17
              They wrote to you about the fundamental difference between bombers/strike fighters and fighter-bombers
              In bombers, they try to place weapons internally to increase the range due to better flow around them,
              In fighters - externally, so as not to increase the dimensions of the empty one. In order to prevent the missile from causing radiation, it makes more sense to make it inconspicuous on its own, just like an airplane.

              If it's all about the coating, then apply it to the Su-27, or the F-15, and you've got stealth, but there are some T-50 and F-22
              By the way, what’s wrong with the facets, or at least for starters with the black paint on the F-117?
              1. 0
                April 17 2014 18: 18
                Quote: Kassandra
                They wrote to you about the fundamental difference between bombers/strike fighters and fighter-bombers


                That's not what you were talking about. You were talking about the fact that the F-22 is supposedly a replacement for the F-117.

                Quote: Kassandra
                If it's all about the coating, then apply it to the Su-27, or the F-15, and you've got stealth, but there are some T-50 and F-22


                Well ... fool fool fool
                How smart you are, I have no words. So everyone in the world is stupid and only Cassandra is a genius))) Let’s put a coating on the MiG-21, and it will be invisible and absolutely not knocked down fellow )))
                Do you think why the 4++ generation cannot become the 5th? Yes, because no one can give stealth to 4th generation fighters, which would correspond to those of the PAK FA, F-22, F-35, J-20 etc. Find out how stealth is formed. Apparently you are disdainful of the materiel.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 17 2014 22: 18
                  1. what was written above can be seen above.
                  There is no F-117, there is an F-22. There are F-22s and there are F-15s... too.

                  2. it means smart people come here less and less often
                  They asked you how stealth is formed - you sent it to experts... citing your incompetence!
                  1. 0
                    April 17 2014 23: 00
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    There is no F-117, there is an F-22. There are F-22s and there are F-15s... too.


                    What does "is, no, no, is" mean... request

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    2. it means smart people come here less and less often


                    vaf, SWEET-SEXTEEN, Andrey from Chelyabinsk (with whom you are also arguing, by the way). Discuss this with them and ask them.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    They asked you how stealth is formed - you sent it to experts... citing your incompetence!


                    Stealth is formed due to the special shapes of the airframe, which are not emitted by radio waves of certain ranges. There is information that L-band radars can detect stealth. The “2nd generation” stealth technologies use the parallelism of the edges of the airframe (wing, tail, nose ). This, as they say, greatly reduces the EPR. At excessively high speeds, stealth may not work. If you want to know how stealth works, read Pyotr Ufimtsev’s 1962 book. Largely thanks to this Soviet scientist, the Americans were the first to create a stealth aircraft.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 18 2014 13: 40
                      1. in stock Air Force or museums
                      2. about what? One of them seems to already distinguish a straight line from a parabot. unless of course you are him.
                      3. Is this what it says in the book? one of the first stealth vehicles was made by the Germans in 1944
                      1. 0
                        April 18 2014 19: 11
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. about what? One of them seems to already distinguish a straight line from a parabot. unless of course you are him.


                        You trolled them just like me, although they understand a number of things much better than you. But your pride will never allow you to agree. Even though you are wrong, you will still continue to “heroically” defend the lie. You argue for the sake of arguing, not for the sake of finding the truth. Think about it!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        3. Is this what it says in the book? one of the first stealth vehicles was made by the Germans in 1944


                        Stealth is a broad concept. We are talking about a specific, narrower concept, that is, radio-location. The Germans were not the first to create stealth (which we are talking about). The theory was created in the USSR, but stealth turned out to be “not interesting” to us. However, to the Americans, YES, and they created the world's first stealth aircraft, the F-117.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 18 2014 20: 19
                        that is, you also don’t distinguish the parabola of a vertical launch of an anti-ship missile from a straight inclined trajectory of an inclined launch? crying

                        stealth is not a concept but a mission profile
                        According to that Ufimtsev book from 1962, “radar stealth” was first made by the Germans in 1944, this is Gotha Go 229.
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgfjXaJxV8
                        then the “curves” were used by the Americans on the A-12 in 1963,
                        faceted F-117 does not use Ufimtsev-Horton curves, it is faceted. and he needs facets not for “radar stealth” but for something completely different.
                      3. 0
                        April 18 2014 21: 59
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        “radar stealth” according to that book by Ufimtsev in 1962 was first made by the Germans in 1944, this is Gotha Go 229. 8 does not use Ufimtsev-Horton curves, it is faceted. and he needs facets not for “radar stealth” but for something completely different.


                        Your parallel reality is impressive! At least you understand your own nonsense. How could the Germans, who allegedly created stealth in 1944(!), consult Ufimtsev’s book, published in 1962. What a troublemaker you have to be to say that. If you come up with something , then come up with it carefully without mistakes. Although in your reality, perhaps the Germans had a time machine))) You’re already tired of explaining the theory of stealth technology, created by a Russian scientist in 1962, and the Americans created such an aircraft in practice in 1981. Dream, fantasize - the truth will not change from this!
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 19 2014 09: 04
                        and they didn’t consult on it... feel
                        in practice, zombie,
                        - Go 229 flew in 1944
                        see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
                        there is a third paragraph at the beginning right before the table of contents, and a whole section about Stealth technology
                        - excellent from the SR-71 there are no “Ufa” curves in the F-117... finally not a single one, on the contrary, it is all “chopped”, made up of bevels.
  74. 0
    April 3 2014 04: 48
    Yes, yes, we saw, we heard. Only one question always arises, why do you gentlemen regularly pro.
  75. +1
    April 3 2014 07: 09
    Well, if our national currency were as popular as the dollar, then we would have so many planes.
    In any case, we need to look at the fact that our guys are warriors, and theirs are just soldiers - this is a significant superiority in strength, and besides, our aviation is being revived little by little and the planes have gone into service with the troops, which is also pleasing, plus our quality is better and the performance of our equipment is better higher level. We can respond to this whole bunch with an extraordinary solution, and a cheaper one. But planes are needed in even greater quantities, no matter how you look at them and don’t try to get them out of patriotism.
  76. 0
    April 3 2014 19: 38
    Quote: Santor
    The other day, the United States announced that it was stopping production of the F-22 Raptor..... One can speculate about the reasons, perhaps a mysterious incident in Jordan played a role?


    Dear, you are of course partly right, but you are 3 YEARS late!!! The F-22 was stopped being produced back in 2011, and not because of the “incident in Jordan” but because of too high a price.

    Quote: Kassandra
    and the f35b should now only fly if there is a landing strip nearby within reach - then what’s the point in it?


    The F-35B is not the main variant of this fighter. The main one is the F-35A, because... it is less limited in capabilities than VTOL aircraft. The British already stepped on a rake once with their Harrier, and since then VTOL aircraft are no longer used as land fighters. Now this class of aircraft exists only within the fleet, based on light aircraft carriers. And now tell me me Kassandra, why does a sea plane need a ground airfield???
    1. Kassandra
      0
      April 3 2014 19: 58
      The F-35B is the main option since the remaining A and C are obtained from it by “throwing out unnecessary parts.”
      Explain how the British attacked and what if the harrier beat the Argentines with a dry score of 23:0 in air battles over the Falkends. Have you confused the rake with the throat of Argentina?
      American Harriers flew accurately from field airfields in Afghanistan a couple of years ago. Now they have also bought all the English ones.
      Marine versions of VTOL aircraft differ only in liquids, lubricants and sealants, so that the humid, salty environment is not negatively affected. The F-35B airfield is still needed because the features responsible for vertical landing are constantly failing (they were crookedly copied from the Yak) and Obamaland has not been able to overcome this problem.
      1. 0
        April 3 2014 21: 46
        Quote: Kassandra
        The F-35B is the main option since the remaining A and C are obtained from it by “throwing out unnecessary parts.”


        And here are the links to the studio! Just look at the number of F-35Bs they are going to buy (500 units), 4,5 times less than the standard F-35A (2200 units). Only the F-35C variant will be bought less, only 350 units.

        Quote: Kassandra
        Explain how the British attacked and what if the harrier beat the Argentines with a dry score of 23:0 in air battles over the Falkends. Have you confused the rake with the throat of Argentina?


        The conditions were initially not in favor of the Argentine Mirages. Do you know that Dagger without a radar, overloaded with bombs, anti-tank tanks, and internal fuel, could not conduct an air battle? Most Argentine aircraft did not even have air-to-air missiles. Defeat Do you consider defenseless attack aircraft (essentially) an achievement? Following your logic, the Su-25 can easily fight overloaded F-18s performing strike work.

        Quote: Kassandra
        Marine versions of VTOL aircraft differ only in liquids, lubricants and sealants, so that the humid, salty environment is not negatively affected. The F-35B airfield is still needed because the features responsible for vertical landing are constantly failing (they were crookedly copied from the Yak) and Obamaland has not been able to overcome this problem.


        Kassandra, perhaps you are late, but land-based VTOL aircraft are almost extinct... request Now such aircraft are only suitable for sea-based operations. And the F-35 was created primarily as a light fighter, not a naval VTOL aircraft, so the main bet is on option “A”. Options “B” and “C” will be used as sea and together will account for only 30% of the total number of aircraft being purchased. The remaining 70% of purchases will be for the F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing).

        PS
        Kassandra, you can argue for once, not for the sake of arguing. I’m not saying that VTOL aircraft are absolutely unnecessary. But I’m saying that they do not (and will not constitute) the main combat potential of fighter aircraft. I’m generally silent about land-based VTOL aircraft, which have long been fossils. Today, the “habitat” of this class of aircraft is only sea.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 3 2014 22: 21
          It was just written above why the F35B is the main one.
          F35B will not be bought at all, and if they buy several dozen, they will quickly be scrapped. “C” will have to be heavily reworked or it will be abandoned too, “A” will fly for some time. Then the program, which has already lasted for 22 years, will be closed altogether.
          Marine STOVL differs from land STOVL only in sealants that are resistant to the effects of a salty, humid environment. STOVL doesn't mind landing on a spot on the deck or on a spot in the jungle of Belize or, indeed, in a West German forest, although if the ship has a solid flight deck, then there is a chance to land horizontally in the emergency barrier.
          PTB and bomb load are dropped in case of interception. Argentinean planes had everything in Falkend in 1982, and the missiles were French matras and Israeli shafrir, which are better than sidewinders (AIM-9 is generally the cheapest and worst missile). It’s just that no aircraft can still engage in close air combat with the Harrier due to its unique subsonic aerobatic characteristics, VIFFing, wing airflow and the use of a gas-jet control system. And almost nothing except the MiG-29, Su-27 and F-15I can get out of it. The rest, if they got involved, are dead. Even if they try to turn on the afterburner in order to get away at supersonic speed (Harrier is subsonic).
          There is absolutely no reason to argue with you. Especially for a professional in this field.
          The F-35 was not created at all - Lockheed came to the Yakovlev Design Bureau and bought everything for 500 thousand tanks. I hung the Yak with radar swamps, replaced the PD with a rotator from Ryan XV-5 Vertyfan, I made billions of dollars on this, and things are still there. Although in the USSR everything flew and did not require nearby airfield strips for an emergency landing. Then they decided to complement the show by throwing out unnecessary parts that plumb beyond the STOVL (fan, rotating nozzle, etc. this is how the F35A appeared) or all the same + riveting the landing hook to the reinforcement of the fuselage in the form of a kangaroo cage (F35C) and make more money on this.
          1. 0
            April 3 2014 22: 51
            Quote: Kassandra
            It was just written above why the F35B is the main one.


            Links to the studio that he is “main”)))

            Quote: Kassandra
            F35B will not be bought at all, and if they buy several dozen, they will quickly be scrapped. “C” will have to be heavily reworked or it will be abandoned too, “A” will fly for some time. Then the program, which has already lasted for 22 years, will be closed altogether.


            Did you come up with this nonsense yourself? wassat

            Quote: Kassandra
            Marine STOVL differs from land STOVL only in sealants that are resistant to the effects of a salty, humid environment. STOVL doesn't mind landing on a spot on the deck or on a spot in the jungle of Belize or, indeed, in a West German forest, although if the ship has a solid flight deck, then there is a chance to land horizontally in the emergency barrier.


            You’re kind of belated. Everything you say was in theory back in the 1950s, when the Harrier was being designed. But it never became practice. And now is not the time for such a theory to still remain relevant.

            Quote: Kassandra
            PTB and bomb load are dropped in case of interception. Argentinean planes had everything in 1982, Falkend had it, and the missiles were French matras and Israeli shafrir, which are better than sidewinders


            They were supposed to drop them, but they didn’t and simply retreated, and the Harriers fired missiles at them. It’s not surprising that then it was so easy to win an “air victory.”

            Quote: Kassandra
            It’s just that no aircraft can still engage in close air combat with the Harrier due to its unique subsonic aerobatic characteristics, VIFFing, wing airflow and the use of a gas-jet control system.


            Another interesting dream about VTOL aircraft. When you start sticking to facts and not tales.

            Quote: Kassandra
            The F-35 was not created at all - Lockheed came to the Yakovlev Design Bureau and bought everything for 500 thousand tanks. I hung the Yak with radar swamps, replaced the PD with a rotator from Ryan XV-5 Vertyfan, I made billions of dollars on this, and things are still there. Although in the USSR everything flew and did not require nearby airfield strips for an emergency landing.


            Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, and nonsense again. What you said applies only to the F-35B (in the VTOL version). The remaining F-35s have practically nothing to do with the Yak-141, and they are much better in terms of performance characteristics than the VTOL version. And if you try to refute this, then keep in mind that first of all you will be denying the words of Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev Design Bureau themselves.

            Kassandra let's stick to the facts and not some subjective fabrications taken from someone's imagination. negative
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 4 2014 00: 18
              Field of miracles - in the land of fools. Come and look at them under the tree.
              According to STOVL, this was and is all in practice.
              They dropped the bonbs like little ones and at first even looked for a fight themselves - the result was almost always the same (when they had a three-fold superiority, one of the six managed to escape in the confusion).
              When “that’s it,” they eject immediately or pull to an island nearby so as not to get wet. No one turns his back and waits for a cannon shell or a rocket to turn him into shrapnel into mincemeat in the cockpit.
              Will you stop trolling?
              The F-35B is a licked Yak, which is as different from it as the F-15SE is from the F-15. The F-35A and C are simplifications of the F-35B.
              If their F-35B suddenly got such performance characteristics with everything ready, then that’s their problem... Maybe, unlike the pot on the ISS (for which they paid Russia 19 million - 39 times more money), it’s not really needed. In the end, billions of Reichsdollars from taxpayers (minus 500 thousand in banknotes that went to Russia) were cut down and China has nothing to copy.
              Easy money!
              1. 0
                April 4 2014 17: 00
                Quote: Kassandra
                They dropped the bonbs like they were cute and at first even looked for a fight themselves - the result was almost always the same (when they had a three-fold superiority, one of the six managed to escape in the confusion). When “that’s it,” they ejected immediately or pulled to an island nearby so as not to get wet . No one turns his back and waits for a cannon shell or a rocket to turn him into shrapnel into mincemeat in the cockpit.


                "Sea Harriers" (not to mention other VTOL aircraft) never fought a maneuverable air battle (ask what this term means). Yes, they shot down Argentinean planes, but these were just interceptions. And in general, like the Daggers, who did not have a radar, even with could anything be opposed to readiness for air combat?

                Quote: Kassandra
                Will you stop trolling?


                I wasn’t trolling, at least at the beginning. But you are saying something that does not coincide with reality at all. And how can I agree with this?

                Quote: Kassandra
                The F-35B is a licked Yak, which is as different from it as the F-15SE is from the F-15.


                Not “licked” but borrowed. They have a similar power plant, but otherwise they are completely different aircraft.

                Quote: Kassandra
                The F-35A and C are simplifications of the F-35B.


                Or maybe it's exactly the opposite stop ?! Options “B” and “C” are, as it were, minor additions to the F-35A (light conventional take-off fighter).

                Quote: Kassandra
                If their F-35B suddenly got such performance characteristics with everything ready, then that’s their problem... Maybe, unlike the pot on the ISS (for which they paid Russia 19 million - 39 times more money), it’s not really needed. In the end, billions of Reichsdollars from taxpayers (minus 500 thousand in banknotes that went to Russia) were cut down and China has nothing to copy.


                I agree here, but you again reduce the F-35B as the main modification, which is what you are wrong about negative !
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 5 2014 03: 16
                  Maybe they also intercepted them at supersonic speed?
                  By the way, did those later, saving precious dummy pendants and being shot at, retreat at least in step?
                  6 radarless daggers with only missiles and no bombs were found and went after 2 harriers (1 radarless) how?
                  Why did you have an American flag yesterday and today the geostatus is hidden? Now hang noodles on their ears...
                  A is airforce, C is carrier. B - base (fob)
                  F35B is not a modification, it is a base model - C and A of its modifications through simplification
                  PS. no one borrowed it - the original seems to be in place. They licked it off diligently for 1,5 years, and they also asked why their apparatus with a similar 3BDSM did not work 15 years before.
                  1. 0
                    April 5 2014 14: 28
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Maybe they also intercepted them at supersonic speed? By the way, then, saving precious dummy pendants and being shot, retreated at least in step? 6 radarless daggers with only missiles and no bombs were found and went to 2 harriers (1 radarless) how?


                    I’m telling you, the Daggers didn’t go into an air battle. Can you even imagine what kind of fool would go into battle without radar and air-to-air missiles??? They carried bombs, carried out a mission to destroy British ships, and the Sea Harriers lay in wait for them and went to catch up. How many times should I explain? fool ?!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Why did you have an American flag yesterday and today the geostatus is hidden? Now hang noodles on their ears...


                    I cannot set or change the flag, this is done by admins and moderators. Half of the commentators have the same problem.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    A is airforce, C is carrier. B - base (fob)F35B is not a modification, it is a base model - C and A are its modifications through simplification


                    Check out the equipment, please! The main option is the F-35A, if only because there will be several times more of them, and the USA and 9 other countries are planning to buy it. "C" will not be exported, only to the US Navy, but "B" will be bought only by the British (100 units) and Italians (30 units). Few people need a VTOL aircraft... laughing
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 5 2014 21: 33
                      Skyhawks and super etandars were sent to destroy the ships. Dagger is a mirage lightened by the Israelis with a specially removed radar. They were aimed at Harriers from Mirages and Etandars or from the Argentine Neptune AWACS aircraft. Just like it was in the Middle East with Phantoms.
                      Flag localization is primarily done by IPv6
                      The main version of the aircraft is not the one of which more copies are planned, but the one from which, through repartition (in this case, simplification), others are obtained. And there’s no point in laughing like a moron.
                      From the Yak-41 you can also tear out everything responsible for STOVL and you get the Yak-41A. Then attach a landing hook to it and you get a Yak-41S. But why? The Yak-41B is somehow better.
                2. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 6 2014 02: 00
                  1st Amendment:

                  Quote: supertiger21
                  Not “licked” but borrowed. They have a similar power plant, but otherwise they are completely different aircraft.


                  borrow this propulsion system from the F-22A, I'll see how you turn it into an F-22B
                  Well, they didn't even try...

                  Quote: supertiger21
                  Or maybe exactly the opposite?! Options “B” and “C” are, as it were, minor additions to the F-35A (light conventional take-off fighter).


                  no, he can not. No. see the answer to the previous quote here, where it was about the “F-22B”,
                  The F-16B derived from the F-16A is also “not Nescafe”.
                  From the AV-8B (also seamless, but from the British), and note “B” (not A and not C) by the way, for some reason no one was controlling its nozzles and throwing out the gas-jet control system in hover modes, and attaching the AV landing hook to it -8A and AV-8C does not.

                  It’s just stuck in your brain that F35B is not the main one, because “B” is the second letter of the alphabet, not the first. here, even the fact that the F35A is planned to be larger in quantity does not apply so much to Moscow...
                  It's called NLP. including so that American yuppies don’t have headaches.
                  Because when a country “borrows” first a subsonic STOVL (Harrier) and then a supersonic one (F35), this already says a lot. If not about everything.
            2. Kassandra
              0
              April 6 2014 02: 12
              Quote: supertiger21
              and they are much better in terms of performance characteristics than the VTOL version. And if you try to refute this, then keep in mind that first of all you will be denying the words of Lockheed Martin and the Yakovlev Design Bureau themselves.


              yeah, I readily believe... Let them convert their AV-8B from VTOL aircraft into the AV-8A and AV-8C variants.

              Please convey these “words to Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev Design Bureau themselves.”
              lol
              1. 0
                April 7 2014 11: 39
                Quote: Kassandra
                Let them convert their AV-8B from VTOL aircraft into AV-8A and AV-8C variants.


                Of course it sounds stupid, but why not. If the Harrier is converted into a normal aircraft, then its characteristics will be much better. First of all, the combat radius will increase greatly.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 7 2014 20: 50
                  Uhh-ha-ha-ha-ha! Go ahead Mowgli...
                  you yourself write that it’s stupid
                  They will tightly lock its rotary nozzles in a horizontal position for cheap, this will greatly increase its radius and the harrier will immediately become a much better aircraft.
                  1. 0
                    April 8 2014 19: 43
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Uhh-ha-ha-ha-ha! Forward Mowgli... you yourself write that it’s stupid. They will lock its rotary nozzles tightly in a horizontal position for cheap, this will greatly increase its radius and the harrier will immediately become a much better aircraft.


                    If the Harrier were not a VTOL freak, and had one large rear nozzle, then its performance characteristics would be much higher.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 9 2014 05: 28
                      If it had one large rear nozzle, then it would be a Skyhawk, which these “VTOL monsters” stuffed out of these 23:0... you count how many pieces.
            3. Kassandra
              0
              April 6 2014 02: 35
              PS.
              Quote: supertiger21
              taken from someone's imagination.

              Let the Chinese in Shenyang call our J-31s about this, they have a lot of experience in all this.
              At the same time, they will help the Americans convert AV-8B Harriers from VTOL aircraft into airfield AV-8As. lol And release a hundred million of them.
              1. 0
                April 7 2014 11: 36
                Quote: Kassandra
                Let the Chinese in Shenyang call our J-31s about this, they have a lot of experience in all this.


                The Chinese are actually trying to copy the F-35A, because... it is the most powerful version of the 35th. Not a VTOL aircraft, not a deck version, namely “A”!
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 7 2014 20: 56
                  They simply couldn't copy the F-35B.
                  1. 0
                    April 8 2014 19: 41
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    They simply couldn't copy the F-35B.


                    In your parallel reality - maybe. laughing
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 9 2014 05: 31
                      But in this one, could they? laughing laughing laughing
                      1. 0
                        April 11 2014 17: 06
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        But in this one, could they?


                        In our reality, 90% of countries operate fighters with normal takeoff and landing. Accordingly, they are trying to copy the F-35A, and not the “B” and “C” options.
                        In your "REALITY":
                        1) The Harrier is super maneuverable and can handle any fighter in close combat))) lol
                        2) Stealth technologies such as are not needed, and the MiG-29 radar is enough to detect a stealth aircraft))) lol
                        3) The F-16 turns out to be an unsuccessful aircraft, which was produced in small quantities, and it scored only a few aerial victories))) lol
                        4) F-22 attack aircraft, to deal with which a couple of Su-27 and MiG-31 are enough))) lol
                        5) The MiG-23MLD is the most powerful Soviet fighter, stronger than both the Su-27 and MiG-29, and the dominance of the 23rd ended only with the advent of the Harrier))) lol
                        6) The Daggers hunted for the Harriers, and the latter allegedly managed to win in unequal battles aircraft that did not even have radar))) lol
                        7) The F-35 is a Soviet project of the 90s, and the American F-35 is only its modernization))) lol
                        8) The Yak-38 and Yak-141 ceased to exist allegedly only because of the dashing nineties))) lol
                        9) The 5th generation of fighters is unnecessary and useless, especially against VTOL aircraft, which need to be mass-produced for the army))) lol
                        10) The F-16 never fought anywhere, and all (!!!) aerial victories were won by the F-15))) lol
                        This is the “REALITY” of a food scientist with the login Kassandra. laughing
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 12 2014 01: 43
                        Reality:

                        Not with the normal one, but with the classical scheme.
                        What countries are trying to copy the F-35A? Maybe Russia? wassat The Chinamen on the F-35B broke down and now their J-31 is twin-engine (the F-35A doesn’t seem to be).
                        There are as many Harriers as there are Superhornites.
                        The reality according to your points is this:
                        1.Y
                        2.type Y (but there are nuances where air defense is rare)
                        3.type Y (F-16 to combat air defense systems, this is Wild Weasel)
                        4.Y (not over which but over which)
                        5.Y - not Soviet, but in general in the world before 1988. MiG - supersonic, it can simply avoid close combat with a harrier
                        6.Y - not supposedly, but it actually happened, the daggers were aimed at the Harriers from the Argentine Neptune AWACS.
                        7.Y - we bought a Yak for 500 thousand, and playing with it like with Lego we have already mastered more than 35 billion on this F60. easy money! :-)))
                        8.Y - in the 90s they killed almost everyone who worked for them and did not leave, sometimes families were killed first (if that tells you anything).
                        9. any generations and VTOL aircraft evaporate equally well (this is by the way regarding the question about Senkaku)
                        10. in air battles - Y, you can compare their performance characteristics and the performance characteristics of their opponents. Moreover, the F-15s were “silent”, they used AWACS, just like you dreamed about the F-22 in another comment.
                        and the Arabs had neither AWACS nor airborne radars.

                        The most dangerous aircraft for the USSR were the F-14 (due to range) and Harrier
                        Normal countries take the F-18 (dates, Switzerland). The F-16 is poorer, more modest and suckers which will be sent to the air defense system.
                        F-15 is available in only 4 countries
                        There are as many Harriers as there are Superhornites.
                        F-14s were somehow not delivered to the IDF (they were delivered to Iran), and the UK will not sell the Harrier for a long time after the story with the King David Hotel. They are vindictive. There are no English weapons in Israel at all. But American AV-8Bs are still equipped with an English engine.

                        Wisdom: other Greeks didn’t listen to her (the one with that login) either...
                      3. -1
                        April 12 2014 14: 18
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1.Y2.type Y (but there are nuances where there is rare air defense) 3.type Y (F-16 for combating air defense systems, this is Wild Weasel) 4.Y (not above which but above which) 5.Y - not Soviet, but in general in the world until 1988 MiG - supersonic, it can simply avoid close combat with a harrier 6.Y - not supposedly, but it was so, the daggers were aimed at the Harriers from the Argentine Neptune AWACS. 7.Y - bought a Yak for 500 thousand, and playing with it like with Lego, mastered the F35 on it already more than 60 billion. easy money! :-)))8.Y - in the 90s they killed almost everyone who worked for them and did not leave, sometimes families were killed first (if that tells you anything). 9. any generations and VTOL aircraft evaporate equally well (this is by the way on the issue of Shonkaku)10. in air battles - Y, you can compare their performance characteristics and the performance characteristics of their opponents. Moreover, the F-15s were “silent”, they used AWACS, just like you dreamed about the F-22 in another comment. And the Arabs had neither AWACS nor airborne radars.


                        All points are nonsense, they correspond to reality by 5-10%. I will not prove anything, because... I have already explained this many times before.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The most dangerous aircraft for the USSR were the F-14 (due to range) and Harrier


                        The most dangerous for the USSR were the F-15 and F-16, due to their technology being 7-10 years ahead. In part, the F-14 can also be said, because has missiles with a radius of 184 km. The F/A-18 was dangerous in terms of a bomber. The Harrier was not a fighter, is not a fighter, and according to plans will never be a fighter. wassat

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Normal countries take the F-18 (dates, Switzerland).


                        Nobody argues, but in these “normal countries” only the 7.F/A-18 is a good universal aircraft, but it is more expensive than the 16th.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The F-16 is poorer, more modest and suckers which will be sent to the air defense system.


                        A fighter that, according to official data, scored 49-61 aerial victories and according to all data 69-73 - you dare call it Lokhovsky fool ???Don’t talk nonsense, until 16 the F-1984 had no equal opponents and crushed almost everyone in air battles. They met a worthy enemy only in 1987-1989, when Pakistani F-16s tried to shoot down Soviet MiG-23MLDs that were fighting in Afghanistan. The 23th failed to shoot down the 16rd, and one F-16 was lost in one of the battles. Without a doubt, the F-16 is one of the best fighters in terms of price/quality.
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 12 2014 17: 31
                        But you won’t be able to prove anything, because you are completely delusional. Maybe you’d better stop making stars like Trotsky? Change the manual. Ask the dry workers, they will give you a new one, they say they already have it.

                        http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/planes/russia/mig/mig-23/livan-1.htm
                        The “most dangerous” F-15 was hit by the MiG-23MLD, and no software upgrades helped :-)
                        an engine upgrade in 1988 helped, but then the MiG-29 and Su had already been around for a long time... The MiG-23 and avionics were better than the first F-15s and had a wing with variable geometry, due to which it extended by actively using its mechanization /

                        "only 7"
                        and there is a hierarchy of those who are smarter and stupider and of those who are closer to the body.
                        F-15 only 4
                        14 had the F-2 (now only Iran)
                        F-22 at one

                        What does "dare" mean? “I can” too!
                        IDF believe that the MiG-23 was better
                        somewhere around 11-12 “pops” of your gas plane actually (mainly Su-8 attackers), the rest is misinformation in the order of military secrets and disinformation
                        as well as political education, because shooting down an F-15 with AWACS guidance was unheroic
                        the boys will find out and won’t go to aliyah.
                        in Iraq he didn’t shoot down anything at all, but they were hit a lot.


                        In terms of price and quality, it’s not a pity to use the F-16 against air defense systems. And the F18 and everything cooler is already a pity.
                        Got it, marketer?



                        Quote: supertiger21
                        The Harrier was not a fighter, is not a fighter, and according to plans will never be a fighter.

                        Was it the non-fighters who destroyed 23:0?
                        wassat
                        .. Horrible!
                      5. 0
                        April 12 2014 22: 09
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The “most dangerous” F-15 was hit by the MiG-23MLD, and no software upgrades helped :-)


                        Cassandra, when there are no arguments, at least don’t make up stories. Where is it interesting that the MiG-23MLD and F-15 managed to meet (name its modification for me, too, if you know it, of course).

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-15 only 4F-14 had 2 (now only Iran) F-22 one


                        You are not comparing correctly, because... these are heavy fighters. And heavyweights have always had fewer operators.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        What does "dare" mean? “I can” too!


                        “You can,” but this won’t make the F-16 any worse.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        there are actually about 11-12 “pops” on your go8plane


                        Are you talking about Harriers? wassat ?Although some Harriers that never fought with real fighters and not bombers and attack aircraft.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        (mainly Su-22 attackers), the rest of the misinformation is in the order of military secrets and disinformation


                        The F-16 has at least (!!!) 49 official air victories. Most of the victories were won over the MiG-21 and Su-17. Most of them were won in the Lebanon War. You know about the Falklands, know about Lebanon!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        In terms of price and quality, it’s not a pity to use the F-16 against air defense systems. And the F18 and everything cooler is already a pity.


                        Now of course yes, because... The F-16 has been in service for 35 years, and during this time more powerful fighters have appeared. But the 16th shredded its peers anywhere and anyhow.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Got it, marketer?


                        Re-read the rules of VO, on our website it is forbidden to insult your interlocutor, if that’s what I mean to you. laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Was it the non-fighters who destroyed 23:0?


                        21(!) and it’s unlikely that “0”. Even the Su-25 can shoot down subsonic strikers. I’m not discussing this topic with you. The question is closed, the Sea Harrier (not to mention the Harrier) has never fought with fighters, including the form they are.
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 13 2014 07: 55
                        There was a link above in your comment about Lebanon and how your F16 “proved” there crying

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        VO rules

                        You should have read these rules yourself first.

                        What is there to discuss here? if you're lying all the time...
                        the Harrier is subsonic, and out of the 23(21):0 it shot down, 11 were supersonic aircraft:
                        2 mirages
                        9 daggers (multi-role fighter aircraft)
                        8 skyhawks (2 of which, by the way, had radar)
                      7. 0
                        April 13 2014 10: 55
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        There was a link above in your comment about Lebanon and how your F16 “proved” there


                        Just because a cave scientist calls the F-16 bad, it won’t become so! laughing 61 official aerial victories, Sea Harrier smoking on the sidelines)))

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        What is there to discuss here? if you're lying all the time...


                        You're right, which can be discussed with cave scientists who believe that the Harrier is super-maneuverable))) lol

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the harrier is subsonic, and of the 23 (21): 0 shot down by it, supersonic aircraft were 11: 2 mirage 9 daggers (multi-role fighter aircraft) 8 skyhawks, (2 of which, by the way, were with radar)


                        And where are the fighters among these “trophies?” I don’t argue with you on this topic, the Harrier is not a fighter. The Su-25 would have shot down the F-15 with the same success)))
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 15 2014 07: 25
                        1. your F-16 is already not at its best, in fact it has only 11 butts all the time and almost all of them are above the strikers of the Su-22

                        2. do you believe that the moon is round? Why shouldn’t it be super-maneuverable? There is a deflectable thrust vector, there is also a gas-jet control system like the Space Shuttle in space. winked

                        3. 2 Mirages and 9 Daggers are fighters.
                        Don't you read what you're quoting?

                        weren’t you the troll who wrote above that the SeaHarrier is a fighter that basely shot down Argentine attack aircraft, defenseless and greedy to throw bonbs anywhere, and “retreating” foot by foot with them, and not turning back at the British attacking them?

                        And in general, learn Spanish, they lied about “ARMAMENTO”, but not about “MANIOBRABILIDAD”.
                        Combate Aéreo en los Cielos del Atlántico Sur - 1982
                        http://conflictomalvinas82.blogspot.ru/2011/11/combate-aereo-en-los-cielos-del.h

                        tml
                      9. 0
                        April 15 2014 16: 28
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. your F-16 is already not at its best, in fact it has only 11 butts all the time and almost all of them are above the strikers of the Su-22


                        Besides your stupid sayings, what else confirms this stupid statement. The main plane shot down by the F-16 was the MiG-21. I see you don’t know anything about Lebanon.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Why shouldn’t it be super-maneuverable? There is a deflectable thrust vector, there is also a gas-jet control system like the Space Shuttle in space.


                        Having an AVT does not mean being super-maneuverable. Super-maneuverable fighters are those that are capable of using AVT in flight. The Harrier only uses it during takeoff/landing. Why do you think that when the MiG-29 performed maneuvers at the Farnborough Air Show in 1988, the British squealed with admiration Yes, because they couldn’t see this from the Harriers, because... This plane is a clumsy iron in the air.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        3. 2 Mirages and 9 Daggers are fighters. Don’t you read what you’re quoting?


                        For the Argentines they were attack aircraft.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        SeaHarrier is a fighter that meanly shot down Argentine attack aircraft, defenseless and greedy to throw bonbs anywhere, and “retreating” foot by foot with them, and not turning back at the British attacking them?


                        Isn’t that right? Everything is correct!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        And in general, learn Spanish


                        Not really, English is enough for me. And if I learn a second language, then French or German is better.
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 15 2014 17: 11
                        1. who is stupid here, everyone has already seen for a long time, the Sokhnutovets link for you about Lebanon and your F-16 was already in it.

                        2. what prohibits its use in flight? called VIFFing (that's in English),
                        they felt bad there from Su (they thought it would crash) and from Yak

                        3. were skyhawks fighters?

                        4. no, not right, see that link

                        5. it was in Argentinean, use google translator
                      11. 0
                        April 17 2014 18: 08
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. who is stupid here, everyone has already seen for a long time, the Sokhnutovets link for you about Lebanon and your F-16 was already in it.


                        The F-16 scored 61 official aerial victories. And the fact that “Cassandra” will tear its hair out will not decrease this count even by one. laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. what prohibits its use in flight? called VIFFing


                        The UVT on the Harrier is not for dogfights, but for GDP. And how do you imagine a Harrier deflecting nozzle under overloads during an air battle. fellow

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        5. it was in Argentinean, use google translator


                        Maybe off topic, but there is no “Argentine language”. There is only an Argentine dialect (variant) of Spanish.
                      12. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 17 2014 22: 14
                        1. you somehow forgot about the link again, boy.

                        2. why prestress something? look what VIFFing is

                        5. well, use google translator from Spanish! bully
                        and in English, by the way, you will find approximately the same thing.
                      13. 0
                        April 17 2014 22: 49
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. you somehow forgot about the link again, boy.


                        I remain with my opinion, and you with yours. I will continue to believe that the F-16 won 61 aerial victories. And you will continue to believe that the Sea Harrier “beat” the Daggers and Skyhawks with a score of 23:0. We still Let's not convince each other.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. why prestress something? look what VIFFing is


                        I’ve already watched it! Back in February, during our first arguments.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        5. well, use google translator from Spanish! and in English, by the way, you will find approximately the same thing.


                        Well, that’s how the British promoted their Harrier in English.
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 18 2014 14: 14
                        1. “Don’t scare the ostriches, the floor is concrete”?
                        2. and what do you understand? in "VIFFing" FF means Forward Flight, not Take-off or Landing. Or are you going to forget English now?
                        3. Did they also propagandize in Argentinean (there was a link and a picture)?
                        The British usually don’t write the truth about their Harrier, because they might still have to fight with it...
                      15. 0
                        April 18 2014 19: 01
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. “Don’t scare the ostriches, the floor is concrete”?


                        The troll Cassandra tries to lure a victim, but it doesn’t work. laughing Be careful not to overeat)))

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. and what do you understand? in "VIFFing" FF means Forward Flight, not Take-off or Landing. Or are you going to forget English now?


                        Whatever it is called in flight, it does not provide super maneuverability. It would be more correct to call it Up-Down, which is more in line with reality.
                      16. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 18 2014 20: 26
                        Maybe I need tail feathers?

                        They give...
                        and you again forgot about the gas-dynamic control system, which is also on the Space Shuttle.
        2. Kassandra
          0
          April 19 2014 06: 35
          Quote: supertiger21
          land VTOL aircraft are almost extinct...


          No, they haven’t died out - it’s just that “someone” here really wants this, in order to continue the “banquet” of the summer of 1941 and the summer of 1967...

          even if for now they are switching the arrows to the sea (which Russia should not have either, Patamushta is still a land country... otherwise they will suddenly fly to the shore, well, something like that in general).
          Doo-doo-da-doo. angry
  77. Login
    0
    April 4 2014 23: 50
    Good article. Well done author.)
    There would be more adequate articles, without bullshit.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      April 6 2014 02: 59
      Yes, a bad article indeed. Because they themselves write on their forums that they have not 2000 planes, but 20 thousand, and that they will kill everyone, because they don’t even care that their planes are worse (even the Eurofighter covers the Raptor).
      1. 0
        April 7 2014 11: 46
        Quote: Kassandra
        (Even the Eurofighter covers the Raptor).


        Yeah))) Only in close combat, and if the experience of the pilots is comparable. Otherwise, the Eurofighter loses. Let's put them in a 10 on 10 battle, and spread them out at a distance of 100 km. Then I'll see who will be the first to discover and destroy whom. Stealth technologies now one of the important points that decide the fate of battles at long distances.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 7 2014 20: 46
          Well, why should it be worse?
          One of. The best radar is always easier to make than the best stealth. When Israeli mirages in the 70s did not last long, radars were removed from them altogether.
          The F22 was made for deep penetration missions over China and Siberia where air defenses are sparse. This is generally more of a drummer.
          1. 0
            April 8 2014 19: 35
            Quote: Kassandra
            Well, why should it be worse?


            It’s worse because he’s from the 4th generation, and Raptor is from the 5th generation.

            Quote: Kassandra
            One of. The best radar is always easier to make than the best stealth. When Israeli mirages in the 70s did not last long, radars were removed from them altogether.


            And tell me, how is the Eurofighter radar superior to the Raptor radar? The Typhoon radar still doesn’t have AFAR, but the APG-77 has it.

            Quote: Kassandra
            The F22 was made for deep penetration missions over China and Siberia where air defenses are sparse. This is generally more of a drummer.


            No offense, but I ask you to familiarize yourself with the materiel! The F-22 was not created as a striker (this is the role of the F-35), but for air supremacy. The only equal or even superior opponent of the Raptor is the PAK FA. And its nonsense " tell the creators and manufacturers of 5th generation fighters about the need for stealth, they know better than you.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 9 2014 05: 42
              Why should the pilot experience be worse?
              What generation were the mirages? And what generation were the harriers?
              Let me get acquainted with the equipment of those years myself. In the official interpretation, why they chose not (although its aerodynamics are closer to the Su-27) the YF-23 but the YF-22, even in pedivics it is indicated that because this YF-22 MAY HAVE more flexibility when CONVERTING it into a fighter.
              It’s not written anywhere that stealth technology is not needed at all, but a group of F-22s against a mixed group of Su-27s (not even 35) and MiG-31s ​​will all be dead men.
              1. 0
                April 9 2014 18: 01
                Quote: Kassandra
                What generation were the mirages? And what generation were the harriers?


                The Harrier has never fought air battles. They were fought only by the Sea Harrier, which is almost 20 (!!!) years younger than the Mirage-III. The Mirage belongs to the 2nd generation, the Sea Harrier is the 1st in terms of flight characteristics and in terms of avionics and weapons like the 3rd. And in the Falklands it was not Mirages that were beaten, but Daggers, which did not have radar and air-to-air missiles. And without this, the “generation” no longer solves anything. So judge!

                Quote: Kassandra
                It’s not written anywhere that stealth technology is not needed at all, but a group of F-22s against a mixed group of Su-27s (not even 35) and MiG-31s ​​will all be dead men.


                I don’t want to stand up for the American plane, but the Su-27 and MiG-31 have less chance. Sushki and MiGs can be detected already 235 km away, after which the Raptors should get closer to 120 km and launch two AIM-120 missiles at each. that some of the Sushki and MiGs will survive and begin intensive maneuvers to protect against the next strike. If they manage to get close to the F-22s, then the chances of our fighters will be higher. But the probability is not the greatest, because the remaining aircraft will have to fight a numerically superior enemy. In general, the probability of victory for the Su-27 and MiG-31 in a 20:20 battle over the F-22 is no more than 20-30%. The Raptor has three big advantages: radar with AFAR, stealth - technology, more modern avionics. Here he has complete superiority.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 10 2014 09: 30
                  No, you decide whether to go to the 1st or the 3rd, especially since the mirage radar of the “type 2” was better.

                  Both the Harriers, who were followers (because they had no radar), and the SeaHarriers (leading, with weak radars) fought in mixed pairs:
                  1. first, mirages specially sent against them, having radars and missiles, both with an IR seeker and with a radar seeker (the subsonic Harriers had only an IR seeker and there were fewer of them),
                  2. then they beat the daggers (lightweight mirages, with a radar specially removed for this purpose, but with guidance from Neptune AWACS), also sent with IR missiles against the harriers, when they knocked down the mirages (see point 1). Moreover, only once out of 6 daggers sent against 2 harriers, only one managed to escape in the confusion.
                  The radar installed on half of the Harriers did not give any advantages over the Daggers, if only because they still did not have missiles with a seeker radar and they themselves were also seen by their radiation and irradiation from Neptune
                  3. Skyhawks who, avoiding battles, quietly dragged themselves to the bombing anyway with a pair of Israeli IR-shafrirs (which, by the way, were better).
                  Mirages and Daggers were the latest modifications received from the Israelis and French shortly before the war.

                  The F22 has no superiority, in terms of phased array and AFAR they are still arguing which is better, and the MiG radar even saw the B-2, which was a big surprise in the 1990s
                  The F-22 is now dangerous precisely as a striker, because air defense is now becoming less and less common and its stealth is growing, and you cannot cover the whole of vast Siberia with constantly patrolling MiGs and Su, and there is no continuous radar field, and the radars that were seen from Krasnoyarsk were like F-15s in California lands and takes off, your early warning radar in Skrunda was destroyed, but only by Russia itself, in accordance with some kind of “agreements” that do not provide “legal guarantees”.
                  By the way, in order to release the AIM-120 at least from 180 km, you must first turn on the radars and thereby detect yourself.
                  1. 0
                    April 11 2014 16: 48
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    by the 1st or by the 3rd


                    The Sea Harrier is difficult to define for any generation. In terms of speed, it is something between the 1st and 2nd generations. In terms of radar and weapons, it is comparable to the 3rd. This is a very controversial definition of anything.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    especially since the “type 2” mirage radar was better.


                    “The dog barks, the caravan moves on” - the Daggers did not have radar, how much can one explain fool ?!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    1. first, mirages specially sent against them, having radars and missiles, both with an IR seeker and with a radar seeker (subsonic Harriers had only IR seekers and there were fewer of them), 2. then they beat the daggers (lightweight mirages, with specially radar removed for this purpose, but with guidance from Neptune AWACS), also sent with IR missiles against the harriers, when they shot down the mirages (see paragraph 1). Moreover, only once out of 6 daggers sent against 2 harriers, only one managed to escape in the confusion.


                    Once again, you decorated everything beautifully))) The Daggers did not hunt for air targets, they destroyed ships.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    The F22 has no superiority, in terms of phased array and AFAR they are still arguing which is better, and the MiG radar even saw the B-2, which was a big surprise in the 1990s


                    How is this proven? Give me at least one reliable source that at least confirms the theory of what you said.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    The F-22 is now dangerous precisely as a striker, because air defense is now becoming less and less common and its stealth is growing, and you cannot cover the whole of vast Siberia with constantly patrolling MiGs and Su, and there is no continuous radar field, and the radars that were seen from Krasnoyarsk


                    Maybe this is true. But the F-22 was created as an air superiority fighter, and not as a striker.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    By the way, in order to release the AIM-120 at least from 180 km, you must first turn on the radars and thereby detect yourself.


                    Firstly, the APG-77 has a quiet operating mode, which makes it extremely difficult to detect waves.
                    Secondly, the detection of radar waves only provides information that the enemy is operating, but his exact location is not known.
                    Thirdly, the Americans practically do not use fighter radar to search, because AWACS almost always detects everything.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 12 2014 02: 09
                      Quote: supertiger21
                      The Sea Harrier is difficult for any generation to define.


                      Why, subsonic planes with radars were even piston-powered.

                      Quote: supertiger21
                      “The dog barks, the caravan moves on” - the Daggers did not have radar, how much can one explain

                      that's it... it was written "Mirage radar".


                      Quote: supertiger21
                      Once again, you decorated everything beautifully))) The Daggers did not hunt for air targets, they destroyed ships.


                      catch the copy-paste (only 1 dagger was “saved” there, you’ll find the rest similar in all the battles):
                      The participants in the conflict remember the day of May 1 for the high intensity of the fighting. At 16.30 (local time), Lieutenant Paul Barton from 801 Squadron shot down an Argentine Mirage IIIEA with a Sidewinder. A minute later, his comrade Lieutenant Stephen Thomas damaged another fighter of the same type with a rocket, which attempted to make an emergency landing at Port Stanley and was mistakenly destroyed by his anti-aircraft gunners. The pilot died. At 16.41, Lieutenant Anthony Penfold destroyed the Dagger over West Falkland Island, and at 16.45, Lieutenant Curtiss from the 801st AE shot down the Canberra over the sea. On May 21, the day the main landing forces landed, pilots of the 801st Air Force Nigel Ward and Stephen Thomas entered into battle with six Daggers. Having evaded five missiles fired at them, the British shot down three vehicles, and the rest left towards the continent in afterburner.

                      Quote: supertiger21
                      How is this proven? Give me at least one reliable source that at least confirms the theory of what you said.

                      do you understand it?
                      say that AFAR is better...

                      Quote: supertiger21
                      Maybe this is true. But the F-22 was created as an air superiority fighter, and not as a striker.


                      find some magazines or computer archives from those years
                      The completely radarless F-117 is also an attacker, they even write about this on Wikipedia that it is no longer a “Stealth Fighter” (but before, you know, it was like that), but it’s difficult to change the letter “F” to the correct “A” :-)
                      well, like the A-10 (attacker). or like the wrong one for the AV-8B which has a radar

                      Quote: supertiger21

                      Firstly, APG-77...


                      everything is taken into account, where everything comes from and how.
                      you’re just completely unfamiliar with the principles and energy requirements of radar
                      “quiet waves” upon arrival back to the radar will become “very, very quiet” and it will be very, very, very difficult for the radar itself to detect them
                      the very presence of AWACS already speaks volumes, and if it happens that it is not only suppressed, but simply burned out by electronic warfare means
                      and if you rely on AWACS (like those Falklenge daggers), then why the radar?
                      1. 0
                        April 12 2014 14: 41
                        Once again I will not argue about the Falklands “to those whom the Greeks did not listen to.” The main thing is that the truth is mine, and the stories are yours. Scream, beat your chest, calling the Harrier invincible and super-maneuverable, this will not make the lie the truth. Cave scientist It’s useless to explain anyway, because... they are hungry trolls who will only waste your time and nerves. I’m closing the topic with you about the Falklands. negative

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        do you understand it? Let’s say that AFAR is better...


                        To begin with, I will quote the words of Oleg Kaptsov:
                        - modules can simultaneously work at different frequencies!
                        - smaller weight dimensions of the AFAR (note how small the nose of the F-35 is compared to Sushki and Migami);
                        - high sensitivity and resolution, the ability to work in the "magnifying glass" mode (ideal for work "on the ground");
                        - due to the large number of transmitters, the AFAR has a wide range of angles by which rays can be deflected
                        - removes many of the limitations of the geometry of the lattices inherent in VFAR;
                        - AFAR is considered more reliable: failure / damage of one element will not lead to failure of the entire radar (however, the complex cooling system of thousands of AFAR modules largely eliminates this advantage)
                        - AFAR’s high transmitting ability allows it to be integrated into a communication and data exchange system! In 2007, tests by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications allowed the Raptor AFAR system to act as a Wi-Fi access point capable of transmitting data at 548 megabits per second and receive at a gigabit speed, which is 500 times faster than the standard NATO Link 16

                        This is all the advantage of AFAR over PFAR.

                        Here's one of the many links: http://dxdt.ru/2007/11/26/836/

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        find some magazines or a computer archive for those years, the completely radarless F-117 is also an attacker, they even write about this on Wikipedia that it is no longer a “Stealth Fighter” (but before, you know, it was like that) but the letter “F” is somehow correct “ A" is difficult to change :-)


                        There is information that even during the design of the F-117 they were going to make it a fighter against air targets. However, the primitive stealth of that time did not allow achieving at least the performance characteristics of 1st generation fighters. And already with the first takeoff, the F-117 began to be further developed and accepted into service like a bomber. But the letter F (fighter) “by mistake” remained behind it.
                        The F-22, on the contrary, was created only as an air superiority fighter, and only with modification it would be more adapted to combat ground targets. The same thing happened with the F-15, the strike modification of which appeared only 12 years after the fighter was put into service.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 12 2014 17: 18
                        The main thing, keriks, is that you simply don’t understand anything and are completely lying, exactly the opposite. This is your job. Just to crush these Falklands 23:0
                        So, without regard to the Falklands, which generation does the Harrier belong to?

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        For a start

                        - why do they need this? PAR at multiple harmonics too
                        - the mirage also has a small nose, but no AFAR
                        AFAR is inferior in mass, there are many emitters there.
                        - what kind of magnifying glass? Zoom? It's also available on other game consoles.
                        - he doesn’t reject anything better, he’s also flat
                        - Wi-Fi? yes, yes, just about, yes, it will come in handy, not everyone can look at paper playboys and show them to Tu-95 pilots

                        AFAR has better noise immunity! (however, the complex cooling system of thousands of AFAR modules largely neutralizes this advantage) lol and the plane should actually fly

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        There is information,

                        “There is information” that the F-117 is a subsonic facetmobile.com with wings whose aerodynamic quality is 1,7. Only the shuttle (1,5) is worse. Well, what the hell kind of fighter could this be?
                        The letter "F" was chosen in order of all misinformation. the F-111 too (the pilots generally sit next to each other like on the Su-34
                        F-22 and F-15 are not the same. the strike modification of the F-15 was never put into service, the F-22 and F-23 were created to replace the F-117 “fighters”, on which it was decided to abandon the faceting, so that the “fighter” could, if discovered, somehow stand up for oneself.

                        Finally, please write:
                        1. why is it needed (faceted)
                        2. what is the difference between stealth here and there?
                        3. why the F-117 is black and the F22 is not.
                      3. 0
                        April 12 2014 21: 48
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The main thing, keriks, is that you simply don’t understand anything and are completely lying, exactly the opposite. This is your job. Just to erase these Falklands 23:0 So, without any relation to the Falklands, what generation does the Harrier belong to?


                        Blah blah blah... Keep talking nonsense about the Falklands! Just because you shout Harrier three times, it won’t become a powerful fighter))) wassat

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        - why do they need this? PAR on multiple harmonics too - the mirage also has a small nose, but AFAR is not inferior in mass to AFAR, there are many emitters. - what kind of magnifying glass? Zoom? It’s also available on other game consoles - it doesn’t reject anything better, it’s also flat - Wi-Fi? yes, yes, just about, yes, it will come in handy, it’s not all paper playboys to look at and show them to Tu-95 pilots; AFAR has better noise immunity! (however, the complex cooling system of thousands of AFAR modules largely neutralizes this advantage) and the plane should actually fly


                        Cassandra, well, first of all, figure out what you are trying to prove to me. I hope you wrote “radar with AFAR” in the search engine and understood what I’m telling you. And what you are now refuting is not my words, but the words of Oleg Kaptsov, who understands this is better than you.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the strike modification of the F-15 was never adopted for service


                        What a garden head fool ))) At least just take a look at Wiki. In your opinion, the F-15E is not an attack aircraft belay ??

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The F-22 and F-23 were created to replace the F-117 “fighters”, on which it was decided to abandon the faceting so that the “fighter” could, if discovered, at least somehow stand up for itself.


                        Another nonsense. The F-22 and F-23 have the same relationship to the F-117 as the Su-27 and MiG-29 have to the Su-24 bomber.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. why is it needed (faceted) 2. What is the difference between stealth here and there3. why is the F-117 black and the F22 not.


                        It was needed earlier, when stealth technologies were more primitive and poorly studied. Then they did not know how to do both “invisible” and fast with maneuverability.
                        The F-22 uses “second generation” stealth, which does not come at the expense of performance characteristics like the F-117. And the color does not affect the stealth, if you know that. wink
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 13 2014 08: 20
                        Just because you're smiling here won't change the Falkland Harriers' winning record from 23-0 to 0-23.

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        F-15E

                        F-15SE
                        In general, instead of “F”, drummers should have “A” at the beginning, like the A-10, for example...

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        Well, first of all, figure out what you are trying to prove to me

                        You didn’t even understand what it was about?

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        F-22 and F-23 have the same relationship to F-117,

                        Do you not understand the difference between “replacement” and “attitude”?

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        And color does not affect stealth

                        influences...
                        again you have nothing but general words.
                        Why exactly was faceting necessary?
                        How does it work?
                        What exactly is the difference between stealth on the F-117 and F-22?
                      5. 0
                        April 13 2014 10: 47
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-15SE drummers should generally have “A” at the beginning instead of “F”, just like A-10 for example...


                        Check out the hardware! Yes F-15E Strike Eagle(in service since 1988), and there is F-15SE Silent Eagle(first flight in 2010). And I know about the American designations “F” - fighter, “A” - attacker, even without the help of cave scientists. The strike modification of the F-15 has been in service for 26 years. Maybe you can still try to argue with me on this topic lol ?!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        You didn’t even understand what it was about?


                        I’m telling you one thing, and when you realize that you’re wrong, you start changing the topic. Well, isn’t this trolling???

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Do you not understand the difference between “replacement” and “attitude”?


                        No, you understand how you can replace a bomber with a fighter fool The .F-22 was created as a replacement for the first modifications of the F-15.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        influences...


                        That’s why 5th generation fighters have a variety of colors? It’s not the color that matters, it’s the coating that does.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Why exactly was faceting necessary?


                        Previously, they didn’t know how to do stealth, which is now on the F-22, PAK FA, etc.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        How does it work?


                        Ask the experts, I didn’t develop stealth.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        What exactly is the difference between stealth on the F-117 and F-22?


                        The F-22 has “2nd generation” stealth technologies that do not negatively affect performance characteristics.
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 15 2014 08: 10
                        1. they are lying to you. same as with A-117 and B-111 smile
                        What’s wrong with some letters that come after the numbers and not before them.
                        In the USAF, no one decided to “overhaul” spoil the air superiority fighter, and adding conformal tanks (and hanging a container to control the VTO) is almost the same as adding outboard tanks, only longer, and, this... in battle you don’t need them reset. laughing
                        MiGs and Su also have conformal ones, but no one singles them out as a separate mod.

                        You don’t understand anything about it (the hardware), or you’re pretending. crying
                        How do you think these Striking Eagle and Silent Eagle differ?

                        2.
                        “You didn’t even understand what it was about?”
                        It means I still don’t understand.

                        3. they themselves write that the F-22 was not created to replace the F-15 and they will remain,
                        This is an F35 type bought in Russia for 500 thousand, they want (supposedly) to replace a lot of things at once.

                        4. Well, why was the A-117 a different color, and what kind of “coating” was that for the F22 and F35?

                        5. exactly why?

                        6. Aren’t you an expert? but on the Internet they write that faceting reflects certain wavelengths at certain angles...
                        By the way, why did you suddenly think that I am some kind of “scientist”?

                        7. What is “second generation stealth”? Well, explain to me how it is with “generations of fighters”! smile

                        By the way, due to its super-maneuverability, the harrier can be classified as the 5th laughing
                      7. 0
                        April 15 2014 15: 51
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        How do you think these Striking Eagle and Silent Eagle differ?


                        I wonder where these things come from???
                        First of all, learn to read, not “Strike” but “Strike Eagle”.
                        Secondly, the main difference between the Silent Eagle is the presence of internal weapon bays, as well as a greatly reduced EPR.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        They themselves write that the F-22 was not created to replace the F-15 and they will remain, it’s the F35 type bought in Russia for 500 thousand, they want (supposedly) to replace a lot of things at once.


                        The F-15 remained because they didn’t want to buy the F-22. But the first modifications A and B were still replaced.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        By the way, why did you suddenly think that I am some kind of “scientist”?


                        Indeed, how can one who is not familiar with hardware be a scientist, even a caveman? lol

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        By the way, due to its super-maneuverability, the harrier can be classified as the 5th


                        Bravo Cassandra, bravo))) The highest point of idiocy))) laughing
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 15 2014 16: 55
                        1. Isn’t it time for you to join the rules of VO and Apollo? Otherwise, make sure you don’t send him to Hades right away...
                        compartments in the tanks, what’s in the tanks [the tanks don’t affect the plane itself
                        Otherwise, your F-15 with 4 PTBs will belong to one modification, and with 2 PTBs and 2 AIM-9s - to another.

                        2. He should have stayed

                        3. Was there an Internet worm at least once in Osamych’s cave? Maybe he's a specialist in super-maneuverability, or are you going to turn the tables on stealth experts again?

                        4. It’s idiocy that you classify the harrier as either 1st generation in terms of speed, or (allegedly) 3rd in terms of avionics, but 5th in terms of super-maneuverability (relative to the losses of mirages and daggers from it) for the harrier shines.
                        Do you still want to make AV-8A or AV-8C from AV-8B? (or like Skyhawks with one big nozzle of which he filled a whole bunch)?
                        bully
                      9. 0
                        April 17 2014 18: 01
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. Isn’t it time for you to join the rules of VO and Apollo? Otherwise, make sure you don’t send him to Hades right away...


                        Complain to whoever you want! I just don’t know what you’ll say to Apollo - “supertiger21 is trying to tell the truth, but I want to shut him up”)))
                        In the lower right part of each post it says “Report a violation of site rules.” Complain if you want. hi

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        compartments in the tanks, what's in the tanks doesn't affect the plane itself, so your F-15 with 4 PTB will belong to one modification, and with 2 PTB and 2 AIM-9 - to another.


                        But you don’t have to lie, I didn’t say that. Just because a simple F-15 changes its arsenal, it won’t turn into an F-15E. This F-15D differs from a simple one only in the twin, and the F-15E is a different, more advanced fighter.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        classifying the harrier as the 1st generation in terms of speed


                        According to you, the speed of 1100 km/h corresponds to the 2nd generation belay ??

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        (allegedly) to the 3rd on avionics


                        And where the “allegedly” is interesting. The Sea Harrier could carry AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range missiles, and this is already a sign of the 3rd generation.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        5th in super maneuverability


                        It does not have “super maneuverability”, NO. The Harrier’s nozzles rotate only during takeoff and landing.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        (relative to the losses of mirages and daggers from him)


                        And which source says that the Harrier (allegedly) made turns with Argentine strikers??? Following your logic, maybe we can call the Iraqi MiG-29 super-maneuverable, because they shot down Panavia Tornado bombers.
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 17 2014 21: 59
                        1. did you complain?

                        2. and you seemed to be quoting me

                        3. and here I already quoted incorrectly

                        4. Harrier then carried only AIM-9, F-16 too (is it second generation?)
                        The F-4 could always carry the AIM-7, but from birth it was of the second generation and not the third.

                        5. What do you think VIFFing is? (Vectoring in Forward Flight). Or does Barabashka prohibit them from moving them except during takeoff and landing?
                        Again, in addition to the nozzles, you forgot about the gas-jet control system that it has, like on the Space Shuttle.

                        6. Which source says that Dagger (9 shot down) and Mirage (2 shot down) are strikers, not fighters?
                        No, if this is your obsession, then this is your problem...
                      11. 0
                        April 17 2014 22: 41
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. did you complain?


                        Why should I complain? request

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. and you seemed to be quoting me3. and here I have already quoted incorrectly


                        I don’t understand what you’re talking about?! Be specific! And quote, otherwise I won’t understand what exactly you’re answering.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        4. Harrier then carried only AIM-9, F-16 too


                        The F-16 has been equipped with AIM-7 since the 80s. The Sea Harrier also had the opportunity to install these missiles.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The F-4 could always carry the AIM-7, but from birth it was of the second generation and not the third.


                        He carried it, but it is very debatable to say which generation he belongs to.
                        1) Chronologically, it appeared in the era of the 2nd generation. Yes, and it was also created as a 2nd generation fighter, but only for the fleet.
                        2) However, the F-4 had a great advantage over its peers, because had AIM-7 missiles, so he did not have to get close to the enemy. And the presence of medium-range missiles is already a sign of the 3rd generation.
                        I adhere to point 2, and consider the F-4 to be a 3rd generation fighter, as many Soviet experts also believe.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        5. What do you think VIFFing is? (Vectoring in Forward Flight). or except during takeoff and landing, Barabashka prohibits them from moving? Again, in addition to the nozzles, you forgot about the gas-jet control system that it has, like on the Space Shuttle.


                        This must be controlled by the rudders in flight. The Harrier cannot do this.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        6. Which source says that Dagger (9 shot down) and Mirage (2 shot down) are strikers, not fighters? No, if this is your obsession, then this is your problem...


                        They did shock work, that’s all it’s all about!
                      12. Kassandra
                        -1
                        April 18 2014 14: 07
                        1. did you just write about the VO rules? I don’t know, ask Apollo, he wrote to me for much less than you write here
                        2. the number of the paragraph corresponds to the serial number of your response to my quote
                        3-4. maybe the F-4 could only carry them but not launch them? but the F-16 for a long time could not even carry radar missiles.
                        and since when did you classify yourself as a specialist (if only not in brain...flattery), and which ones? maybe even scientists? not in caves, of course...
                        5. that he no longer even knows how to control the rudders in flight?! bully
                        6. You were talking about their battles with harriers. in Argentine even... and with a picture bully
                        "things" with you.
                      13. 0
                        April 18 2014 18: 52
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        3-4. maybe the F-4 could only carry them but not launch them?


                        Why couldn’t he? In Vietnam he launched them, but the outcome of their launch was unsuccessful in 85% of cases. The MiG-21s dodged them relatively easily.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        and since when did you classify yourself as a specialist (if only not in brain...flattery), and which ones? maybe even scientists? not in caves, of course...


                        For this disgusting rudeness I gave you a minus. Launch a counterattack if you wish.
                        Firstly, your rudeness is completely off topic.
                        Secondly, I was not talking about myself, but about Soviet specialists, read carefully.
                        Thirdly, in order to simply attribute this or that aircraft to a certain generation, you don’t have to be a professor. The main thing is just to know what elementary signs correspond to generations.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        5. that he no longer even knows how to control the rudders in flight?!


                        I talked about steering nozzles like on the F-22, Su-35S, MiG-35, Eurofighter.
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        April 18 2014 20: 41
                        Or maybe the F-16 could launch, but could not carry?

                        Actually, I write more decently than you...
                        Professor, why did you write Mirage into the second category, if it could and did carry Matras with a seeker radar?

                        you wrote and didn’t say, the F-22, Su-35S, MiG-35, Eurofighter can do all this worse than the Harrier could do 42 years ago. And they deflect to a smaller angle. bully
  78. 0
    April 13 2014 13: 49
    Cassandra, my interest in proving something has already disappeared, because... You are completely unfamiliar with the materiel. You don’t even have any idea about the strike modification of the F-15, although most likely you didn’t know about it. lol
    1. Kassandra
      0
      April 15 2014 06: 53
      There is no shock modification. It’s just that conformal tanks are attached to a regular F-15.
      1. 0
        April 15 2014 15: 44
        Quote: Kassandra
        There is no shock modification. It’s just that conformal tanks are attached to a regular F-15.


        So ... fool !There is a second seat in the cockpit, hanging containers for weapon guidance have appeared, a new multi-purpose radar. Check out the materiel!
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 15 2014 16: 46
          It was immediately written to you - from twins.
          The radar was “multifunctional” before, if it was new, it was simply as part of the upgrade of all F-15s.
          This container is a container, it hangs anywhere!
          By the way, what does “multifunctional” mean?
          1. 0
            April 17 2014 17: 32
            Quote: Kassandra
            It was immediately written to you - from twins.


            I know that from twins. The F-15E "Strike Eagle" is made on the basis of the two-seat training modification of the F-15D.

            Quote: Kassandra
            The radar was “multifunctional” before, if it was new, it was simply as part of the upgrade of all F-15s.


            It was not “multi-functional.” Because until 1988, F-15s were intended only for air missions, they were not attack aircraft. But with the advent of the F-15E, everything changed.

            Quote: Kassandra
            This container is a container, it hangs anywhere!


            The F-15E is equipped with a LANTIRN hanging container (if you are familiar with it), I don’t think it’s worth explaining where it is hung.

            Quote: Kassandra
            By the way, what does “multifunctional” mean?


            At the same time, successful work both by air and on the ground.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 17 2014 21: 25
              1. No, it seems like you just pointed out that “there is a second seat in the cabin.” In principle, it is not necessary. but desirable.

              2. Unlike the F-15E, doesn’t the F-15C and D have a radar that can see the ground in the background?

              3. It hangs itself wherever you want. At least on a Harrier :-)

              4. see item 2
              1. 0
                April 17 2014 21: 56
                Quote: Kassandra
                1. No, it seems like you just pointed out that “there is a second seat in the cabin.”


                I didn't mention this because... I thought you already knew this.

                Quote: Kassandra
                2. Unlike the F-15E, doesn’t the F-15C and D have a radar that can see the ground in the background?


                It sees, but that’s not really the point. But the AN/APG-70 radar (for the F-15E) detects ground targets much better than the AN/APG-63 (for the F-15C/D).

                Quote: Kassandra
                3. It hangs itself wherever you want. At least on a Harrier :-)


                No! LANTIRN for example cannot be used on the F-15C, because cannot work with the AN/APG-63 radar. A similar hanging container is used only on the F-15E, the latest modifications of the F-16, and as far as I know on the Super Hornet. The main thing is that it is integrated with the aircraft's avionics. Then you can hang it on at least Harrier, at least on the MiG-21.

                Quote: Kassandra
                4. see item 2


                I don't see any "point 2". request
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 18 2014 13: 54
                  1. For another reason - because you thought that the F-15E was new. What I know about the spark can be seen from the first comment in the thread.
                  2. This is exactly the point.
                  3. it can be used on anything
                  4. there! you even tried to answer him something.
                  1. 0
                    April 18 2014 18: 39
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    1. For another reason - because you thought that the F-15E was new. What I know about the spark can be seen from the first comment in the thread.


                    The “just a twin” that you are trying to say about is the F-15D. The F-15E is distinguished not only by its “two-seat” design. It has new, that is, completely different: radar, weapon guidance system, airframe shapes.
                    You tried to prove to me that there is supposedly no strike modification of the F-15, while denying the most basic facts. Even the name “Strike Eagle” speaks of its strike purpose.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    2. This is exactly the point.


                    Enough empty words, at least take a look at Wikipedia. The F-15C and the F-15E have different radars - and there’s no need to deny it again.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    3. it can be used on anything


                    “The dog barks, the caravan moves on”) Stop trolling, and take the information normally. Under what conditions can you use “on anything” I already said. You should have read... hi
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 18 2014 20: 52
                      Nothing else there, any F-15 is converted into an F-15E by installing conformal tanks, and the F-15E is converted back into an F-15 by removing them in half an hour.
                      Different radars not because, but because simply over time, radars are made newer. The radar of any F-15 sees the ground against the background and can operate on the ground.
                      So don't bark... bully There is only one condition - that the attachment point can withstand its weight. And the plane was able to take off with it.
  79. 0
    April 13 2014 18: 28
    By the way, why did you suddenly shut up about the superiority of passive phased array??? Obviously, AFAR is superior to it in almost everything except range. And if you think that AFAR is useless and unnecessary, then tell this to the creators of the PAK FA so that they put it on T- 50 H035 as on the Su-35S. After all, you are a cave scientist, you know better what’s best))) lol
    1. Kassandra
      0
      April 15 2014 06: 56
      Because I already answered on this topic. See above carefully.
      At the same time, also re-read what you just wrote, in light of those games that the F-22 will try to shoot someone with missiles from afar.
      1. 0
        April 15 2014 15: 42
        Quote: Kassandra
        Because I already answered on this topic. See above carefully.


        I saw what you wrote above! Just more fabrications and rumors, not confirmed by anything. negative

        Quote: Kassandra
        At the same time, also re-read what you just wrote, in light of those games that the F-22 will try to shoot someone with missiles from afar.


        Theoretically, the F-22 will do just that, despite the fact that in most cases the opponents will not even understand who is shooting at them.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          April 15 2014 16: 33
          1. If you saw it, why did you ask? What kind of rumors?

          2. And practically from a longer-range PFAR they will shoot it down better than from an AFAR, in your own words.
          1. 0
            April 17 2014 17: 23
            Quote: Kassandra
            1. If you saw it, why did you ask? What kind of rumors?


            Your words should be supported not by your subjective opinion, but by the real state of affairs - that is, facts.

            Quote: Kassandra
            2. And practically from a longer-range PFAR they will shoot it down better than from an AFAR, in your own words.


            The logic is no different from childish. Range is the only convincing advantage of PFAR. Otherwise, AFAR surpasses it in all respects.
            Okay, I still can’t convince you of this, but at least think logically. ALL, I repeat, ALL companies that produce fighters strive to install radars with AFAR on them. How do you explain this, it’s no coincidence that they do this. And for PAK FA also create AFAR, you can’t tell us to put a radar with PFAR on it, like the N035 Irbis. Think about it.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              April 17 2014 20: 27
              The only thing? Moscow's missile defense/air defense system is based on AFAR, but it stands on the ground and is not supposed to fly.
              The T50 has an AFAR, but the Su does not.
              Now think for yourself why.
              On some light aircraft where good extreme lateral visibility is needed, and which will deal with only one ground target, it is still preferable to install saucers.
              1. 0
                April 17 2014 21: 45
                Quote: Kassandra
                The T50 has an AFAR, but the Su does not.


                I don’t know why you don’t classify the T-50 as a Su, but it doesn’t matter) They put PFAR on the Su-35S, because AFAR is still too expensive and our industry is not yet ready for its mass production. In the future, they plan to install AFAR on the Su-35S.

                Quote: Kassandra
                Now think for yourself why.


                There's not enough money, that's why!

                Quote: Kassandra
                On some light aircraft where good extreme lateral visibility is needed, and which will deal with only one ground target, it is still preferable to install saucers.


                I’m not talking about “some light aircraft”, but about fighters.
                Cassandra, if this is your subjective opinion, it does not mean that it should be imposed on others. I am used to adhering to objectivity and realism, and I rarely express subjectivity, but at the same time I do not impose it on anyone.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  April 18 2014 13: 47
                  1. because PFAR is lighter and has a longer range
                  2. see point 1, on Neshers (Daggers) in order to make the aircraft lighter, the radars were removed altogether,
                  3. no, this is not my subjective opinion, this is usually the case on the F-16 (Wild weasel), when it rotates against the air defense system, it can turn the plate at an angle of more than 90 degrees,

                  because he is "T" and not "Su"
                  1. 0
                    April 18 2014 18: 24
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    1. because PFAR is lighter and has a longer range
                    2. see point 1, on Neshers (Daggers) in order to make the aircraft lighter, the radars were removed altogether,
                    3. no, this is not my subjective opinion, this is usually the case on the F-16 (Wild weasel), when it rotates against the air defense system, it can turn the plate at an angle of more than 90 degrees,

                    because he is "T" and not "Su"


                    1) PFAR has a longer range, I don’t argue about that. But you’re confusing about lightness. AFAR is both smaller and lighter.
                    2) It is not necessary that the antenna array deviate by 90*. On AFAR this is not necessary.
                    3) It will be “T” until it enters service with the troops. Once the troops are accepted, it will probably be called Su-50. At one time, the Su-27 also had the index “T”.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      April 18 2014 20: 59
                      1. How is it lighter if there are more cooled emitters? Smaller - are you judging by the shape of the fairing? The Mirage also has a small nose, but there was no AFAR... (this was already discussed).
                      2. The phased array does not deviate at all, so it cannot look like that. PFAR can also be made into a pyramid and not flat, but this makes it heavier. because it will already be semi-AFAR.
                      3. He has not yet entered the army, and is designated as he is designated.
  80. 0
    26 May 2022 18: 18
    The most powerful, of course, is Russia, although at the time of 2014 the United States still had

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"