Military Review

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 least manned attack aircraft. Currently, the US Air Force is armed with the 207 UAV MQ-1 "Predator" and the 104 MQ-9 "Reaper". However, these machines are able to operate effectively only in the complete absence of an enemy air defense system, so they cannot 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.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/world/voennaya-aviatsiya-USA-8968.html
263 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gagarin
    Gagarin April 2 2014 15: 20
    +24
    AT THIS NUMEROUS Tricky W ... PU WE WILL FIND YOUR NON-STANDARD ANSWER.
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 April 2 2014 15: 45
      +64
      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. svetlomor
        svetlomor April 2 2014 15: 57
        +23
        And who has the best air defense?
        1. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa April 2 2014 16: 49
          +19
          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. Penzyac
            Penzyac April 2 2014 20: 08
            +7
            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. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 2 2014 19: 12
          +2
          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
          platitsyn70 April 2 2014 19: 52
          +8
          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. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 2 2014 20: 34
            +8
            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
              Login April 4 2014 23: 45
              0
              Papa Carlo.)
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 18 2014 14: 23
                0
                maybe just dough gave, enlightened ...
      2. Sergei75
        Sergei75 April 2 2014 16: 03
        +7
        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. Denis
        Denis April 2 2014 21: 05
        +3
        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. Andrey78
        Andrey78 April 2 2014 21: 59
        +3
        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. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg April 2 2014 23: 05
        +7
        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
      Alexey April 2 2014 16: 20
      +3
      Quote: Gagarin
      FIND YOUR NON-STANDARD RESPONSE

      threaded
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. werewolf
      werewolf April 2 2014 16: 29
      +3
      One vigorous bomb on this "CEMETERY" and there is nothing in storage
      1. Tektor
        Tektor April 2 2014 18: 19
        +3
        One tornado is enough ...
      2. Patriot.ru.
        Patriot.ru. April 2 2014 20: 07
        +1
        There is nothing on AMARG anyway. Because there are no kamikaze pilots
    5. W1950
      W1950 April 2 2014 16: 49
      +1
      A little more S-400 and all aviation metal.
      1. polite people
        polite people April 2 2014 18: 44
        +4
        The new 100 complexes are being prepared by ours.
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith April 2 2014 19: 57
          +9
          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
      Stalker April 2 2014 19: 56
      +18
      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. Setrac
      Setrac April 2 2014 19: 59
      +6
      US military aircraft: the most powerful in the world

      The air defense of the Russian Federation is the most powerful in the world.
    9. MY THOUGHT
      MY THOUGHT April 2 2014 20: 07
      +3
      unfortunately for this they have 1000 more combat aircraft in the navy hidden (((
    10. RUS96
      RUS96 April 2 2014 20: 59
      +15
      Yes, where are they against our guys laughing
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Stalker
        Stalker April 2 2014 21: 23
        +3
        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. Orang
          Orang April 2 2014 22: 55
          +5
          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. Greenwood
            Greenwood April 3 2014 04: 40
            +3
            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
            Stalker April 3 2014 20: 01
            0
            Hatchery. What gives the ability to die?

            The desire to capture as many enemies as possible is purely Russian anger ... soldier
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 3 2014 20: 43
              0
              Why anger?
              unkindly just as always smiling they come up ...
          4. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 3 2014 20: 51
            -1
            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. Greenwood
          Greenwood April 3 2014 04: 39
          +1
          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. Megatron
      Megatron April 3 2014 04: 02
      -4
      Minus already for the title of the article.
  2. mamont5
    mamont5 April 2 2014 15: 21
    +21
    Powerful aviation, but without computer systems, it will go blind and be completely helpless. So here you have to prepare a blow.
    1. Ased
      Ased April 2 2014 15: 26
      -5
      Most will fall apart. And America has too many debts.
      1. Ased
        Ased April 2 2014 15: 40
        +3
        And argue the cons?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. vvg
        vvg April 2 2014 17: 20
        +8
        These debts practically do not play a role. The US controls the economies of all countries, does what it wants
        1. Ased
          Ased April 2 2014 22: 28
          +2
          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. poquello
          poquello April 3 2014 00: 26
          +2
          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. Ased
            Ased April 3 2014 00: 53
            +1
            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. Gregazov
      Gregazov April 2 2014 17: 01
      +16
      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. patsantre
        patsantre April 2 2014 18: 15
        +3
        Bullshit city.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 2 2014 19: 21
        +1
        Quote: GregAzov
        F16 airplane cannot be controlled directly by American AWACS

        Which modification of the F-16 did you mean?
  3. johnsnz
    johnsnz April 2 2014 15: 21
    0
    Neh fucking heap of iron
  4. Nevsky_ZU
    Nevsky_ZU April 2 2014 15: 22
    +23
    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. q_556
      q_556 April 2 2014 15: 30
      +18
      Our labeled spot was only on the head, while the American one had a whole body spot wink
    2. aksakal
      aksakal April 2 2014 15: 45
      +8
      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
        potap48a April 2 2014 16: 58
        -5
        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. patsantre
          patsantre April 2 2014 18: 16
          0
          Argue your vyser.
          1. poquello
            poquello April 3 2014 00: 36
            +1
            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. Greenwood
          Greenwood April 3 2014 04: 45
          +1
          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. TEODOR
      TEODOR April 2 2014 16: 08
      +4
      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. TEODOR
        TEODOR April 2 2014 19: 12
        +9
        How not and what Barak Huseynovich than not a candidate?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  5. aleks 62
    aleks 62 April 2 2014 15: 24
    +5
    ... A good selection .. And lope in the Russian Federation missiles and PU S-300 and other missile defense ????
    1. olegglin
      olegglin April 2 2014 15: 47
      +20
      "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. polite people
        polite people April 2 2014 18: 46
        +1
        And how much pressure? A silent hint that ... oh, oh.
        Like, I'll show you.
        Tactics work.
      2. Yurgen
        Yurgen April 3 2014 07: 35
        +1
        I don’t know how anyone, I am personally jarred when our soldiers are called "green men". Serdyukovshchina gives it away.
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood April 4 2014 06: 30
          0
          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. PROXOR
      PROXOR April 2 2014 15: 47
      +20
      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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 16: 27
        +23
        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. PROXOR
          PROXOR April 2 2014 16: 36
          +6
          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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 18: 04
            +16
            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. Nayhas
              Nayhas April 2 2014 19: 34
              +1
              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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 20: 01
                +3
                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. Nayhas
                  Nayhas April 2 2014 20: 06
                  +1
                  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. Setrac
              Setrac April 2 2014 20: 04
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Air defense of Iraq and Yugoslavia.

              What are you stopping? Continue - Vietnam Air Defense.
              1. patsantre
                patsantre April 2 2014 20: 30
                0
                Then the Air Force was quite different from what it is now.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 20: 32
                +3
                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
                  Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 55
                  0
                  in Linebaker-2
                  therefore, they left there, stopping it one day.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 06: 24
                    +1
                    Yeah, but for some reason, after Linebaker-2, North Vietnam quickly sat down at the negotiating table.
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 3 2014 13: 44
                      0
                      ... 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
              77bob1973 April 2 2014 22: 11
              +1
              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
                Kassandra April 3 2014 02: 01
                0
                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. poquello
              poquello April 3 2014 00: 46
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              all kinds of intelligence play a huge role

              hinting, and why did they oversleep Crimea?
              1. Greenwood
                Greenwood April 3 2014 05: 11
                0
                Does it hurt them to strain for it ?! They won Ukraine only in words and help, so everything is logical.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 06: 25
                +1
                And what, the US Air Force was used to cover the Crimea ?! wassat
              3. The comment was deleted.
            5. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 01
              0
              it was built on non-export technology
            6. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 54
              -2
              MiG-25y calmly shot down Mirages, Phantoms, F18 and F15х
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 06: 33
                +2
                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
                  Kassandra April 3 2014 13: 49
                  0
                  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. Manul
                Manul April 3 2014 11: 42
                +1
                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
                  Kassandra April 3 2014 13: 57
                  -1
                  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
                  Kassandra April 3 2014 14: 03
                  -1
                  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. Army1
          Army1 April 2 2014 16: 44
          +4
          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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 18: 28
            +6
            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
              Kassandra April 3 2014 02: 08
              -1
              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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 06: 34
                +1
                Quote: Kassandra
                the radar on the F-15 was slightly worse than even on the MiG-23

                Blessed is he who believes.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 3 2014 14: 08
                  -1
                  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
            Kassandra April 3 2014 02: 04
            -3
            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. Revolver
          Revolver April 2 2014 18: 22
          -5
          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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 18: 30
            +1
            Quote: Nagan
            and J, which in many ways are clones of SU.

            Who is the clown soo?
            1. Revolver
              Revolver April 2 2014 20: 43
              +1
              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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 21: 12
                +2
                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. xtur
          xtur April 2 2014 18: 33
          +8
          > 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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 20: 29
            +4
            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. patsantre
            patsantre April 2 2014 20: 35
            +1
            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
          Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 00
          -2
          Since when has the F-15 become better than the Su-27go?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 11: 16
            +3
            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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 11: 16
              +1
              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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 12: 56
                +3
                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
                  Kassandra April 3 2014 15: 21
                  -1
                  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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 15: 49
                    +2
                    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
                      Kassandra April 3 2014 16: 21
                      -1
                      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
                Kassandra April 3 2014 14: 56
                -1
                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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 15: 57
                  +2
                  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
                    Kassandra April 3 2014 16: 33
                    0
                    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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 16: 49
                      +2
                      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
                        Kassandra April 3 2014 17: 17
                        0
                        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
                        Kassandra April 3 2014 17: 57
                        0
                        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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 19: 31
                        +1
                        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
                        Kassandra April 3 2014 19: 41
                        -1
                        from many sources
                        a dissertation on how a stealth-seeing radar works has long been on the Internet.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 19: 49
                        +2
                        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
                        Kassandra April 3 2014 20: 17
                        -1
                        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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 21: 51
                        +2
                        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
                        Kassandra April 3 2014 23: 04
                        -2
                        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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2014 07: 17
                        +2
                        No reference
                        I congratulate you
                      10. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 4 2014 07: 52
                        0
                        That is, you are just an Internet worm that does not know English and do not know how to stealth?
                      11. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 April 5 2014 14: 56
                        0
                        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
                        Kassandra April 5 2014 21: 59
                        -1
                        +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. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 April 7 2014 11: 30
                        0
                        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
                        Kassandra April 7 2014 21: 52
                        0
                        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.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2014 07: 17
              +1
              No reference
              I congratulate you
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 4 2014 07: 53
              0
              Why do you need her at all?
            4. supertiger21
              supertiger21 April 7 2014 11: 32
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              Why do you need her at all?


              So that VTOL fans will learn to stick to facts and not dreams ... laughing
            5. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 7 2014 21: 12
              0
              Here, wake up and stick to it - Falklands, 1982, 23: 0
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra April 3 2014 14: 47
    +1
    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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2014 16: 11
      +1
      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
        Kassandra April 3 2014 16: 58
        -2
        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
        Kassandra April 3 2014 17: 07
        -2
        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
  • best_stas
    best_stas 10 March 2015 14: 42
    0
    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 !!!!!)
  • SV
    SV April 2 2014 19: 08
    +1
    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. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 2 2014 20: 17
      +2
      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. patsantre
      patsantre April 2 2014 20: 37
      0
      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.
  • patsantre
    patsantre April 2 2014 17: 55
    0
    PU - more than 2000, doh ** I in general, but only a small part of them are operated.
  • Committee
    Committee April 2 2014 15: 24
    +5
    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.
  • maestro123
    maestro123 April 2 2014 15: 26
    +2
    Quote: johnsnz
    Neh fucking heap of iron


    But essentially?
  • kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 April 2 2014 15: 27
    +3
    on 1m photo in my opinion the parking of decommissioned aircraft or canned
    1. kirieeleyson
      kirieeleyson April 2 2014 16: 09
      +6
      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.
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 April 2 2014 15: 29
    +3
    Moreover, they also lack pilots, and the number is reduced annually. The crisis however.
    1. GradusHuK
      GradusHuK April 2 2014 16: 39
      +5
      We need to revive flight schools, too. Raise V.P.K and soon
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 April 3 2014 06: 02
        0
        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.
  • desant_doktor
    desant_doktor April 2 2014 15: 29
    +2
    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. kostyan77708
      kostyan77708 April 2 2014 15: 36
      +6
      "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. PROXOR
        PROXOR April 2 2014 15: 50
        +4
        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. desant_doktor
        desant_doktor April 2 2014 16: 16
        +4
        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. Tourist
          Tourist April 2 2014 19: 20
          +3
          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. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 2 2014 19: 39
        0
        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. Setrac
          Setrac April 2 2014 20: 11
          +1
          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. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 2 2014 20: 30
            +3
            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. Setrac
              Setrac April 2 2014 20: 41
              -3
              Quote: Nayhas
              What is your statement based on?

              There are many examples, for example, missile launches by the Americans drove the Syrian coast.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas April 2 2014 21: 50
                0
                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. skifd
                  skifd April 2 2014 23: 09
                  0
                  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
              Login April 4 2014 23: 44
              0
              It was a joint maneuver, not a battle. Poghosyan came up with this battle story.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 5 2014 03: 54
                0
                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
                  Login April 5 2014 06: 30
                  0
                  And what proof do the participants have? The Americans did not say anything about "battles".
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 5 2014 21: 40
                    0
                    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. Tektor
        Tektor April 2 2014 22: 12
        0
        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.
  • Yuri Sev Caucasus
    Yuri Sev Caucasus April 2 2014 15: 31
    +5
    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.
  • mackonya
    mackonya April 2 2014 15: 32
    +5
    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.
  • Russ69
    Russ69 April 2 2014 15: 34
    +5
    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. ya.seliwerstov2013
      ya.seliwerstov2013 April 2 2014 16: 10
      +1
      Expensive, does not mean impossible. We hit at their weakest point, a critical dependence on high technology for both command and control and technology.
  • Bargus
    Bargus April 2 2014 15: 35
    +4
    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.
  • erased
    erased April 2 2014 15: 37
    +2
    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.
  • psychologist
    psychologist April 2 2014 15: 37
    +3
    a lot of iron, and enough aircraft !! the question is what will be the answer, if that !!
  • postman
    postman April 2 2014 15: 37
    +1
    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
    ===========
    A source:
    http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2013/May%202013/
    0513facts_figures.pdf
  • fly fishing
    fly fishing April 2 2014 15: 39
    +2
    Battles are not won by quantity. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 2 2014 19: 41
      +4
      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.
  • kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 April 2 2014 15: 40
    +1
    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. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 2 2014 19: 47
      +3
      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
        Eugeniy_369k April 2 2014 22: 57
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        we have a remedy against Kostya Sapr ... damn it wrong way ...

        For humor +++++
        laughing laughing laughing
  • svp67
    svp67 April 2 2014 15: 40
    +4
    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 ...
  • Signaller
    Signaller April 2 2014 15: 41
    +2
    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. kontrol
      kontrol April 2 2014 16: 32
      +6
      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. svp67
      svp67 April 2 2014 16: 41
      +2
      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. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 2 2014 18: 28
        +1
        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. Setrac
          Setrac April 2 2014 20: 16
          0
          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. tlauicol
            tlauicol April 3 2014 05: 42
            0
            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. patsantre
      patsantre April 2 2014 20: 44
      0
      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?
  • Aptimist
    Aptimist April 2 2014 15: 41
    +3
    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
      Aptimist April 2 2014 16: 34
      +2
      Uh, they don’t like the truth here !!!
      1. Setrac
        Setrac April 2 2014 20: 17
        -1
        Quote: Aptimist
        Uh, they don’t like the truth here !!!

        And why love her, is she unsightly?
    3. Yurgen
      Yurgen April 3 2014 07: 45
      +1
      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
        Kassandra April 18 2014 15: 56
        0
        so what was it like? just really interesting
  • gfs84
    gfs84 April 2 2014 15: 46
    +1
    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 ...
  • Roman-kzn
    Roman-kzn April 2 2014 15: 46
    +2
    Well done author! Very brief, accurate and understandable.
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto April 2 2014 15: 53
    +5
    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. St Petrov
      St Petrov April 2 2014 16: 19
      +2
      I would have looked at their conservation in the extreme north
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 2 2014 20: 46
        +1
        Just an excuse. What prevents to store canned food in the south?
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 6 2014 01: 22
          0
          it is necessary not just in the south but in the desert.
          in the article this is generally written.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 April 2 2014 15: 53
    +3
    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 !!!
  • GAndr
    GAndr April 2 2014 15: 54
    +7
    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.
  • Just
    Just April 2 2014 15: 55
    +8
    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. kostyan77708
      kostyan77708 April 2 2014 16: 00
      +4
      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 April 2 2014 20: 15
      +1
      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. Tourist
      Tourist April 2 2014 21: 26
      0
      And how can one not recall the US hysteria about selling s-300 to Iran.
  • horoh
    horoh April 2 2014 15: 55
    +2
    Damn it, I read the article and it became scary smile
    1. Army1
      Army1 April 2 2014 16: 57
      +1
      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.
  • Luger
    Luger April 2 2014 15: 56
    +5
    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.
  • propolsky
    propolsky April 2 2014 15: 58
    +4
    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!
  • Flinky
    Flinky April 2 2014 16: 01
    +4
    Well, we have the best air defense systems in the world.
  • KBPC50
    KBPC50 April 2 2014 16: 11
    +1
    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
  • Rubmolot
    Rubmolot April 2 2014 16: 11
    +7
    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. flc9800
      flc9800 April 2 2014 20: 28
      0
      I note, Jan ижižka knew a lot about war! soldier
  • Vtel
    Vtel April 2 2014 16: 12
    +1
    They have many airplanes, there will soon be no one to fly them, they are completely blue.
    1. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg April 2 2014 17: 39
      +4
      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. Setrac
        Setrac April 2 2014 20: 19
        -1
        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. patsantre
          patsantre April 2 2014 20: 50
          -1
          Anyway, Alexander the Great is a fiction. No one knows if he was. So you saw him live?
  • Sibiryak13
    Sibiryak13 April 2 2014 16: 18
    +3
    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.
  • sinukvl
    sinukvl April 2 2014 16: 25
    +6
    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. patsantre
      patsantre April 2 2014 20: 51
      0
      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.
  • VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN April 2 2014 16: 30
    0
    What about American aviation and C-400, who is who?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 16: 34
      +3
      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. PROXOR
        PROXOR April 2 2014 16: 44
        +4
        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. traper
          traper April 2 2014 18: 01
          +3
          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. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 2 2014 20: 02
          +1
          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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 20: 37
          +3
          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. Vadim12
        Vadim12 April 2 2014 17: 26
        +4
        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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 21: 06
          +1
          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. Setrac
        Setrac April 2 2014 20: 21
        +1
        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. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 2 2014 20: 37
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          Moscow 1941th year.

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

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

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

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

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

            Air defense is a defensive system; it does not break anyone; it protects.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 21: 04
              +1
              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. Setrac
                Setrac April 2 2014 22: 42
                0
                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.
  • Leopold
    Leopold April 2 2014 16: 42
    +1
    Capitalism's favorite word is competition. The US Armed Forces is a vivid example of the lack thereof.
  • Ermek
    Ermek April 2 2014 17: 00
    0
    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
  • Ermek
    Ermek April 2 2014 17: 02
    0
    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
  • saag
    saag April 2 2014 17: 14
    +1
    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
      Kassandra April 7 2014 20: 36
      0
      so he and they too can be blinded, and this is easier, because their equipment should fly and not ride.
  • vch62388
    vch62388 April 2 2014 17: 17
    +4
    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. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 2 2014 20: 18
      0
      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 ...
  • Vadim12
    Vadim12 April 2 2014 17: 20
    +1
    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. traper
      traper April 2 2014 18: 07
      +1
      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.
  • vvg
    vvg April 2 2014 17: 20
    0
    Who would doubt that the states have the best army
    1. VeteranS
      VeteranS April 2 2014 18: 48
      +3
      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
        Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 15
        -3
        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. patsantre
          patsantre April 3 2014 13: 06
          -1
          Well, you carry crap.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 3 2014 16: 02
            -1
            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. patsantre
              patsantre April 3 2014 21: 01
              0
              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
                Kassandra April 3 2014 21: 38
                0
                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. patsantre
                  patsantre April 3 2014 23: 27
                  0
                  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
                    Kassandra April 4 2014 01: 10
                    0
                    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. patsantre
                      patsantre April 4 2014 09: 39
                      0
                      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
                        Kassandra April 5 2014 02: 35
                        0
                        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?
  • leon17
    leon17 April 2 2014 17: 21
    0
    Where did the F-18 go?
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 April 2 2014 17: 35
      0
      F-18 in the Air Force has never been, only in the fleet and in the Marine Corps.
    2. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 2 2014 19: 02
      +1
      Quote: leon17
      Where did the F-18 go?


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

        And ILC.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 2 2014 21: 31
          0
          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. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 2 2014 21: 55
            0
            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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2014 21: 56
            +1
            Quote: supertiger21
            , about the fact that there F-18 is not heard anywhere

            They have it, have it.
  • Arh
    Arh April 2 2014 17: 25
    -2
    As far as I know, we have the best helicopters, the best planes !!! ***
  • zmeigavrila
    zmeigavrila April 2 2014 17: 25
    -1
    [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 April 2 2014 20: 34
      0
      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
      Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 18
      +1
      maybe in the wrong part served?
      then what to do with the Bundeswehr?
  • delfinN
    delfinN April 2 2014 18: 10
    +5
    And here it seems like a real state
    1. Ihrek
      Ihrek April 2 2014 18: 55
      +2
      There will never be a big nuclear war, even if people want it, higher forces will not allow this. Believe me.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac April 2 2014 20: 29
        0
        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
      Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 39
      +1
      from 14:30 you can not watch - nashism
    3. Yurgen
      Yurgen April 3 2014 08: 14
      0
      Balm for the soul.
  • Oml
    Oml April 2 2014 18: 11
    +3
    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
      Kassandra April 3 2014 01: 50
      -1
      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. tomket
      tomket April 3 2014 19: 57
      0
      what kind of weapons did Germany and Japan have better ????
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 3 2014 20: 39
        0
        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).