Military Review

The saga of generations. Why Su-27 surpasses F-15

130
The saga of generations. Why Su-27 surpasses F-15



They have one heaven for two. One way and one task - sweep from heaven Aviation the enemy. They are fighters, gaining superiority in the air. Winged combat vehicles from the "first line", the elite of modern combat aircraft. Their complexity is incredible, and the possibilities are endless. They have too many advantages, but no shortcomings. They are strong and beautiful in their inexhaustible heavenly rage. Eternal rivals - Su-27 and F-15.

Who are you, funny cowboy?

His birth is associated with the war in Vietnam. The results of the meetings with the Soviet MiGs demanded to change the entire previous paradigm of development of the American fighter aircraft. The Air Force urgently needed a highly maneuverable "MiG killer", equally effective both in close combat and at medium and long distances. Outstanding radioelectronic "filling" should be enclosed in a no less perfect shell. The American designers boldly made a step towards the new, fourth generation of fighters.

The first flight of the "Eagle" took place in 1972 year. Four years later, the F-15 Eagle was adopted. By now, these legendary air fighters have won 104 air victories - without a single defeat! "Unbreakable" angels of death, which can only be defeated by American weapons. The Eagle was shot down only once - in 1995, the Japanese Air Force F-15 was mistakenly shot down with the same F-15.



In the official reports on the results of the combat use of the Eagle, other fables are also described. According to the Yankees themselves, the level of control over the airspace of Iraq during the Gulf War "had no historical precedent." Similar happened eight years later - the Eagles tightly closed the sky over the Balkans.

But why among the dozens of trophies "Eagle" there is not a single aircraft equal to him? Not a single “Eurofighter Typhoon” or “Dassault Rafal”?

The most notable trophies are the nine lightweight MiG-29 in a simplified export version. All other F-15 victories were won over the obsolete second-third generation aircraft: the French Mirage F-1, the Soviet Su-22 (export versions Su-17), MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25 ...

Why do Americans always fight with the aircraft of the previous generation? Is there some terrible secret about this? It is necessary to deal with this.

And here came the main competitor of the "Eagle". Meet the gentlemen - the multi-purpose, highly maneuverable fighter of the fourth generation Su-27.

Who are you, the mysterious Russian warrior?

A daring response to the West at the end of the Cold War.

At the turn of 70 — 80-s, an aviation masterpiece was created in our country, designed to overshadow the American Eagle. The idea was completely successful: the domestic fighter of the 4 generation set new standards in the field of combat aircraft.

The design team of the Sukhoi Design Bureau succeeded in finding a number of interesting decisions related to the layout and aerodynamics of the future aircraft.



Su-27 fanciful silhouette is not similar to any of the foreign fighters. The graceful bend of the nose of the fuselage, a smooth transition into the wing, protruding engine nacelles - all this is a consequence integral layout aircraft, in which the lifting force is formed not only by the planes of the wing, but also due to the special shape of the fuselage!

A huge contribution was made by specialists in aerodynamics - the real geniuses of their work. As a result, despite the similar value of the load on the wing (≈300 kg / sq. M), the coefficient of lift “Drying” is one and a half times higher than that of the American “Eagle”, and the maximum aerodynamic quality (ratio of lift to frontal resistance) reached 12 units (such values ​​are found only in passenger airliners). Extremely "flying" design!

The most advanced aerodynamic scheme in the world allowed to create a larger and heavier fighter. The Su-27, in comparison with the “Eagle”, has increased the internal fuel supply, ensured a long range and leveled the cumbersomeness of the domestic REO (Soviet microcircuits are the largest microcircuits in the world!). The elastic “arm” of aerodynamic power was powerfully pulling Su-27 up, despite the large take-off mass of the domestic machine.


Brave representative of the family - Su-35

Engineers have tried a lot, creating a powerful “heart” for a magnificent glider. A family of turbojet AL-31F twin-turbojet aircraft engines with 13 afterburner thrust! High thrust-to-weight ratio (≥ 1) is the key to super-maneuverability and energetic maneuvers in the vertical plane.

According to the established rate of climb, the Su-27 has no equal in the world (over 300 m / s).

Our partners from China still cannot copy the heat-resistant blades of the AL-31F turbine with labyrinths of internal cavities through which the cooling air passes. Apparently, their design turned out to be more complicated than Swiss watches and Japanese electronics.

Finally, something that cannot be seen with the naked eye. The degree of longitudinal static stability of the Su-27 is negative and amounts to 5% of the average aerodynamic chord of the wing (MAR). Of course, we are talking about flying at subsonic speeds.

What does this situation mean?

The longitudinal static stability at the angle of attack is the ability of the aircraft to independently maintain a given angle of attack α and return to the initial value α at random deflection under the action of disturbing forces.

Stability is a pleasant thing in straight flight, but the fighter needs high maneuverability. The higher the stability (measured in% of the MAR) - the greater the loss to balance, worse handling and driving dynamics. To perform any maneuver, it will be necessary to apply a larger control moment, rejecting the control surfaces at a greater angle. Great effort, extra fractions of a second precious time in battle.

The stability of a flying aircraft is determined by the position of the aerodynamic focus (the point of growth of lift when the angle of attack varies) relative to the center of gravity of the aircraft. The Su-27 fighter was designed in such a way that its aerodynamic focus is located ahead of the CG. The plane is every second ready to raise the nose and "tumble" back through the tail. Without the participation of the pilot. It is statically unstable.



This makes the “Drying” surprisingly agile machine, but the negative stability is in contradiction with the requirements of manageability. Rescues electrical control system (Su-27 the first of the domestic combat aircraft was equipped with EDSU). The computer has the correct control factors for each of the flight modes - otherwise, the person would not be able to control the Su-27.

Reasonable question - what happens if an eFSU fails? Despite the inadequate “Drying” reaction to the movements of the control stick (RUS), an experienced pilot will most likely be able to reach the airfield and land the plane. 5% CAX static instability is still tolerable.

But another member of the twenty-seventh family, Su-35, with the failure of EDSU, will write out a couple of somersaults and break for sure. The degree of its static instability is brought to 20% САХ - manual control of the aircraft is excluded. However, the risk of such a situation is negligible - the ESDU of the Su-35 aircraft is made with fourfold (!) Redundancy in the longitudinal channel and threefold in the lateral movement channel.

Integral layout, powerful engines, amazing beauty and efficiency aerodynamic design, static instability ... Next is the Shchel-ZUM assault target designation system, the unique Cobra Pugacheva combat method, RVV-AE air-to-air missiles. After getting acquainted with such facts, the dispute “F-15 vs. Su-27 "loses its meaning. The domestic fighter is much stronger and more perfect than its American peer.

YOUR MILITARY?

When it was announced that McDonnell Douglas had won, the “sukhovtsy” breathed a sigh of relief: the layout found in the Su-27 looked much more promising. True, there were fears that the Americans, through an open press, slipped their misinformation to their overseas counterparts, while they themselves were making a completely different plane. However, after the official demonstration of the “Needle” prototype in 1972, these fears dissipated: it became clear that the McDonnell Douglas specialists took the simplest and cheapest, but far from the most promising way. As the head of the project department of the OKB Sukhoi, O.S. After the takeoff of YF-15, Samoilovich, TsAGI head G.P. Svishchev told Sukhoi: “Pavel Osipovich! Our backlog has become our advantage. The plane took off, and we know what it is ... "

- Of stories creating fighter Su-27.


Su-30, F-15C and Mirage-2000


The division of fighters into generations is largely arbitrary. Different weight categories, different levels of technological performance, different purposes. It happened that, within the framework of one generation, the 8-ton MiG-21 and the 18-ton Phantom oddly got along (despite the fact that the former relied on short-range air combat using cannon armament, and the latter was hoping for its superradar and medium-range SD). They were united only by the fact that the concept of both turned out to be, on the whole, erroneous.

Often, one generation includes cars, between the creation of which lies a whole temporary and technological gulf. It is believed that the first fighter of the fourth generation was the American deck-mounted interceptor F-14 "Tomcat" (first flight - 1970, adoption - 1974,). He looked good against the background of the “Phantoms”, but after a couple of years it was hopelessly outdated - in fact, he had no noticeable advantages over the F-15, but absolutely lost to the “Eagle” in a close maneuver battle. Result: The Eagles continue to fly to this day, and the last Tomcat was written off eight years ago.

Finally, the upgrade. How in the old joke about craftsmen that they upgraded the TV for a year and then sold it like a vacuum cleaner - how can you compare the first production Su-27 80-s to the modern Su-35 fighters? How many pluses need to be put after the “4” digit to fit these machines within one generation?

The problem is simpler - how similar are the F-15C of the 1980 model of the year and the upgraded F-15C of the beginning of the XXI century? The new version of the radar AN / APG-63 (V) 2 with active phased array, new long-range missiles AIM-120 AMRAAM, new digital electronics - yes, this is actually another aircraft with completely different capabilities!

In order not to delve into this interesting, but endless dispute, we can confine ourselves to one obvious conclusion: the fourth generation of fighters does exist, as a collection of some common ideas. Key development trends are universality, high maneuverability, high-quality and expensive avionics. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to report that the era of the fourth generation stretched out over 40 over and over - the planes of the “early period” were radically different from those that were created later.

Actually, this is the main difference between F-15 and Su-27, which the authors of analytical articles devoted to these heroes rarely pay attention to - “Eagle” older than “Sukhoi” by at least 10 years! As can be seen from the passage of the history of the creation of the Su-27 cited above - when the first F-15 took off, our fighter had not yet left the stage of sketches.

It is often stated that the Su-27 made its first flight on 20 on May 1977 of the year, just five years after the Eagle. But this is slyness - on that day a prototype of the T-10-1 took to the air, which had little to do with what we call the Su-27. Due to the discrepancy between the characteristics of the prototype and the specified values, it was decided to completely redesign the aircraft: the wing profile and shape of the fuselage were changed. Wing area increased from 59 to 62 meters. Ailerons and flaps gave way to flaperons. The brake flap has moved from the bottom surface of the fuselage to the top surface, located behind the cab light. The cockpit lantern itself has changed, the layout of the rear of the aircraft has become another, new suspension units have appeared ...

The new prototype of the fighter received the designation T-10С - according to the figurative expression of the chief designer MP Simonov, on it from the T-10-1 only the tires of the wheels of the main landing gear, and the ejector seat of the pilot remained.

The first flight of the T-10C is April 1981 of the year. At this time, the American F-15 was already fully exported and used in combat operations in the Middle East.



The first batch of serial fighters Su-27 was released in the 1984 year. The first combatant unit that received the Su-27 was the 60-iap at the Dzemgi airfield (Far Eastern Military District) - its pilots began developing the newest aircraft in the 1985 year.

By 1987, the main elements of the Su-27 aviation complex were fully formed — the H001 “Sword” airborne radar was “brought up” and adopted by the P-27 and P-73 missiles. A training Spark Su-27UB appeared in the combat units, which accelerated and simplified the training of personnel. At about the same time, regular Su-27 “meetings” with planes of a potential enemy began — a sensational clash over the Barents Sea with the reconnaissance Orion of the Norwegian Air Force, a dangerous rapprochement with the American fighters during the Tim Spirit exercise (Far East), and so on. d.

Finally, a pure formality - after successfully passing all the tests, by the Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers on 23 August 1990 Su-27 was officially adopted by the Air Force and Air Defense of the Soviet Union.

Epilogue

The harsh truth is that by the time the Su-27 appeared, the American Eagle was already outdated.

The McDonnell-Douglas designers were ahead of their time by building a superfighter in 1976, which had no worthy opponents for 10 years. This explains the large number of second-third generation fighters shot down by the Eagles.

MiG-23 (start of operation - 1969, modification of MiG-23ML - 1974), MiG-25 (start of operation - 1970 year) ... F-15 crumbled all of their peers.

The balance of power in the air changed only with the advent of the Su-27.

F-15D, trying to pursue the Su-27, lost sight of him and in despair asked the observer: “Where is Flanker?” (Flanker is the code name of Su-27 in NATO). “He is behind you,” answered the slave. The described "air combat" did not receive any coverage in the Western press.

- Visit Su-27 to Langley airbase. USA, 1992 year.



Flying years, epochs are changing ... Two years before the events described at Langley airbase, the YF-22 - the prototype of the fifth-generation American fighter - took off. At about the same time, TsAGI defended the conceptual design and layout of the aircraft, which received the designation MFI (multifunctional front-line fighter). The following features of a promising fighter were voiced: "stealth", "super-maneuverability", "unmanned supersonic" and other very familiar terms.

What came out of all this is a topic for another story.

Author:
130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX April 7 2014 09: 06
    +25
    As a kid, he first saw him alive and still has not seen a more beautiful airplane. Against the background of MiGarey 23x and 27x it was a swan.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 7 2014 11: 13
      +2
      Quote: Фкенщь13
      Against the background of MiGarey 23x and 27x it was a swan.


      A swan is a swan, but the MiG-27 is not an air combat fighter ... belay
      1. FunkschNNX
        FunkschNNX April 7 2014 11: 28
        -1
        At that time, the Su-27 had nothing to compare.
        Quote: supertiger21
        MiG-27 is not an air combat fighter ...

        then what is the gun for him?
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 7 2014 11: 55
          +4
          Quote: Фкенщь13
          then what is the gun for him?


          Just in case, it’s also on the Su-24, but nevertheless this does not make it a fighter.
          1. FunkschNNX
            FunkschNNX April 7 2014 12: 05
            0
            This makes them all multifunctional. Well, the MiG-27 is a fighter-bomber, which by definition is intended not only for air combat, but also for offensive air combat. And somehow it is not correct to compare the performance characteristics of aircraft of different generations.
            1. Vades
              Vades April 7 2014 12: 39
              +8
              Man, the MiG-27 was never intended for air combat. Just to destroy ground targets, a cross between a front-line bomber and an attack aircraft. Yes, the prototype for him was a MiG-23 fighter, but in order to turn into a MiG-27 he had reduced engine power and a changed nose shape so that the pilot could see ground targets. Something like this.
              1. FunkschNNX
                FunkschNNX April 7 2014 13: 21
                0
                I agree, but it is nonetheless classified as a fighter-bomber.
              2. Argon
                Argon April 7 2014 13: 24
                +4
                Vades change the icon-plogator unhappy laughing
            2. Crang
              Crang April 7 2014 13: 14
              0
              MiG-27 is a fighter-attack aircraft with reduced capabilities of air combat, but with greatly increased capabilities for working on the ground.
            3. supertiger21
              supertiger21 April 7 2014 13: 22
              +2
              Quote: Фкенщь13
              This makes them all multifunctional.


              Does not stop , for this you also need to have air-to-air missiles and the necessary radar.

              Quote: Фкенщь13
              Well, the MiG-27 is a fighter-bomber, which by definition is intended not only for air combat, but also for offensive air combat.


              A very erroneous statement: the MiG-27 does not even carry medium-range missiles, and short-range missiles on it are just for protection. The 27th was generally created for striking work, and its progenitor MiG-23 was created as a fighter for air supremacy.
              1. FunkschNNX
                FunkschNNX April 7 2014 14: 47
                0
                What did his designers call the fighter-bomber from? The truth is interesting. Not just in case.
                1. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 April 7 2014 15: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Фкенщь13
                  What did his designers call the fighter-bomber from? The truth is interesting. Not just in case.


                  It's just that the MiG-27 was made on the basis of a third generation fighter, so the erroneous "fighter" index, added to the correct "bomber", remains behind it.
                  1. FunkschNNX
                    FunkschNNX April 7 2014 18: 15
                    0
                    Okay, I will know. I just saw them in 905 IAP with R-60 missiles.
          2. 1969s9691g.
            1969s9691g. April 7 2014 21: 05
            0
            why the gun on the an-12 and il-76?
            1. FunkschNNX
              FunkschNNX April 7 2014 22: 29
              0
              Quote: 1969с9691г.
              why the gun on the an-12 and il-76?

              for defense in aerial combat, no? And the Tu-95 seems to be there.
        2. Santa Fe
          April 7 2014 15: 05
          +2
          Quote: Фкенщь13
          What did his designers call the fighter-bomber from?

          Conditional classification. At that time, there were no full-fledged fighters in the IBA regiments - in theory, the MiG-27 could stand up for itself in a battle with some old Phantom or shoot an unarmed transporter, but nothing more
          Quote: Фкенщь13
          MiG-27 is not an air combat fighter ...
          then what is the gun for him?

          During the creation of the MiG-27 fighter-bomber, the standard gun for the MiG-23 was replaced by a more powerful one. The power and damage of the 23-mm shells of the GSh-23L gun, which had served on most combat aircraft for many years, was not enough to confidently defeat many ground targets, and especially armored vehicles.

          The GSH-6-30 six-barreled cannon for equipping the MiG-23BN and MiG-27 fighter-bomber
      2. Santa Fe
        April 7 2014 15: 08
        +2
        Quote: supertiger21
        but the MiG-27 is not an air combat fighter ...

        good
        Instead of a radar under the nose cone, an optical sighting system was installed for "work on the ground"

        MiG-27K with PNK "Kaira"
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 7 2014 15: 48
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Instead of a radar under the nose cone, an optical sighting system was installed for "work on the ground" MiG-27K with PNK "Kaira"


          As for the "Kaira" telescopic sight, I wonder if something like that could have been put on the fighter modifications of the MiG-23ML and MiG-23MLD. It could have turned out to be a powerful universal fighter, like the F-4E, which combined both an air fighter and a strike aircraft.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Crang
      Crang April 7 2014 14: 53
      0
      In my opinion, the MiG-23 is still prettier. And faster than the Su-27.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 15: 51
        +2
        Quote: Krang
        In my opinion, the MiG-23 is still prettier


        It's not the same for everybody... request

        Quote: Krang
        And faster than the Su-27.


        Most likely not. On the 23rd, as far as I know, the speed of Mach 2,3, which is no more than that of the Su-27.
        1. Crang
          Crang April 7 2014 16: 08
          +2
          On the 23rd, the frontal glazing strength is limited to 2445km / h. And he can give out the maximum speed on the engine around 2800km / h. This is such a du * ak what are you. But the maximum that the Su-27 is capable of is 2500-2550km / h and that’s it.
          1. FunkschNNX
            FunkschNNX April 7 2014 18: 10
            0
            I don’t remember already in what book I read about the combat use of the MiG-23 in Afghanistan, there was a case when, being carried away by aiming, the plane at its peak overcame maximum speed, so the casing on the keel either disrupted or damaged. But the whole lamp remained.
  2. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 7 2014 09: 30
    +5
    The Su-27 fighter was designed in such a way that its aerodynamic focus is located in front of the CT - every second the aircraft is ready to lift its nose and “somersault” backwards, through the tail. Without any involvement from the pilot. It is statically unstable.

    The Su-27 was conceived as a plane with longitudinal instability, but people assume, and Soviet industry disposes. As the biographers of the Su-27 from the Sukhoi Radar Design Bureau bitterly wrote, it turned out to be much harder than it was laid down according to the TTZ, and the size did not come out as planned. I met that the mass of radars exceeded the target by 300kg! therefore, longitudinal instability was out of the question. This became the reason for installing the front horizontal tail on the Su-27K.
    In general, comparing the two Su-27 and F-15 aircraft, Oleg somehow kept silent about the frank backwardness of the Su-27 in terms of on-board electronics capabilities. The Su-27, of course, has advantages over the F-15 in close combat, but you still need to live to see it ... So the probability of victory is with the one who is the first to "find" the enemy and launch missiles in-in, because the one who was attacked after detecting the attack will be forced to take measures to disrupt guidance, he will not have time for close combat.
    1. Genry
      Genry April 7 2014 10: 15
      +11
      Quote: Nayhas
      Oleg somehow kept silent about the open backwardness of the Su-27 on the capabilities of on-board electronics.

      What are the characteristics? Backwardness in weight you indicated. But you ignored the rest, which can be understood as untruth (literary expression).
    2. Aleksandr12
      Aleksandr12 April 7 2014 10: 44
      +5
      During the Vietnam War, they also thought so, who was the first to launch a rocket and won the air battle, even abandoned the guns. As practice has shown, the pilots did not want to get off with the first missile launches and entered into close combat. By the way, from here the idea went beyond maneuverability.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 7 2014 12: 09
        0
        Quote: Aleksandr12
        During the Vietnam War, they also thought so, who was the first to launch a rocket and won the air battle, even abandoned the guns.

        Duc and prior art was much lower. The slide rule was much easier to use than a computer ... And who now remembers it at all?
        1. 0255
          0255 April 7 2014 12: 47
          +5
          Quote: Nayhas
          Duc and prior art was much lower. The slide rule was much easier to use than a computer ... And who now remembers it at all?

          And who did the Americans fight after Vietnam? With Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan. What kind of air force did Panama have with Grenada, and did they even have them?
          The Iraqis and Yugoslavs did not have EW funds, the Americans outnumbered them, no one supported Iraqis and Serbs, like the Vietnamese USSR. If they were given the same Su-27 and S-300, it is not a fact that NATO would have won. The states are not fighting with equal strengths, Ukrainian events are a vivid example of this. They shout that Putin is an evil dictator, they promise to help the Ukrainian junta, that’s all. And dumped from Syria, frightened by the Russian Navy.
        2. max702
          max702 April 8 2014 01: 00
          +1
          You won’t believe it, but they still use NL160 for that 10 lo! analogue of the line, I myself saw in TV reports when they flew to South America .. was in shock recourse
    3. Papakiko
      Papakiko April 7 2014 12: 29
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      Generally comparing two Su-27 and F-15 cars

      It is not true to fundamentally compare only the Su-27 with the Fu-15!
      Su-27 is "Our answer to Chamberlain" in the form of Fu-15, Fu-16, Fu-18, with the prospect of opposing subsequent "friends" in the form of Eurofighter Typhoon, Panavia Tornado and, of course, with a HUGE SIGHT on Fu-117 Nighthawk.
      Because of all the advantages of the Su-27 revealed by "friends" (even with a "poor" filling), they were forced to "cook" the Fu-22 and subsequently the Fu-35.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 13: 42
        -1
        Quote: Papakiko
        Because of all the advantages of the Su-27 revealed by "friends" (even with a "poor" filling), they were forced to "cook" the Fu-22 and subsequently the Fu-35.


        I agree with everything, but such a statement is very doubtful. Even the modern Su-35S will not be able to adequately confront the F-22 and F-35 at a great distance. Advantage in Drying is observed only in close maneuverable combat, where the Reptor has less over-maneuverability, and Lightning in general It doesn’t have one. But you still need to live to get closer.
        The fact is that the Irbis radar with PFAR detects targets with an RCS of 1 m2 at a distance of less than 100 km, and this indicator for American 5th generation fighters is estimated from 0,01 to 0,3, that is, much less than it is possible to detect Our Su-35S Raptor and Lightning radars detect similar targets with an RCS of 1 m2 from a distance of 200 km (2 times more than that of Sushka). And while they see Sukhoi at such a distance, they need to get a little closer to 100-130 in order to use missiles medium / range AIM-120 with AGSN, acting on the principle of "fire and forget." to naught all the advantages of the F-22 and F-35 in stealth, you need to get as close to them as possible, and only in this way Drying has chances to "kick ass" and "Khryaptor" and "Penguin" wink .
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 14: 30
          +16
          Quote: supertiger21
          The fact is that the Irbis radar with PFAR detects targets with an EPR of 1 m2 at a distance of less than 100 km, and this indicator for American 5th generation fighters is estimated from 0,01 to 0,3, that is, much less than it is possible to detect Our Su-35S Raptor and Lightning radars detect similar targets with a RCS of 1 m2 from a distance of 200 km (2 times more than that of Sushka). And while they will see Sukhoi at such a distance

          I apologize, but here I have to speak out in defense of Sushka in general and Irbis in particular :)
          Firstly, if we take the official data that was once posted on the website of the NIIP named after V.V. Tikhomirov http://niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:-qq-35&catid=8:20
          11-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8
          That is, the target with the EPR 3m2 Irbis sees with 350-400 km, respectively, the target with the EPR in 1m2 will see at 266-304 km :))), i.e. MORE notorious AN / APG-77:)) (the formula for calculating is simple - Д2 = Д1 / (ЭПР1: ЭПР2) ^ 0.25)
          It is true that I must say that 350-400 km for the 3m2 target for Irbis on the same site was provided provided that the radar scans with the 10 beam at 10 grad, and not in the search mode.
          But here's the catch. Although you can climb the entire Internet, you will not find officially confirmed data on the detection range of AN / APG-77. She is simply not there.
          Once upon a time, in 2000 about the range of AN / APG-77 AW&ST 2000 / 03 / 17 that is Aviation Week und Space Technology, though I didn’t unearth the number itself, only links to it. And there was such data on the janes.com portal (now no longer exists), despite the fact that people who read this message claimed that janes.com wrote that it provides ADVERTISING data for AN / APG-77
          But what is interesting - although janes.com reported that AN / APG-77 sees a target with 1m2 ESR at a distance of 200-235 km, he did not indicate the mode in which such results are achieved. If it is something like RWS (i.e. wide beam search, + - 60 degrees or more) this is one. And if - TWS - i.e. the same 10 on 10 at which Irbis sees the target with the EPR 3m2 on 350-400 km. - as you understand, it’s completely different.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 7 2014 16: 11
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That Irbis sees a target with a 3m2 EPR from 350-400 km


            I don’t deny what he sees, but one BUT! The ESR of 5th-generation American fighters is tens of times less than 3 m2. Therefore, the Su-35S can detect for example F-15 and F-16, but not F- 22 and F-35.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            accordingly, the target with an EPR in 1m2 will see at 266-304 km :)))


            It is doubtful, for example, I have met data that a target with a similar EPR "Irbis" detects only from 100 km (2,5 times less than in your data).

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But here's the catch. Although you can climb the entire Internet, you will not find officially confirmed data on the detection range of AN / APG-77. She is simply not there.


            I agree that the 77th is far inferior to the Irbis in terms of range. But I'm not talking about the range, but the detection capabilities. Radars with AFAR have a shorter range than radars with PFAR. But the detection capabilities with an active array are much higher than with a passive one.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But what's interesting is that although janes.com reported that AN / APG-77 sees a target with a 1m2 EPR at a distance of 200-235 km, he did not indicate the mode in which such results are achieved.


            You can see for yourself that the APG-1 will detect a target with an EPR of 2 m77 at a farther distance than the Irbis. But I think that we should not be afraid of the 77th, but the APG-81, because. It is this radar that will be mass-produced for the F-35. By the way, some sources say that the 81st has a range of 350 km, which I doubt a little.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 20: 34
              +6
              Quote: supertiger21
              BUT! The EPR of American 5 generation fighters is ten times smaller than 3 and M2. Therefore, the Su-35C can detect for example F-15 and F-16, but not F-22 and F-35.

              If, again, calculated according to the formula, it turns out that the snow leopard will see
              EPR = 0.1 m2 - 400: (3: 0.1) ^ 0.25 = 171 km
              EPR = 0.01 m2 - 400: (3: 0.01) ^ 0.25 = 96 km
              The ESR of American aircraft is again unknown to us. Usually given figures 0,000000000 and 100500 decimal places, if they make sense, only in a very strict perspective (say, direct exposure to the forehead, but in order for the enemy plane to take such a position, it must know exactly the location of your plane. In this case, the enemy aircraft must unmask itself during the launch of the missiles - opening the wings of the compartment with weapons, it thereby decently increases its EPR.
              Quote: supertiger21
              I agree on the range of the 77th is much inferior to the Irbis

              Unfortunately, we do not know this for sure, I wrote only to the fact that the numbers commonly found on the Internet in 1m2 with 235 km in search mode are not much based
              Quote: supertiger21
              But I think that we should not be afraid of 77 and APG-81, because. it is this radar that will be mass produced for the F-35
              The same sources that give for APG-77 235 km, for APG-give only 140-160km :) This is a light version of APG-77, although it has its own tricks in general - a miracle of hostile technology :)))
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 8 2014 16: 41
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If, again, calculated according to the formula, it turns out that the snow leopard will see EPR = 0.1 m2 - 400: (3: 0.1) ^ 0.25 = 171 km EPR = 0.01 m2 - 400: (3: 0.01) ^ 0.25 = 96 km


                Excessively optimistic data. Even the Sukhovites themselves do not say so, but speak of much more modest figures.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The ESR of American aircraft is again unknown to us. Usually given figures are 0,000000000 and another 100500 decimal places if they make sense


                At least it is clear that their EPR is not more than 0,1-0,3 m2, and maybe even less.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Unfortunately, we do not know this for sure, I wrote only to the fact that the numbers commonly found on the Internet in 1m2 with 235 km in search mode are not much based


                I agree with this, in any case it is obvious that the range of the APG-77 is less than that of the Irbis. There is nothing surprising in this. passive PARs are superior to active ones in range. This is only one "plus" of PFAR in front of AFAR.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The same sources that give for APG-77 235 km, for APG-give only 140-160km :) This is a light version of APG-77, although it has its own tricks in general - a miracle of hostile technology :)))


                I think that 235 km is a more correct figure, Lockheed-Martin claimed that the F-22 detects the enemy at a distance of more than 200 km, which is probably what APG-77 was meant for.
        2. Alex 1977
          Alex 1977 April 7 2014 18: 22
          +5
          The thing is that the SU-27 radar sees 300 km now, and will soon see even further.
          It's just that this radar is not installed on the SU-27 itself, but on the A-50. And in perspective
          on the A-100.
          There are not only AWACS in the States. And there is also ground-based radar.
          Why are all the hypothetical battles in which the Reptors and other F-15s win take place somewhere over the expanses of Siberia?
          I don’t understand where the habit of comparing spherical TTX in the air came from. 130 km for the AIM-120? R-33 with a similar firing range since 1981 produced.
          I offer you another scenario.
          From the A-100 DRLO aircraft, the F-15 link will be detected at a distance of four hundred kilometers, after which the on-duty group SU-27 will approach them at a distance of 300 km and will launch a RVV-DB volley with a launch range of 300 of the above kilometers. At the same time, the F-15 avionics will be suppressed by the EW IL-22PP Chopper, which will allow missiles to go unnoticed to enemy aircraft and destroy them. How do you like this scenario?
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 7 2014 18: 49
            +1
            Quote: Alexey 1977
            The thing is that the SU-27 radar sees 300 km now, and will soon see even further. It is simply that this radar is not installed on the SU 27 itself, but on the A-50. And in the long run on the A-100. Avaxs not only in the States there. And there is also ground-based radar. Why are all the hypothetical battles in which the Reptors and other F-15s win take place somewhere over the expanses of Siberia? I don’t understand where the habit of comparing spherical TTX in the air came from. 130 km for the AIM-120? R-33 with a similar firing range since 1981 to be produced. I offer you another scenario. From the A-100 DRLO aircraft, the F-15 link will be detected at a distance of four hundred kilometers, after which the on-duty group SU-27 will approach them at a distance of 300 km and will launch a RVV-DB volley with a launch range of 300 of the above kilometers. At the same time, the F-15 avionics will be suppressed by the EW IL-22PP Chopper, which will allow missiles to go unnoticed to enemy aircraft and destroy them. How do you like this scenario?


            Without a doubt, for the most part, what you have said is true. However, it’s a little off topic, because I'm not talking about the Su-27 and F-15. We were thinking about the hypothetical battle of the Su-35S against the F-22 and F-35, in which the stealth and power of the radar in range and detection play a big role.
          2. patsantre
            patsantre April 7 2014 21: 04
            0
            Firstly, I didn’t hear anything about the adoption of the RVV-BD, in addition, the DB missiles that are in service with us have strong overload restrictions and cannot be used against maneuvering targets like a fighter.
            Secondly, pointing the missiles at the target will still have their own radar. Even with an AWACS aircraft. As far as I know, the only AWACS aircraft capable of directing missiles is the advanced hokai, and the only missile that can be so aimed is the SM-6. So, most likely, there is no talk of shooting at 300 km. Then the waf should clarify whether I am reasoning correctly.
            Thirdly, why didn’t you take into account that the adversary also has AWACS and EW aircraft, moreover, they have no problems with their number?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 21: 20
              +1
              Quote: patsantre
              As far as I know, the only AWACS aircraft capable of directing missiles is the advanced hokai

              Very doubtful, to be honest.
              1. patsantre
                patsantre April 7 2014 23: 18
                0
                What exactly? What is he capable of pointing missiles, or what is the only one?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 8 2014 14: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: patsantre
                  What is he capable of pointing missiles, or what is the only one?

                  What is capable of directing missiles, of course
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre April 8 2014 15: 52
                    0
                    Why? SM-6 was tested like that.
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas April 8 2014 13: 12
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Very doubtful, to be honest.

                Last year it was practiced on E-2D, it induced the AIM-120 launched from the F-15. We also worked out guidance from the E-2D SAM-6 missile launcher to the VC flying behind the radio horizon (for shipborne SPY-1 radar, of course). It was in August, but this news was not published on this resource despite its epoch-making ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 8 2014 14: 19
                  +2
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Last year it was practiced on E-2D, it induced AIM-120 launched with F-15. We also worked out guidance from the E-2D SAM-6 SAM to the VC flying beyond the radio horizon (for shipborne SPY-1 radar, of course)

                  Can I link to the source?
                  Here is the point. I know about last year's publication (although I am unlikely to find it myself now). I myself did not try to translate it (for I am very weak in English), but good acquaintances, who were fluent in it, told me that it was not Hockey itself who directed it. He simply broadcast data about the target to the F-15 and to the ship, and those, according to the coordinates transmitted to them, guided the AIM-120 and SM-6
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre April 8 2014 15: 54
                    0
                    Without going into technical details, in my opinion, this changes the essence a little. Now they can direct missiles even when there is not enough power of their radar or the radio horizon prevents this.
                    1. supertiger21
                      supertiger21 April 8 2014 16: 54
                      0
                      Quote: patsantre
                      or this is prevented by a radio horizon.


                      In one of Kaptsov’s articles, it was said that the radio horizon is no longer a problem. It was written that there are systems with enveloping the terrain.
                      1. patsantre
                        patsantre April 8 2014 19: 23
                        +1
                        Over-the-horizon radars exist, but their use on ships is apparently not yet possible. For there are no such ships and are not planned. Perhaps the fact is that these are low-frequency locators.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. supertiger21
              supertiger21 April 8 2014 16: 51
              0
              Quote: patsantre
              Thirdly, why didn’t you take into account that the adversary also has AWACS and EW aircraft, moreover, they have no problems with their number?


              Nobody argues, the number is on their side. It is likely that in the battle the Su-35S will not find the F-22 and F-35 for hundreds of kilometers, but AWACS is not difficult production for long-range KS-172 missiles. As far as I know, Su-35S will be able to carry up to two of these missiles.
        3. Nikita4289
          Nikita4289 April 7 2014 21: 24
          +4
          F-35 and do not need over-maneuverability. In close air combat, he is able to launch a rocket from any position. This is a common myth that the F-35 will be vulnerable in close combat.
          Neither absolutely correct data about the Irbis radar. He is able to detect a target with an EPR of 0.01m2 at a range of up to 100 km.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 8 2014 16: 59
            -1
            Quote: nikita4289
            In close air combat, he is able to launch a rocket from any position.


            It would be more correct to say, at any point of the front or rear hemisphere. "From any position" they learned to shoot even at the 4th generation.

            Quote: nikita4289
            He is able to detect a target with an EPR of 0.01m2 at a range of up to 100 km.


            Even these figures are greatly overestimated. It was reported that at a distance of 100 km, the Irbis detects a target with an RCS of at least 1 m2.
        4. dustycat
          dustycat April 7 2014 22: 46
          +2
          Quote: supertiger21
          But we still need to live up to rapprochement.
          The fact is that the Irbis radar with PFAR detects targets with an EPR of 1 m2 at a distance of less than 100 km, and this indicator for American 5th generation fighters is estimated from 0,01 to 0,3, that is, much less than it is possible to detect to our Su-35S


          And now a description of REAL BATTLE without external support for AWACS (which in itself is nonsense).

          Range 180000-150000 m
          Lightning detected Sukhoi - a buzzer rang on Sukhoi and on a tactical screen showed where they were shining with a radio sight.
          Dry began to stare intently at the indicated sector.
          Lightning opened the weapon compartment hatch (do we say yes with minimal EPR?) And lit up like a spotlight (here, even in any simulator, Fu117 is visible to everyone and everything) - Sukhoi saw him and ...
          Here the funniest begins.
          If there is a radar detector with a range of 200 km on board Sukhoi, it simply launches it (yes, according to the instructions against radars, or what? - what is lightning in the attack not a radar for?), Turns on the electronic warfare system and starts writing the pretzel on the energetic approach course - Lightning he himself calls his death to a half-blinded radar - but you need to aim and shoot! At the turn of 50000-40000, he notices that something is flying at him.
          Lightning Options? 1. Cut all the EW that is. 2. Cut down all the radiation, close the hatch, make legs and do not shine.
          Someone thinks that Lightning will do 2?
          Suppose there is no shrike or Dry follows instructions (which is most likely).
          Dry cuts electronic warfare, vigorously scratches toward Lightning, sees that something is flying into him, sprinkles with tricks, maneuvers and then how lucky.
          With the maneuverability of Dry, luck can be very good.
          You can even fly towards something than meet the near radius of destruction.
          Lightning has two options.
          1. Dump from the collision zone (and why raise it to the sky then?)
          2. Continue the fight and start the second. But this means opening the compartment again and cutting radars to full power and shining on the screen of Sukhoi like a Christmas tree in the assembly hall.
          And Dry, meanwhile, is already at a range of 100000-90000.
          And even if after starting Lightning closed his hatch - Sukhoi already sees and leads him.
          And he even launches his rocket - there is no need to open the hatch, the time for aiming and launch is a little less, the time for detecting a launch is a little more.
          Now it’s time for Lightning to show what it can do on bends, verticals and in electronic warfare.
          Meanwhile, the soldiers are getting closer. The distance is melting.
          And the purely war of electronic warfare begins, maneuverability, and whose aegis are more steelier.
          Up to the dog dump.
          And here it is already without options.
          Lightning cuts all his electronic warfare to the uttermost nonsense, rolls all the traps that exist and dumps out of the battle - close combat with Sukhoi is not his business.

          Having an advertised EPR in flight mode is one thing.
          Having a real EPR in battle mode is two big differences.
          Besides that Khryaptor, that Penguin, that Sukhoi without AWACS will not converge together.
          And against the A50 and its further variants that Chryaptor and Penguin are not "invisible". They are not invisible even against the MiG30 flight.

          By the way. Vertical maneuverability Su27 saw himself. In 1985 near Kostroma.
          A pair of Su27 made vertical pretzels periodically breaking through the sound barrier.
          The lower edge of the cumulus was 3000 (approximately), the crests of the cumulus were 8000-9000. There were 10 kilometers to the zone, so my neck was tired of watching them.
          The vertical maneuver is very effective against missiles like AIM120 with AGSN.
          Especially with such vertical jumping ability.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre April 7 2014 23: 28
            0
            Quote: dustycat
            Lightning opened the weapon compartment hatch (do we say yes with minimal EPR?) And lit up like a spotlight (here, even in any simulator, Fu117 is visible to everyone and everything) - Sukhoi saw him and ...

            Why did you decide that when you open the compartments, it will light up like a spotlight? Yes, the EPR will increase, but I do not think that it is catastrophic.

            Quote: dustycat
            If there is a radar detector with a range of 200 km on board Sukhoi, it simply launches it (yes, according to the instructions against the radars, or what, and what? - what is not the radar in the attack with?)


            And the fact that the rocket has limitations on overload. It is designed for stationary purposes. On the maneuverable fighter she can hardly be reached.

            Quote: dustycat
            2. Continue the fight and start the second. But this means opening the compartment again and cutting radars to full power and shining on the screen of Sukhoi like a Christmas tree in the assembly hall.


            Most likely he will start immediately 2.
            At the expense of radars, the raptor had a scanning mode in which its radiation was not detected by radars. I will not explain in details, as far as I remember, the point is that he constantly changed frequencies, this allowed to do AFAR. I explain it in amateurish language, so if you call something. In general, the F-35 probably also has a similar mode of remoteness.

            As for the dog dump - here, too, the grandmother said for two. Theoretically, lightning can launch a rocket in any direction, at least sideways, at least backward, at least downward. This allows you to make OLS with a circular view. In practice - hell knows.

            Surely we still have not taken into account a bunch of things.
            It is very difficult to actually predict something. I do not claim that light is drying. I just want to show that you can find a counterargument for each argument, so it’s very naive to draw any conclusions with a high degree of confidence.
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 8 2014 13: 25
            +1
            Quote: dustycat
            Dry cuts electronic warfare, vigorously scratches toward Lightning, sees that something is flying into him, sprinkles with tricks, maneuvers and then how lucky.
            With the maneuverability of Dry, luck can be very good.

            You have excluded the main parameter, speed, from your story. For intensive maneuvering, the Su-35S must extinguish speed, while maneuvering it is impossible to accompany the enemy radar, i.e. even if the Su-35S manages to disrupt the capture of the GOS missile in-in, it loses the enemy and speed.
          3. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 8 2014 17: 14
            0
            Quote: dustycat
            Range 180000-150000 m


            A little more, the range of the APG-81 is more than 200 km.

            Quote: dustycat
            Lightning detected Sukhoi - a buzzer rang on Sukhoi and on a tactical screen showed where they were shining with a radio sight.


            The F-35 has a "quiet" radar mode, in which it is very difficult to detect radio waves, let alone how to find their source.

            Quote: dustycat
            Lightning opened the weapon compartment hatch (do we say yes with minimal EPR?) And lit up like a spotlight (here, even in any simulator, Fu117 is visible to everyone and everything) - Sukhoi saw him and ...


            Opening and closing the compartment is a matter of seconds, not hours. Yes, and in the open state, the EPR will not increase so much that it gives out the 35th radar on the screen.

            Quote: dustycat
            If there is a radar detector with a range of 200 km on board Sukhoi, it simply launches it (yes, according to the instructions against radars, or what? - what is lightning in the attack not a radar for?), Turns on the electronic warfare system and starts writing the pretzel on the energetic approach course - Lightning he himself calls his death to a half-blinded radar - but you need to aim and shoot! At the turn of 50000-40000, he notices that something is flying at him. Lightning options? 1. Cut all the EW that is. 2. Cut down all the radiation, close the hatch, make legs and do not shine.


            Do you know how a missile with a range of 200 km can hit a fighter ??? No one canceled maneuvering. The R-37 and KS-172 missiles are designed to deal with hulking AWACS and refueling aircraft, it’s practically impossible to catch a fighter.

            Quote: dustycat
            And here it’s already without options. Lightning cuts off all its electronic warfare for all the crap, rolls all the traps that exist and dumps out of the battle - close combat with Sukhoi is none of his business.


            This is provided that Asses will be at the helm of Sushki, not beginners. In Dog-fighting, the technique is of little importance. It depends more on the pilot.

            Quote: dustycat
            Hryaptor that the Penguin is not "invisible". They are not invisible even against the MiG30 flight.


            This claim has not been proved by anything. I myself am not a fan of American aviation, but underestimating the enemy means digging a grave for yourself.
    4. Argon
      Argon April 7 2014 13: 09
      +4
      The article is not very objective, I can not question the competence of the author, let's say this: I wanted to explain complex things in simple words and it didn't work out, well it happens. It should be noted that the appearance of the F-15 caused a stir in the leadership of the USSR Air Force comparable to the appearance of the Bf-109 in the late 30s and early 40s. Moreover, it cannot be said that the creation of this machine was not followed, but the "kipish" began when the "telemetry" of pre-production samples came into our possession. I would like to comment on the statements of the "experienced" Nаyhas about the lack of longitudinal instability This fact took place, but on prototypes with full armament and fuel more than 35% of the full. Yes, this was caused by some excess weight limits for equipment and systems. But ultimately this led to a complete redesign of the project and the appearance of the T-10.17 machine. which from the previous "dozen" had only a hinged section of the canopy, it was this machine that was the prototype of the serial Su-27. And the PGO serves for completely different purposes, by the way, when the engine appears For those with OVT, its functionality is significantly reduced. I would also like to add that at the time when it was possible to form the Su-27 grouping by 70% of the planned by the General Staff (about 89g), although the F-15 surpassed the Sukharik in detection range and "capture" significantly inferior in terms of the permitted launch distance, this became possible due to the appearance in our country of "energy" modifications of the R-27 missiles, which ensured (at least) parity in the DVB. The presence of the OLS gave a certain gain at medium distances, and the joint work of the OLS and the radar, plus the R-73 rocket made the Su-27 a favorite in close combat. The total lag of the Eagle was not compensated even after the first AMRAAM versions were replenished, although it significantly reduced the gap.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 14: 56
        +9
        Quote: Argon
        Although the F-15 surpassed Suharik in detection range and "capture" it was significantly inferior in terms of the permitted launch range, this became possible due to the appearance of "energy" modifications of the R-27 missiles in our country, which ensured (at least) parity in the DVB.

        Sorry, but according to my data, there was still no parity in the Far Eastern Federal District.
        F-15, a female dog, had its own REP station. The Su-27 does not have one, so it was necessary to hook up the Sorption. As you yourself understand, the suspension of anything does not improve the maneuverability of the aircraft, i.e. all other things being equal, the F-15 could take more ammunition. And secondly (and what is sad) our REP station, when operating, interfered with its own radar. Therefore, there is a certain feeling that the Su-27 in the DVB has 2 options - either turn on the REP and say goodbye to the possibility of pointing the R-27, or try to point the R-27 at the enemy, but not using the REP. The F-15 could do both at the same time.
        True, the advantage of the F-15 in the DVB was still not critical - the medium-range air-to-air missile missile system with a semi-active seeker turned out to be a perversion (that the R-27 is with us, that the Yankee has Sparrow), so the range with IR seeker ... until AMRAAM arrived
        1. Argon
          Argon April 7 2014 16: 03
          +2
          Of course, the absence of its own ARPA is a minus, but the WB is not a dueling procedure. The Sorption set carries only one side in a pair (in practice, it was exotic in the Air Force). In DVB, aircraft usually come with a full BC. And maneuverability plays a second role, the main thing is dynamic characteristics; acceleration / deceleration speed. F-15 carries 8 air-to-air missiles, our 12 (with Sorption 10). R-27 is a completely reliable missile, I have not heard bad about it (what would there it went into the milk, or the fuse did not work. If there is a "capture" will surely fall, unlike the R-77), I think Sperrow of the same modifications is no worse. But the nature of the DVB is such that the initiative is behind those who are the first to go to the line and launch , this is 75% success. And when the Su-27 converged, it launched 90-40 seconds earlier. It had the R-27ER (well, that's what they taught, anyway). AMRAAM has significant restrictions on overload launch and therefore its use in the BVB is limited. All of the above applies to aircraft and rockets of the period up to the mid-90s.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 20: 15
            +2
            Quote: Argon
            Of course, the absence of its own ARPA is a minus, but the WB is not a duel procedure

            I agree with this, just since they started to judge and row, who is stronger - a whale or an elephant, then ... :)))
            Quote: Argon
            R-27 - a completely reliable rocket - I haven’t heard anything bad about it (what would it go into the milk, or the fuse didn’t work

            Yes, how can I say ... As far as I understand, in the Ethiopian-Eritrean air, not newcomers lashed in the air (it felt like Russians and Ukrainians) However, the P-27 was launched over 40, but it didn’t work out to shoot them down. MiG-29 and Su-27 started the battle precisely with the launches of the P-27, but MiGs eventually got off with short-range missiles.
            1. Argon
              Argon April 7 2014 21: 00
              0
              My friend, well, you still do not exaggerate the Su-27 and F-15A \ C machines of the same class and purpose, so a comparison; who is stronger is quite acceptable. There is no reliable information on this conflict yet, according to which I have missile launches. " -In the "medium range" there were no more than 5, and these were not "energy" versions of the R-27. (And in general everything was somehow cloudy there).
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 21: 38
                +1
                Quote: Argon
                Well, man, you still do not exaggerate the Su-27 and F-15A \ C machines of the same class and purpose, so a comparison; who is stronger is perfectly acceptable

                It is permissible, therefore, I also take part in this :))) But the whole point is that when we begin to consider dueling situations, we willy-nilly go to the spherical horses in a vacuum. Well, they do not fight separately, like the ancient knights in the tournament :)
                We have to somehow agree on the conditions.
                Quote: Argon
                There is no reliable information on this conflict yet, according to which I have, there were no more than 5 medium-range "V-V" missiles launched, and these were not "energy" variants of the R-27. (And in general everything was somehow muddy there)

                For sure I can only say one thing - I was not there. winked
                And the data that I have is an Internet, like this publication, which really talks about 24 missed P-27 (although there is an indication that P-27 shot down planes). http://military.ya1.ru/aviation/1363-jefiopojeritrejjskaja_vojjna_v_vozdukhe.htm
                l
                I read somewhere (I can’t find it right away) talking about 40 missiles, as they say - what are the rich
        2. PLO
          PLO April 7 2014 20: 10
          +1
          Hello Andrei.

          here forced to disagree.
          suspension of containers Sorption or Khibiny minimally affects the aerodynamics of our aircraft



          the mass of the container is not very different from the mass of P-73 missiles which are also suspended on the outer pylons without any problems

          I don’t know about interference on my own radar, but I think these problems in extreme modifications are probably resolved

          and with ammunition everything is far from obvious)
          in Su-27, the internal fuel tank holds 9t of fuel, and in F-15С, no more than 5t.
          that is why you will not find photos of the Su-27 with the PTB, while for the F-15 two PTBs are actually the standard.
          and PTB maneuverability is limited much more than any missiles
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 21: 24
            +1
            Quote: olp
            the mass of the container is not very different from the mass of P-73 missiles which are also suspended on the outer pylons without any problems

            You probably know this better than me. But as far as I remember, the standard set still includes 2 UR medium and 2 UR short range, is not it?
            Quote: olp
            in Su-27, the internal fuel tank holds 9t of fuel, and in F-15С, no more than 5t.

            By the way, yes, it is strange that few people attach importance to this. This is a huge plus for our car.
            Quote: olp
            and PTB maneuverability is limited much more than any missiles

            Well, before BVB they will be definitely dumped :))
    5. Nikita4289
      Nikita4289 April 7 2014 21: 12
      +1
      For its time, the Su-27 had quite adequate equipment, including one that was not on the F-15 (NSC, OLS). Yes, and his radar is quite powerful. The problem is that the F-15 has been constantly upgraded, and the Su-27, until recently, has not. There was a variant of the Su-27M (Su-35, not to be confused with the new Su-35C), which was supposed to appear in response to the modernization of the F-15A to the level of F-15C, but due to the collapse of the USSR and the suspension of funding, the project was frozen. In principle, a similar situation has developed with the MiG-29 in relation to its main rival F-16.
  3. samoletil18
    samoletil18 April 7 2014 10: 04
    +3
    That's what 10 years difference is! Even externally, next to each other, like the Vickers 6 tons (T-26) and T-34. But your own elementary base must be developed, otherwise the aerodynamic advantage will turn into an easily leveled difference. And in the "dryers" our guys, how will it turn out, suddenly have to clash?
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. foma2028
    foma2028 April 7 2014 10: 15
    +10
    Straight natural grace and grace
    Su-27 / 30 is the most beautiful aircraft in the world
  6. kodxnumx
    kodxnumx April 7 2014 10: 16
    +1
    I think time will tell whether our designers could solve the problems with the electronic nightie, which would not be inferior to the European and American onalogs! In the rest, we will surpass!
  7. Sochi
    Sochi April 7 2014 10: 24
    +7
    I am always struck by the predatory and elegant silhouette of sushki, especially in the front projection ... handsome.
  8. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe April 7 2014 10: 32
    +9
    "Why are Americans always fighting the previous generation of aircraft? Is there some terrible secret connected to this?"

    They just go one two steps ahead. It's not a shame, but we ALWAYS caught up or tried to set a record at all costs.
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 11: 23
      +2
      Quote: nazgul-ishe
      "Why are Americans always fighting the previous generation of aircraft? Is there some terrible secret connected to this?"

      They just go one two steps ahead. It's not a shame, but we ALWAYS caught up or tried to set a record at all costs.

      Americans always attack only those who cannot fight back. They have never attacked countries where aircraft of the Su-27 / Su-30 family are in service. And never theirs "F" won training battles against "dryers".
      Not always the USSR / Russia was not lagging behind. In the same Korea and Vietnam, Soviet aircraft showed superiority. Then the states came forward with the F-15, then the USSR came forward with the MiG-29 and Su-27. And the big question is whether their F-22 and F-35 are so cool
      1. nazgul-ishe
        nazgul-ishe April 7 2014 14: 19
        +1
        Then the states came forward with the F-15, then the USSR came forward with the MiG-29 and Su-27. And the big question is whether their F-22 and F-35 are so cool

        We are still catching up.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. tolyasik0577
      tolyasik0577 April 7 2014 11: 35
      +6
      Do you know that in WWII there were almost no direct collisions of IS2 with tigers? because no one wants to fight with an opponent equal to themselves, (well, except for Russians, of course) because the outcome of the battle is not determined. And here everything is clear, the equipment is a class lower and the risk is minimal. The West has always been able to count money.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv April 7 2014 12: 09
        +3
        There were few tigers. And they were scattered along the fronts. Moreover, most of the destroyed "tigers" were Pz-4 extreme modifications.
        1. Alone
          Alone April 7 2014 18: 08
          +1
          The German command "recommended" its units not to engage in direct combat with ISs.
  9. srelock
    srelock April 7 2014 10: 32
    +5
    I like this video:


    And here it is interestingly written about American crafts and not only:
    http://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-air/5-6-pokoleniye-1/
  10. Konsmo
    Konsmo April 7 2014 11: 06
    +8
    We exaggerate the value of the elemental base.
    When writing competent program code, tasks running on a computer in the 90s will work faster than on modern ones. Most of the power of computers goes into battle with redundant code and external beauties.
    I remember how, over a glass of tea, familiar guys from our school, but older, told me that they were working on flight programs for heavy aircraft (not fighters) over the terrain. We got acquainted with the work of our Shuttle (and after all, he worked completely in the machine, unlike Amer products). They got married to work with space, but they did not go. The tasks were less interesting.
    It was 1984 a year.
    Our shuttle flew only after 5 years. The first personal Pravets (Bulgarian with 16 bit bus, 286 processor) went to the year in 1986.
    So the cries of their smartphones are cool on airplanes and in general we all die, this is all for grandmothers and suckers.
    I'm not saying that you must tremble over all this electronics so that it would not die any second.
    Therefore, Amer aircraft must be installed in hangars, the displays then ... come on in the cold from 0 and below, and the Ross effects work for us.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 7 2014 12: 18
      +2
      Why doesn’t it come to their displays at heights of thousands of meters, where the temperatures are very negative?
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 7 2014 14: 40
        +3
        Quote: patsantre
        Why doesn’t it come to their displays at heights of thousands of meters, where the temperatures are very negative?

        So turn on the stove.
    2. Santa Fe
      April 7 2014 14: 32
      +4
      Quote: Konsmo
      Therefore, Amer aircraft must be installed in hangars, displays then ... comes on frost from 0 and below

      Elmendorf Air Base, Alaska




      Quote: patsantre
      Why doesn’t it come to their displays at heights of thousands of meters, where the temperatures are very negative?

      Very good question! good
      1. Lone gunman
        Lone gunman April 7 2014 18: 31
        +1
        Well, everything ... you can write off, the snow fell ...))) what America has no hangars, everything is over belay ...
      2. uzer 13
        uzer 13 April 7 2014 22: 15
        +2
        Here’s the number! I’m also familiar with such an event as clearing the snow from the plane with a shovel. Only then it was the Yak-28R. It turns out that, despite the change of generations of aircraft, not very big changes have occurred in the aerodrome practice.
  11. supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 7 2014 11: 09
    +1
    I have long been waiting for such stories, a very interesting article good ! I remember Kaptsov wrote an article about the F-15E and Su-34, there was a similar comparison. Now he wrote about the Su-27 and F-15, which is also very objectively written. We are waiting for more articles in the genre of "comparison" hi !
  12. sv68
    sv68 April 7 2014 11: 15
    +5
    Su27 is a very beautiful airplane. And about the fact that our Su27 and American f15 did not meet in real air combat, I’ll say, thank God. Let all air combat be only training so far.
  13. poccinin
    poccinin April 7 2014 11: 41
    +6
    Yes, in 1992, we paid the Americans in exercises. The main flights were over the desert, they obviously sensed that they would be dishonored if they were flying over the airfield. As for the military losses during the wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia. I have vague doubts. The USA never told the whole truth about its losses .
  14. tolyasik0577
    tolyasik0577 April 7 2014 11: 45
    +4
    To fly on such, to hell with it, without aerobatics. but at the same instant-29, the price goes off scale as much as 500 thousand. crying
    1. Santa Fe
      April 7 2014 14: 57
      +3
      Quote: tolyasik0577
      To fly on such, to hell with it, without aerobatics.

      The Ministry of Health hesitated to warn and is already quietly smoking a cigarette, hoping to win a flight on the MiG-29
      1. 0255
        0255 April 7 2014 17: 52
        0
        I move to Russia and start smoking laughing
  15. leon-iv
    leon-iv April 7 2014 12: 06
    +1
    Bullshit and not an article except one. The United States did not have worthy opponents.
    For modern battle is a complex organizational process. And fighter aircraft (in particular Su-27) is only a small part of it. In which are tied the country's air defense, air defense, air force, rtv and a bunch of other forces.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm April 7 2014 14: 52
      +1
      Quote: leon-iv
      Bullshit and not an article except one. The United States did not have worthy opponents.
      For modern battle is a complex organizational process. And fighter aircraft (in particular Su-27) is only a small part of it. In which are tied the country's air defense, air defense, air force, rtv and a bunch of other forces.

      Well, in the USSR, they somehow organized this process in Vietnam. Yes, and in the Middle East in 1983, as they began to establish the process, it all died down.
  16. mackonya
    mackonya April 7 2014 12: 40
    +2
    In terms of electronic equipment, of course, the Su-27 lagged behind at that time, but for that there was a huge potential for modernization, which is what the head of TsAGI, G.P. Svishchev, had in mind. Now I think the electronic equipment of "Flankers" is already at 4 ++ level.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 7 2014 16: 12
      0
      No, to level 4 ++ like cancer to the moon. Only a small portion of the dryers was upgraded to a very modest modification with the SM index. About 4 ++ there is no question.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 17: 07
        +1
        Quote: patsantre
        No, to level 4 ++ like cancer to the moon. Only a small portion of the dryers was upgraded to a very modest modification with the SM index. About 4 ++ there is no question.


        It meant the Su-35S, also because the modernization of the Su-27.
  17. mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 April 7 2014 12: 45
    +3
    Russians will also show the world where crayfish hibernate and why eggs are taught to hen.
  18. 0255
    0255 April 7 2014 12: 52
    +1
    When it was announced that McDonnell Douglas had won, the “sukhovtsy” breathed a sigh of relief: the layout found in the Su-27 looked much more promising. True, there were fears that the Americans, through an open press, slipped their misinformation to their overseas counterparts, while they themselves were making a completely different plane. However, after the official demonstration of the “Needle” prototype in 1972, these fears dissipated: it became clear that the McDonnell Douglas specialists took the simplest and cheapest, but far from the most promising way. As the head of the project department of the OKB Sukhoi, O.S. After the takeoff of YF-15, Samoilovich, TsAGI head G.P. Svishchev told Sukhoi: “Pavel Osipovich! Our backlog has become our advantage. The plane took off, and we know what it is ... "

    Designers of Sukhoi Design Bureau were afraid that the US Air Force would choose a project from North American:

    That would be the F-15.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 7 2014 13: 45
      0
      Quote: 0255
      That would be the F-15.


      The MiG-29 is painfully reminiscent of ... request
      1. 0255
        0255 April 7 2014 14: 23
        +1
        During work on the T-10, the Sukhoi Design Bureau also investigated a similar configuration with such air intakes. But they chose another:
  19. Locksmith
    Locksmith April 7 2014 13: 10
    +1
    Quote: patsantre
    Why doesn’t it come to their displays at heights of thousands of meters, where the temperatures are very negative?

    apparently because the engine is running and the cabin is warm. The conversation about the fact that after PARKING does not want to initialize the process type is cold wink
    1. uzer 13
      uzer 13 April 7 2014 22: 21
      0
      Rather, the capacitors freeze, it is always a weak link.
  20. Crang
    Crang April 7 2014 13: 12
    +5
    The most notable trophies are nine light MiG-29s in a simplified export version.

    The MiG-29 is no worse than the Su-27 or F-15. It's just that in those air fights on the side of the F-15 there was everything - numerical superiority, AWACS planes, satellites, the Nimitz aircraft carrier with its AVAX system. And on the side of those MiGs there was nothing. Plus, we can add to this a very low level of basic training of pilots and ground specialists of the support forces of the entire Soviet bloc and those countries which we helped with weapons in particular. And the most important thing:

    Why do Americans always fight the previous generation aircraft? Is there any terrible secret connected with this?

    The terrible secret is that the US is ONLY aggressive towards third world countries whose armies are stuck somewhere around the 70s and 80s of the 20th century. This explains their victory. When the Americans tested our MiG-23, even on these interceptors in training air battles (under equal conditions) they sometimes beat these F-15s.
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 15: 09
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      When the Americans tested our MiG-23, even on these interceptors in training air battles (under equal conditions) they sometimes beat these F-15s.

      MiG-23 beat in Lebanon at the beginning of the 1980's a couple of pieces of the F-15:
      http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23liv/mig23liv.html
      And I don’t care that the USA and Israel do not recognize these losses of the F-15 and F-16.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 7 2014 15: 24
        +2
        Quote: 0255
        MiG-23 beat in Lebanon at the beginning of the 1980's a couple of pieces of the F-15:

        No debris. Where are the wreckage or captured F-15 pilots ?? Battles fought over Lebanon controlled by Syrian forces

        Here the Serbs put on public display - the wreckage of F-16 and F-117, all that managed to bring down
        1. 0255
          0255 April 7 2014 15: 43
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          No debris. Where are the wreckage or captured F-15 pilots ?? Battles fought over Lebanon controlled by Syrian forces
          Here the Serbs put on public display - the wreckage of F-16 and F-117, all that managed to bring down

          Oleg, LIKE YOUR ARTICLE "INVINCIBLE F-15: HOW THE SYRIANS CUT THE WINGS OF THE EAGLES" ??? !!!
          http://topwar.ru/23890-nepobedimyy-f-15-kak-siriycy-podrezali-orlam-krylya.html
          you cited an interview with someone in it about the fact that the F-15s still got lost in Lebanon and in Yugoslavia. Thanks to this article, found by a Google search engine, I learned about the Military Review website.
          What is the matter - first write one, then the other? belay
          Quotes from your article:
          - When was the first Eagle shot down?
          - According to Russian 13 data in May of 1981, an Israeli F-15 was shot down over Lebanon by the Kvadrat SAM system. The next day, the Soviet settlement intercepted another “Eagle”.
          - And what are the results of air fights?
          - “Eagle” was again plucked in July of the same year - a pair of Israeli F-29.07.1981 15 came under attack by the Syrian MiG-25. One plane was shot down, the second one was damaged (according to some sources, it never reached the air base and crashed in the desert).
          - Ie Israelis suffered significant losses before the outbreak of the Lebanese war?
          - Yes sir. The 1982 war turned into a fierce massacre - in the first week of active combat alone, the Syrian Air Force destroyed 42 Israeli aircraft in air battles, including at least five F-15s and six first F-16s. Another 27 aircraft were shot down by Syrian air defense systems with Soviet calculations. - Has Haavir acknowledged these losses?
          - Of course no. Representatives of the Israeli Air Force stubbornly insist on the version of the destruction of the Syrian aircraft over the Bekaa Valley 102 in exchange for the loss of a single Kfir fighter-bomber. It sounds even funnier than the X-NUMX F-104 aerial victories without a single defeat.
          “But is there any good reason to doubt Hel Havir's data?”
          “The quality of Israeli propaganda is even doubtful among their closest allies - the president of the Washington Center for International Security, George Chorba, who visited Israel immediately after the end of the hostilities, was indignant that he was refused to provide any concrete information about the use of“ new types of American weapons ”in the fighting.
          - In other words, official Israeli data ...
          - Impudent lie. Two years later, American carrier-based aviation attempted to sink into the Bekaa Valley, but on the first day it lost two attack aircraft (A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair). After the failure of the air operation, the Yankees preferred to "handle" the positions of the Syrian air defense missile systems from 406 mm guns of the battleship "New Jersey". And the planes of the Israeli Air Force are completely indestructible, I know that for sure, I was there (laughs)
          1. 0255
            0255 April 7 2014 15: 53
            0
            another quote from there:
            - I heard two years ago, another invincible Strike Eagle crashed in Libya, shots from the downed plane went around the whole world.
            “Are you talking about the one who fell in a suburb of Benghazi on March 22, 2011?” Supporters of Colonel Gaddafi “removed” him from the usual MANPADS. Regarding Yugoslavia, everything is quite vague there. F-15 more than once fought to death with the Serbian MiG-29, there were losses on both sides. MiG-29 is an extremely dangerous enemy, this factor cannot be ignored. There is a well-known video filmed in the vicinity of Aviano (Italy) airbase - returning from a combat mission over the territory of Serbia, one of the "Eagles" somehow behaves strangely in flight, and behind it stretches a whitish plume of smoke. How many of these “wounded animals” returned to NATO airbases? - perhaps a lot, given the fact that after the next "victorious campaign" in the US Air Force, massive "write-offs" of aircraft begin, of course, for various non-combat reasons ...
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 24 2014 12: 33
          0
          did they manage to bring down only these fallen fragments and everything else flew on?
          laughing
          boy, you didn’t forget that Vietnam still doesn’t import aluminum and from what almost all the dishes are made from?
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 16: 26
        +3
        Quote: 0255
        MiG-23s beat Lebanon in the early 1980s a couple of F-15 pieces: http: //airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23liv/mig23liv.html and I don’t care that the USA and Israel have these F-15 losses and F-16 does not recognize.


        drinks Great Kostya!
        I also think so! There is infa about the allegedly shot down F-15s in July 1981, and in December 1983. The first (according to Syrian sources) the MiG-25 was hit, the debris of the Needle fell into the sea. The second went missing at the moment when the MiG- The 23rd Syrian Air Force carried out a sortie (hardly a coincidence). I will not argue, but these losses cannot be denied.
        psNow the main thing is not to get into Pupyrchaty’s eyes))) wassat
        1. 0255
          0255 April 7 2014 16: 32
          +1
          Hi to you too drinks
          By the way, read Kaptsov's article about the downed F-15
          http://topwar.ru/23890-nepobedimyy-f-15-kak-siriycy-podrezali-orlam-krylya.html
          and now he writes that since there are no debris, the F-15s were not shot down, see his comment above.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 7 2014 17: 13
            +1
            Quote: 0255
            By the way, read Kaptsov’s article about the downed F-15http: //topwar.ru/23890-nepobedimyy-f-15-kak-siriycy-podrezali-orlam-krylya.h
            tml, and now he writes that since there are no debris, the F-15s were not shot down, see his comment above.


            Almost 2 years ago I read (long before registering for VO), Kaptsov correctly cited all the facts of the allegedly shot down F-15s. But now, for some reason, Oleg says the opposite ... request
    2. postman
      postman April 7 2014 19: 09
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      MiG-29 is no worse than Su-27

      Compare (see):
      air combat 4xSu-27 on 4xMiG-29 Lipetsk


  21. Jedi
    Jedi April 7 2014 13: 25
    -5
    the author wrote a lot and colorfully, but for some reason modestly kept silent about the statistics of the world's best su-27. here is the f-15 104 victory in air battles. and the dry one has nothing to brag about?
    1. Crang
      Crang April 7 2014 14: 14
      +3
      The Su-27 did not participate in real military conflicts. What victory statistics are you talking about? But this does not detract from the fact that it is a first-class fighter. As for the 104 victories of the F-15, all these victories were received in obviously unequal conditions: One enemy aircraft versus a full-weighted RUDS (reconnaissance-strike system), one of the shock elements of which was the F-15.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 14: 34
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        Su-27 did not participate in real military conflicts. What victory statistics are you talking about?

        Would you first climb into Wikipedia, or what? Su-27 did take part in armed conflicts, though ... against MiG-29. Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, at least 3 downed Mig-29, Su-27 had no losses
        1. Crang
          Crang April 7 2014 15: 02
          -8
          This is bullshit, not conflict.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 15: 25
            +6
            Quote: Krang
            This is bullshit, not conflict.

            Masterpiece. Nothing that the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict is called the last classic war of the 20 century and that it killed according to various estimates from 40 to 100 thousand people?
            1. Santa Fe
              April 7 2014 15: 30
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Nothing that the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict is called the last classic war of the 20 century

              Ground conflict, the role of aviation was small.
              In contrast to the "triumph of aerocracy" - the Middle East, Iraq, Yugoslavia
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              what died according to various estimates from 40 to 100 thousand people?

              Hutu was slaughtered by a million Tutsis (100-day massacre in Rwanda, 1994) this is a big deal!
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 15: 37
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Hutu was slaughtered by 1 million Tutsi (100-day massacre in Rwanda, 1994) this is a big deal!

                I see no reason to laugh.
                On February 6, 1999, the Ethiopian army launched a large-scale offensive in the Badme area. A "human wave" tactic was used, with large masses of infantry attacking the virtually unsuppressed Eritrean defenses through minefields. The first echelon consisted of "regular" infantry, often mobilized from the Oroma tribe (Oroma have been waging a sluggish guerrilla war in southeastern and southern Ethiopia for decades and do not enjoy the confidence of the central government). In the beginning, even such an exotic method as driving cattle to clear the neutral strip was used (this method was later abandoned as ineffective, while "human waves" were used later). The second echelon was armored vehicles and "elite" infantry. On February 8, the Ethiopians launched an offensive on the Central Front - in the Tsoroni region. Fierce fighting continued until 11 February. Despite the huge casualties and significant losses of armored vehicles, the Ethiopians achieved only some progress in the Badme sector, occupying the small village of Geza Gerlase.
                On 14-15 on February, the Ethiopian army launched an unsuccessful offensive on the Eastern Front in the Bure region.
                Having transferred additional forces, on February 23 the Ethiopian army launched a new offensive on the Western Front. This time, the Ethiopians managed to break through the defenses of the Eritreans and by February 26 push them back 20 kilometers, recapturing the city of Badme. The casualties in manpower and armored vehicles, as usual, were great.
                In mid-March, the Ethiopian army concentrated its main efforts on the central front. From 13 to 16 on March, fierce battles took place in the Zalambesse area. All attacks of the Ethiopian troops were repelled with heavy losses. Thus, a group of journalists who examined only the 200-meter section of the front counted more than 20 wrecked tanks and hundreds of corpses of Ethiopian soldiers, while the total losses of the attackers were much higher.
                In the twenties of March, the main battles again moved to the front of Mereb-Setit. Apparently, the parties fought in the oncoming battle, continuously exchanging attacks and counterattacks, but none of them succeeded in achieving any success.
                After a lull of one and a half months, the Ethiopian army of 22 launched an offensive on the Western Front in May, but could not achieve any results in a few days of fierce fighting.
                The final stage of the 1999 campaign of the year was a large Ethiopian offensive in the Zoroni area on 10-16 in June. However, as before, all attacks were repulsed by Eritrean troops, despite the massive use by Ethiopians of infantry and armored vehicles.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 15: 41
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Ground conflict, the role of aviation was small.

                Nevertheless, the available forces managed to decently fight
                http://military.ya1.ru/aviation/1363-jefiopojeritrejjskaja_vojjna_v_vozdukhe.htm
                l
              3. 0255
                0255 April 7 2014 16: 02
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Ground conflict, the role of aviation was small.
                In contrast to the "triumph of aerocracy" - the Middle East, Iraq, Yugoslavia

                they also found me a "triumph" - to bomb a backward country with a weak air force and air defense
    2. pt730
      pt730 April 7 2014 16: 38
      +2
      Why are there so many minuses ?? If the F-15 scored fewer victories, then it is better to indicate reliable Old, and not put cons on the man!
  22. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm April 7 2014 13: 57
    +1
    Author
    It happened that within the framework of one generation the 8-ton MiG-21 and the 18-ton Phantom coexisted in a strange way (despite the fact that the first was counting on close air combat using cannon weapons, and the second relied on its superradar and medium-range SD
    So there was no gun on the MiG-21, at first only two missiles copied from the Americans, then four. When the stationary cannon was put on the Phantom on the Mig-21, only the cannon container was hung. The guns were on the MiG-17,19.
    You once conducted research into the defeat of the Mig-21 with experienced Soviet pilots in the Middle East and made a conclusion. Then you changed your mind about this fight, what was the reason?
    Thank you for the article, as always interestingly stated, I declare once again you have literary abilities.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 7 2014 14: 52
      +2
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      So there was no gun on the Mig-21

      EMNIP guns did not have only the MiG-21P interceptors
      21-13 front-line fighters were initially equipped with 30 mm guns; on the 21PFM and 21bis versions - GSh-23
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Then you changed your mind about this fight, what was the reason?

      ?
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Thank you for the article

      Kaptsov's nightmare - 0 views, 0 comments
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 16: 47
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Kaptsov's nightmare - 0 views, 0 comments


        By the way, Oleg, you had a jubilee for a long time, 301 article on VO good !
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 7 2014 19: 44
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Kaptsov's nightmare - 0 views, 0 comments

        They will call you whatever you like: fat Troll, Americanos, but it’s not important, but your articles will be read. So do not wait.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        EMNIP guns did not have only the MiG-21P interceptors
        21-13 front-line fighters were initially equipped with 30 mm guns; on the 21PFM and 21bis versions - GSh-23

        Mig-21F (1959) - Mig-21 F-13 (1960) with a built-in gun.
        Mig-21P (1960) - Mig-21 FL (1964) no guns.
        Mig-21 PFM (1964) - Until 1968, a hanging container with a gun.
        Mig-21SM with a built-in gun. Somewhere like that.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        ?

        Was your article http://topwar.ru/28353-sovetskie-letchiki-protiv-vvs-izrailya-pobeda-s-suhim-sch
        etom.html
        But in the triumph of the French, I did not read your comment at the end, so as they say, we drove through.
  23. Jedi
    Jedi April 7 2014 14: 30
    0
    Quote: Krang
    Lieutenant
    Krang (2) SU Today, 14:14 PM ↑ New

    Su-27 did not participate in real military conflicts. What victory statistics are you talking about?

    that is, for 30 years he didn’t fight anywhere, but should you and I sacredly believe that this is the best fighter in the world?
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 14: 59
      +1
      Quote: Jedi
      that is, for 30 years he didn’t fight anywhere, but should you and I sacredly believe that this is the best fighter in the world?

      First, the
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk (1) Today, 14:34 ↑
      Su-27 did take part in armed conflicts, though ... against MiG-29. Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, at least 3 shot down MiG-29, Su-27 had no losses

      Secondly, read about the American exercises "Red Flag", where the Su-27 and Su-30 "shot down" the American "F" with "Mirages 2000" for a sweet soul. Almost no loss.
      Maybe you believe that the F-22 and F-35 are the most-most? If so, then they fought here too:
      1) "combat use" "Raptor":


      2) "combat use" of the F-35:


      F-35 is so cool that only Bruce Willis can destroy it, and F-22 can only be killed by an evil Decepticon laughing
      that amers does not prevent to declare them the best. Although the Americans were offered to send the F-22 to the "Red Flag", they refused.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 16: 35
        0
        Quote: 0255
        F-35 is so cool that only Bruce Willis can destroy it, and F-22 can only be killed by an evil Decepticon


        drinks
        Test comment, laughed heartily!
        By the way, in the Generals F-22 strategy game, it successfully hits ground targets. I once got the honor of sending the Raptors link to the GAO base in that game ... laughing
  24. Crang
    Crang April 7 2014 15: 01
    +1
    Quote: Jedi
    that is, for 30 years he didn’t fight anywhere, but should you and I sacredly believe that this is the best fighter in the world?

    I did not call him the best in the world. But simply based on its paper performance characteristics, it is at least no worse than the F-15 in terms of the set of parameters. Or how do you think we should test each new fighter on innocent people from some country that we did not like? We are not chasing the fact that the Su-27 would bomb everyone in a row. We already know its capabilities. As for the Su-27 vs F-15, in training duel battles (in equal conditions), ours consistently defeated the F-15, and this is a fact. And the statistics of the F-15 in 104 downed aircraft .... What planes did he shoot down .. In what situation .. What was the situation .. Our MiG-15s in Vietnam also brought down dozens of all sorts of "Skyreaders", "Invaders", "Mustangs" "and" Thunderbolts "- and nothing. No one jumped for joy. Here I met with "Saber" then it became clear.
  25. Jedi
    Jedi April 7 2014 15: 47
    0
    Quote: Krang
    - and nothing. No one jumped for joy.

    was there a reason to jump for joy? because in the end everything rests on statistics (whether we want it or not). even take the Vietnam War, even the Korean ... and by the way it’s not clear why these clips from the half-child movie about transformers and the comp action flyers? are we in kindergarten?
    1. Crang
      Crang April 7 2014 16: 15
      0
      Quote: Jedi
      was there a reason to jump for joy?

      Was. In Vietnam, the number of air victories was entirely on the side of the MiG-15. Including in air battles against the F-86 "Saber".
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 7 2014 20: 24
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        Was. In Vietnam, the number of air victories was entirely on the side of the MiG-15. Including in air battles against the F-86 "Saber".

        You are confusing with North Korea.
    2. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 16: 22
      0
      I wanted to show that both the F-22 and the F-35 fight only in the movies and computer flying, which does not stop the Americans from calling them the best in the world. So why can't we call the best Su-27?
      It is not necessary to judge aircraft only by the statistics of their use.
      Sorry that Russia does not attack the weakest. If Russian policy were as aggressive as that of the United States, the statistics on the use of the Su-27 would be the same, if not more.
      And the victories of the F-15 were obtained with the numerical superiority of the Americans. In Iraq in 1991, the MNF had 1500 or so aircraft, the Serbs could counter 35 MiG-21bis, 14 MiG-29 of the first modifications and 2 MiG-29UB without a radar.
      The only conflict of the F-15 with more or less equal opponents is the Lebanon war of 1982, where the F-15 suffered losses denied by Israel.
  26. Crang
    Crang April 7 2014 16: 14
    0
    To be honest, the Su-27 was once and may have been one of the best fighters in the world. Most likely it is better than the F-15. But at the moment, both of these aircraft are inferior:
    - C-37
    - T-50
    - F-22
    - F-35
    At the same level with the Su-27 is the MiG-29. At long distances, it is without a doubt given to the MiG-31. A very sickly opponent would be the Yak-41 if he was put into series. The MiG-23 of the latest models will be able to do something at long distances, but of course it will merge the Su-27 at close range. Something like this.
  27. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 April 7 2014 16: 20
    0
    Quote: Фкенщь13
    As a kid, he first saw him alive and still has not seen a more beautiful airplane. Against the background of MiGarey 23x and 27x it was a swan.

    I agree especially his last modification of the SU-35. A true celestial warrior. In each military district there are 3-4 regiments and in Crimea there are 2 regiments. drinks
  28. Jedi
    Jedi April 7 2014 16: 31
    -2
    Quote: Krang
    It was. In Vietnam, the number of air victories was entirely on the side of the MiG-15

    but as far as I read and heard, it’s not quite entirely and not quite on the side of instant-15. for some reason, our statistics are again modestly silent, but for many Amer pilots (the same f-86 saber), by the end of the war, there were several shots down. and by the way, not one Amerian pilot fought the whole war. they were all there for a month or two no more (depending on how many sorties) ..
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 16: 36
      +3
      Quote: Jedi

      but as far as I read and heard, it’s not quite entirely and not quite on the side of instant-15. for some reason, our statistics are again modestly silent, but for many Amer pilots (the same f-86 saber), by the end of the war, there were several shots down. and by the way, not one Amerian pilot fought the whole war. they were all there for a month or two no more (depending on how many sorties) ..

      yeah, 70 F-86s and 700-800 MiG-15s were shot down ...
      tie with western statistics! She's dangerous to the brain!
      Naturally, the MiG-15 was not without loss, it’s only the F-15, F-22 and F-35 are absolutely unbreakable laughing
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 17: 23
        +2
        Quote: 0255
        these are only F-15, F-22 and F-35 absolutely unbreakable


        good
        According to the professor, the F-16 and F-4 were never shot down either. Although the Israeli comrades themselves stubbornly insist: "We managed to shoot down 3 (!) MiG-25s." Only the fragments of these MiGs, their pilots, as well as data The Israelis don't have a photo machine gun, which means ... negative negative negative
        1. 0255
          0255 April 7 2014 17: 46
          0
          Quote: supertiger21

          If you believe the professor

          Yeah, I believe the professor for all 200% laughing
        2. Crang
          Crang April 7 2014 18: 39
          +1
          One F-4 "Fantom-II" aircraft was shot down by our attack helicopter Mi-24V by the joint action of an NAR and a 12,7mm machine gun. An unprecedented event in the history of aviation. Was not repeated either before or after. Thus, the "indestructibility" of the Phantom raises serious doubts.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 7 2014 19: 01
            0
            Quote: Krang
            One F-4 "Fantom-II" aircraft was shot down by our attack helicopter Mi-24V by the joint action of an NAR and a 12,7mm machine gun. An unprecedented event in the history of aviation. Was not repeated either before or after. Thus, the "indestructibility" of the Phantom raises serious doubts.


            In addition, do not forget Vietnam, where the Phantoms were beaten with MiG-17/19/21 packs. In addition, Iranian Phantoms were repeatedly lost by Iraqi pilots flying on the Mirage-F1 and MiG-23. Well and F-4 is a successful aircraft due to its universality.
        3. Crang
          Crang April 7 2014 18: 46
          0
          Only one loss of the MiG-25 in the Middle East is known for certain. His pilot is to blame - on a heavy interceptor he got involved in a maneuverable dog dump with the Israeli Mirage or Kfir. The result is logical. More such blunders MiG-25 pilots were not allowed.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 7 2014 19: 02
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Only one loss of the MiG-25 in the Middle East is known for certain. His pilot is to blame - on a heavy interceptor he got involved in a maneuverable dog dump with the Israeli Mirage or Kfir. The result is logical. More such blunders MiG-25 pilots were not allowed.


            But the Syrians did not recognize this loss, and the wreckage of the plane, the captured pilot, the data of the machine gun - the Israelis did not provide.
    2. Crang
      Crang April 7 2014 18: 42
      +1
      Never read American pilots and especially American statistics. The Yankees are very big visionaries when it comes to casualties. They will say without embarrassment that they won the 2nd World War, making a decisive contribution to the victory over Hitler. Of course, many people like to lie - both Germans and English sinned. But it was difficult even for them to compare with the Americans. Concisely and accurately inform about their own and others' losses (more or less) - the Japanese, ours.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 7 2014 19: 06
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        Never read American pilots and especially American statistics. The Yankees are very big visionaries when it comes to casualties. They will say without embarrassment that they won the 2nd World War, making a decisive contribution to the victory over Hitler. Of course, many people like to lie - both Germans and English sinned. But it was difficult even for them to compare with the Americans. Concisely and accurately inform about their own and others' losses (more or less) - the Japanese, ours.


        Totally agree good !
  29. mrDimkaP
    mrDimkaP April 7 2014 17: 14
    0
    Well, "Fe-15 VS Su-27" is not entirely correct.
    Su later plane. If the su-27 is the 4th generation, then the F-15 is the fourth generation on a string. It’s more correct to compare the Su-27 and some sort of F-15C / E / D.
  30. Jedi
    Jedi April 7 2014 18: 11
    -1
    Quote: 0255
    tie with western statistics! She's dangerous to the brain!

    I agree with you, I’ll tie right now. give ours !!! do not be silent!!! on each plane (even ours) there is a photo-film machine gun .. and statistics are tracked and it is. I'm waiting ...
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 18: 21
      +1
      Quote: Jedi
      Quote: 0255
      tie with western statistics! She's dangerous to the brain!

      I agree with you, I’ll tie right now. give ours !!! do not be silent!!! on each plane (even ours) there is a photo-film machine gun .. and statistics are tracked and it is. I'm waiting ...

      Google, Yandex, rambler to help you!
    2. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 7 2014 19: 07
      +1
      Quote: Jedi
      I agree with you, I’ll tie right now. give ours !!! do not be silent!!! on each plane (even ours) there is a photo-film machine gun .. and statistics are tracked and it is. I'm waiting ...


      Dear, what do you want ???
  31. sivuch
    sivuch April 7 2014 18: 24
    +5
    Guys, would you have less confidence in such statistics. For example, where did 10 MiG-29s shot down in Iraq come from? Even Tom Cooper gives half that number
    US Air-to-Air Victories during the Operation Desert Storm
    http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=47
    In the same way, are you sure that Iglov has exactly 104 victories on his account? By the way, do you include 2 of your downed rotorcraft (blackhawks, if I don’t confuse)?
    Although all this does not negate the fact that Eagle is an outstanding machine. And the fact that they chose a less advanced concept from McDonell is also a plus. The machine appeared at the time and had (or almost had) childhood diseases
  32. Jedi
    Jedi April 7 2014 18: 33
    +1
    Quote: 0255
    Google, Yandex, rambler to help you!

    thank you
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 19: 09
      +1
      It's my pleasure)))
  33. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 7 2014 18: 53
    +5
    Actually, F15 appeared in response to the creation in the USSR of MIG25; therefore, comparing F15 and SU27 is not entirely correct. Nevertheless, the difference in age is the difference in aviation. Secondly, the experience of the Second World War showed that not a single type of weapon, however advanced it was at that time, determined the success or failure of battles. The same is with gaining dominance in the air.
    The United States, for example, relies on the massive and integrated use of all forces and means that can, in principle, ensure such domination, starting with cruise and other missiles, which are designed to destroy enemy aircraft at airfields and disable the airfields of these airfields and ending with the control of these forces and by means of ground and air command posts of various levels. At the same time, they try to minimize the risk and do not like to ask for trouble. Again, the main thing for the United States is not so much the aircraft itself, as its onboard radio electronics and weapons that allow it to detect and destroy the enemy before it "enters the clinch." If they see that the risk of getting hit in the neck is too high, then they simply leave the meeting with a too dangerous opponent (if they have time, of course).
    And also about F15. This aircraft was considered by the United States not only as a means of combating enemy aircraft and cruise missiles, but also as a carrier of anti-satellite weapons. At least most of the F15 trials in this role were successful. In the USSR, similar tasks were assigned to MIG31.
  34. postman
    postman April 7 2014 19: 20
    0
    Quote: Author
    "Eagle" was shot down only once - in 1995, at the exercises of the Japanese Air Force, the F-15 was mistakenly shot by the same F-15.

    If another fighter, then probably yes ..
    Although there were still:
    A-4 Skyhawk 1.05.1983/15/4 Negev collision in the air - in a training aerial combat, the F-15D collided with the A-60 Skyhawk, the right wing of the XNUMXth cut off XNUMX cm from the fuselage. The damaged aircraft was able to make an emergency landing; It seems that it was not repaired
    On March 19, 1990, an F-15 from the 3rd wing stationed at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska accidentally launched an AIM-9M Sidewinder missile in another F-15. A damaged aircraft could crash land; was subsequently repaired and returned to service
    and so:
    -On the first day of Operation Desert Storm, the F-15E was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery fire
    -On the third day of the operation, the Desert Storm F-15E was shot down by the Russian SA-2E SAM. Both crew members died
    / Air Force Historical Society Report, "Aircraft Combat Losses 1990-2002
    1. 0255
      0255 April 7 2014 19: 40
      0
      Oleg Kaptsov 2 years ago wrote an article that F-15s were shot down in Lebanon and Yugoslavia. The article is called: "Invincible F-15 as the Syrians clipped the wings of eagles." And now he writes that the f-15 was never shot down request
      1. postman
        postman April 7 2014 21: 24
        0
        Quote: 0255
        And now he writes that the f-15 never shot down

        I suggest the options:
        1. The views change, with age, for example, -Kaptsov ADULTS, or with the use of potent wed-in .., well, or smoked something
        (when he wrote: Aircraft carriers wow and ah, now back)
        2.amnesia, paramnesia
        wink
        ============
        In Lebanon, the matter is dark .... (although hardly), and in Yugoslavia the F-16 was shot down
        1. Login
          Login April 7 2014 22: 44
          +3
          There was introduce air fights. In Air, he is a clear winner, but yes, they knocked him off the ground.
          Although there was a case when the MiG-23 grumbled into the Israeli F-15 R-60, and the Eagle sat down safely. But now there is a fairy tale that the MiG then hit it.
          The plane was restored and put into operation.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch April 8 2014 08: 51
            0
            In fact, the Mig-21 Bis. rocket was a R-60 with a warhead of 3 kg. If I’m not mistaken, it took 3 months to repair
            1. Login
              Login April 8 2014 13: 51
              -1
              You are mistaken, IMHO. I remember exactly what was the 23rd.
              Ask the professor, maybe he knows what on this issue.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  35. askold
    askold April 7 2014 19: 25
    0
    Handsome men, in the sky "Falcons of Russia" !!!
  36. ruslan207
    ruslan207 April 7 2014 20: 10
    +2
    It’s not a gentleman’s way to compare the war in the Balkans near Serbia 10 MiG-29 against a raid of 200 NATO fighters, where you can withstand f-15 MiG 29, too, to cope with the agility of MiG-29 is cooler
  37. kplayer
    kplayer April 7 2014 22: 02
    0
    Quote: Jedi
    Quote: Krang
    It was. In Vietnam, the number of air victories was entirely on the side of the MiG-15

    but as far as I read and heard, it’s not quite entirely and not quite on the side of instant-15. for some reason, our statistics are again modestly silent, but for many Amer pilots (the same f-86 saber), by the end of the war, there were several shots down. and by the way, not one Amerian pilot fought the whole war. they were all there for a month or two no more (depending on how many sorties) ..

    Dear experts! mentioning the MiG-15 and F-86 can speak in the context of the Korean War, not the Vietnam War.
  38. tomket
    tomket April 7 2014 22: 51
    0
    preschool level article.
  39. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 8 2014 14: 01
    0
    What a pity that the video of that air battle between the Su-27 and F-15 is not.
  40. landromat
    landromat April 8 2014 14: 51
    0
    I found such data on the resources of the 4th generation gliders:
    su-35 6000h
    su-27 5000h
    Mig-29 2500h

    f-15 8000h
    f-16 8000h

    It turns out that the picture is not pleasant for us, the cost of a flight hour is determined by the depreciation price of 75% of the rest of the fuel and maintenance. It turns out that training a pilot of Russian fighters is 2-3 times more expensive for the country because of the poor resource of our fighters in comparison with Western counterparts. It is not for nothing that a fighter pilot’s raid in the United States is 250-300 hours a year, and we have 80-120 hours a year.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2014 23: 16
      +1
      Quote: landromat
      f-15 8000h

      Bomber F-15E
  41. Alex 1977
    Alex 1977 April 8 2014 18: 52
    0
    Quote: patsantre
    RVV-DB

    Why induce AWACS?
    Why AWACS?
    Modern technologies have conquered such milestones as inertial guidance with active radar, or ID at the final stage. And for a long time ...
    Radio correction is a useful thing, but not necessary, as far as I am in the know. It only increases the likelihood of defeat.
    Regarding the status -
    2011 - preparation for serial production of RVV-BD rockets is underway.
  42. Takashi
    Takashi April 9 2014 06: 32
    0
    not tired of comparing?

    Fighting vehicles - compared in BATTLE!

    1) In addition, the Su-27 was created and flew later (in the year 77), moreover, it was after the first flights and the start of serial production !!!, as well as comparisons with the F-16 - Totally redone.
    and F-15 (at 72).

    2) F-15, F-16 fly, are exported, take part in combat missions. Let it be "bad", but they do it. And even Belarus has recently abandoned the Su-27. Roads to maintain!
    1. Airmax
      Airmax 2 July 2014 13: 40
      0
      Why fly is "bad". What nonsense
  43. qwert
    qwert April 9 2014 07: 33
    0
    In the comments a lot has been said that the electronics of the Su-27 is inferior to the F-15. Yes, with the words as usual. So much we have already driven into the head of the media that in terms of electronics we have always been behind. but
    Target detection range with EPR 5sq.m. at Su-27 (radar H-001) -240km, at F-15 (radar AN / APG-63) -180km, the number of simultaneously tracked targets on Su-27 -10pcs, at A-15 -6pcs, simultaneously used targets Su-27-pcs, F-15 -1 pcs. In addition, the APG-63 radar station has a significant flaw - the impossibility of tracking individual targets in the group, which was used by the Syrian MiG-23 against the Israeli F-15A in the 1982 war. Where is our lag in REO ????? At the latest 39 !!!!!! F-15 aircraft, AN / APG-70 were installed, which were CLOSE in their performance characteristics to the N-001 radar, but did not surpass it. Well, evaluate the 39 planes themselves do not do weather, and they were released much later.
    It should also be noted that the Su-27 has an optical-locating station (OLS), which allows you to capture and track targets at short distances that the radar does not work and secretly capture and spoof targets at medium distances. F-15 has no such system. Strongly enhances the combat capabilities of the Su-27 and helmet-mounted target designation system. The Su-27 is an obligatory element and is made in the form of three IR LEDs on the helmet and two sensors in the cockpit. There is a similar system on the F-15, but it is based on gyroscopes, it requires 15-20 minute stabilization before starting and weighs about 400 grams (while, of course, it is mounted on a helmet). And if we conduct a maneuverable battle on 9 overload units? This explains why F-15 pilots usually do not take it with them.
    With the electronic warfare complex, the same situation. So what kind of electronics on a combat aircraft can I still talk ???? Maybe about EDSU? So as far as I know, it is not on F-15С. And this excuse me is also a fairly high-tech electronics.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 9 2014 13: 19
      0
      Regarding the radar, where are the numbers taken from? Didn't it seem strange to you that the detection ranges are at the level of the most powerful modern fighter radars?
      According to my data, the detection range for both aircraft was at 100 km for a 5m2 target, and these data look much more realistic.
      Quote: qwert
      With the electronic warfare complex, the same situation.


      What is "the same"? Explain something. The Su-27 radar interferes with its own radar, which prevents the use of radar and electronic warfare at the same time. The F-15 is capable of doing this. Well, what kind of situation are we talking about?
      1. qwert
        qwert April 9 2014 13: 38
        0
        No, it seemed strange. Early standard target was estimated in 5sq.m., Now this indicator is reduced to 1sq.m. Although in many advertising brochures two things continue to be indicated: the target detection range from EPR 5sq.m - 320km, from EPR 1sq.m. -210km
        "The Su-27 radar interferes with its own radar, which does not allow the use of radar and electronic warfare at the same time. 210 km." Is Hortense interfering with her radar? To be honest, this is the first time I've heard. The pilots did not complain.
  44. qwert
    qwert April 9 2014 07: 45
    0
    the resource of the TB-3 glider was 25000 hours !!! It turns out he is cooler.
    This topic has already been raised. It has already been repeatedly proved on graphs and tables that the calculation of the resource is carried out according to different methods in Russia (USSR) and the USA. The diagrams of the calculated cyclic loads in our calculations are higher, therefore, the resources for our calculations are less. Those. if you recalculate F-15 according to our methods with a regular load of 9g, the resources will most likely be equal. Well, plus a higher maneuverability (it will give an advantage in battle) and gives a greater load on the glider. Therefore, the Su-27 Glider will get tired in combat faster. But is it worth taking into account if the chances of not being knocked down are at least at 2 / 3 (FRG experts estimate) ???????
    1. landromat
      landromat April 9 2014 16: 04
      +1
      It is strange that dry and saturn themselves write nasty things then. They would adopt the methodology of Prat & Witney and McDonald Douglas; at exhibitions, the numbers would have sharply competed against a direct competitor)
      Engine resource:

      al-31f 1000 h (su-27)
      al-41 4000 h (promising for Pak fa)

      F100-PW-229 6000 h (F-15e)

      If you take into account the price for al-31f at 4 yama bucks (Chinese contract) and they need 2 for su-27.
      It turns out that it is necessary to change several pairs of engines with a glider resource of 5000 hours (there is infa that is 3000 hours), and this is 30-40 lyam cu more than the price of a new fighter. Yes, plus the cost of repair dvigunov. This is without taking into account other units and the glider runs a tidy sum. The f-15e has an engine resource comparable to a glider resource, from which there is a tremendous savings on the scale of their Air Force, which are already not poor countries. And this first of all determines the cost of an hour of training flight. So it turns out that they have a flying hour of 10000 ye and we have 20000 ye. This is the main reason for our low level of pilot training and not some kind of fuel hunger.

      About TB-3, bombers are much more durable than fighters today. Tu-95 still flies unlike its light peers.
  45. qwert
    qwert April 10 2014 07: 23
    +1
    Well, here we are and have opened an interesting topic for me. I’m from Ufa, and I donated a lot of time and effort to UMPO, and AL-31 became for me practically a “breadwinner.
    No, I will argue. Indeed, the resource of American engines for fighters is greater. And not only recently, but since the 50's.
    But, nevertheless, it is not so critical as you try to show. So. The Al-31F resource in 1000 hours was the engines of the first series. The very first serial ones had it generally equal to -200 hours.
    But this did not shock anyone, since the low resource for the machines of the first series of trial operation is typical for all countries, including the United States.
    AL-31F ser. 2 (ed. 99B, 1985 g.) Already had a resource in 1500 hours. By the way, you correctly entered the engine data for the latest F-15Е modification, this is a strike aircraft created on the basis of the F-15C /
    The car has undergone quite a lot of changes, and as the Americans themselves say, this is a completely new plane. The latest F100-PW-229 modification, specially created for him, was installed on it,
    at which for the first time in American engine building a record resource was achieved in 6000 hours. Engines installed on the F-15C (an analogue of the Su-27) have a resource-4000 hours.
    AL-31F-M1 (published by 99М1) produced from 2002 have the same resource. Yes, the Americans have reached this resource before. But, it’s worth remembering what was happening in our country in the 90's.
    It was not up to resources. If we had normal financing, this resource would have been achieved a year in 1994.
    So what do we have for today. The AL-31F resource in 4000 hours and the F100-PW-229 resource in 6000 hours.
    According to your data, the cost of one Al-31 is 4mln. USD, the cost of one F100-PW-229 order of 6mln USD (Moroccan contract: 24 engine for 145mln USD) /
    Honestly, I did not expect it myself, but it turns out that the life cycle costs are equal. Almost identical. Consequently, the AL-31 is no more ruinous than the F100-PW-229. However, it has greater gas-dynamic stability, which is extremely important for a fighter.
  46. Santa Fe
    April 25 2014 22: 05
    0
    Percussion Eagle

    Contrary to numerous advertising photographs and colorful pictures from twenty years ago, depicting the Eagle, hung with "clusters" of bombs and missiles of various classes and types, in reality the F-15A and F-15C aircraft were never equipped with strike weapons, and the pilots of these fighters, with whom the author had a chance to talk, they did not even practice combat use against ground targets. The Eagle was originally a "clean" air-to-air fighter and interceptor, whose entire arsenal was limited to Sidewinder and Sparrow air-to-air missiles.
    (the author, of course, not I, but Vladimir Ilyin)

    From myself I can add the following:
    The F-15E fuselage was taken from the F-15D training train, where instead of the instructor’s cabin, an operator’s workstation was equipped. The similarity with the Needles is deceptive, the F-15E filling is completely different - the aircraft was redesigned to solve shock problems (while maintaining fighter potential)



    1. APG-70 station with synthesized aperture (it creates the illusion that the radar antenna has a diameter of ten meters, like a radio telescope yes . The secret of the focus: to emit coherent (matched) waves with the same phase difference into space. For that fraction of a second, while the radar was looking at a given point in space, the plane flew 10 m - here you have the antenna with the mirror size 10 m! The main requirements are processor speed, ideal orientation in space and control of your position in the selected coordinate system with the utmost accuracy - by the way, for this reason, an ANN with laser gyroscopes is installed on the F-15E). Powerful tool for mapping and viewing small surface details!

    In 1987, AN / APG-70 also received the 39 F-15C, but was subsequently abandoned in favor of the APG-63 (V) 1: the APG-70 synthesized aperture radar is not the best choice in aerial combat.

    2. Perhaps the main pride of the F-15E was the LANTIRN infrared sighting and navigation system, "amplifying the light of the stars 20 thousand times" ( request) Such overhead containers are integrated in the avionics strike. F-15C cannot use them



    It is an analogue of LANTIRN, a suspension container SNIPER. A masterpiece of science and technology

    3. Reinforced suspension units, allowing to hook bombs weighing 2 or more tons. Combat load increased by 40%.
  47. Beiderlei
    Beiderlei 7 January 2015 17: 10
    0
    Vrakiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii !!!!!!!!!!