Military Review

F-35 vulnerable to Russian radar

148
The foreign media reported that the American fighter-bomber of the fifth generation F-35, created by the program Joint Strike Fighter, has many possible flaws, the newspaper said "Sight".


F-35 vulnerable to Russian radar


In particular, the publication The Daily Beast notes that the fighter, which should be virtually invisible during flights, is powerless in front of the Russian and Chinese radar systems.

According to Bill Svitman, the author of the article, the F-35 is “not particularly good at jamming enemy radar,” which means that the US Department of Defense spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a fighter plane that needs the help of a special aircraft equipped with a radar silencer.

It is noted that the new fighter is invisible in the X-band and sector, which covers the radar system APG-81, but is vulnerable to radars operating in the VHF range.

It is worth noting that Lockheed Martin has developed three versions of the F-35 fighter: for the Navy, Marine Corps and the United States Air Force. An aircraft with a base cost of 75 million dollars should be put into service in the 2016 year.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin noted that the new F-35 is inferior to the fifth-generation fighter of the Russian-made PAK FA, reports Vzglyad.
Photos used:
http://eurasian-defence.ru/
148 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich April 30 2014 10: 33
    +24
    check and punish! wassat
    1. Baikal
      Baikal April 30 2014 10: 46
      +19
      that the American fifth-generation fighter-bomber F-35, created under the Joint Strike Fighter program, has many possible flaws

      Oh my God! Who would know! .. That's the news! This cannot be!
      1. ty60
        ty60 April 30 2014 11: 36
        +9
        In 117, Yugoslavia was shot down by discovering it with OLD Soviet equipment, which the mattresses did not plan to defend in principle.
        1. Not served
          Not served April 30 2014 12: 42
          +10
          I watched the transmission-interview of the calculation commander who shot him down. It was not so simple there. They conducted it without any radar almost visually and talked on a landline phone. The fact is that he stupidly flew at the same time, along the same route. That was punished.
        2. Horly
          Horly April 30 2014 13: 47
          +6
          To be more precise, the S-125 short-range air defense system. On it was installed (in the USSR - exactly, about Yugoslavia - I don't know, but I think there was also) the "Karat" optical guidance system, which proved to be effective during the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973. It is quite difficult to suppress an optical system, and if you still use it competently and apply additional measures (for example, remote observation posts), then you can effectively use it today.
      2. 0255
        0255 April 30 2014 15: 52
        +6
        Quote: Baikal

        Dear administration, please add this emoticon to the site hi
    2. Little Muck
      Little Muck April 30 2014 10: 47
      +4
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      check and punish!

      Yeah. As they say, it will not go unnoticed.
      And we will need, we push the pistons, according to the tonsils. laughing hi
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. domokl
      domokl April 30 2014 10: 47
      +14
      lol And what to check ... We have already checked for a long time ... At the tests it was perfectly visible ... Let it fly ... under our control.
      1. RND
        RND April 30 2014 13: 04
        -21%
        Quote: domokl
        lol And what to check ... We have already checked for a long time ... At the tests it was perfectly visible ... Let it fly ... under our control.

        The naked king ... And it wasn’t that the king turned out to be, but the cat was sloppy ...
    4. Arberes
      Arberes April 30 2014 10: 47
      +19
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      check and punish

      Or maybe we will not disappoint yet? Let them think that they are invisible ??? hi drinks
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich April 30 2014 10: 51
        +13
        Quote: Arberes
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        check and punish

        Or maybe we will not disappoint yet? Let them think that they are invisible ??? hi drinks
        laughing they are like children: they blindfolded and think they are not visible ... laughing
        1. Simon
          Simon April 30 2014 10: 58
          +5
          We’ll play locks with him - who, whom, in front, will see lol
        2. Tersky
          Tersky April 30 2014 11: 27
          +10
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          they are like children: they blindfolded and think they are not visible ...

          Rather like the staus:
      2. Kipish
        Kipish April 30 2014 10: 53
        +5
        "And the king is naked", "just don't tell him that"
        - "Oh my lord, you have a beautiful outfit"

        Inspired))
      3. Simon
        Simon April 30 2014 10: 56
        +3
        Yeah! And we won’t show that we see them. laughing
      4. APASUS
        APASUS April 30 2014 10: 57
        +5
        Quote: Arberes
        Or maybe we will not disappoint yet? Let them think that they are invisible ???

        There was an article about half a year ago on the problems of F-22. So it said that at the first stage, the Americans were very surprised when they realized that the absorbing radio waves did not work after the rain.
        I laughed a lot then.
        But now they have everything absorbed correctly request
      5. Vaska Petkin
        Vaska Petkin April 30 2014 19: 59
        +1
        anyway, they create it so that the Indians fight
      6. Vaska Petkin
        Vaska Petkin April 30 2014 19: 59
        0
        anyway, they create it so that the Indians fight
    5. Denis
      Denis April 30 2014 10: 53
      +15
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      check and punish!

      Just read and decided to share ..
      As a result of the "failure", the Russian nuclear missile RS-24 YARS flew towards the USA

      On April 26.04.2014, 24, the next launch of the RS-XNUMX YARS intercontinental missile from the Kapustin Yar test site was carried out as part of the Strategic Missile Forces military exercises.

      The missile was supposed to cover the distance in 9 000 km in less than 2 hours. The missile did its job perfectly, but the missile’s flight course officially failed, the missile moved toward the continent of North America, the target is the United States.

      As stated at the Pentagon: Russia was trying to provoke the states into military action that would lead to irreparable.

      US air defense could not take the RS-24 on target even when the missile was less than 2000 km from the country. When the rocket approached a distance of about 500 km, it changed course and flew towards Argentina.

      The Russian Defense Ministry commented on this situation as "A slight misalignment of the missile's flight path, moreover, it was absolutely safe and did not contain an explosive base."

      The Pentagon called Russia's actions provocative and recalled that Russian missiles never gave such failures, not taking into account the Bulava missile, and that they do not believe in the accident of all this.

      Recall that this is not the first time that the United States is unable to ensure its security, in particular the recent case in the Black Sea, when the Russian Su-24 bomber with the support of the radio-electronic warfare system opposed the American missile destroyer Donald Cook.

      The Su-24 using the EW system created irresistible obstacles to the radars and the guidance system of the destroyer, after which for more than an hour it simulated a combat attack, approaching the destroyer at 100 meters.

      The world arms race will always remain with us, said Chuck Heigl, but today we see something else. The United States began to show its weakness and helplessness.
      1. Cherdak
        Cherdak April 30 2014 11: 01
        +10
        Quote: Denis
        The United States began to show its weakness and helplessness.

        Nothing of the kind - the production of army diapers has begun, which completely solve this problem!
        They are practically invisible during flights, before them Russian and Chinese radar systems are powerless!
        1. Kasym
          Kasym April 30 2014 18: 37
          +1
          In fact, diapers (diapers) were invented in the USSR, especially for pilots YES. hi
      2. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb April 30 2014 11: 04
        +10
        The missile was supposed to cover a distance of 9 km in less than 000 hours.

        No more than 30 minutes. you have a rich fantasy wink
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak April 30 2014 11: 19
          +2
          Well, there’s still a lunch break apparently taken into account. wink
      3. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 30 2014 11: 10
        +11
        Something smacks of deso. How did the warhead approach 500 km to the USA, and then fly towards Argentina? And where did it fly later?
        You look at the map, this is possible only in one case - they launched through the Atlantic, which I strongly doubt.
        Yes and .. to change course - this means that we are already armed with warheads with awesome opportunities to change course !!! Which only dream of the masters of Tan.
        1. inkass_98
          inkass_98 April 30 2014 11: 54
          +5
          Quote: Wedmak
          Something smacks of deso.

          This heresy has been plowing the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater for at least the second day; I don’t even want to argue about this. There was someone's joke, but people bought cheaply. am
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 30 2014 12: 46
            0
            So and I about the same.
      4. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich April 30 2014 11: 13
        +8
        Quote: Denis

        Just read and decided to share.
        yesI will continue the good news:
        Russian submarines should receive coverage that significantly improves their disguise from enemy sonars. The information contained in open documents on the development of the Navy, confirmed in St. Petersburg Central Research Institute. Academician A.N. Krylova. It is here that research is being conducted on the hydroacoustics of submarines and the development of know-how that will make it possible to turn Russian submarines into invisibility.

        Active sensors and piezopolymer plates to neutralize sonar signals will be built into the new material. Keeping the noise indicators achieved in the fourth generation ships (Ash, Borey) will reduce the visibility of Russian submarines by three times. Today, the so-called passive anti-sonar cover of the hull is used to hide submarines from detection systems. This is a rubber based material. When using it, the boat remains unprotected from detection by sonars operating at frequencies below 1 kHz.

        According to the information given in the document of the military department, Russian boats are quite vulnerable to detection with the help of such locators. - Modern means of detecting the enemy "slipped" below 1 kHz. The detection range is growing, and problems arise, ”Izvestia was explained in the Central Research Institute named after Academician A.N. Krylova. The developed coating will not only absorb the radar signal (as current, passive materials do), but will neutralize the incoming radiation.

        An active coating containing electronics will determine the frequency at which the adversary’s radar operates and will launch its own signal of the same frequency, but in the opposite phase. “The incident signal is received and re-emitted in the reverse phase - the signals are compensated,” Izvestia’s interlocutor said. To do this, in the new coverage you need to place sensors and fiber optic routes of the system management servers, as well as active emitters. The material will be formed into piezo-composite plates, so it is impossible to use the rubber coating of the hulls of modern submarines, according to the documents of the military department. good
      5. bairat
        bairat April 30 2014 13: 27
        +2
        Quote: Denis
        As a result of the "failure", the Russian nuclear missile RS-24 YARS flew towards the USA

        "Russian" with two letters "and" is stupidly copied by all resources, from which I conclude that the author of the "news" is some kind of schoolboy lol
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. andr327
        andr327 April 30 2014 22: 49
        0
        Complete nonsense! In 2 hours, ballistics will fly around the Earth about three times, MO did not report anything about launches on April 26.04, From KapYar launches only in the direction of Shary-Shagan (only Poplar leaves from there), YRS is still multi-head (where are the other heads?), The Americans told about not being able to take aim, well, and a turn to Argentina (why exactly at it), and what is there for such additional engines?
        I do not like this pseudo-power. Shapkozakatelstvo pancake.
    6. xenod55
      xenod55 April 30 2014 11: 20
      +7
      An "invisible" plane (F-35) and a Russian missile meet. "The Invisible Man" asks the rocket: "You see me."
      The rocket answers: "No !!!, what are you asking, you are invisible !!!"
      "Invisible": "Well then, be healthy, and I flew further, frighten the Russians," turned around and flew.
      Rocket: "So you're going to scare the Russians" and BAM in his ass.
      "Invisible", entering the last dive: "You said I was INVISIBLE !!!"
      Rocket: "Well, that was just a compliment."
    7. platitsyn70
      platitsyn70 April 30 2014 11: 57
      0
      check and punish!
      an old story back in the late 80s, our scouts turned a scam with a stealth for which the Americans spent a huge amount.
      Moscow. 1962 year. An unusual book is being published at Sovetskoe Radio Publishing House. There, behind the infinity of signs and numbers, a world sensation is hidden! The author of the book, a young scientist Petr Ufimtsev, developed a theory by which you can create a unique shape of an airplane - a form that will make it invisible!
      Full movie: http://youtu.be/4Kr3Xk49NnE
      1. platitsyn70
        platitsyn70 April 30 2014 12: 00
        +4
        Full movie: http://youtu.be/4Kr3Xk49NnE
        1. APASUS
          APASUS April 30 2014 14: 23
          0
          Russian stealth

          I admit that I did not know, a very informative video.
          As science has now taken a step - it is impossible to imagine. The country has always been valuable by its people, its lefties and Kulibins!
        2. Kasym
          Kasym April 30 2014 18: 28
          +4
          I read that the Soviet development of stealth (one of the options - with a fuselage configuration) was slipped by our counter-responders. Only without the summary of our scientists - "PERSPECTIVE". So this freak iron F-117 appeared. Themselves began to introduce a special paintwork, which scatters radio emission from the radar in different directions.
          F-35. The error was original, in my opinion. It is impossible to create a universal aircraft that could solve tasks in full as a specialized one. He is with a vertical. take-off, and a bomber, and a fighter having a powerful avionics. And all this with one ... engine, and to be cheap in the limit of 50 mil. green. To the owners of the aircraft-building companies on the drum - give grandmas and terms of reference, and then what happens. So we got it. Low speed, no over-maneuverability (this means close combat, maneuver. Do not engage). All that remains is to shoot back as far as possible from the place of the target and ... tick. But here's how to drop bombs? This must be above the target and it is desirable that there are no enemy aircraft nearby. belay. And this is only against some banana countries. hi
    8. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 April 30 2014 16: 05
      +1
      Yesterday, they turned on the news. I don’t really believe that so many bugs in the shit, the project was thrown. We don’t know at what stage they all are. We also had problem planes, but they brought to mind. I think that is not so simply.
  2. johnsnz
    johnsnz April 30 2014 10: 34
    +6
    Nowhere to hide from us!
  3. Velesovich
    Velesovich April 30 2014 10: 36
    +5
    75 million? Something is hard to believe.
    1. johnsnz
      johnsnz April 30 2014 10: 38
      +9
      As in our auto industry, probably - the basic equipment.
      "And what are the pies with, my dear?" "Do not you see, it is written - pies bez nikago!"
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets April 30 2014 10: 44
        +5
        Quote: johnsnz
        As in our auto industry, probably - the basic equipment.

        Yeah, without pillows, radio and heated mirrors.
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz April 30 2014 11: 26
          +1
          Yeah, without pillows, radio and heated mirrors.

          Also, a customs clearance will cost a tidy sum laughing
  4. Wiruz
    Wiruz April 30 2014 10: 37
    +6
    F-35 vulnerable to Russian radar

    As if someone doubted. Although for the Pentagon, this news is an excellent reason to ask for another 50 billion to develop the F-35 program.
  5. yulka2980
    yulka2980 April 30 2014 10: 37
    +3
    What a beauty! It’s a pity that they found it now, and not after they had already added 100 pieces, but for now they can probably fix it.
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 30 2014 11: 02
      +3
      Quote: yulka2980
      It’s a pity that they found it now, and not after they had already downloaded 100 pieces, but for the time being they can probably fix it.


      They can, Maybe if they start to do a new plane from scratch.
    2. Gregazov
      Gregazov April 30 2014 11: 19
      +3
      It is impossible to correct this in principle at the present stage. Any design can be represented as a sum of elementary elements. It is possible to ensure that the sizes of these elements are not multiple of 3 cm (the case with F-35), but that at the same time they would not be multiple to other wavelengths in the transparency windows of 6-7 cm and 10-12 cm, it is almost impossible to achieve.
    3. 0255
      0255 April 30 2014 12: 35
      0
      Quote: yulka2980
      What a beauty! It’s a pity that they found it now, and not after they had already added 100 pieces, but for now they can probably fix it.

      On December 13, 2013, 100 of them were purchased.
  6. shibi
    shibi April 30 2014 10: 37
    +8
    The longer the wave, the more noticeable Merikos invisibility)))
    It is necessary to revive all post-war radars)))
    What the Serbs proved.
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 April 30 2014 11: 58
      +3
      Quote: sibi
      What the Serbs proved.

      They did not prove, but used what was. The Americans simply do not listen to anyone, even before the war in Yugoslavia there were calls for reason - meter waves perfectly reveal the invisible. However, show-offs are more expensive (in the literal sense of the word), and hunting is to cut the loot.
      1. 0255
        0255 April 30 2014 12: 38
        0
        Quote: inkass_98
        even before the war in Yugoslavia there were calls for reason - meter waves perfectly reveal the invisible. However, show-offs are more expensive (in the literal sense of the word), and hunting is to cut the loot.

        ... and call your flying iron Super-Mega Tilt, Bending All Types of Enemy (i.e. Russian) Forces, Which It Is Absolutely Impossible to Detect and Destroy laughing
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 30 2014 12: 47
        0
        They did not prove, but used what was.

        Plus competent actions of air defense calculations. The planes flew along the same routes, so I ran into it.
      3. Kasym
        Kasym April 30 2014 18: 35
        +2
        After the Second World War in England and the USA they abandoned work on the radar in the meter range, since there was a big error, due to the wavelength, in height. In the USSR, these works did not stop, because well understood that such radars see further. The design bureau was located in Nizhny Novgorod; over time, they managed to eliminate the errors of such stations. hi
        1. iwind
          iwind April 30 2014 18: 48
          +1
          Quote: Kasym
          After the Second World War in England and the USA they abandoned work on the radar in the meter range, since there was a big error, due to the wavelength, in height. In the USSR, these works did not stop, because well understood that such radars see further. The design bureau was located in Nizhny Novgorod; over time, they managed to eliminate the errors of such stations. hi

          And how can this be eliminated? This is a physical property of meter waves.
          1. Skifo
            Skifo April 30 2014 21: 03
            0
            I think due to digital processing, increasing the directivity of the antenna and compensating for signals from other directions, and indeed a lot has changed since then ... the West then abandoned these works in the era of lamps and analog signal processing ..
          2. Kasym
            Kasym 1 May 2014 00: 13
            +1
            I can only guess, but there are stations even in the decimeter range. I think that at several frequencies at once, or two emitters. I'm not special. , so maybe I'm talking nonsense. We have an ancient P-12 at the test site. Mobile, TWO-COORDINATE radar station of meter wave range. So understand what it means and how this TWO-COORDINATE miracle works. But she worked and with her own work, even this "old woman" coped with a bang. Then the truth is, instead of it, a new P-18 was driven. This is the modernized P-12. But we were already leaving for demobilization. hi
            1. iwind
              iwind 1 May 2014 05: 35
              0
              Quote: Kasym
              I can only guess, but there are stations and even in the decimeter range

              It is fashionable only to reduce, it is impossible to remove even for the most modern radar HEAVEN the error in range for objects with EPR 1.5 m(And the plane’s epr of the 5th generation is noticeably smaller) -120m. And this is without jamming, and for meter waves it is easier than for centimeter waves.
              If you look at the number of meter and centimeter radars in the service, then take that centimeter is much larger and that makes sense.
  7. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 30 2014 10: 38
    +5
    In vain they talked about this, if the mattresses were in happy ignorance, otherwise they would start to come up with some measures to improve stealth, although if this is a design flaw, it is easier to make a new plane.
    1. 0255
      0255 April 30 2014 12: 39
      +1
      Quote: Giant thought
      In vain they talked about this, if the mattresses were in happy ignorance, otherwise they would start to come up with some measures to improve stealth, although if this is a design flaw, it is easier to make a new plane.

      oh well, tell the Americans this - they still will not believe wassat
  8. desant_doktor
    desant_doktor April 30 2014 10: 38
    +10
    Secret open door, damn it! Several years already known. The Australians, in my opinion, simulated aerial combat F 35 and SU 27. A pair of SU 27 carries the American at a time. And if you take into account the cost of aircraft, the result is all the more not in favor of mattress covers.
    1. Capitalist
      Capitalist April 30 2014 10: 45
      -11%
      People .. where do you get this nonsense ??? Well, it's just interesting ... I understand that spring, but you have to hold yourself in your hands somehow)
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich April 30 2014 10: 53
        +8
        [quote = Capitalist] People .. where do you get this nonsense ??? Well, it's just interesting ... I understand that spring, laughing Russian spring! notice your comrade "capitalist" laughing
      2. desant_doktor
        desant_doktor April 30 2014 11: 04
        +12
        What is nonsense, comrade? Is F35 expensive junk? Amiable crawl on the grid carefully, read the materials on this subject. If you do not trust our materials, read the western ones. Although elementary logic ... F35 was conceived as a tactical aircraft using technologies that reduce visibility. The key word is tactical. A tactical aircraft cannot fight a pair of fighters designed to gain superiority in the air, losing the opportunity to conduct a maneuverable air battle. And if one on one American due to more advanced avionics surpasses drying, then a couple of our planes can do anything with it. In addition, the American, as it turned out, requires radar coverage and security, which makes the group of aircraft as a whole more visible and less flexible in combat use, because it is hard to expect flexibility from a group that includes too different sizes, speeds, EPR indicators, and therefore visibility planes.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich April 30 2014 11: 26
          +7
          Quote: desant_doktor
          What is nonsense, comrade?

          Alexey! "Before whom are you an old devil, are you spreading polite? I apologize for this troll, the third day is like tears from a palm tree!" laughing "about Fedot the archer" laughing
        2. 52
          52 April 30 2014 16: 31
          +3
          I got it!
          The Fe-35 is an awesome eroplane, since it was created on a completely new basis, it has versatility and versatility, incomparable lethal characteristics, the broadest range of everything, including weapons, and most importantly, invisibility, because not a single bastard has I saw how much "dough" was pioneered and how much more in the future. "Furniture maker" go and bite all his nails from envy: he did not come up with such a way to fill the safe, well, so it is understandable - mattress covers are more talented.
    2. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 30 2014 16: 42
      +1
      Quote: desant_doktor
      The Australians, in my opinion, simulated aerial combat F 35 and SU 27. A pair of SU 27 carries the American at a time.


      I wouldn’t you, in your place, trust the words of the Australians so easily. They tried to get the F-22, so they negatively promoted the F-35 as best they could.
      1. 0255
        0255 April 30 2014 21: 58
        0
        Quote: supertiger21
        Quote: desant_doktor
        The Australians, in my opinion, simulated aerial combat F 35 and SU 27. A pair of SU 27 carries the American at a time.


        I wouldn’t you, in your place, trust the words of the Australians so easily. They tried to get the F-22, so they negatively promoted the F-35 as best they could.

        So they did not trust the F-35. There were some reasons for mistrust. And the Japanese also tried to get the F-22 instead of the F-35.
        But both of them will still fly on "penguins", because the owner told them so in the face of the white house
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 30 2014 22: 06
          0
          Quote: 0255
          So they did not trust the F-35. There were some reasons for mistrust. And the Japanese also tried to get the F-22 instead of the F-35.


          Perhaps so, but just the Australians then did everything more for political reasons, and not focusing on any characteristics of the aircraft: F-22, Su-35, F-35, F / A-18. I think that in which simulation they didn’t represent him at all ... request
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 May 2014 17: 16
          +1
          they are now under this business really trying to charge Australia, as the most stubborn and who do not mind.
    3. Kassandra
      Kassandra 1 May 2014 16: 38
      0
      not a pair but one will make 3pcs at least
  9. ksan
    ksan April 30 2014 10: 39
    +7
    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin noted that the new F-35 is inferior to the fifth-generation fighter PAK FA of Russian production, reports Vzglyad
    Not only is the T-50 inferior to the Su-35, practically ALL experts recognize this, including American ones.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 30 2014 10: 44
      +7
      There is still much to depend on weapons. Americans, they say, muddied a rocket with a range of up to 180 km. Unfortunately, Russia has nothing to answer. RVV-BD, R-37, KS-172 - they somehow exist, but they somehow don't exist. recourse
      1. urzul
        urzul April 30 2014 11: 13
        +5
        Why so? Our troubled K-77M and K-77ME
        Already now tested RVV-SD with a range of up to 110 km.
        This does not take into account the ultra-long-range missiles for hitting AWACS
    2. Capitalist
      Capitalist April 30 2014 10: 47
      -5
      Please refer to the opinion of the "experts"
      I hope you do not rank Rogozin among the "experts"?

      The article really amused ... a summary: "One grandmother said that the F-35 is rubbish. So we will win!"
      1. alex80
        alex80 April 30 2014 10: 54
        +3
        Link to the opinion of Carlo Kopp suitable?
      2. Cap-3 USSR
        Cap-3 USSR April 30 2014 11: 01
        +3
        And you, in general, seem to have not read anything about him. And the conclusion about the delirium has already been made.
        Information about it is full and all, but for this they collect different information and analyze it after it.
        1. serega.fedotov
          serega.fedotov April 30 2014 12: 40
          0
          Quote: Cap-3 USSR
          And you, in general, seem to have not read anything about him. And the conclusion about the delirium has already been made.
          Information about it is full and all, but for this they collect different information and analyze it after it.

          We’ll wait until it flies, then we’ll find out! So far, with the UF35, it’s somehow not very good!
          And the Americans with advertising (in the sense of bullshit) always had a good time! Remember f18 how they painted it, and it’s just that the Russian radars didn’t see it, they didn’t say it anyway!
      3. serega.fedotov
        serega.fedotov April 30 2014 12: 33
        +1
        Quote: Capitalist
        The article really amused ... a summary: "One grandmother said that the F-35 is rubbish. So we will win!"

        I will reveal the "great" secret: our planes not only "see" with Radar, but also with optics!
        And the "stealth" system protects from a narrow range of radio radiation - radar systems have a much wider range! So, completely invisible the drowning plane!
        1. Windbreak
          Windbreak 1 May 2014 11: 32
          0
          talk up to 160 km?
          The main parameters:
          Auto tracking area +/- 900 in azimuth, - 150 ... + 600 in elevation.
          The detection range of the CC (aircraft type Su-30):
          • up to 90 km in the PPS, up to 35 km in the PPS.
          Measurement of the range to the EC from 0,2 to 20 km, to the SC - up to 30 km.
          http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/166-ols-35.html
      4. screw cutter
        screw cutter April 30 2014 17: 35
        0
        You will not argue that the F22 is cooler than the F35, and Discovery was not seen in love for everything Russian.
        This is not the first time I have sent a link: http: //rutube.ru/video/4dca54a51b96ff77d620830db749d9c7/
  10. svp67
    svp67 April 30 2014 10: 40
    +6
    F-35 vulnerable to Russian radar
    This is not bad, if only he would be vulnerable to our missiles and guns ... and, in general, a DREAM ...
  11. dr.star75
    dr.star75 April 30 2014 10: 41
    +3
    How much can one and the same thing! Well, they won’t calm down in any way! Well, we loused a little, with whom it does not happen! laughing
  12. JonnyT
    JonnyT April 30 2014 10: 42
    +2
    sadness for American generals (((((((the budget was "mastered" and received a plane that did not meet the requirements!
  13. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets April 30 2014 10: 43
    +2
    It's a good news ...
  14. Velesovich
    Velesovich April 30 2014 10: 45
    +12
    If you believe open sources, then the T-50 is a kind of wunderwaffle, which has absorbed absolutely all the advanced technologies that our aviation industry can only provide. The plane turned out to be beautiful, and it is clear that the F-35 was not even near. But there is a nuance here. The T-50 has one drawback arising from its advantages - this is the price. The car will be very expensive, and therefore more a piece goods than consumer goods. The Americans are planning to build many hundreds of F-35s. Therefore, it would be more correct to compare it with our massive "workhorses" such as the Su-27 and MiG-29 of all possible modifications. And the T-50 still needs to be compared with the F-22.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 30 2014 10: 48
      +5
      T-50 has one drawback arising from its advantages - this is the price. The car will be very expensive

      Give the teeth to the one who told you this
      1. Velesovich
        Velesovich April 30 2014 10: 51
        +5
        Quote: Wiruz
        T-50 has one drawback arising from its advantages - this is the price. The car will be very expensive

        Give the teeth to the one who told you this

        Say what you like, but technological excellence is expensive today. Again, we must admit that our economic opportunities are much more modest than American ones. For the US Air Force, $ 100 million per plane is a very low price. For us, this is quite a lot.
        1. VengefulRat
          VengefulRat April 30 2014 10: 54
          +3
          I’ll be surprised if somebody doesn’t come running now and starts to paint all the advantages of F35. I remember every 2 article about this dubious product so ended laughing
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 30 2014 16: 38
            0
            Quote: VengefulRat
            I’ll be surprised if somebody doesn’t come running now and starts to paint all the advantages of F35. I remember every 2 article about this dubious product so ended


            Do not be surprised! I can recount the advantages of the F-35.
            1) Extremely strong stealth, EPR no more than 0,01 m2. An important advantage in combat at long distances.
            2) Modern AN / APG-81 radar with active headlight. It is able to operate in very quiet modes, difficult to notice by enemy radars.
            3) An optical-location system of 6 infra-red sensors, two on each side of the aircraft. They detect the launch of a rocket from an enemy aircraft, at a distance of hundreds of km.
            4) 4 internal suspensions, accommodating 4 air-to-air missiles AIM-120 or AIM-9. It is planned to install the latest modifications of these missiles on the F-35: AIM-120D (C-8) with a range of up to 180 km and infrared AIM-9X missile with UHT (strong increase in maneuverability during attack).
            5) All-angle attack of targets in close combat. An enemy aircraft can be attacked even if it is outside the front hemisphere F-35.
            6) The possibility of supersonic flight for 250 km. This information is controversial and is the words of the developers in Lockheed Martin.
            PS I have no purpose to be a lawyer for "Penguin", just everyone is looking for only cons. I decided to remind you of the pros!
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 08
            +1
            moreover, these programmers are clumsy writing or when they once wrote on a basic, will focus on all sorts of gadgets that can be put on any plane, and with which the F-35 is even optional to fly. Really - is he, what, panel? eyelids will be raised right on the runway and he will conquer all without taking off right from her! and then he’ll catch up and win again. laughing
            the airplane is primarily a glider, and the engine ... it has only one motive, and the aerodynamics of the glider are good. in battle, even the MiG-8 will dump it.

            Yo! some F-22 or F-35 have problems with software (Linux) - well, do an update, niepit brains ... bully
        2. Wiruz
          Wiruz April 30 2014 10: 55
          +2
          Say what you like, but technological excellence is expensive today. Again, we must admit that our economic opportunities are much more modest than American ones. For the US Air Force, $ 100 million per plane is a very low price. For us, this is quite a lot.

          Here I’m not even going to argue. I agree completely. But PAK FA, nevertheless, is worth the money, which can not be said about the Penguin.
          In addition, 100 million is like the price of an export FGFA, a serial PAK FA for the Russian Air Force promises to be cheaper.
        3. urzul
          urzul April 30 2014 11: 20
          +4
          Su-35 under the last contract in 2009 cost 48 $ million per unit.
          The raptor, according to American estimates, cost 411 $ million per unit.
          Agree 2 times and 10 times. the difference is significant.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 30 2014 16: 22
            +2
            Quote: urzul
            The Su-35 under the last contract in 2009 was worth $ 48 million per unit. According to American estimates, the reptor was worth $ 411 million per unit. Agree 2 times and 10 times. the difference is significant.


            You are certainly a patriot (for which I support), but alas, they are wrong. The F-22 costs $ 140 million (this is R&D taking into account $ 411 million), our Su-35C will cost $ 80 million.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 2 May 2014 01: 14
            0
            Yes, they like to count with the engine now without the engine (F-35), then with R&D now without them (F-22) laughing
  15. Roman1970
    Roman1970 April 30 2014 10: 47
    +9
    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin noted that the new F-35 is inferior to the fifth-generation fighter of the Russian-made PAK FA, reports Vzglyad.

    As far as I understand, not only PAK FA ...
    In July, the 2008 was a simulation of air combat with the participation of the Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F / A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was “battered like a child”. The simulation was conducted at the Hikam base of the US Air Force in Hawaii, which was witnessed by at least four representatives of the Air Force and Australian military intelligence. The deputy of the Australian Parliament, Dennis Jensen, knowingly said that in the course of “highly secret modeling”, the F-35 was “mercilessly beaten by the Su-35 fighter”.
  16. kocclissi
    kocclissi April 30 2014 10: 47
    +4
    It’ll do for Africa, but it’s useless to fight with Russia anyway, you can get it on the ears and invisibility will not help!
  17. bulvas
    bulvas April 30 2014 10: 48
    +6
    Never mind, under the pressure of the "Russian threat" they will force the allies to buy
    1. 0255
      0255 April 30 2014 12: 44
      0
      Quote: bulvas
      Never mind, under the pressure of the "Russian threat" they will force the allies to buy

      already Poland "wants" to buy the F-35, so you are right
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 30 2014 16: 20
        +2
        Quote: 0255
        already Poland "wants" to buy the F-35, so you are right


        good
        I think that it will not be necessary to be surprised if the Kiev junta shows a desire to buy an F-35.
        1. 0255
          0255 April 30 2014 18: 24
          0
          Quote: supertiger21
          Quote: 0255
          already Poland "wants" to buy the F-35, so you are right


          good
          I think that it will not be necessary to be surprised if the Kiev junta shows a desire to buy an F-35.

          hi Aslan drinks
          But what if the war does begin, and the Ukrainian F-35s fight against the Russian Air Force and Air Defense? But there will be a good justification for these losses - the F-35 was piloted by the clincher Bandera, whom it is a pity to entrust the An-2 laughing
          And the Kiev junta does not have enough money for the F-35, not for free, they will give it to them.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 31
            +1
            so that they can’t buy Yak from which this F was copied?
          2. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 30 2014 20: 22
            +1
            Quote: 0255
            hi Aslan


            And you health Kostya drinks !

            Quote: 0255
            But what if the war does begin, and the Ukrainian F-35s fight against the Russian Air Force and Air Defense? But there will be a good justification for these losses - the F-35s were piloted by the clincher Bandera people, whom the An-2 was sorry to trust. Yes, and the Kiev junta does not have enough money for the F-35, they will give it to them for free.


            The F-35 itself is a good aircraft and as an enemy it is dangerous, but in the hands of Bandera it most likely will not take off laughing ))) In general, I am surprised that the junta on "k.ts.a.ps.sk.i.kh" fighters (Su-27, MiG-29) is going to bomb "k.ac.a. .p.sk.o.e "the population of Ukraine. So they try to beat the Russians with what was done by the Russians. But this is somehow not good from the outside ... fellow Independent ... negative
            1. 0255
              0255 April 30 2014 21: 29
              +1
              Quote: supertiger21

              The F-35 itself is a good aircraft and as an enemy dangerous

              Figs knows, you never know what Americans proudly pour about him request But, I think, articles about how bad the F-35 also appear out of nowhere.
              but in the hands of Bandera he most likely will not take off laughing

              Not likely, but at all 200% or even 300% will not fly up laughing
              In general, I am amazed that the junta on "c.ts.a.ps.sk.i.kh" fighters (Su-27, MiG-29) was going to bomb "c.ac.a. s.k.o.e "the population of Ukraine. So they try to beat the Russians with what was done by the Russians. But this is somehow not good from the outside ... fellow Independent ... negative

              they have no other planes request As well as there is no money for any used F-16. Interestingly, they have aerial bombs and air-to-ground missiles, or their Migi and Su will stupidly fly over people's heads, trying to scare the supporters of federalization with just their appearance, burning aviation fuel. Do they have a lot of aviation fuel, and will American fuel suit the MiG-29 and Su-27, if the states supply them with it?
              Kassandra (1) RU Today, 19:31 ↑ New
              so that they can’t buy Yak from which this F was copied?

              It is a pity that the developments on the Yak-141 were sold in the United States for only $ 500 thousand belay
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 30 2014 22: 19
                0
                Quote: 0255
                Figs knows it, you never know what Americans are proudly pouring about him. But I think articles about the bad F-35 also appear out of nowhere.


                Who knows... request "Penguin" wassat be this plane in life or the ubiquitous "Lightning" angry .

                Quote: 0255
                Not likely, but at all 200% or even 300% will not fly up


                That's right! good

                Quote: 0255
                they don’t have any other planes As well as they don’t have money for some used F-16. Interestingly, they have aerial bombs and air-to-ground missiles, or their Migi and Su will stupidly fly over people's heads, trying to scare the supporters of federalization with just their appearance, burning aviation fuel. Do they have a lot of aviation fuel, and will the American fuel be suitable for the MiG-29 and Su-27, if the states supply them with it?


                So far, flying over their heads, Bandera is not a threat. But if you still dare to strike with a bomb, it will be necessary to close the sky of Donbass with our fighters from the Maidanut vultures.

                Quote: 0255
                It is a pity that the developments on the Yak-141 were sold in the United States for only $ 500 thousand


                Well, at that time we have a friend ... fellow Yeltsin was in power. An ardent supporter of American shit democracy. In fact, the sale of documentation on the Yak-141 accelerated the work on creating the vertical thrust of the F-35 years earlier. The main thing is that Yeltsin left at the time, and then see Topol-M together 400 put up for sale to the Americans.
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 May 2014 15: 11
                -1
                in fact, all the technology according to Yak was "sold" for 500 thousand, its transfer lasted 1,5 g, and all the designers who did not leave for him later to work for Lockheed were killed, sometimes before that they killed their family members (in the sense they were allowed to bury them and then killed already himself). I think it is not necessary to point the finger at what "special service" in which case kills relatives.

                The F-35 is, in fact, the Yak, which was covered with anti-radar swamps, because of which it was "swollen", and the XV-5 fan (which was still breaking on it) was installed instead of the outboard PDs.
                then they threw out the F-35B rotator, the gas-jet control system in hover mode, and closed the nozzle - and so it turned out F-35A, then the F-35A strengthened the fuselage and adjusted the landing hook to it - so it turned out F-35C

                the cost of the F-35 1trl program, have already mastered at least 70 billion
                all R&D on it was essentially done in the USSR, "quilted jackets". for 500 thousand
                70 billion are received - 500 thousand = PROFIT 299,99% bully

                a year later, they gained access to all the development of the military-industrial complex, and went through all the military factories and design bureaus (absolutely all, including the S-300). after which there was an even greater series of strange deaths, and the aircraft engineers did not have any of the professional engineers, even the level of the head department.

                Another interesting fact is that, unlike Harrier, in a dogfight (23: 0 on the Falklands), the Penguin is almost worthless because he does not know how to do VIFFing qualitatively. laughing

                as soon as you write about all this, 2-3 dogs appear at once and try to hastily cover it all with your derma.
                1. 0255
                  0255 1 May 2014 16: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  all the designers who did not leave to work for Lockheed were killed, sometimes before that they killed their family members (in the sense they let them be buried and then killed themselves). I think no need to point the finger which "special service" in which case kills relatives
                  [...]
                  a year later, they gained access to all the development of the military-industrial complex, and went through all the military factories and design bureaus (absolutely all, including the S-300). after which there was an even greater series of strange deaths, and the aircraft engineers did not have any of the professional engineers, even the level of the head department.

                  where does this information come from?
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 May 2014 16: 44
                    0
                    how the missile of the S-300 complex was transported by a transporter for evaluation in the USA was even on Russian zombie-TV live on the news.
                    1. 0255
                      0255 1 May 2014 16: 50
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      how the missile of the S-300 complex was transported by a transporter for evaluation in the USA was even on Russian zombie-TV live on the news.

                      I am asking you about the mysterious deaths of Yakovlev Design Bureau employees who did not want to work at Lockheed
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 May 2014 16: 57
                        -1
                        Why are you asking? They even killed those who did not like this process of technology transfer. Others shared their knowledge more readily.

                        And then it was since 1993 not only in that design bureau.
                      2. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 3 May 2014 05: 56
                        0
                        It’s interesting and who set the minus and why?

                        then in Iran who will be killed on missiles or centrifuges
                        then in Germany on howitzers
                        or can it all be grandma’s tales?

                        however, the NKVD will understand.
              3. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 May 2014 15: 30
                0
                Py.Sy. Before the Second World War, people hid in little sharazh precisely from such "incidents", there were less than 10% of those sitting there, and almost all of them were for the cause (usually for embezzlement or disclosure).
  18. cybernetick
    cybernetick April 30 2014 10: 48
    +6
    The best investment for the United States!
  19. Andrey SPB
    Andrey SPB April 30 2014 10: 48
    +2
    The American soap bubble is more and more like a race for quantity and does not care about quality, the main thing is to write off more finance for various kinds of projects, even if they are not very effective in modern realities.
  20. ZU-23
    ZU-23 April 30 2014 10: 49
    +3
    Looks at the T-50 will be stolen sales laughing but instead of this insect, it’s better to buy an SU-35S.
  21. Gagarin
    Gagarin April 30 2014 10: 53
    +10
    As I understand it, no tuning will fix this already.
    Let them work further in the right direction, SUCCESS!
  22. sinukvl
    sinukvl April 30 2014 10: 53
    +7
    It is also vulnerable to Russian missiles, aircraft and anti-aircraft guns and machine guns, as well as to rain, snow, hail, frost, heat and other weather conditions. In my opinion, it’s easier to say why it is not vulnerable to arrows and spears consisting of armament of the armies of the tsars of the banana republics.
  23. Capitalist
    Capitalist April 30 2014 10: 54
    +3
    Itag ...
    read the title:
    F-35 vulnerable to Russian radar
    .....
    It is noted that the new fighter is invisible in the X-band and the sector that the APG-81 radar system covers, but is vulnerable to VHF radars.

    Let’s go see in what range our relatively modern Beetles and new Irbises work .. both-on! suddenly - X range)
    mutually exclusive paragraphs however)
    1. Simon
      Simon April 30 2014 11: 17
      0
      The Americans also boasted about their invisible B-2 during the attack on Yugoslavia, they also boasted that they were not visible, and the Serbs shot him down with a complex, produced in the 60s, so Capitalist, the Americans only praise their toys and advertise. And take the "abroms", in Iraq, the vaunted tanks of the ordinary RGDeshka, also produced in the 60s, were quietly burning them. tongue
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 30 2014 11: 38
        +1
        The Americans boasted of the F-117A. He was also shot down by an ancient missile of the KUB complex (Square). And the Americans lost a couple of B-2s themselves under non-military circumstances.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 32
          -1
          in Bosnia the B-2 fell
      2. Berxen
        Berxen April 30 2014 21: 09
        +2
        The Serbs shot down the 117th, using the OPTICAL guidance system, knowing the route of the aircraft that you did not change. The radar has nothing to do with it.
    2. Gregazov
      Gregazov April 30 2014 11: 37
      +9
      A little of the tactics of using fighter aircraft. The detection, recognition and tracking of air targets is carried out by radar posts (both ground and air). Radar stations usually operate in several ranges. Then the RL information is transmitted to PORI (the RL Information processing point), where duplication of marks from the same goals is removed and a reliable picture is obtained. Further, the radar detector falls on the guidance point, where the formation of fighter guidance commands on the target takes place. Approaching the target fighter performs in radio silence mode. Depending on the type of use of the weapon (for example, with IR or TV seeker), the radar may not turn on at all. Therefore, the protection of the F35 in the X range at this stage is up to one place. If the F35 opens the bomb bay, or turns on the radar from its protection, there is no trace left.
  24. mamont5
    mamont5 April 30 2014 10: 55
    +3
    "It is noted that the new fighter is invisible in the X-band and the sector that covers the APG-81 radar system, but is vulnerable to VHF radars."

    And also visible to the naked eye and stray from the slingshot.
  25. Orc-xnumx
    Orc-xnumx April 30 2014 10: 55
    +4
    The future victim of the Chinese microwave!
  26. Signaller
    Signaller April 30 2014 10: 57
    +2
    And who would doubt it. Well this is elementary. In one frequency spectrum, it may be invisible, but in the other it is completely visible. Just knock it down. Well, in the optical-electronic sight, he clearly can not hide. Well, let grandmas spend if they want. It’s just for us. The worse the neighbor. the better for us.
  27. strannik595
    strannik595 April 30 2014 10: 57
    +2
    it’s a pity that VAF eliminated itself, but could clarify this issue
  28. Silkway0026
    Silkway0026 April 30 2014 11: 05
    +3
    how Americans babosy saw - Taburetkin seems and did not dream ...

    The B-2 super stealth bomber is the most expensive aircraft in the world (and probably the most expensive aircraft in the history of aviation). For 1998, the cost of one B-2, excluding R&D, amounted to 1,157 billion dollars. The cost of the entire B-2 program for the 1997 year was estimated at almost 45 billion; Thus, taking into account R&D, the cost of one car at that time reached 2,1 billion dollars.

    during the NATO military operation in Yugoslavia (1999), two B-2 aircraft were shot down: the first (88-0329, "Spirit of Missouri") was shot down on May 20 over the suburb of Belgrade by the S-300P air defense system, the second (88-0332, "Spirit of Washington" ) was hit on June 1 and fell in Croatia. "... We didn't know they were invisible ..."
    1. Capitalist
      Capitalist April 30 2014 11: 08
      -8
      stop fasting nonsense.
      1) B-2 by anyone and never went astray.
      2) in Yugoslavia there is never and never was an S-300P
      1. desant_doktor
        desant_doktor April 30 2014 11: 22
        +7
        Yes Yes! And the Americans took Berlin in the 45th, the first to fly into space and bring freedom, prosperity and democracy to all sides of the world!
      2. Capitalist
        Capitalist April 30 2014 12: 10
        0
        I wonder what guided 5 imbitsilov put minus? Well, you like to believe in all muin - go REN_TV look .. there about palmistry and about flying saucers and about the S-300 in a series show a lot ..))

        regarding the bike with B-2

        On opinion of an argentinian journalist (I’m already lying around, but the funniest thing has not yet begun)Diego Zampini, during the NATO military operation in Yugoslavia (1999), two B-2 planes were shot down: the first (88-0329, “Missouri Spirit”) was shot down on May 20 over the Belgrade suburb of the S-300P air defense system, and the second (88-0332, “ The Spirit of Washington ”) was hit on June 1 and fell in Croatia [23].
        This report is being questioned by a number of experts. So, during the NATO operation, the Serbian side did not possess S-300 systems at all [25]. Photographs of Russian soldiers in Serbian uniform near the S-300 complex in 1998 were taken in the suburbs of Moscow and "accidentally" made public to misinform the enemy about the air defense systems of Yugoslavia [26].

        The American side did not recognize the loss of the above bombers. There is also evidence confirming that aircraft with the indicated side numbers continued to operate after 1999. In particular, the “Spirit of Missouri” was photographed during a coalition forces military operation in Iraq in 2003, and in 2004 for the first time a completely female crew flew there. The “Spirit of Washington” was photographed at the Whiteman airbase in 2008 and at several other airbases in 2006-2007.
        1. 0255
          0255 April 30 2014 13: 00
          0
          Quote: Capitalist
          I wonder what guided 5 imbitsilov put minus?

          don't call you names
          Quote: Capitalist
          regarding the bike with B-2
          On opinion of an argentinian journalist (I’m already lying around, but the funniest thing has not yet begun)Diego Zampini, during the NATO military operation in Yugoslavia (1999), two B-2 planes were shot down: the first (88-0329, “Missouri Spirit”) was shot down on May 20 over the Belgrade suburb of the S-300P air defense system, and the second (88-0332, “ The Spirit of Washington ”) was hit on June 1 and fell in Croatia [23].
          This report is being questioned by a number of experts. So, during the NATO operation, the Serbian side did not possess S-300 systems at all [25]. Photographs of Russian soldiers in Serbian uniform near the S-300 complex in 1998 were taken in the suburbs of Moscow and "accidentally" made public to misinform the enemy about the air defense systems of Yugoslavia [26].
          The American side did not recognize the loss of the above bombers. There is also evidence confirming that aircraft with the indicated side numbers continued to operate after 1999. In particular, the “Spirit of Missouri” was photographed during a coalition forces military operation in Iraq in 2003, and in 2004 for the first time a completely female crew flew there. The “Spirit of Washington” was photographed at the Whiteman airbase in 2008 and at several other airbases in 2006-2007.

          Oh yes, the Wikipedia you refer to, which disclaims responsibility for its articles, is the best source wassat
          There is another info about the downed B-2:
          http://www.rg.ru/2014/03/24/yugoslavia.html
          who knows, maybe this is true?
          1. Not served
            Not served April 30 2014 13: 08
            +3
            The second time I repeat, shot down a B-2 or B-117 is not important, but shot down with the S-100 complex and without any radar. Stupidly they were on a landline phone, they just at that moment were completely insolent and flew strictly at the same time and along the same route.
            1. Not served
              Not served April 30 2014 14: 35
              +6
              F-117 shot down. The complex was C-125
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 37
              +1
              both were shot down.
              generally the first stealth was lost on the second day of the first Iraq war
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 36
          +1
          Since the Korean War, the American side has not recognized several dozen bunches of nameplates cut from the "crashed" F-86
          in 3385 planes shot down in vietnam the truth is no longer trying to make a comma
        3. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm April 30 2014 22: 43
          +1
          Quote: Capitalist
          The American side did not recognize the loss of the above bombers.

          Not everything is simple with the "spirit of Washington"; it spent more than $ 4 million in repairs for 100 years. Lost only one "spirit of Kansas" not in Yugoslavia
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 33
        +1
        yes, they always fell on their own and only on their backs.
  29. Stiletto
    Stiletto April 30 2014 11: 05
    +8
    Do not dare to blame the world's best fighter, the proud bird of democracy! He is invisible, he cannot be heard, he is not vulnerable, moreover, he is beautiful and dear to the heart of taxpayers! He is incredibly cool, and he has no equal. The main thing for him is only one: to stay away from the borders with Russia, where any carriage turns into a pumpkin, and any Cinderella from among the right-wingers receives this pumpkin immediately and without fail. laughing
  30. Wiruz
    Wiruz April 30 2014 11: 30
    +5
    Of course, all of you are now clamoring for me, but outwardly, the plane turned out beautiful. There is something about him ... elegant or something. And the rest, the plane is gilded bullshit!
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 30 2014 11: 40
      +3
      In my opinion, the F-22 is more aesthetic than this flying pregnant cow. Beautiful US planes can be counted on the fingers, including screw ones.
    2. Cherdak
      Cherdak April 30 2014 12: 49
      +3
      Quote: Wiruz
      There is something about him ... elegant or something.

      Say thanks to Hollywood - they can create a work of art from any tin can
    3. 0255
      0255 April 30 2014 12: 50
      +3
      Quote: Wiruz
      Of course, all of you are now clamoring for me, but outwardly, the plane turned out beautiful. There is something about him ... elegant or something. And the rest, the plane is gilded bullshit!

      It's not the same for everybody. For me, the F-35 looks beautiful if you look at it from behind, from the side
      1. Gregazov
        Gregazov April 30 2014 13: 04
        +10
        He looks even more beautifully in parts. For example, a fragment of a wing rising above the ground against the background of a bonfire from other fragments of the aircraft.
        1. 0255
          0255 April 30 2014 15: 49
          +8
          Quote: GregAzov
          He looks even more beautifully in parts. For example, a fragment of a wing rising above the ground against the background of a bonfire from other fragments of the aircraft.

          like this f-22 laughing
    4. ty60
      ty60 April 30 2014 13: 42
      +1
      The plane is obviously flawed due to excessive universalization - the fan in the case with a mechanical drive made the fuselage itself extremely wide and small for armament. Aerodynamics fell accordingly. For all that extra charge.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 30 2014 17: 37
        0
        Quote: ty60
        The plane is obviously flawed due to excessive universalization - the fan in the case with a mechanical drive made the fuselage itself extremely wide and small for armament. Aerodynamics fell accordingly. For all that extra charge.


        This is for the F-35B VTOL aircraft, options "A" (with normal takeoff) and "C" (deck), more slender "penguins".
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 30 2014 18: 51
        +1
        Quote: supertiger21 more slender "penguins".

        more stupid. the case is generally the same, but many useful details are already lacking.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 30 2014 20: 26
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          more stupid. the case is generally the same, but many useful details are already lacking.


          In my opinion, I asked you not to discuss scientific and technical topics with me! hi
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 May 2014 13: 53
            +1
            is there anything about you? soldier then on financial:

            Program cost US $ 1.0165 trillion (projected over 55 years) [5]
            Unit cost
            F-35A: US $ 153.1 million (Flyaway cost, 2013) [6]
            F-35B: US $ 196.5M (flyaway cost, 2012) [7]
            F-35C: US ​​$ 199.4M (flyaway cost, 2013) [7]

            F-22 US $ 150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009) [5]

            Well and what is it?
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 2 May 2014 14: 40
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              is there anything about you? then financial: Program cost US $ 1.0165 trillion (projected over 55 years) [5] Unit cost F-35A: US $ 153.1 million (Flyaway cost, 2013) [6] F-35B: US $ 196.5M (flyaway cost, 2012) [ 7] F-35C: US ​​$ 199.4M (flyaway cost, 2013) [7] F-22 US $ 150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009) [5] so what is it?


              Did I deny it somewhere? request
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 May 2014 14: 02
            0
            show the diploma, yes?
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra 1 May 2014 14: 47
        0
        everything there through LJ. when this fan is taken out, then most of the released volume is not used (there is nothing inside the fan and you can’t put the supply tank in its place). the tail end still remains double-girded, although the nozzle no longer descends but is locked.
  31. alex47russ
    alex47russ April 30 2014 11: 33
    +2
    Let them think that they are the best !!! Loshariki !!! lol
  32. sem-yak
    sem-yak April 30 2014 11: 33
    +4
    All of America is a big soap bubble! The world began to change, and soap bubbles do not even leave a trace! The great people (Russians) are constant for centuries, and the exclusive nation (Americans) is in one person and does not mean continuation! To be great is to be wise, merciful, generous, sympathetic, acting according to conscience! To be exceptional is to be selfish!
  33. asar
    asar April 30 2014 11: 35
    +2
    Well, the Yankees have done a good job! It looks like a formidable eroplan, but in fact - zilch! What the "loot" of the American taxpayers went to is not clear!
  34. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 April 30 2014 11: 38
    +1
    Russian air defense systems traditionally use a fairly wide range of frequencies ... which makes the American Stelsia visible ...
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 30 2014 11: 49
      +1
      Not wide, but 2-3 ranges are used. Moreover, each type of antenna has its own. And the joint work of several radars from different directions makes them visible.
  35. Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 30 2014 11: 39
    +1
    And what Russian military radars (from air and ground) operate in this UVK range?
    1. Gregazov
      Gregazov April 30 2014 11: 50
      +6
      Not UVK, but VHF. Go to any airdrome. There is a P-12 radar that provides a flight director. On one rod there are several director antennas with a Pistol-Kors vibrator on each. This bar rotates mechanically. Such antennas are at any civil aerodrome.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  36. albi77
    albi77 April 30 2014 11: 41
    +5
    And how did they determine that it was invisible to radar? checked on their own?
    Well, they have been there for the second month trying to find a civilian boeeng that "disappeared" ... how will they look for a fighter?
  37. Boudallino
    Boudallino April 30 2014 12: 06
    +1
    This plane, as far as can be judged by the news, is still quite "raw", let it remain so
  38. Boudallino
    Boudallino April 30 2014 12: 09
    -1
    Let them continue to convince themselves of their genius that they only forget sometimes why a person needs a head laughing
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 30 2014 19: 42
      0
      they convince others. By the way, this is just crooked with a .. yak in 1992
      the hands of these mattresses from LJ, so this stuffed animal turned out
  39. PRV-16
    PRV-16 April 30 2014 12: 12
    +1
    The old Soviet rangefinders P-35 and P-37 worked, (and it still seems to be working now), in the meter range. Interestingly, many of them remain in the army?
  40. mig31
    mig31 April 30 2014 12: 13
    +1
    Let them think that they are invisible, our kompleks will check for lice, disappointment somewhere nearby ...
  41. postman
    postman April 30 2014 12: 20
    +7
    "Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin noted that the new F-35 is inferior to the Russian-made PAK FA fifth generation fighter," Vzglyad reports. "

    Well, if Olegitch said, and "Vzglyad" confirmed that this is definitely a VICTORY (I doubt that D.O.Rogozin can clearly formulate the identity of the terms TTX and LTX, as well as the frequency ranges of Russian radars).

    "It is noted that the new fighter is invisible in the X-band and the sector, which covers the radar system APG-81,2
    1. AN / APG-81 is actually the radar of the F-35 itself (which they became invisible ONLY from the f-35, well, not is idiocy?) (China, the Russian Federation has the F-35 and APG-81 ?????)

    2. THAAD radar (GBR-T or GBR of Raytheon (operating frequency about 10 GHz) X-band, centimeter)) and Patriot radar (AN / MPQ-53 operates in the wavelength range 5,5 - 6,7 cm.)



    SAM "Improved Hawk" with a new radar AN / TPS-59 (L-band, decimeter)

    after 2020 SAM "Corpus-SAM" (multifunctional LSCX Ku band)
    3.RMS S-300 /?
    Radar of all-round review "Obzor-3" 9C15M (9S15M2) centimeter wavelength
    Radar program review "Ginger" 9S19M2-centimeter wavelength

    X-band (X band) - frequency range centimeter wavelengths, (According to IEEE, this range extends from 8 to 12 GHz)

    EVEN THE ROC SAM S-200 4,5-cm range


    C-band and Ku-band = centimeter

    S-band = decimeter / centimeter, it works weather and ship radars
  42. reader1964
    reader1964 April 30 2014 12: 56
    +5
    Surveillance radars operate in the meter and DM ranges, these are seen by all- and stealth and balloons, etc., sighting and airborne radars operate in the SM and millimeter ranges. It will be more difficult to see. The winner will be the one who has a more powerful transmitter and better receiver in the radar. On the ground - no problem, just add diesel fuel to the generators. On the plane - every kilogram counts, the hope is only for DLO aircraft and guidance points. And so I think - in the sky any piece of iron will shine, no matter how it is painted. Although I saw one plane called Berkut, it was coming to us accompanied by the SU-35, so Drying was visible both in the palm of your hand and on the SM and the meter range, and Berkut was not visible until the landing, although they knew exactly what they were with a difference in 10 km They only saw with their eyes when they passed overhead. It is a fact.
    1. postman
      postman April 30 2014 13: 13
      +2
      Quote: reader1964
      surveillance radars operate in the meter and DM ranges,

      Not all (for SPRN 77YA Voronezh, for example, - ORL-T highway surveillance radars (option A), with a maximum range of up to 6 km; ORL-T highway surveillance radars (option B), with a maximum range of up to 400 km;
      ORL-A aerodrome surveillance radars (options B1, B2 and B3)
      , respectively, with a maximum range of 160, 100 and 46 km;
      ) or rather "worked"

      Three-coordinate mobile surveillance radar 1L117M

      Range of working frequencies, cm 10

      Radar program review 9S19M2 "Ginger" (SAM S-300) = CENTIMETER RANGE
      Quote: reader1964
      On the plane - every kilogram counts

      But he has an advantage:
      -radio horizon
      - the radar is not stationary, but moves at a speed of at least 600 km / h
      - interference from the atmosphere, meteorology and other flying subjects, objects


      Quote: reader1964
      And so I think - in the sky any piece of iron will shine, no matter how it is painted.

      Nothing like this
      1. not a piece of iron (already 30-40%)
      2. paint is not everything, the material of the case plays a role (absorption)
      3.FORM !! But if the reflected signal (angle of incidence = angle of reflection) does not go to the radar receiver? Whereas?
      4. Phase shift (by 90 g) with 2 reflected signals = give at the receiver = 0 (within the resolution of the receiver) (superposition of sinusoids with phase shift)
      5. Radio horizon and target height
      ======================
      We sometimes didn’t see the MIG-25 on the S-200
      1. reader1964
        reader1964 April 30 2014 13: 28
        +1
        That's right, but the special material of the hull already reduces LTX in weight and survivability, and this is already becoming just an advertisement for the office, not a fighting vehicle
        1. postman
          postman April 30 2014 14: 24
          0
          Quote: reader1964
          case already reduces LTX by weight

          Times and materials (technologies) are already different.
          1. RADIO-TRANSPARENT nose fairing (MOST LOADED PLACE, after the terminations) of the aircraft and missiles (RCC, SR, BR) - nothing has decreased?
          2. application of radar absorbing material on the surface to be protected in several layers with intermediate drying of each layer and placement in one of the layers of split rings of electrically conductive materialat least one of the layers of the radar absorbing coating is made of a composite material with ferromagnetic properties, and the coating itself is treated in a permanent magnet field so that the magnetic field vector lies in the plane of the coating.
          (scoreboard below)



          3.armad fabrics

          4.Co, Ni, Cr, Cu, etc., as well as the size of the particles — ALL differently absorbs (reflects)
          5. metal-polymer nanocomposites = 3d metals
          1. Gregazov
            Gregazov April 30 2014 16: 43
            0
            Quote: Postman
            Times and materials (technologies) are already different.

            When testing the A-50, it was necessary to remove re-emissions from the keel of the aircraft. To do this, on the very first prototype, the rotary junction was rotated 180 degrees and the antenna radiated exactly into the tail of the aircraft. Absorbing coatings glued any thickness and quality, but did not receive an effect of more than 10 dB. The test result was a recommendation to remove radiation in the rear hemisphere. A similar solution on E-3A. The absorbent coating gives an effect only at low energies - only at long range. Reducing the range reduces all the benefits of absorption to zero.
            1. postman
              postman April 30 2014 17: 19
              -1
              Quote: GregAzov
              remove reradiations from the keel of the aircraft.

              reflection and shading (sector) probably?
              Quote: GregAzov
              but the effect of more than 10 dB did not get.

              So is there a distance then? 10 meters, clear stump
              we were told that in the focus of a P-35 airborne reconnaissance radar it is possible to fry a cat (no matter how many were thrown it didn’t fry. request )



              Quote: GregAzov
              A similar solution on E-3A.

              no.
              1. EVEN AN / APY-1 radars (not to mention the AN / APY-2 radars with 4PiCC-2 BCM) have 360 ​​g (in azimuth) and +/- 30 in the horizon
              multifunctional coherent station all-round view, Antenna - flat slotted PAR with mechanical scanning in azimuth and electronic in angles. Wherein circular zone radar observations can be broken down into 32 sectors with a width of about 11,25 ° space.
              2. Interrogator equipment (AN / APX-103 recognition system "friend or foe" Mk10 / 12) is located inside the fuselage, and its antenna is in the back of the radar antenna system. No keel does not interfere
              Quote: GregAzov
              . The absorbing coating gives an effect only at low energies - only at long range

              will give an effect to the minimum detection range (And it is not ZERO !!)
              according to the signal-to-noise ratio
              It is not for nothing that they get hooked up with an increase in the sensitivity of the receiving path of the station by 10-12 dB (by changing the structure of the probe signal) and the compression ratio of the pulses.
  43. Horly
    Horly April 30 2014 14: 06
    +4
    Quote: ksan
    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin noted that the new F-35 is inferior to the fifth-generation fighter PAK FA of Russian production, reports Vzglyad

    Comparing the T-50 and F-35 is not entirely correct, since one is a heavy fighter (T-50) and the other is a light fighter (F-35), respectively, and different requirements. Then it is necessary to compare with the F-22, about which a lot has already been written here. And what about radar "stealth" - this is all "from the evil one" - these data are taken, as a rule, from advertising brochures, which casts doubt on their reliability. Moreover, the measures to reduce the radar signature of aircraft include not only passive ("stealth technologies"), but also active (including on-board REP) means. Moreover, the use of combat implies the joint use of active and passive means in a given situation, plus, the attraction of additional funds (for example, specialized electronic warfare aircraft). Therefore, it is simply ridiculous to assess the effectiveness of combat use on them, and even more so, to compare them with this or that model, for which there is also no reliable data.
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 30 2014 14: 50
      0
      Quite rightly said, and most importantly - without unnecessary cheers-patriotic frenzy, which affects the number of pluses =)
  44. sv68
    sv68 April 30 2014 14: 16
    0
    I sincerely thought that the radar was scanning airspace LOOKING for airplanes and the cannon or rocket was destroying it, but I understood from the headline that airplanes were destroying it with radar. Questions about backfill - how can I hit an airplane with radar, and why then do I need anti-aircraft artillery and anti-aircraft missiles?
    1. desant_doktor
      desant_doktor April 30 2014 14: 38
      +1
      Barrel anti-aircraft artillery for aircraft with near and supersonic speeds is no longer relevant. Airborne fighter cannons still this way, especially in close combat, however here are possible options. The aircraft is not shot down by radar, by radar, or rather by electronic warfare systems, the guidance system on the radio channel is disabled, both the aircraft itself and the guidance channels from DLRO aircraft and from ground guidance posts. In the absence of visual contact with the target and reduced visibility in the IR range, this can create problems. In some cases, an aircraft may not use radio channels at all to aim at a target, but this is more true for tactical aircraft and attack aircraft. For high-altitude interceptors and fighters, yes, it can create problems. A possible solution is the preventive removal of aircraft with electronic warfare. They are easier to shoot down for various reasons. For example - they actively glow in a wide range of radio frequencies. For destruction, missiles with a combined guidance system are used. At the initial stage - through the radio channel, then, as a rule, along the thermal trail. DLRO aircraft, these are most often large machines and systems for reducing visibility in the IR range are not placed on them. IR traps can effectively resist combined guidance systems, as a rule, cannot.
  45. supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 30 2014 16: 11
    +2
    If what is said in the article is really really, then it is in our favor good ! But you can’t believe everything 100%, because underestimating the enemy means digging your own grave. Maybe the F-35 is really not the most ideal plane, but I don’t think it's worth bothering with a cap-throw! Besides, the Americans are not so stupid that the plane in which billions were invested, it would be an iron. Everything must be treated objectively and with realism. wink
  46. Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K April 30 2014 17: 03
    +1
    Quote: ty60
    In 117, Yugoslavia was shot down by discovering it with OLD Soviet equipment, which the mattresses did not plan to defend in principle.

    Shot down, but shot down, but how? I answer. The station was turned on to search for a target during an airplane flight above it. The plane could not do anything, because he missed the station. The signal from the bottom and from the exhaust for the rocket were excellent. Shot down in pursuit. A rocket flies with a supersonic sound, and the plane is subsonic. And this old system has no special merit.
    1. desant_doktor
      desant_doktor April 30 2014 17: 29
      +1
      Still, they say, the wings of the weapons compartment were opened, which increased the EPR at times.
  47. PRV-16
    PRV-16 April 30 2014 17: 43
    -2
    I don’t know how on P-35, and PRV-17 a flock of birds flying a hundred meters fell on the ground, not all of course (the antenna did not swing), but those that fell into the irradiation zone fell to the ground dead. A 3 megawatt microwave you know, very harsh). The cat was tied directly to the irradiator on PRV-9, the high was turned on, for 30 seconds. The cat after a few days completely peeled off, then died.
    1. desant_doktor
      desant_doktor April 30 2014 18: 01
      +1
      Oh, my friend, Greenpeace is not on you! bully
    2. postman
      postman April 30 2014 20: 39
      +1
      Quote: PRV-16
      I don’t know how on P-35, and PRV-17, a flock of birds flying over a hundred meters fell on the ground

      Nonsense (tales of demobilization and poorly educated officers) all this:
      1. poor birds from the airport zone, and they don’t know. They have to drive them away with scarecrows, falcons, everyone strives to climb La into the turbines, and there are not only PBMs (and not one)
      2.For reference
      - PRV-17 (radio altimeter): power consumption 100kW (of the entire installation), powerin impulse (!) 150 kW-180 kW (if I’m not mistaken, and TENS of kW

      -P-35: Power consumption -150 kW, power in impulse (!) 250 kW, and TENS of kW
      Quote: PRV-16
      . 3 megawatt microwave you know

      I DO NOT KNOW!
      WHERE ARE YOU TAKING MEGAWATS THERE? Power line from the nearest nuclear power plant?
      Your 17 had: DES 5E96, which included two diesel units (main and reserve) 100 kW each 400 V 50 Hz.

      and it’s not a microwave at all.
      Note:
      we are more than 5-10 minutes and did not work = satellite span grid

      For your information:
      1. Queen Elizabeth (UK Aircraft Carrier) will have a 76 MW power plant (2 gt), with EM catapults. Shaft power ..
      And?
      10kW radar at its peak
      2.SPY-1 = 10 kW
      Quote: PRV-16
      Cat directly to the irradiator on PRV-9

      maybe to the emitter?
      and who "climbed" there?

      Quote: PRV-16
      Cat in a few days

      How did you find him later?

      For your information:
      take a look at the remote control for the first category, employees associated with working with EMP
    3. andrewvlg
      andrewvlg April 30 2014 20: 52
      +1
      Quote: PRV-16
      The cat was tied directly to the irradiator on PRV-9, the high was turned on, for 30 seconds. The cat after a few days completely peeled off, then died.

      And I sobbed when my cat died. Apparently, you do not have a feeling of pity and compassion.
  48. iwind
    iwind April 30 2014 19: 42
    0
    At the start of the plane, the destroyer drowned. Now this.
    Now aircraft are built from non-conductive materials is not easy so, only this will significantly reduce the reflection of the radio signal.
    I'm interested on the basis of what she made such conclusions? Here is an incomplete list of why ESR depends.
    The ESR depends on the electrical properties of the material, its geometry, the direction from which it is irradiated, the change in position in space, and at the same time irradiation of many points of the object, there is a complex interaction of reflected signals, in which the signals are added and amplified in some directions, and in others - weaken each other. If the direction of irradiation of the object changes, then the relative position of the elementary reflectors also changes, the fields of which are summed up even with a slight change in direction with a large change in phase shifts. As a result, the EPR changes.
    With meter freestyle, everything is also not so good, low accuracy and high vulnerability to interference - there is nowhere to go from this.
  49. Skifo
    Skifo April 30 2014 20: 55
    0
    In the meter range, even aircraft made using stealth technology are really visible, because their sizes, whatever one may say, are commensurate with the long wavelength of the probe signal emitted by the radar of the meter band. And these are all the more visible and no matter what material they are made of. In addition, it is very difficult to interfere with such a radar, and moreover, more than one aircraft will not be able to do this, because A narrow beam can be created only with an antenna of very large sizes (about 30 meters), and the aircraft will not be able to carry such an antenna, and since the detection range of meter stations is about 500 kilometers, it is also impossible to put ground interference.
    The Americans did not think about these things and moved on to a more accurate centimeter range and moved away from meter lokatars, with which we congratulate them!
    1. postman
      postman April 30 2014 21: 19
      +1
      Quote: Skifo
      because anyway, their sizes are commensurate with the long wavelength of the probe signal,

      According to your logic, centimeter objects are visible in the centimeter range?
      And turbulence (there is no "object") in the atmosphere is not supplied by radar?

      Everything is exactly the opposite (meter-high obstacles, meter-wide RV MAY BE AROUND)
      Diffraction of radio waves

      -Interference of radio waves

      (everything is very similar with a light beam, and then, and then the EV wave)

      Quote: Skifo
      In addition, it is very difficult to interfere with such a radar, and moreover, more than one aircraft will not be able to do this, because create a narrow beam

      ?WHAT FOR?
      interference with the reflected signal, the signal-to-noise ratio changes, the equipment does not screen out, the screen displays milk (backlight)

      Quote: Skifo
      and since the detection range of meter stations is about 500 kilometers

      You will be surprised SPRN see that starts in America (THOUSAND Km)
      And in the S-300 (400) air defense system, with an X / L radar (cm range), the range for the same 500 km

      Quote: Skifo
      The Americans did not think about these things and switched to a more accurate centimeter range

      like us. like the whole world, and it's all about the dimensions and the headlamp
      1. Skifo
        Skifo April 30 2014 21: 33
        +1
        First: The wave can bend around, but the reflection will also be based on the reflection and the Doppler effect on the size and speed of the object. And, by the way, this is plus meters, because. centimeter waves in this your grief will die out. (materiel!)
        Secondly: interference is needed to suppress not the reflected signal, but the probing one! those. crush the radar, make it blind, and maybe put it out of action! Have you ever heard of the means of electronic warfare?
        Thirdly: in the x-band, the goal to detect as a needle into the sky is practically not realistic if you do not know the direction that the 300-meter radar will indicate to the complexes, which covers a huge sector with a beam.
        Fourth: PARs are only useful in partially eliminating the mechanics of rotation and speed of direction finding.
        1. postman
          postman April 30 2014 22: 15
          +1
          Quote: Skifo
          First:

          b1x, b2x, b3x, 4x sounds silly, of course not like
          Quote: Skifo
          because their sizes, whatever one may say, are commensurate with the long wavelength of the probe signal emitted by the meter radar.
          (This is generally pearl, well, how
          Quote: Skifo
          because centimeter waves in this your grief will die out.
          ! Set off, however, like
          Quote: Skifo
          HEADLIGHTS are useful only by partially getting rid of the mechanics of rotation and speed of direction finding.

          all laugh
          Quote: Skifo
          (materiel!)

          Unlike you .. TEACHED, and on VUS, and a physics course with a tower in Bauman.
          Read at least something (Theory and technique of radar and radio navigation. The curriculum for the course in the specialty. 201700 “Electronic warfare means.”) Before carrying nonsense, since you have completely no logic with deduction / induction!
          =======
          PS I look forward to hearing from you a moron minus (or minuses. If you ask friends) yes
          1. Skifo
            Skifo April 30 2014 22: 49
            +1
            Very polite for a graduate of such a respected university! But just do it, I see that you have no justification except for unconstructive criticism, so I see no reason to answer anymore .. My advice: read technical literature with chtoli comments ... Well, or at least consult with specialists))
            1. postman
              postman 1 May 2014 03: 55
              -1
              Quote: Skifo
              Very polite

              We have always said: "if you are at all, come to our AM (such a faculty, and not fair)"
              Do you know what idiotentest is? (Damn sorry for him in Germany, AND ONLY) now only against drunkards at the wheel ...
              Quote: Skifo
              . My advice: read technical literature with comments chtoli ...

              Seriously? The country of the Soviets is already 22 years old, but ...
              We need to think ... And is it worth it after:
              Quote: Skifo
              Fourth: PARs are only useful in partially eliminating the mechanics of rotation and speed of direction finding.

              Quote: Skifo
              .to. their sizes, whatever one may say, are commensurate with the long wavelength of the probe signal emitted by the radar of the meter band.


              Read the literature you read?
              Quote: Skifo
              Well, or at least consult with specialists))

              I am .... (was rather)
              You don't need to "consult" with anyone, you need to have a brain, not a ganglion, and school education, at least
  50. dim242
    dim242 April 30 2014 21: 00
    0
    Quote: RND
    Quote: domokl
    lol And what to check ... We have already checked for a long time ... At the tests it was perfectly visible ... Let it fly ... under our control.

    The naked king ... And it wasn’t that the king turned out to be, but the cat was sloppy ...

    and here Putin is an article about Kapets airplanes how you splurge in powerless anger ((((