About the fifth generation fighter. Ours and not ours

111
About the fifth generation fighter. Ours and not ours


The plane, though highly publicized, was never launched in the series. Not passed by the criterion of cost-effectiveness. In addition, it requires more than 30 hours of maintenance after each hour of flight.
In short, the US military-industrial complex gave a drink to American taxpayers and reported to F-22. From here and advertizing to this wonderful product. To People shaval. People can then shaval, but the Pentagon - no. The plane was rejected.
Now, instead of F-22, they want to push the Pentagon into its simplified modification - F-35. The same F-22, but with one engine instead of two.

In Russia, too, showed the fifth generation aircraft. In this connection, the author of the article disassembled the F-35 in detail and for one whole approach the Amer. MIC to the design and manufacture of fighters.

It seemed to me interesting and informative.

“It is not necessary for the fifth generation aircraft to be better and more effective in the battle of the 4 generation aircraft. The very calculus of generations is in some sense an advertising, “manipulative” one. What generally lies behind the term of the fifth generation? Some new properties? What kind? Stealth and versatility are usually considered. That is unobtrusive fighter-bomber? Usually, all universal things turn out to be worse than special ones; the device has to be optimized for a greater number of parameters. Versatility is always a compromise between conflicting demands. For example, between the bomb load and maximum speed. Therefore, a fighter-bomber always has fewer bombs than a bomber and less speed than a regular fighter. That is, it performs all the specific combat missions worse. Then why is he even needed? The correct answer: cost savings. Different combat missions are rarely needed at the same time. Therefore, the same plane can perform the task of both interception and bombing, that is, instead of two planes, we need one. One universal aircraft is equivalent to two specialized on the front and at the same time it will obviously be ordered to the manufacturer more than bombers and fighters. And this is cheaper production, where the circulation of the product greatly affects costs. At current prices for military equipment, this is a very important argument. But with one important condition, the universal aircraft should not cost twice as much as the specialized ones, otherwise there will be no effect of saving money. Promising American F-35 just not too satisfies this requirement. And the Americans noticed it themselves, though after the F-35 entered the tests:

American corporation Lockheed Martin will continue production of the F-16 series even after the start of serial production of the fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets, which were initially positioned as a replacement for the F-16. New modifications can be in demand in the markets of many countries because of the low cost compared to F-35, DefPro reports, citing research data published by the American analytical center Forecast International. In particular, as the newspaper notes, the latest modifications of the F-16 50 / 52 and 60 / E / F are not only more affordable than new fighters, but also meet the most modern requirements for aircraft of this class. In addition, F-16 is still in demand by consumers ... According to Forecast International experts, the production of F-16 will continue at least until 2016, although it is possible that after this period Lockheed Martin will receive orders for fighters.

As you can see, the case with the "multifunctionality" almost went bankrupt. Of course, it can also be “multi-functional”, but there is no effect from this. It does not compensate for the increase in cost, it is much cheaper to buy conventional fighters. Although the specific value of the F-35 Lockheed Martin has not yet called. Depends on contracts. So the cost of the first experimental fighter F-35 "Lightning-2" for the Netherlands Air Force will be 114 million euros. While the delivery of X-NUMX F-24 Fighting Falcon fighters to Morocco will cost 16 a million dollars to this small country, that is approximately 841,9 million dollars for a plane. The Netherlands, instead of one F-35, you could buy three F-35! And this is despite the fact that the F-16 is considered an inexpensive alternative to the F-35 Raptor! If we talk about F-22, then only its cost price is estimated at 22 million dollars, and the full price, taking into account all the indirect costs and with the expected production volume - 137,5 million. It is literally a plane "worth its weight in gold" - the cost of 350 tons of pure gold (weight of empty F-19,7A) in 22 for a year was the same 2006 million dollars! F-350 is only three times cheaper - roughly equivalent to 35 tons of gold. There is something to argue in parliament, the Netherlands still can not settle this question. Israel, which managed to bargain much cheaper - “only” at the price of 6,5 million apiece, also doubts.

But can the F-35 be much better in combat qualities? Judging by the "multifunctionality"? The latest modifications of the F-16 also made it “shock”, that is, “multifunctional”, although the modifications affected only weapon systems. And you can hang bombs on a fighter, there would be a desire. Maybe F-35 is much more successful in this regard? The F-35 is a lightweight F-22, it has been made cheaper by simply removing one engine. But what will happen if a normal aircraft has one engine removed? There are sensible voices in the USA themselves who claim that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project is a major miscalculation of the US Department of Defense. Renowned combat aircraft designer Pierre Sprey * and project director of the Straus Military Reform project Winslow Wheeler (Winslow Wheeler) point out the following flaws in the F-35:

- Excessive and uncompensated weight: with the take-off weight in the air-to-air option 49500 pounds (22450 kg), engine thrust is 42000 pounds (19050 kg), and this will be a significant step back for the new fighter to thrust-bearing.

“With this weight and wing area of ​​only 460 square feet (43 sq ft) in the Air Force and Marine Corps options, the wing loading will be 108 pounds per square foot (> 520 kg / sq ft). A fighter needs to have large wings in relation to the weight of the aircraft so that it can maneuver and survive. The F-35 is actually less maneuverable than the highly vulnerable F-105 Lead Sled, which was shot down in large numbers over North Vietnam during the Indochina War.

- With a load of only two 2000-pound (907 kg) bombs in the internal compartment - much less than any American fighter during the Vietnam War - the F-35 is practically the first light bomber in the class. If we take more bombs and hang them under the wings, the F-35 instantly ceases to be “invisible”, and the MoD has no plans to seriously test it in this configuration for many years.

- As a direct plane aviation Support (NAP) helping American troops participating in battles, the F-35 is unacceptable. He is too fast to have time to detect and fire tactical targets; it is too "delicate" and easily inflammable to withstand fire from the ground, it lacks a payload and especially the ability to "hang" steadily over the US forces while they maneuver on the ground. Attack aircraft specialized for such tasks and available A-10s are far superior to F-35s in this role.
But let's try to compare our modern domestic aircraft with the fifth-generation American aircraft, whose characteristics have been advertised for a long time, according to the basic parameters. According to Shurygin, they cannot compete. It so happens that the F-35 will have two domestic opponents with similar names — Mig-35 and Su-35 (Su-37 is now Su-35). Here's what happened when comparing:



Here are the approximate prices for aircraft. 80 million dollars for the F-35 - this is the price at which the Pentagon itself was going to buy it. Back in 2001, the Ministry of Defense (MO) predicted the purchase of 2866 units for $ 226 billion, that is, $ 79 million for each aircraft.

However, the last official estimate gives a smaller number of aircraft (2456 units) at a higher cost ($ 299 billion). This means a 54-percent increase in the cost of one aircraft - up to $ 122 million, and deliveries will be two years late. Prices for Russian aircraft are estimated - as a result of the average prices for contracts for export Mig-29 and Su-27. With the official commercial export of MiG-29 - the price range was from 11 to 32 million, Su-27 from 28 to 36 million.

Of course, the exact characteristics of the F-35 are not yet known, today their manufacturer already calls slightly different figures: 1900 km / h for maximum speed (previously called 1600 km / h) and a higher maximum take-off weight - up to 32700 kg (instead of 22680 kg) ... How this was achieved with the same engine is not entirely clear, apparently the hopes of the developers are associated with the modernization of the engine - the GE F136 instead of the P&W F135, which, in turn, is an upgrade of the Pratt & Whitney F119 used on the F-22. The F119 thrust at the afterburner was 15,875 tons (35000 lbf), the F135 already gives 19,504 tons (43000 lbf), but the F136 gives less than the F135 - 18,143 tons.

The thrust-to-weight ratio of the engine to the maximum take-off weight) F-35 (0,55) is significantly worse than the F-22 (0,83) and is inferior to the Mig-35 and Su-35 (0,74 - 0,75). It is interesting to note here that the F-35B version of the F-35 for the Marine Corps (short-takeoff andvertical-landing-STOVL) was developed with the participation of Yakovlev Design Bureau and uses the technologies developed by Russian designers for the Russian Yak-141. Due to the obvious shortcomings of this aircraft was not adopted. The main of them was high fuel consumption during vertical take-off - up to 30% of the entire stock. As a result, the fighter's radius of action is reduced to just 300 km. "Such a low figure means that the Yak-141 cannot protect the ship on which it is based, since the range of air-to-ship cruise missiles exceeded 300 km in the early 60s of the last century."

The engine with a vertical take-off must exceed the take-off weight and therefore the yak-141-1,52 thrust-bearing ratio does not translate into fighter speed indicators — 1800 km / h. What does this mean for F-35 deck options? For an aircraft whose traction is so small? The requirement to equalize the engine thrust with the weight of the aircraft leads to a decrease in both the combat load and the fuel reserve — up to 50%. The Yak-141 engine thrust was 24 tons compared to 18 tons F-35. This means that the take-off weight of the F-35B will not exceed these 18 tons. The empty F-35B weighs 15,8 tons and this means that only 2 tons are left for fuel and weapons! Yak-141 had 4 tons for this, 3 tons for fuel and one for weapons. The radius of F-35B will not exceed the radius of Yak- 141, which had better traction characteristics, that is, no more than 300 km. In fact, the F-35B should land immediately after take-off; there will be no defense against it.

The MiG is our “light” tactical fighter, and already its flight characteristics are much better than the F-35. Heavy Su-35 significantly more powerful and virtual fights of the American F-35 and Russian fighters in the framework of the secret exercises Pacific Vision-2008, which were held in August 2008goda at the US Air Force Base Hickam in the Hawaiian Islands, clearly showed the advantages of the Russian aircraft.

The test results became known through the Australian military department, whose representatives attended the exercise. According to Australian military analyst Dennis Jensen, the F-35 aircraft were "bits like penguins." After that, Australia wondered about the feasibility of purchasing F-35 and the United States was worth a lot of effort to convince the Australians still not to abandon them.

Only “golden» F-22 with maximum speed in 2.3 Mach (2750 km / h) and maximum combat load of more than 8 tons can make a real competition to our “outdated” Su. But this super-fighter also has a significant drawback - the range of the F-22 of all 750 km. Apparently it is precisely due to the fuel reserve that the combat load and thrust-to-weapon ratio is increased. Therefore, we can assume that Su-35 with half-empty tanks will catch up with the F-22. For the same reason, the F-22 is ill-equipped for patrols, it cannot stay in the air for a long time. The aircraft’s combat effectiveness due to its ultra-high cost, the manufacturer has to greatly overestimate - since it is ten times more expensive than the old F-16, it should be thirty times more efficient. That is why the relative losses of the Raptors in air combat with fighters of the Su-27 or MiG-29 families - subject to a commensurate level of pilots training - are estimated by analysts at Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force as 1 to 30. "It’s hard to expect anything else: if you want to sell, convince the buyer of the profitability of the purchase. Even if you have to lie prohibitively exaggerating the value of those "innovations" that have new products.

The most important innovation of the new generation of combat aircraft is their stealth. Now this quality of airplanes sounds more modest than the “invisibility” that the well-known predecessor of this generation had - the F-117. However, after the loss of several F-117, shot down by air defense missiles of the old Soviet systems, this term faded and acquired a more realistic sound. As for the “invisibility” of F-35, the Americans themselves doubt it.

And what about the arguments of the defenders of the F-35 program about its two most valuable characteristics: stealth and advanced avionics? Why doesn't the Air Force say that the stealth plane is quite detectable with a radar, is it just a matter of the type of radar and the angle from which the aircraft is observed? Ask about the pilots of the two "invisible" F-117, which the Serbs successfully attacked using radar-guided missiles in 1999, during the air war in Kosovo. As for the very complex electronics for attacking air targets, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, hopes for success due to the hypothetical ability to detect the enemy at an extremely long range. However, in a real air war, the number of long-range rocket battles is much lower. The electronics that support the F-35's air-to-ground operation promise slightly more than simplifying the management of the use of existing ammunition.



In connection with the mention of the "invisible" F-117 worth remembering history the emergence of this technology from Americans. The fact is that this technology of "invisibility" was developed by a Soviet scientist P.Ya. Ufimtsevym still in 70-ies. Then, the Americans made the first experiments to create low-profile aircraft, so, in 1964, made the first flight of Lockheed SR-71 - their first experience in this direction. And the main idea of ​​their first attempts was the use of radar absorbing coatings. However, this made it possible to reduce the intensity of the reflected signal by percentages, but not by several times. In 1972, the English translation of the book P.Ya. Ufimtseva "The method of edge waves in the physical theory of diffraction". She pointed out a fundamentally new way to reduce visibility - by changing the shape of the aircraft. Since in most radar systems the same antenna (or antenna array) serves as a receiver and transmitter, it is possible to reduce the visibility of the aircraft by reducing the reflection in the direction of the locator. To do this: - remove the flat in the direction of the radar elements; - remove perpendicular edges in the direction of the radar; - remove right angles, because a right angle is a perfect reflector.

However, an honest solution to the diffraction problem is not exhausted by this, and Ufimtsev developed a special theory of "edge waves" that allows one to calculate the diffraction of radio waves on complex objects. It was this tool that allowed Lockheed employees to create the F-117 fighter, which first flew in 1981.

However, the Ufimtsev method of creating “invisibility” violated all aerodynamics. F-117, which had a maximum speed like a passenger airliner, was about 990 km / h, it was difficult to call it a fighter. He would not tolerate any air combat. His main task was covert raids to the rear of the enemy with the application of pinpoint strikes on "valuable" ground targets. In Iraq, where air defense weapons were destroyed by conventional aircraft and cruise missiles, it seemed useful. Although, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, during the Gulf war, one F-117A was shot down by the Iraqi Igla air defense system. The plane fell in the desert, in Saudi Arabia, from where, according to the weekly journal Arguments and Facts, some samples of its equipment and materials were carried on their shoulders by officers of one of the GRU special forces groups of the General Staff of the Russian Defense Ministry. However, it was only after Yugoslavia that it became known that the “invisibility” of the F-117 is very relative. The reflection of the radar beam, though at times less, even the old Soviet radars have the opportunity to notice it. After this discovery, it became apparent that the F-117 was completely useless and it was immediately removed from service. "The US Department of Defense officially acknowledged that the total cost of the F-117A aircraft, including the entire program (64 machines for 1990 year-GV), was $ 6,56 billion, which includes $ 2 billion for development, $ 4,27 billion on purchase and $ 295,4 million for the equipment of sites and so on. The cost of one aircraft under the program is $ 111,2 million. ”And this program, worth $ 6,56, billions of dollars turned out to be the very“ drink ”of dough, which the liberal opposition usually attributes to our state projects.

The Ufimtsev method has a very serious fundamental flaw - the radiation of the radar is still not absorbed, but reemitted in different directions. Therefore, it is worth spreading the source of the radar signal and the receiver of the reflected pulse (that is, using a bistatic location scheme) - and the “invisibility” becomes visible. Ufimtsev himself told this to his American students in 1990, after he was invited to work at the University of California. Our military experts never considered this method to be quite promising and therefore did not secretly work Ufimtsev. They even allowed him to leave the country in Soviet times. The current fifth generation of “Invisibles” is a continuation of the F-117 experience, but taking into account the aerodynamics, which they did not sacrifice for the sake of invisibility. Yes, the forms are licked, weapon hidden in the housing, applied radio-absorbing coating. This is not effective on 100%, but reduces the ETA several times. That allows you to reduce the detection distance, but no more. The F-22 and F-35 projects have developed as a compromise between the requirement of the Ufimtsev method and the aerodynamic requirements of the aircraft, and therefore they are more visible than the F-117 and have worse aerodynamics than the usual F-16.

There is no doubt that similar developments are also being conducted in Russia, however, due to their high secrecy, there is practically no specific information about them.

12 January The 1999 Aviation Scientific Industrial Complex (ANPK) MiG demonstrated an 1.44 aircraft at the aerodrome in Zhukovsky, an experimental aircraft created during the development of the domestic prospective multipurpose front-line fighter (MFI) - the “Project 1.42”. The aircraft shown on the airfield was attributed to the widespread use of “stealth” technology and the achievement of the EPR value in the forward hemisphere of 0,1 sq. M. While there was talk of any signs in the 1.44 aircraft of any noticeable work on reducing visibility, including the lack of RPM and special coatings, director of the MV Research Center. Keldysh Academician Anatoly Koroteev RAS made a sensational statement. Its essence lies in the fact that Russian scientists have developed new technologies to ensure the inconspicuousness of aircraft (LA), based on other (than the Americans) physical principles. A special plasma formation is created around the aircraft, which, on the one hand, absorbs the energy of the electromagnetic waves of the enemy's irradiating radar, and on the other hand, causes the electromagnetic waves to bend around the plasma cloud. Thus, there is a sharp decrease in the level of the reflected radar signal, operating in both continuous and pulsed modes.

Yesterday, from the airfield of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the first flight of the fifth-generation Russian aircraft PAK FA took place. This is a great holiday for Russian aviation. There is every reason to believe that its characteristics will be somewhat better than those of American aircraft. And it will be adopted not much later than the F-35, whose flaws are already visible with the naked eye. It will only be possible to gloat if competitors on the world stage have such an “argument”. ”
Our news channels

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

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    11 2014 June
    Apparently we still have to learn and learn from the Americans how to cut and roll loot! In this regard, we are just not reasonable children against their background.
    1. Angolaforever
      +21
      11 2014 June
      They saw, but the planes are adopted and stand on alert, while we are sawing and nothing has been taken into service, only trials.
    2. Reasonable, 2,3
      +7
      11 2014 June
      Do not underestimate. A good board, the main thing for pilots
      1. Ekv
        Ekv
        +3
        11 2014 June
        In the Russian Federation, they also showed a fifth-generation aircraft.

        No, in Russia they showed something remotely resembling a 5th generation airplane:

        F-22 and F-35 all skin, almost 100% made of carbon fiber.

        Here are the words of one candidate of technical sciences (specialist in radar absorbing materials):
        In Russia, the necessary capacities for the production of components for polymer composites, for example, the polymers themselves, are completely lacking. There is also no possibility of obtaining high-purity functional fillers (including ultradispersed [nano]) required for radio-absorbing materials. In Russia, even "decent" carbon fibers are not made, just as they do not make decent raw materials for their production.
        Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the wings of PAK FA are metal, power elements are also. In Russia, even for the wings of civilian aircraft, they cannot make a polymer composite, and here is a military stealth. Russia is not a competitor to the United States in the field of composites, in any of the possible areas. Sometimes carbon fibers are smuggled from Western countries into Russia for special purposes. products. Moreover, fiber brands whose export to Russia is naturally prohibited.

        If we talk about real RPMs that can be used in special products, then in Russia there is no production of all, without exception, heat-resistant polymers that could be used as a matrix (supersonic temperatures will not allow the use of rubbers, polyethylene and polypropylene). And this applies to both thermoplastics and thermosets. From thermoplastics, polyphenylene sulfide, polyetheretherketone, polyetherimide, polyphenylene oxide would be suitable. In Russia, the synthesis of heat-resistant epoxides has not even been established, not to mention modern cross-linked polymers, such as the same bismaleinimide (Raptor glider matrix). And progress is being made, on the approach are qualitatively improved polymers, with a temperature of long-term operation at 300 degrees.
        There is also no industrial production of high-purity fillers with a given structure (amorphous metals for example).
        But the most fundamental issue is the lack of production of high-modulus carbon fibers, without which it is impossible to create a composite airframe. At the moment, Russian carbon fiber reinforced plastics have a tensile strength of less than 2 GPa, which is not suitable even for civilian aircraft (in the west, PCM materials in "civil wings" have a strength of 2,3 GPa). RPM is included in the power structure of the airframe at the design stage. And without a full-fledged composite glider, a full-fledged stealth cannot be obtained. And such a glider in Russia can not create.
        1. Ekv
          Ekv
          -8
          11 2014 June
          That is, the T-50 will be largely metallic. Moreover, the characteristics of Russian composites are significantly inferior to those in the United States (including radio absorption).

          Therefore, the EPR is F-22 0.0001 m2, and the EPR is T-50 0.5 m2.
          EPR source F-22:
          http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm
          http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article3275.html
          http://www.aviationnewsreleases.com/2009/02/f-22-raptor-to-make-paris-air-show.h
          tml

          ESR source T-50:
          http://www.inosmi.ru/army/20100313/158588233.html
          Also on the T-50 there are no S-shaped air intakes, and the compressor blades make a significant contribution to the frontal EPR.




          Add to this the perfect avionics of the raptor:

          The ability of the radar to operate in Low Interception Probability (LPI) mode renders conventional SPO / RTR systems useless. The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search for a fighter aircraft equipped with STR / RTR equipment so that the target does not know that it is being irradiated. Unlike conventional radars that emit powerful energy pulses in a narrow frequency range, AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes return, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as a conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has a significantly lower amount of energy and a different signal structure, it will be difficult to detect the F-22.

          The F-22 has an ALR-94 electronic intelligence station, which allows, if the enemy has an UAV turned on, to launch missiles on it including its own radar very shortly, or even not including it at all.

          And immediately it becomes clear that the chances of the T-50 against the F-22 are few.

          However, after the loss of several F-117s, shot down by air defense missiles of still old Soviet systems, this term faded and acquired a more realistic sound. Regarding the "invisibility" of the F-35, the Americans themselves doubt it.


          I answered a similar nonsense in a recent article. MagazinesDMthere are many, but I am alone. I don’t even want to comment on this.
          1. +23
            11 2014 June
            Quote: EKV
            I answered a similar nonsense in a recent article. There are a lot of journalists, but I am alone

            Chesslovo, I wanted to say the same thing :) Only - to you.
            Quote: EKV
            F-22 and F-35 have the entire skin, almost 100% made of carbon fiber.

            Is this a Big Plus, in your opinion? We have composite materials based on carbon fiber tested on the Su-47, if that. And the conclusions are not to say that they are very positive - of course, plastic is lighter and more radioactive, but at the same time, the design still has less strength. What about combat damage? CFRP structures are not repairable, they must be changed entirely. It is necessary, during the war because of every scratch to change the wing?
            Quote: EKV
            Therefore, the EPR is F-22 0.0001 m2, and the EPR is T-50 0.5 m2.

            Interestingly, your links on F-22 write something like the following
            "According to the agency OBS (One Woman Said) EPR F-22 is ..." I especially liked this
            That classified requirement has been calculated at a -40 dBsm, about the size of a steel marble
            those. 0,0 ... and some more zeros there - is it a CALCULATED value? :)
            But there is no official data.
            Quote: EKV
            Also on the T-50 there are no S-shaped air intakes, and the compressor blades make a significant contribution to the frontal EPR.

            There are various ways to reduce the visibility of the VU and the S-shaped channel - only one of them. If we turn to the data of foreign samples, then we can say the following:
            Americans and specifically - representatives of Boieng Corporation for their F-15SE declare a frontal EPR comparable to the F-35, and it, like the T-50, is equipped with an adjustable air intake. http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2326
            Quote: EKV
            Add to this the perfect avionics avionics

            Very perfect ... only trouble - according to the same OBS agency
            Quote: EKV
            The ability of the radar to operate in Low Interception Probability (LPI) mode renders conventional SPO / RTR systems useless.

            Agas. Only one small caveat - there is NO OFFICIAL data on the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35 radar systems IN NATURE. All there is is expert opinion. "But I think that AN / APG-77 can ..."
            In general, it is done like this. I am writing an article on the topvar "In my High Expert Opinion, the PAK FA radar is capable of seeing a target with an RCS of 0,0000000000001 square millimeters in the Alpha Centauri region." After that, a couple of more authoritative sources (say, the journal Aviation and Cosmonautics) write "according to the data of the PAK FA radar topvar ..." the foot of a cockroach against the background of the star closest to us, the ultimate truth
            This simple trick Americans (masters of information wars ... once) did more than once
            1. Ekv
              Ekv
              -4
              11 2014 June
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Interestingly, your links on F-22 write something like the following
              "According to the agency OBS (One Baba Said) EPR F-22 is ... "I especially liked this
              That classified requirement has been calculated at a -40 dBsm, about the size of a steel marble
              those. 0,0 ... and some more zeros there - is it a CALCULATED value? :)
              But there is no official data.

              I will repeat in more detail (especially for those with limited mental abilities):

              Aviation Week & Space Technology, one of the most influential and respected aerospace magazines in the world, published an article in 2009 stating that the E-F-22 is 0.0001 m2 and the E-F-35 is 0.001 m2.
              Here is her translation: http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/4630/
              «company representatives (Lockheed Martin) statethat the EPR (effective scattering area) of the aircraft was about -40 dBsm. ”
              -40 dBsm = 0.0001 m2.
              -30 dBsm = 0.001 m2.
              Title of the article in English: David A. Fulghum - Aviation Week & Space Technology - 04/02/2009 - F-22 Raptor To Make Paris Air Show Debut
              Now this article is not available (at least, it is not in the public domain), but it has been preserved on the mirrors:
              http://www.aviationnewsreleases.com/2009/02/f-22-raptor-to-make-paris-air-show.h
              tml
              http://forum.milavia.net/military-aircraft/f-22-raptor-to-make-paris-air-show-de
              but /

              +

              The site F-16.net published data on the characteristics of the F-22 referring to Lockheed Martin.

              Repeating the allegations made in November 2005, company states that the superior flying qualities of the F-22 include EPR indicators that are "better" than the requirements under which the contract was signed. These classified requirements were calculated at −40 dBsm (−40 dBsm = 0.0001 m²). Size comparable to a small steel ball.

              Repeating from a statement from November, 2005, the company says that the F-22s over-performance includes a radar cross section that is "better" than was contracted for. That classified requirement has been calculated at a −40 dBsm, about the size of a steel marble.
              1. +13
                11 2014 June
                Quote: EKV
                I will repeat in more detail (especially for people with intellectual disabilities)

                Have ty little dogs :)
                Quote: EKV
                Aviation Week & Space Technology, one of the most influential and respected aerospace magazines in the world, published an article in 2009 that claimed

                And now, finally, please read the links given by you
                To pique consumer interest, Lockheed Martin has revealed better than expected performance for the stealth fighter.

                Help with translation? Or can you cope without the "mental disabilities"?
                Literally, I would translate it like this: "In order to impress potential buyers, Lockheed Martin stated that ..."
                1. Ekv
                  Ekv
                  -7
                  11 2014 June
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  To help with the translation?

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Literally, I would translate it like this: "In order to impress potential buyers, Lockheed Martin stated that ..."

                  F-22 is not for sale even to allies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  1. PLO
                    +8
                    11 2014 June
                    F-22 is not for sale even to allies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    So this is the authoritative Aviation Week & Space Technology laughing
                    Why don’t you trust such an authoritative publication?
                  2. +8
                    11 2014 June
                    Did you understand what you wrote? laughing
              2. +2
                11 2014 June
                Quote: EKV
                “Company representatives (Lockheed Martin) say that the EPR (effective scattering area) of the aircraft was about -40 dBsm.”
                -40 dBsm = 0.0001 m2.
                -30 dBsm = 0.001 m2.

                Lockheed Martin reports in the public domain, if you read them you will find such a statement by the company's specialists:
                - Some F-22 parts under certain irradiation angles comprise an EPR of approximately -40 dBsm = 0.0001 m2. According to these statements, it is impossible to say that the EPR F-22 is 40 dBsm.
                In general, the EPR of a fighter is a state secret.
              3. +2
                11 2014 June
                That's when the F-22 "accidentally falls" from some modernized s-125, that's when we'll laugh about its EPR = 0.00000000000000000000000 laughing
                1. Kassandra
                  +2
                  15 2014 June
                  already on the border of syria with jordan fell
            2. Ekv
              Ekv
              -6
              11 2014 June
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              There are various ways to reduce the visibility of the VU and the S-shaped channel - only one of them.

              The S-shaped channel is the best of them. Radar blocker reduces speed!
              Radar blockers delivered to the B-1A (M max. = 2.3) reduced the speed of the B-1B to M max. = 1.25.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Americans and specifically - representatives of Boieng Corporation for their F-15SE

              How many orders are already on it?

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              http://paralay.iboards.ru

              paralay is a patriotic resource.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Very perfect ... only trouble - according to the same OBS agency

              http://www.electronics.ru/files/article_pdf/1/article_1455_218.pdf

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Huh. Only one small nuance - OFFICIAL data on the capabilities of the radar F-22 and F-35 IN NATURE DOES NOT EXIST.

              It does not exist in the “brain” of precedent and on the Russian Internet, but it does exist in foreign military magazines!

              Journal of Electronic Defense: http://www.crows.org/jed/jed.html
              Aviation Week & Space Technology: http://aviationweek.com/

              The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR / ESM systems. The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR / ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN / APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar's signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.

              The ability of the radar to operate in Low Interception Probability (LPI) mode renders conventional SPO / RTR systems useless. The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search for a fighter aircraft equipped with STR / RTR equipment so that the target does not know that it is being irradiated. Unlike conventional radars that emit powerful energy pulses in a narrow frequency range, AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes return, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as a conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has a significantly lower amount of energy and a different signal structure, it will be difficult to detect the F-22.

              http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
              1. PLO
                +5
                11 2014 June
                The S-shaped channel is the best of them. Radar blocker reduces speed!
                Radar blockers delivered to the B-1A (M max. = 2.3) reduced the speed of the B-1B to M max. = 1.25.

                great joke lol
                the fact is that unlike radar blockers, unregulated S-shaped air intakes reduce the maximum speed permanently.
                that is why with nominally more powerful engines the F-22 is inferior in maximum speed to both the F-15 and Su-35, and even more so the MiG-31.


                http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm

                hmm .. these are only experts like you, with the help of one paragraph of "pseudo-clever scribbling" to assess all the capabilities of American and domestic radar. negative
              2. +4
                11 2014 June
                Quote: EKV
                The S-shaped channel is the best of them. Radar blocker reduces speed!
                Radar blockers delivered to the B-1A (M max. = 2.3) reduced the speed of the B-1B to M max. = 1.25.

                It’s just some kind of holiday :) Is there anything that the radar blockers are including on F / A-18? He also only flies to 1,25M, right?
                The B-1B has a reduced maximum speed as a result of a whole range of measures to improve the aircraft (the B-1A was still an ugly duckling), while the decrease in visibility was not limited only to the radar blocker (if I was there at all, I don’t remember that I remember) and tying everything to a radar blocker is absurd.
                Quote: EKV
                How many orders are already on it?

                How is the number of orders associated with stealth? You have a statement, a new discovery in the field of physics :)
                Quote: EKV
                paralay is a patriotic resource.

                And therefore of course lies. And the ultimate truth is spoken by adherents of Western military equipment admired to the loss of the last crinkle
                Quote: EKV
                http://www.electronics.ru/files/article_pdf/1/article_1455_218.pdf

                What a charm :)))) When I write
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Huh. Only one small nuance - OFFICIAL data on the capabilities of the radar F-22 and F-35 IN NATURE DOES NOT EXIST.

                My opponent gives a link ... to the publication "ELECTRONICS, Science Technology Business" from (WARNING NOW WILL BE VERY FUNNY!) April 2001 g!
                Given the fact that AN / APG-77 has been in operation since 2005, the value of this publication can hardly be underestimated :)
                Quote: EKV
                It does not exist in the “brain” of precedent and on the Russian Internet, but it does exist in foreign military magazines!

                You never bothered to understand what I told you. try again
                OFFICIAL data on the capabilities of the radar F-22 and F-35 in nature does not exist.
                If you are unable to distinguish between official data (i.e. data of companies - developers) from writing in magazines - these are the problems of your perception of reality.
                Have you ever wondered - WHERE WHERE do the data from these same magazines come from? You can search from top to bottom all the sites of the district, Northrop and so on - you will not find any data about any radars there. And the information on the capabilities of the F-22 radars, circulated by various Western publications, seems to be the primary source of publication in Aviation Wikin which, as far as I know, expressly states that the data on AN / APG-77 is advertising.
            3. Ekv
              Ekv
              -5
              11 2014 June
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I am writing an article on topvar
              After that, a couple of more authoritative sources (for example, the journal Aviation and Cosmonautics) write "according to topvar

              Do you seriously think that Aviation Week & Space Technology will refer to an article of some incompetent scribbler from the top? Do you know how much an annual subscription to Aviation Week & Space Technology costs?
              1. +9
                11 2014 June
                Quote: EKV
                Do you seriously think that Aviation Week & Space Technology will refer to an article of some incompetent scribbler from the top?

                To whom they say - that will be referred to. The point is that it shapes public opinion. Aviation himself will not lie at all - he honestly pointed out that "the material was taken from a topvar" (in the case of AN / APG-77 EMNIP it was indicated - "according to the advertising data of the developer's company")
                But in the future, other publications will provide a link to Aviation, and not to Topvar. And at the very same flight, suddenly! And the source from the Internet disappeared ... And to understand where the legs grow from the LPI mode is definitely impossible ... Well, except for those who read the original article in aviation
                In general, when reading Western sources, you need to turn on the brain and keep your ear sharp! And then they’re used to it - since it is written in English, then the truth is the last resort ...
            4. 0
              11 2014 June
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: EKV
              F-22 and F-35 have the entire skin, almost 100% made of carbon fiber.
              Is this a Big Plus, in your opinion? We have composite materials based on carbon fiber tested on the Su-47, if that. And the conclusions are not to say that they are very positive - of course, plastic is lighter and more radioactive, but at the same time, the design still has less strength. What about combat damage? CFRP structures are not repairable, they must be changed entirely. It is necessary, during the war because of every scratch to change the wing?

              Generally, CFRP is used on the MiG-29; Su-27 and their modifications. In the late 80s on promising aircraft they wanted to increase the use of carbon fiber> 30%. Why MiG-31 and SR-71 use special steel and titanium, because of temperature conditions.
          2. +4
            11 2014 June
            I suppose you are one of the developers or designers of the T-50, or where did you get such information about the EPR of the T-50, how do you know what the new engine will be like, or even which is now? But about plastic, it's cool, you can look at the photo of an unpainted T-50 and see that, oh Lord, it is also 85% made of carbon fiber. Of course, our corporate slovenliness has always come back to haunt us, but in order to produce a mediocre plane in modern realities, then if you please. And about the package of orders it was funny, it was something like this "dad" told everyone to invest, everyone invested - now everyone is buying. I may be a person who does not understand much in aviation and is patriotic, but what you write by throwing links is not clear to whom and what is obvious nonsense due to the fact that it is just top secret. You don’t believe in Russia, my dear, but in vain!
            1. Ekv
              Ekv
              -4
              11 2014 June
              Quote: melman
              I think you are one of the developers or designers of the T-50, or where did you get such information about the E-T-50

              open your eyes: chief designer of the aircraft Alexander Davidenko indirectly hinted at the magnitude of the EPR T-50. According to him, the T-50 ESR will be close to 0.5 m2.
              Source: http://www.inosmi.ru/army/20100313/158588233.html

              Quote: melman
              But about plastic it's cool, you can look at the photo of the unpainted T-50 and see that, oh Lord, it is also 85% made of carbon fiber.

              Immediately obvious - "specialist." laughing
              The color is hard to understand. The conclusion can be made only if the paint is the same everywhere, then the composite will be paler. And it is worth considering that composites have a protective layer that can change color. But sometimes the binder is tinted to control the impregnation process during production.
              1. +1
                11 2014 June
                Quote: EKV
                open your eyes: the chief designer of the aircraft, Alexander Davidenko, indirectly hinted at the magnitude of the EPR T-50. According to him, the T-50 ESR will be close to 0.5 m2.
                Source: http://www.inosmi.ru/army/20100313/158588233.html

                So, you trust Davydenko on T-50, but not on F-22, because he claimed that the F-22 EPR was 0,3 m2, but a paradox.
          3. typhoon7
            +1
            11 2014 June
            Well, why doesn’t such a perfect machine like the Raptor, with a perfect avionics, participate in conflicts, and do not even conquer the skies of the states, but it’s fun, because it’s worth crazy rabbits? Because Sushka sees farther and a homing plane without which there’s not much sense from him. Our BB missiles are farther, and in the close combat our Dryers and MiGs will make it even more so. I don’t remember the name of the Amerov expert who spoke about the strengths of the Raptor and the T-50, but he said that the T-50 is hardly noticeable in the front hemisphere and carries longer-range weapons than a rattle, and the rear hemisphere is more noticeable, but the car beautiful in close maneuverable combat. The Su-35, although it is noticeable, but it sees farther than a rattle, and it also has more chances than a rattle, both in long-range and especially in close combat. Mig-z5 also sees a rattle, but in close combat he gives a rattle. Rafal, Typhoon and the Scandinavian will do the same with a racket. Therefore, he does not participate in conflicts, after the first losses the creators are buried alive, so that there is little use from his perfect avionics, they preferred the Superhornet and this can be understood. We still have a modernized MiG-31, which, like the T-50, Su-35, can work as AWACS.
            1. Ekv
              Ekv
              -6
              11 2014 June
              URRRRRAAAAAAAAA !!!!!
              URRRRRAAAAAAAAA !!!!!
              URRRRRAAAAAAAAA !!!!!
              1. +2
                11 2014 June
                Someone doubt that the quantity and quality of scientific work in the United States is higher than in Russia? Or, what is the number of US universities included in the world top 100 or top 1000 in the USA is again higher? Maybe someone doubts that the technological level of enterprises in the USA is higher too?
                I am sure that there are those who not only doubt but also believe that the opposite is true. Then, of course, we can assume that, for example, Curiosity or Opportunity can be done on the knee and, with a good swing, thrown to Mars.
                1. typhoon7
                  0
                  11 2014 June
                  The bulk of America's Nobel laureates are the same laureates as their president, the Nobel "peacemaker".
                2. +1
                  11 2014 June
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Maybe someone doubts that the technological level of enterprises in the USA is higher too?

                  It's hard to argue here, of course, but this
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Or, what is the number of US universities included in the world top 100 or top 1000 in the United States again higher?

                  and who forms these ratings, and most importantly how?
                  Why in the same states with great pleasure are they recruiting graduates from universities in India and China for their research work than their own? The same applies to graduates of Soviet universities.
                  So what about ratings, the question is very controversial.
                3. Kassandra
                  0
                  14 2014 June
                  they were also thrown there on Soviet engines and the main scientific device in curiosity is the Russian one.
                  Teachers from Russia teach Chinese students at American Universities
                  not a single AMS except the Soviet one sat on Venus
                  are you satisfied? smile
                  1. 0
                    14 2014 June
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    are you satisfied?

                    Curiosity was launched using Atlas 5, version 541, the first stage used the Russian RD180 engine plus 4 TTUs, the engines of the second stage, all equipment and mechanisms providing access to orbit, and the delivery of the device to Mars was not Russian. Of 12 sets of equipment, 6 laboratories, 1 Russian laboratory (hydrogen determination). If you read the goals and objectives of the mission - determining the mineralogical composition, soil, composition by carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, read the characteristics of the laboratories and the results - your conclusion about the main device looks at least debatable.
                    And it’s very good that Russian devices are used in foreign projects, now the level of Russian space exploration is far from the same, at least according to the results of the failure of the AMS Phobos-Grunt, so cooperation is needed. Yes, the last Soviet AMS landed on Venus in 1981, made a color panorama, after 84 only Americans, Europeans, and Japanese flew to Venus.
                    The merits of the Soviet-Russian cosmonautics are undeniable, but for now, the results of space exploration and, most importantly, their role in acquiring new knowledge are much higher among the Americans. Flight of the pioneers, Hubble, search for planets, the level of exploration of Mars.
                    I don’t understand - do you think I can’t read at least on Wiki and evaluate the composition of the equipment, the results? I hope others can do this if there is still no general impression of the progress of space programs in different countries.
                    Did you like the lecture? laughing
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      14 2014 June
                      hike you still need a lecture
                      first stage engines this is the main thing in a rocket
                      maybe it’s debatable for you, but the fact that it’s one of the main ones even written on the NASA website, the main Curiosity device refers to neutron physics, in it the bourgeois, like in plasma physics and plasma engines, do not understand anything, so the Russians silently buy without trying even copy them.
                      AMS Phobos-soil was taken out of the museum, it is an apparatus of the 80s, and launched it into nowhere to wash the grandmother
                      Many people flew to Venus but no one else sat on it except the USSR.
                      I understand that the flight of pioneers and voyagers did not pursue any goals other than advertising the system. flies made pictures for boys and that’s it - and you boys are happy. The only normal mission for now is Cassini-Huygens and this is not NASA but ESA.
                      The entire bourgeois sector of the ISS is the essence of NASA solar panels and empty Italian-made cans (modules), all of which are concentrated in a dedicated Russian-made module.
                      1. +1
                        15 2014 June
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        first stage engines this is the main thing in a rocket

                        A rather strange remark, the main thing in the launch vehicle is the implementation of all its work, and not just the work of the first stage.
                        Vladimir Lvovich Solntsev, executive director of NPO Energomash named after Academician V.P. Glushko - "... Soviet rocket engines have always had higher energy characteristics than American ones. The advantage in this scientific and technical direction remains today, almost fifty years later. Alas, in many other areas of the space sphere, the Americans are ahead of us ... . "
                        The Americans still have a launch vehicle - taurus, pegasus, minotaur, delta, before that, shuttles, saturns, all of them had their engines standing and standing.
                        Pioneers studied the Moon, Venus, the solar wind, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, comets, and 10 and 11 studied deep space. Interestingly, pioneer 6 has been working for 50 years.
                        Something seems to me that you hardly know more and better Solntsev, whose words I quoted above.
                        From scratch, nothing arises, for success in any business, you need resources, personnel, money. Who invests more - gets more results. It is not clear why you are arguing with the axiom.
                      2. Kassandra
                        +1
                        15 2014 June
                        strange that strange
                        this is the most critical complex and crucial part of it
                        on the plane too

                        But the atlas is not worth it ...

                        Solntsev said this on camera, I do not.
                        For success, you need first of all brains, and they, as you know, flow from where they are more to where they are less. And how many pigs don’t feed with money on the stock exchange can still teach to play it, but not to build rockets.
                      3. 0
                        15 2014 June
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Solntsev said this on camera, I do not.

                        There was only one children's cartoon, and there the character uttered "... but Baba Yaga is against! ..."
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        15 2014 June
                        whether she is against it or not, even a pig cannot teach a pig to build a rocket.
                        For this, the NAZA management department needs "captured SS men" at least, and components and know-how from outside, when even they cannot cope.
                    2. Kassandra
                      0
                      14 2014 June
                      and about telescopes - both the USA and the USSR / RF have a lot of the same size, they just look down at the stars. optical reconnaissance satellites are called.
                    3. Lexx58
                      +1
                      19 2014 June
                      Failure AMS Phobos-Grunt has already been proven due to purely external causes as a result of electronic warfare.
              2. FID
                +5
                11 2014 June
                Andrey from Chelyabinsk - ++++ for you! In principle, it is very pleasant to read the comments, which are full of numbers and links from the "network" ... Sometimes you want to ask - men, did you touch the plane with your hands? Can you imagine how this metal fool flies? Can you imagine how much labor has been invested in this pile of metal and how much has yet to be invested? Understand, all these 5th generation, 4 ++ - generation ... is just a play on words. Real planes are completely different things ...
                1. +6
                  11 2014 June
                  Quote: SSI
                  Sometimes a hunt to ask - men, but did you touch the plane with your hands? Can you imagine how this metal fool flies?

                  Dear SSI, to be honest, I still can’t understand why this plane flies, but does not flap its wings :)))) General of the couch troops, which is already there.
                  Quote: SSI
                  Real planes are completely different things ...

                  I guess :) Just entering into disputes, I hope that my understanding of aviation (certainly only capable of making a specialist laugh) is nevertheless a little closer to the real state of affairs than that of my opponent. And to the truths in the last resort to me as to China through Paris, but everything is forested :)
                2. Kassandra
                  0
                  21 2014 June
                  they themselves do not particularly represent, and they need others not to represent.
                  the question to which generation Harrier belongs confuses or infuriates them. all these generations were invented precisely because of this (because of it).
            2. capitalist
              +2
              11 2014 June
              Well, why doesn’t such a perfect machine like the Raptor, with a perfect avionics, participate in conflicts, and do not even conquer the skies of the states, but is on the joke, because it costs crazy grandmas?

              he doesn’t stand on jokes, but imagine that he is actively exploited .. he does not participate in conflicts because he has nothing to do there .. this is a plane of gaining air superiority .. with whom should he fight? shoot down balloons of Afghan mujahideen?

              Because Sushka sees farther and a hovering plane without which there’s not much sense from him.

              ololo! drafts bare !!))
              Can you imagine what it is to shoot down AWACS? this is a task of complexity slightly inferior to the sinking of an aircraft carrier ..
              I don’t remember the name of the Amerov expert who spoke about the strengths of the Raptor and the T-50, but he said that the T-50 is hardly noticeable in the front hemisphere and carries longer-range weapons than a rattle, and the rear hemisphere is more noticeable, but the car beautiful in close combat maneuvers
              okay! we’ve even completed the plane, but he already knows where and what is beautiful in it)

              . The Su-35, although it is noticeable, but it sees farther than a rattle, and it also has more chances than a rattle, both in long-range and especially in close combat.
              the second time already mention .. where does the information that the Su-35 sees next? Irbis is a very good radar station (no matter what the shit that is on the MiG-31 about which later), but with what hangover did you decide that it is better than the one that is on the F-22?) Perhaps it is not much worse, but I'm sorry - you even in the first half of the sentence contains the answer why everything written below is nonsense .. The Su-35 EPR, depending on the hemisphere of observation, is from 1 to 2 m2 .. The Raptor has 0,0001 .. Let's say the Americans lied, let's take 0,01 m, good for such a purpose there is official data for Irbis; he will find such a target from 90 km. The Raptorovskaya AN / APG-77 on the passport discovers a target with an EPR of 1 m2 with ... 225 km in normal mode and from 193 km in LPI .. And who will see anyone BEFORE ????
              right .. OH. more than 100 km.
              now in the range of the missiles .. the main modification of the R-27 has a launch range of not more than 90 km (longer-range modifications are intended only for firing at actively emitting targets - jammers, etc.). AIM-22C-120 and AIM-5C-120 used on the F-7 have a launch range of 105 and 120 km, respectively. Passing the final stage of testing AIM-120D -180 km.
              continue to continue or is everything clear?
              1. typhoon7
                +1
                11 2014 June
                And where did you get the idea that the Raptor has a better grille? You tested it, or you leaked information in confidence. I studied information on both our cars and Western. So the basic information on all these machines is closed from us, the developers of Rafal have talked about this, the more nobody will give you information on the rattle and F-35, and on our new machines. Do not be too lazy to go on the Internet in different search engines and you yourself will see for yourself. As for practice, the MiG-17 in Vietnam without radar made as many Phantoms with the radar that was good at that time as the MiG-21. take an interest. All that you bring here is far from a panacea, and the Americans, unlike you, know this. About the fact that there is no work for them, you are not telling the truth, the work of the warring country itself is always a lot, it is simply performed by other machines, which so far are much more efficient and cheaper than the so-called fifth generation.
            3. capitalist
              0
              11 2014 June
              continue on

              Mig-z5 also sees a rattle, but in close combat he gives a rattle.
              The MiG 35 doesn’t see and doesn’t do anything .. it doesn’t exist .. and if even one of the many technology demonstrators at different times surfaced under this name would be brought to mind, then even the most advanced version of the Zhuk radar is catastrophically inferior in terms of characteristics and Irbis and APG-77 .. Suffice it to say that she has a target detection range with an EPR of 5 m2 (3-5 times more than the Su-35 EPR) of only 130 km in the front hemisphere and 60 km in the back!
              Rafal, Typhoon and the Scandinavian will do the same with a racket.
              It’s not serious at all .. leave it at the level of air shock or will it give some arguments?

              Therefore, he does not participate in conflicts, after the first losses the creators are buried alive, so that there is little use from his perfect avionics, they preferred the Superhornet and this can be understood.
              The reasons why he does not participate in conflicts are described above. The superhornet was not "preferred" to him .. These are completely different machines. The F-22 was withdrawn from production solely because there was no need to further increase the number of very expensive aircraft for which there are simply no real opponents and real missions. 200 aircraft produced - by sight ..

              We still have a modernized MiG-31, which, like the T-50, Su-35, can work as AWACS.
              None of these aircraft can operate as AWACS. How Avax A-50 can work, sorry for the tautology) If you are talking about the modes of joint operation of the radar on these aircraft, then its results are sooooo far from the capabilities of real AWACS aircraft.
              the "modernized" MiG-31 shit-radar which does not work and 30% of the declared characteristics .. there are various sources on the Internet .. and reviews of pilots and designers and experts. the conclusion is the same everywhere - the system does not work for the declared characteristics .. quote:
              "According to the leadership of the Research Institute of Instrumentation. Tikhomirov’s new Zaslon-AM system should have a range of at least 200 km. This is an increase of 30% compared to the previous version. However, those employees of the research institute who are directly involved in this project say that such characteristics have not been achieved. Actually, the Zaslon-AM radar can detect the enemy at a distance of no more than 90 km, in case both planes fly towards each other. ”
          4. +2
            11 2014 June
            The T-50 has few chances ...))) And did anyone see the F-22 in a real battle, the F-117, albeit unsuccessfully, but still took part ... Do you really believe that you can create an aircraft that is not will "glow" in the entire frequency range, but if rain, dust, snow, etc.?
            1. Ekv
              Ekv
              -1
              11 2014 June
              Quote: Znayka
              Are you really you believethat you can create an airplane that will not "glow" in the entire frequency range

              laughing

              I do not believe - I know!

              Frontal EPR, m2
              Wavelength .............. Lockheed ........... Northrop
              1.87 cm......................... 0.0013 ............ 0.004
              3.57 cm......................... 0.001 .............. 0.0021
              1.3 dm........................... 0.001 .............. 0.0015
              1.71 м...........................1...................... 0.013

              As you can see, there are meter waves, and decimeterand centimeter.
          5. Good Ukraine
            +2
            12 2014 June
            laughing
            Quote: EKV
            However, after the loss of several F-117s, shot down by air defense missiles of still old Soviet systems, this term faded and acquired a more realistic sound. Regarding the "invisibility" of the F-35, the Americans themselves doubt it. Such nonsense was answered in a recent article.
            There are many journalists, but I am alone. I don’t even want to comment on this.


            And what is there to comment on? - After the downed F-117 in Yugoslavia, not a single plane went up into the sky anymore. All in a landfill.
            And how many victorious marches were before this ???

            And the fact that the modern US destroyer did not see the old Su-24 in the Black Sea. - It is interesting.
            Maybe the question of invisibility is not in expensive composites ???
            1. Ekv
              Ekv
              0
              12 2014 June
              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              After the downed F-117 in Yugoslavia, not a single plane flew more into the sky. All in a landfill.

              Impudent lie !!!!

              F-117 was shot down on third war day, and the whole war lasted 78 days! So, there was time to share experiences and shoot down other F-117s (they made about 850 sorties in Yugoslavia). But no more shot down, another was shot down, but he reached the base of Aviano in Italy ...

              It is said that in Yugoslavia F-117 was shot down not through a radar, but through a thermal imager.

              PS Kind Ukraine you are more careful there with minuses ...
              laughing
          6. The comment was deleted.
          7. +1
            12 2014 June
            Quote: EKV
            That is, the T-50 will be largely metallic.
            But we can assume that in real battles pilots will say THANKS to the "iron" glider more than once?
            As an approximate example, I will give the words of a Russian Su25 pilot to a scam who was defeated by a Georgian anti-aircraft missile, but reaching the airfield ...
            Correspondent:
            “How could you fly in such a wounded car?”

            Pilot Su25:
            - Thanks to the Soviet steelmakers ...
        2. Vita_vko
          +3
          11 2014 June
          Quote: EKV
          without a full-fledged composite glider, a full-fledged stealth cannot be obtained. But such a glider cannot be created in Russia.
          They can create unconditionally, but the Russian petrochemicals have little interest in this. Need to stimulate
          Wikipedia Stimulus (lat. Stimulus - a sharp metal tip on a pole that drives a buffalo (a bull harnessed to a wagon)
        3. -1
          11 2014 June

          Here are the words of one candidate of technical sciences (specialist in radar absorbing materials)


          Can I link to this "specialist"?
          1. Vita_vko
            0
            12 2014 June
            If you are talking about me, then I defended my dissertation in the field of electronic intelligence, and I’m doing this. And here we need first of all a scientist at the petrochemist, and only then a specialist in the propagation of radio waves. In general, there are now a lot of related areas, so for good specialists need different ones.
            1. 0
              12 2014 June
              Quote: Vita_vko
              If you are talking about me, then I defended my dissertation in the field of electronic intelligence, and I’m doing this.


              No, this is not about you. This is from here:
              Quote: EKV
              Here are the words of one candidate of technical sciences (specialist in radar absorbing materials):
        4. +1
          12 2014 June
          20 years ago carbon fiber and various fabrics from it of quite competitive quality were produced in Russia.

          Heat-resistant polymers in Russia have long been known and mastered.

          Heat-resistant carbon-carbon and carbon-ceramic composites were used 25 years ago in Buran.

          And there is almost no mass production of high-tech products in Russia because the Russian "business" does not need them ** ***. "Businessmen" "BABLO RUBYAT" and quickly take them to the "west" through offshore companies.

          This is where (other than research) were amorphous metals used?
          Carbon fiber in the glider has very little effect on "invisibility". "DreamLiner" radars see very well.
          For radar absorbing coatings, nanoparticles are not needed because the lengths of radio waves are measured in centimeters.

          Etc.
  2. +1
    11 2014 June
    Glory to the American designers, so easily sawing huge amounts of American taxpayers !!! good
    1. +3
      11 2014 June
      Yes, not American, but the whole world.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. typhoon7
      0
      11 2014 June
      I press to put a plus, no action, you already understand the admins.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        15 2014 June
        under what? "comment has been removed."
  3. -3
    11 2014 June
    F-35 just grand drank dough.
    1. +2
      11 2014 June
      Quote: Flinky
      F-35 just grand drank dough

      Not only drank bobla but also the development of weapons. The stealth problem is being gradually solved, the Americans simply chose a not entirely effective way of developing their aircraft.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      14 2014 June
      more than ... they bought the core technology in the Yakovlev Design Bureau for just 500 thousand, and already 500 billion to cut.
      it is not even cut and zvezdetskakoyta drinks just a holiday !!!
      1. jonh
        0
        July 1 2014
        The Conver Model 200 was proposed in June 1972 in response to a request from the U.S. Navy for structures for fighter aircraft / attacks for controlling sea ships. The VTOL would use the PW401 3BSD afterburner engine plus Allison XJ99 twin lift engines located behind the cab for an additional vertical center of gravity lift forward to balance the nozzle stern thrust. This concept included a three-rotary bearing nozzle on a Pratt & Whitney engine. it’s so by the way what and where it appeared
        1. Kassandra
          0
          July 1 2014
          see here:
          http://topwar.ru/52542-rossiyskie-konstrukcii-povorotnogo-sopla.html#comment-id-
          2941399
          first in the second line of the comment there is a link to the English infamous article of Lockheed magazine with a similar crap to you, and then immediately after the PS review of it.
          Read there when, and most importantly, where it appeared.
  4. 0
    11 2014 June
    In addition to the obvious and fantastic drank, I want to draw your attention to the "control" of Congress and the Pentagon. After all, everything happens in front of sane and competent people who are not in a state of drug and alcohol intoxication. And everything goes away!
  5. 0
    11 2014 June
    Good article and to the point. It seems that the American military-industrial complex is sawing good money, and the people are being brainwashed about the elusive Joe.
    Back in 1992, while talking with pilots at Barksdale Air Force Base (Louisiana), SAC Aircraft Wing 2, they asked me about my opinion about the FB-117. (At that time, there were no other options for stealth technologies). At what it was asked with an obvious trick, like: "Well, how did we do you?" I just asked: "Guys, did the French share with you during Desert Storm what these planes see from takeoff to landing?" It was a shock for them. The thing is that French radars operate in the meter range, and the coverage and shapes of American stealth are designed to counteract radars in the centimeter range. It is impossible to make universal coverage and shapes for the entire wavelength range.
    1. scliss
      +9
      11 2014 June
      The article is crap. And full! Plain populist crap.
      1. One of the main features of the fifth generation is supersonic without afterburner. Not a word about this.
      2. The fact that the F-35,22 sees further and long-range missiles is also not a word.
      3. The fact that our advertised T-50 is still flying on engines from the Su-35 - not a word. There are no powerful engines of their own. Yes, the thrust-to-weight ratio is good, the ratio is greater than 1. But this is not a 5th generation fighter engine.
      4. Our new missiles are not only being developed. What will we beat ov? Cannon melee? Yes, they will not mess even. From afar they will see, shell and dump further.
      5. "For the sake of economy, we removed one engine on F35". Don't be funny. F35V has a second one behind the fuselage - vertical take-off and landing. Just imagine: a fifth-generation aircraft with vertical take-off and landing! He, by and large, does not need an airfield, he only needs an AWAC hanging next to it!

      In general, in many respects: the planes are already in the series, the order portfolio is full, the full range of weapons - we have gone far ahead, and these hat-inspiring moods are completely useless.
      1. Andy1967
        +6
        11 2014 June
        Commentary - unprofessional populist crap!
        1. Supersound without afterburner - well, make a real situation with both F35 and ours !?
        2. Lie again! - Who sees further - generally "zvizdyzh" - just the opposite! With missiles - you don't know what the readiness of the new ones is for the 50th! Now we will take it and tell everyone ...
        3. And what is bad about our 35th engine? Specifically - the worse their engines? That's it! Compare - only professionally! A new one for our ... hehe, soon very surprised!
        4.About missiles - also not at all, but V. the secret has not been canceled. By the way, the old ones will even pull! "Cannons" ... So funny to read amateurism with attempts to know the topic!
        5. You do not tell! Only one of the modifications is with the runway, while with MUCH truncated characteristics!
        In general, teach materiel, respected State Department "specialist"
        1. capitalist
          0
          11 2014 June
          you need to learn this materiel .. you are not at all in the subject, it seems that you got out of the dugout yesterday and screamed for Stalin! immediately to the Internet, to protect the homeland.
          carry rambling nonsense.
        2. Voronbit
          0
          11 2014 June
          Moreover ... the maximum speed of the carrier allows the use of promising HR KR with ramjet or PuVRD, etc. without booster stage
        3. Kassandra
          0
          14 2014 June
          the compressor is needed at the dial-up, and then 2M consider the same SR-71 to fly without it at all, that is, on one afterburner - there was a bypass from the air intake to the afterburner and the turbine, with the loss of power on it, the compressor no longer turned on.
          he is right about the runway, but the Yankees raped it in the USSR ...
        4. Kassandra
          0
          21 2014 June
          I wonder what kind of specialist deletes comments where it says that the range of the Yak-141 was actually not 300 km (as dipped in this article) but 1305 miles?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141
          see below Performance
          Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)
          1. 0
            21 2014 June
            Quote: Kassandra
            I wonder what kind of specialist deletes comments where it says that the range of the Yak-141 was actually not 300 km (as dipped in this article) but 1305 miles?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141
            see below Performance
            Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)


            This is with full tanks and no combat load.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              21 2014 June
              again your untruth is:
              Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi)
              now compare with other planes
              so that he leaves the clearing in the forest or from the deck with full tanks, RATO or lift-up boosters are used, so the Yak-36 also flew
              and tried for the first time on the MiG-19
              1. 0
                21 2014 June
                Quote: Kassandra
                again your untruth is:
                Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi)
                now compare with other planes
                so that he leaves the clearing in the forest or from the deck with full tanks, RATO or lift-up boosters are used, so the Yak-36 also flew
                and tried for the first time on the MiG-19


                If you were a person respecting your opponent, I would now show you everything and prove it. But since you are a troll, craving only negativity and sweat from the outside, it’s better not to argue with you ... wink
                ps Where did I get the warning and from whom? (I respectfully ask)
                1. Kassandra
                  -1
                  22 2014 June
                  "with full tanks and no combat load", this is the Ferry Range, the Yak-141 has it = 3000 km instead of 300.
                  if for you the outstanding performance of Yak is negative, then for half a second it’s clear who you are and why you pour dirt on this car here.
                  Well, what would you show and prove, dear?
                  To star underreporting a radius of 10 times you are all very much.
                  1. -1
                    22 2014 June
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    "with full tanks and no combat load", this is the Ferry Range, the Yak-141 has it = 3000 km instead of 300.
                    if for you the outstanding performance of Yak is negative, then for half a second it’s clear who you are and why you pour dirt on this car here.
                    Well, what would you show and prove, dear?
                    To star underreporting a radius of 10 times you are all very much.


                    Apparently the trollik is completely hungry, therefore it provokes maximum effort to srach, but supertiger21 already had the experience of meeting with a degenerating individual of the society, therefore he (again) will not argue with DOO.
                    You haven't answered my question, where does the warning in the form of the number "1" come from?
                    1. Kassandra
                      -1
                      23 2014 June
                      don’t need from a sick head to a healthy one

                      none of the aristocrats is capable of sweepingly underestimating the characteristics of an aircraft 5-10 times. even after a box of champagne.

                      from where - not your dog thing.
                      1. 0
                        23 2014 June
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        from where - not your dog thing.


                        Once again I am convinced that the opponent is a stupid troll-like one. laughing
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 2014 June
                        yeah ... yeah .. to "speak".
                      3. 0
                        23 2014 June
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        yeah ... yeah .. to "speak".


                        Well, I haven't said it yet, just typed!
        5. Kassandra
          0
          21 2014 June
          fragile in comparison with Yak subsonic British GDP (Harriers) in 1982 broke the Argentine Mirages with a dry account.
          a country that has GDP and doesn’t need huge vulnerable aircraft carriers at sea, and it will never be able to arrange June 1941 or June 1967 with the knocking out of all aviation at airfields.
          1. -1
            21 2014 June
            Quote: Kassandra
            fragile in comparison with Yak subsonic British GDP (Harriers) in 1982 broke the Argentine Mirages with a dry account.
            a country that has GDP and doesn’t need huge vulnerable aircraft carriers at sea, and it will never be able to arrange June 1941 or June 1967 with the knocking out of all aviation at airfields.


            Interesting joke fellow ,I want more... wassat
            1. Kassandra
              0
              22 2014 June
              hoti.
              and tried to do such?
              1. 0
                22 2014 June
                Quote: Kassandra
                hoti.
                and tried to do such?


                Why should I try to troll?! I enjoy sound discussions, giving arguments, getting the same arguments in return, and all this does not go beyond the decent. And the meaning of trolling I do not really understand. It is like pulling an opponent, making him splatter with mud and then having pulled all the nerves out of him, gloatingly enjoy the successfully completed work ??? You know, when I argued with you for the first time, there was a better opinion of you. And if you also continue to troll, you are unlikely to gain respect and authority on forum.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  23 2014 June
                  you do not try (troll), you troll.
                  arguments brought you, doggie, eager to continue the banquet in June 1941 and 1967 with the setup of all the aviation at the airfields, and rosinuyu people here about the dangers of VTOL / STOVL.
                  I don’t need the respect of people like you, because I am a professional in aerospace and know what I am writing about.
                  1. -1
                    23 2014 June
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    you do not try (troll), you troll.


                    Troll, and you, what are the terms: troll, trolling, trolling - you know? Judging by the next statement - no! A pity ... request
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      23 2014 June
                      ask your troll friends. from me you can learn something about aviation, submarines and URO.
                      1. 0
                        23 2014 June
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        ask your troll friends


                        And I already know! I just want you to know!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        from me you can learn something about aviation, submarines and URO.


                        Do you ??? The cave scientist ??? About aviation ??? fellow
                        For a start, find out what aviation is, and then educate others! To "recognize aviation" I can ask Vaf and SWEET-SIXTEEN, who enjoy much more authority on VO than the troll girl Cassandra.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 2014 June
                        and these your friends, they are not the same "respected" and far from aviation as you are?
                      3. 0
                        23 2014 June
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        and these your friends, they are not the same "respected" and far from aviation as you are?


                        Sergey (Vaf) works in aviation (note all sorts of Kassander). Oleg (SWEET-SIXTEEN) knows a lot of scientific, technical and physical equipment. Although if you troll them, then ... there’s nothing to talk about with you.

                        By the way, what a liar you are already everyone knows. Though I myself am not in a positive relationship with the professor, but "with knowledge of English" you screwed up terribly in front of him. Eh liar! No.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. Kassandra
                        -1
                        29 2014 June
                        dream it is not harmful ...
      2. +1
        11 2014 June
        Quote: scliss
        The article is crap. And full! Plain populist crap.

        and these capricious moods are completely useless.

        I completely agree. The author would better bring the speeds for our planes with and without afterburner, and would describe how the afterburner affects the engine resource. And then he compared our planes with the American.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Voronbit
        0
        11 2014 June
        well, it’s not necessary at the expense of missiles .... RVV ..... The engine of the 2nd stage is on the way ... the BREA sensor system is generally unique, it is being finalized ... there are Brahmos ... higher maneuverability of the t-50
      5. typhoon7
        +1
        11 2014 June
        Where the missiles have a farther rattle, show a maximum detection range of 210 km. (In others, up to 270 km). Well, where next? At this range, the MiG-35 will do it, while seeing the Su-35 and even more so the T-50 at 400 km, they shoot there. I look at your profile is not subject to evaluation, and the guys whom you put the minuses, I can not put the pluses. How do you get it, admins note you.
        1. capitalist
          -2
          11 2014 June
          AIM-120 C starts from 120 km .. the long-range version of the R-27 available in the arsenal of the Su-35 - from 90 km. Sorry, there are no new modifications of the R-77 with a launch range of 110 km in the troops. Moreover, there are serious doubts that they withstand the claimed characteristics.
          Su-35 and T-50 c 300-400 will see only the B-52, but not the F-22. and let them have nothing at such a range .. except for drooling)
          1. typhoon7
            -2
            11 2014 June
            Their invisibility is very visible. The MiG-31BM sees and launches missiles at 270-300km, the rattles have no chance. And new missiles for Sushki and radar, it is already 400 km, although they are still in operation. You read how much the MiG-35 and Su-35 lattices see inconspicuous targets and calm down.
            1. Andy1967
              +2
              12 2014 June
              You write everything absolutely correctly, dear! And about the pros and cons there is a big question for the admins - what kind of "profile is not subject to evaluation"? In general, looking at the comments to this article, it's just not clear. All objective for some reason with minuses ...
              1. Kassandra
                -2
                14 2014 June
                because the site and commentators are such
  6. +3
    11 2014 June
    I read not so long ago that the French carried out computer simulations of fights involving Rafal and F 22, Su 35, F 35. As a result, most of the close battles were won by Rafal, of course) As they say, each duck praises its swamp, but the American most laughing
  7. I am proud of Russia
    -2
    11 2014 June
    The amount of cuts on mattresses is really amazing.
  8. +14
    11 2014 June
    An article without literacy is just awful. Particularly pleased with the statement that the F-35 is a cheap copy of the F-22 is how to say that the Su-34 is a cheap copy of the SU-35.
    The combat range of some hangover was equated to the range of patrolling. And of course "based on different (than the Americans) physical principles." Plasma again?
    Not an article but a set of "cranberries" and "stamps". The first aircraft with reduced stealth was the Northrop YB-35 at 49, even then they noticed that it was detected on radar worse than it should be.
    One thing is encouraging that the General Staff of the Russian Federation does not read this.
    1. +12
      11 2014 June
      Quote: iwind
      An article without literacy is just awful.

      I fully support! In addition, judging by this phrase: "Yesterday, the first flight of the Russian aircraft of the fifth generation PAK FA took place from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur airfield. This is a great holiday for Russian aviation." - it is also outdated by 4 years.
      1. +2
        11 2014 June
        Quote: kotdavin4i
        Yesterday, the first flight of a fifth-generation Russian PAK FA aircraft took place from the Komsomolsky-on-Amur airfield.


        Maybe we don’t know what is available to the author of the article? smile After all, according to plans, delivery to the Air Force should begin in 2015 ....
      2. +5
        11 2014 June
        ... she is also out of date for 4 years.

        No, but what do you want from the Russian Post? laughing
    2. +5
      11 2014 June
      Quote: iwind
      Article without literacy is just awful

      Absolutely to the point. And absolutely predictable comments about "drank the dough", it seems that people in this way justify the general theft in Russia, they say "it's okay, everywhere it is" ...
      1. jonh
        0
        July 1 2014
        that's why life is like that. because there are always interest holders
    3. +6
      11 2014 June
      Article without literacy is just awful


      Especially I am touched by the literacy of this comment and all subsequent ones who joined it. laughing
      Illiteracy written together. And after the word it was necessary to observe the punctuation rule. But what is literacy, if you need to express your phi? True, the literacy and competence of such criticism immediately raises big doubts - how did you criticize the school? Did you get a certificate or just a certificate?

      The article, perhaps, does not shine with argumentativeness and actual comparative data (and where to get them, facts?), However, what is given below in the comments Ekv, simply gushes with even greater "patriotism" on the contrary - the lack of real knowledge about the production technology of the T-50, misunderstanding of a number of discussed issues in the field of avionics (radar in particular) for all three aircraft - F-22, F-35, T-50, and at the same time with the ears of the thesis about the worthlessness of the T-50 nailed tightly to the main psychological message of the commentator - pro-salipolymers.

      Healthy criticism is our everything.

      But the mournful lament of "Dozhd" about buried Russia, in which there is no life for normal people - the Makarevichs and the Chirikovs ... This just causes melancholy and heartbreaking yawning.

      And finally.
      AIM-120D (F-22 for it has not been finalized) - 180 km
      RVV-DB, which will be used at T-50 - 400 km (300 - Э).
      This is for mister scliss.
      I also instruct him to immediately familiarize himself with the available information on the OLS-50, as well as with the issues of detecting inconspicuous targets in radio, in the optical and infrared ranges .. lol and with the complex problem of these aspects in relation to F-22 and T-50. To eliminate illiteracy, it is worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the issues of using L-band radars on the T-50 and the lack of them in American vehicles.
      You can enumerate for a long time.

      In general, it’s just too lazy to get involved in these disputes about the T-50 and F-22 (to compare with the F-35 is generally inappropriate, these are aircraft of different classes - it makes no sense to compare them; F-35 is too inferior); I often see ancient articles, the essence of which life itself has already refuted, or completely contradicting each other, and at the same time the same people often support both of them. bully

      The biggest problem with the T-50 is that it is not in the series yet. There are also disadvantages - who does not have them? In general, he promises to be much better than his opponents. Which is not surprising - it began to be implemented taking into account the mistakes and cones of the experience of American designers and engineers.
      And about the many solutions that both engineers and pilots admire on the T-50, it is simply pointless to talk to a certain part of the public - their definition of "Russian" in itself causes rejection.
      1. capitalist
        0
        11 2014 June
        you need a little friend to read the advertising campaigns of our design bureaus, which before each exhibition, in case of receiving dough, promise to produce death rays on their white eyes that can drift to Mars. but to operate with reality .. but the reality is that in the troops there’s even practically no R-77.
        R-37 (it is not in the troops either, by the way), which you call RVV-BD - this is an alteration of the ancient K-33 ...
        hefty 4 meter gut weighing half a ton .. with low maneuverability and noise immunity. not only that the same T-50 with this cow under the belly (such a fool only on the external sling) will shine like a Christmas tree for 200-300 kilometers, but also the operating range and maneuverability will receive the corresponding ones - like on an iron.

        Yes, you don’t even understand what kind of rocket it is and why, but you cheat with a smart look on your cheek .. It will never hit the F-22 at all .. not from 200 km .. nor from 20 .. It is not intended for shooting at targets low ESR. Her goals are bombers, jammers, AWACS
        1. 0
          11 2014 June
          "Ah, my dear Augustine" .. =)
          This large "4-meter gut" is designed just for the inner compartments of the T-50. This is so, for the general development of you.
          Further you can not discuss with you. bully
          1. capitalist
            0
            11 2014 June
            Proof? Or do you think that the presence of a 5m long compartment automatically allows the use of a 4m long rocket? laughing is it your way to push cucumbers into a jar? )))

            In no official source has the loading of the R-37 into the internal compartments of the T-50 been announced.
          2. capitalist
            +1
            11 2014 June
            and further :
            quote notes from missiles.ru which
            Visually, all the differences between the RVV-DB and the base missile are reduced to a somewhat shortened head compartment with a new-form radio-transparent fairing. Apparently, therefore, the total length of the RVV-DB became somewhat less than that of the K-37.

            To avoid speculation, it must be said that the transverse dimensions of the rocket do not provide its internal suspension in the T-50 weapon compartment. “When we talk about a 5th generation aircraft, we are primarily considering weapons of internal deployment,” Obnosov said during MAKS 2011. Further, when answering the question about which of the UAPP samples presented in the exposition are intended for this purpose, the head of the Corporation did not name among other RVV-DB missiles. Indeed, in the prospectus for a rocket, only external AKA-410-1 or AKU-620 aviation ejection devices appear as suspension and launch devices. Judging by the layout shown at MAKS-2011, only the upper stabilizers (rudders) are formed for conformal placement. But the wing remained awkward. It is believed that the missile will be part of the armament of the upgraded MiG-31BM.


            Or for you, even the words of the General Director of Tactical Missile Corporation Corporation BV Obnosov also not proof? hi
            1. +2
              11 2014 June
              This is not proof, these are your own speculations for Obnosov. No.

              "Product 810", long-range combat (400-450 km), for placement in closed compartments of the T-50. "Pennant"
              Tests 2014-2015.
              hi
              Cool down. I am not your enemy. wink
      2. +1
        11 2014 June
        Quote: Generalissimus
        And finally.
        AIM-120D (F-22 for it has not been finalized) - 180 km
        RVV-DB, which will be used at T-50 - 400 km (300 - Э).

        Yeah. How a mime from 2006 of the year uses 120D
        April 14, 2006: The F-22 Combined Test Force at Edwards AFB conducts the first flight test of the improved AIM-120D AMRAAM.
        And how many times is T-50.RVV-DB?
        And how many times have her T-50 used.
        By the way, on a rvv-bd most likely a centimeter radar, at ranges above 150km, radio correction is not a reliable thing, but it is likely that the radar of a rocket can be aimed at an inconspicuous aircraft ...
        Quote: Generalissimus
        a complex problem of these aspects in relation to the F-22 and T-50. To eliminate illiteracy, it is worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the use of L-band radars on the T-50 and the lack thereof.

        Tell us how the property of radio waves and the reflection of their surface will differ even at 2Hz from say in 8-9 Hz?
        Second enlighten, OLS-50 and why is it unique? At a minimum, it has a spherical shape, which makes it easy to calculate its EPR; I know only one simple formula.
        ps "the rabbit was very well-mannered and therefore will not go personal"
        1. -1
          11 2014 June
          Yeah. How a mime from 2006 of the year uses 120D

          In 2017, increment 3.2B will see the software and hardware upgrade to allow the Raptor to use the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missile systems, although a limited ability will be added before this date.
          http://theaviationist.com/tag/aim-120d/

          Will the rabbit understand the English mov? bully

          And how many times is T-50.RVV-DB?
          And how many times have her T-50 used.
          By the way, on a rvv-bd most likely a centimeter radar, at ranges above 150km, radio correction is not a reliable thing, but it is likely that the radar of a rocket can be aimed at an inconspicuous aircraft ...


          What did you mean by that? What RVV-DB does not exist? That the T-50 will not be armed with it? Or just say something?
          I especially liked this - "By the way, on the RVV-BD most likely centimeter radar .."
          More likely than what? request Or in another way: most likely - why? Rather what? State your thoughts - what you choose from and what the rest of your assumption is based on.
          1. 0
            11 2014 June
            24.01.2013
            ARMS PAK FA SUCCESSFULLY PASSES TESTING
            24.01.2013
            OJSC Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation is successfully implementing a test plan and preparing for serial production of new aviation weapons, including for the 5-generation fighter (PAK FA), said Boris Obnosov, CEO of the corporation.
            “The development of PAK FA weapon systems is being carried out in accordance with the schedule, which is designed to ensure the timely, given by the country's leadership serial delivery of the combat vehicle to both the combat units of the Russian Air Force and our foreign partner, India,” B. Obnosov said.
            He noted that "a number of weapon systems for the 5 generation fighter are being tested on other types of aircraft that serve as flying laboratories."
            “As the number of PAK FA airplanes arriving at the testing ground increases, the testing program of aviation weapons continues to be increasingly carried out on the main type of aircraft,” B. Obnosov said.
            According to him, "for a number of products, tests are in the final stages, preliminary preparations for serial production are underway for them, and for others, tests are ongoing."
            “The tests of guided missiles X-31ПД, РВВ-МД, РВВ-СД and RVV-DB. At the exit - X-31AD. I note that new export developments correspond to the best world standards, and surpass them in a number of indicators. The RVV-BD guided missile, which is highly effective at long distances to targets, has no analogues in the world. The unified anti-ship X-35E is being replaced by the new-generation guided missile X-35UE, which significantly expands the combat capabilities of the ship complex of the Uranus type and the coastal Ball. The X-35UE guided missile is in no way inferior to the latest versions of the American Harpoon and surpasses other world-famous missiles of this class, including the French Exoset, ”B. Obnosov said.
            Military-Industrial Courier

            Do you, as a Capitalist, need to prove that the RVV-BD is intended not only for shooting at AWACS and other air dreadnoughts, but also at F-22, A-16? bully According to its open characteristics, the RVV-DB works on targets maneuvering with 8g overloads, reaching the 6M trajectory in the final sections.
            This missile is just for intercepting highly maneuverable, inconspicuous targets, it has powerful electronic warfare.
            1. capitalist
              +1
              11 2014 June
              It does not follow from the cited that all the missiles mentioned are intended specifically for the T50. If you follow your logic, the T-50 will also shoot uranium and missiles from the Ball ..)) they are also mentioned.
              Obnosov has repeatedly said that there will be no RVV-DB on the t50! SHE DOES NOT CREEP INTO THE DECK COMPARTMENT! diameter does not climb! Her wings don't fold
          2. +4
            11 2014 June
            Quote: Generalissimus
            Will the rabbit understand the English mov?

            And where there that does not know?
            limited ability will be added before this date
            So it applies, and it is better to refer to the office. magazine of lokhidov, and not to the press. The fact that after the modernization of F-22 will be more effectively applied AIM-120D, why not. AIM-9x he already applied.
            http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f22_article.html?item_id=101
            Rabbits were smart though, and you have 0 knowledge.
            Quote: Generalissimus
            I especially liked this - "By the way, on the RVV-BD most likely centimeter radar .."
            More likely than what? Or in another way: most likely - why? Rather what? State your thoughts - what you choose from and what the rest of your assumption is based on.

            Hmm ... There can be a millimeter or centimeter radar, from the main level radar, the detection range depends on the power and size of the radar — not one or the other will have sufficient values ​​for the missile .. So it will detect someone and take a little noticeable tracking the plane is fantastic.
            1. +2
              11 2014 June
              So it applies, and it is better to refer to the office. magazine of lokhidov, and not to the press. The fact that after the modernization of F-22 will be more effectively applied AIM-120D, why not. AIM-9x he already applied.
              http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f22_article.html?item_id=101
              Rabbits were smart though, and you have 0 knowledge.


              breathtakingly laughing You give me this in the AIM-120D application doc on the F-22 - "April 14 2006: The F-22 Combined Test Force at Edwards AFB conducts the first flight test of the improved AIM-120D AMRAAM." - that is, a test flight with a rocket on board (and not being put into service), and complaining that I am answering something wrong?

              Maybe so then? wink

              Operational testing on the D-model was delayed when the Pentagon halted the program in 2009 to allow Raytheon, the lead contractor, to address four performance and reliability deficiencies. The program was restarted in 2012, but was then again delayed because of sequestration funding levels.

              Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/02/18/test-pilot-calls-for-longer-range-aim-120/#ixz
              z34LnxwRg4
              Defense.org

              You, a young man, have aplomb for ten, and knowledge for a rabbit.
          3. capitalist
            0
            11 2014 June
            The T-50 will not be armed with it. The answer is above. Infa from the CEO of the developer ..
            any questions?
            not?

            1. -2
              11 2014 June
              Did he tell you a secret? laughing
        2. 0
          11 2014 June
          Tell us how the property of radio waves and the reflection of their surface will differ even at 2Hz from say in 8-9 Hz?
          Second enlighten, OLS-50 and why is it unique? At a minimum, it has a spherical shape, which makes it easy to calculate its EPR; I know only one simple formula.


          Why engage in nonsense and prove incomprehensible to anyone their knowledge? That's stupid.
          The use of L-band radar speaks for itself - smart is enough. It is these wing radars that provide the T-50 with early detection capability. Spaced by place and frequency. And why the L-band, you must understand this yourself, since you know what gigahertz is laughing

          As for the OLS-50, then it is unique. A year or a half ago, even laid out on VO video about OLS-50. However, there are few who are interested in this - more than those who simply chatting in the face of their likes and dislikes ..

          As for the round "lantern" OLS-50 - so what? The T-50 does not pursue the goal of being "invisible" like the F-117 and later. And this is the main delusion of your side. The T-50, from what is known to the layman, does seem to be more noticeable in the X-band. However, it assumes the presence of characteristics and features that fully compensate for this disadvantage and make it a more effective device as a whole.
          And by the way, those characteristics of the 5 generation that are most often discussed by the average person are not a product of a technical task, but rather of what remains after the implementation of this TK. negative For example, LM has its own ideas about 5, and Eurofighter has its own. However, I already wrote about this at VO once.

          The trouble with the Lokhids is precisely that they were the first. And the topic of stealth was made a fetish. As life has shown, this fetish was the biggest mistake, because the Americans simply did not take into account the elementary one - the probable enemy does not have to do the radar exactly in the X-band, in which the F-ki are hardly noticeable.

          The references to the fact that they already have something in the series and are flying, while we are only developing and running it, matters only from a certain angle when looking at the products being compared. Once upon a time, the Su-27 was also developed several years late from the F-15.
          ps "the rabbit was very well-mannered and therefore will not go personal"

          Keep yourself in control. I strongly support you in this.
          1. -1
            11 2014 June
            Quote: Generalissimus
            Why engage in nonsense and prove incomprehensible to anyone their knowledge? That's stupid.
            The use of L-band radar speaks for itself - smart enough

            So much text, so much text and information is zero.
            Well, all such superior?
            By the way, the L band emnip in the United States was crushed back in 1950. There is nothing particularly interesting in the L range.
            But all the same, than the OLS-50 is better than the French FLO or DASA
            Quote: Generalissimus
            X-band

            And what is the range of 90% radar guidance on the planet? Hinting at meters?
            Well, how then will meter waves affect a stealth aircraft?
            1. 0
              11 2014 June
              The ability to detect aircraft to a greater extent depends on the range and type of emitted signal. Plus, on board we have several AFARs operating in different ranges. And to make a protective coating from waves, say, in the centimeter and decimeter ranges at the same time is very problematic. wink
              Given the US development of AESA L-band radars for Wedgetail AEW & C / AWACS systems, Americans needed to anticipate this L-band detection technology 15 years ago. Systems, whose survivability is almost entirely dependent on reduced visibility for X-band radars, are now visible to fighters carrying L-band radars.

              And what is the range of 90% radar guidance on the planet? Hinting at meters?
              Well, how then will meter waves affect a stealth aircraft?

              This is the essence of why Russian radars and air defense see invisibility .. laughing

              In fact, this is a condemnation of stealth technologies using the Ufimtsev method and using radio-absorbing coatings.

              The layer of the radar absorbing coating depends on the wavelength. If for a centimeter radar (X-band) the coating is of comparable thickness, then for decimeter radars it is already decimeters. Against the meter range, such coatings lose any meaning at all - no need to explain why? lol That is why in the meter range, for example, a stealth aircraft is absurd.
              The scattering effect according to the Ufimtsev method is also designed for centimeter waves, the scattering of decimeter waves will be much less, the effect of the geometric shape of the object is almost not affected. F-117 in Yugoslavia - for you to consider.
              Already on the example of the Yugoslav 117, the Americans had to understand the futility of the struggle for stealth against enemy radars operating outside the X-band (NATO standard). However, that did not happen. God knows why, because ours didn’t particularly hide their understanding of the inferiority of American efforts. Pride? She left them sideways.

              Sorry, but there is no desire to discuss further. I see only your obstinacy with a superficial understanding of the topic under discussion.
              1. Kassandra
                -1
                15 2014 June
                Since 22, the F-2007 has become a problem, but not as a fighter but as a striker for areas with rare air defense. He had originally thought so.
                His case is simply made of radiolucent fiberglass, like the F-117, and facetting is protection from the optical station. It was to the detriment of aerodynamics and it was simply scored on it on the F-22 (except for its haze). Since 2007, metal engines on them began to be replaced by cermet ones, which significantly reduced the EPR.
                Therefore, not everything is so simple.
            2. jonh
              0
              July 1 2014
              meter range and is now used in weather forecasting. apparently these radars will be used to destroy the hordes f-35 and f-22 laughing
              1. Kassandra
                0
                July 1 2014
                Stealth-seeing radar works on a different principle, the wavelength has nothing to do with it.
                Those radars that see air targets against the background of the earth also do not differ in operating frequencies from those that do not see.
                Doctoral dissertation about them has long been in the net,
                1. jonh
                  0
                  July 2 2014
                  on another principle, is it most likely based on other not even physical principles? laughing
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    July 2 2014
                    those who on the background of the earth for some reason see, too, in your opinion some kind of "other"?
  9. +8
    11 2014 June
    The article is bad, facts are pulled, characteristics are compared incorrectly.
    30 hours of maintenance at F-22 and what? how many have ours? Tu-22M3, for example, 51 hours.
    The cost also does not match: Su-35- 50-80 million $ instead of 35,
    Mig-35- 35-50 instead of 25.
    And another point: if stealth is such nonsense then why do we need a T-50 and
    huge money for its development and production?
    1. karpag
      +6
      11 2014 June
      I agree. In addition, when comparing the performance characteristics, the author forgets about the stealth of American aircraft. The author suffers from the classic Russian disease: hatred, praise of his own and neglect of weapons of other parties. This hatred has cost millions of lives in the history of Russia.
      1. +6
        11 2014 June
        Quote: karpag
        I agree. In addition, when comparing the performance characteristics, the author forgets about the stealth of American aircraft.

        Not only does he forget, he forgets just common sense.
        About what he writes there at the beginning of the article "the plane did not go into series", is he talking about the F 22, or what?
        In TTX compares sweet with salty.
        At F 22 it gives a combat radius, at SU 35 a flight range.
        Before you write about the subject, go to Wikipedia, at least sort out the question a little bit.
        How many more USE experts here will print ANALYTICAL articles?
        Is this some kind of shame ?!
    2. Bagor Danilov
      +3
      11 2014 June
      Sorry, but is it correct to compare the F-22 TO (fighter) and Tu-22M3 (missile carrier)? Rather, you need to take the Su-30SM, they are comparable if there is no such information on the Su-35.
      1. Andy1967
        -2
        11 2014 June
        Yes, in the comments on this article (I agree - the article is super unprofessional) - there are so many "experts", I am already amazed - where are you from, from the KB? And all of them have one thing - the amers have everything in chocolate, while we have - "G" In general, it's funny! This picture with his uncle "What the fuck ..." is just her author and many others should be shown.
      2. -1
        11 2014 June
        Quote: Bagor Danilov
        Sorry, but is it correct to compare the F-22 TO (fighter) and Tu-22M3 (missile carrier)?

        I know about the Tu-22M3, which is why I am writing. Give the numbers for the Su-30, if any.
        1. +3
          11 2014 June
          There is no Su-30, but F-14 has Tomkoshk (tomcat, in the sense) all the same 45-50 service hours per flight hour (in fact)
  10. +5
    11 2014 June
    Its essence lies in the fact that Russian scientists have developed new technologies to ensure stealth aircraft (LA), based on other (than the Americans) physical principles. Around the aircraft creates a special plasma formation, which, on the one hand, absorbs the energy of electromagnetic waves irradiating the enemy radar, and on the other hand, causes electromagnetic waves to envelope a cloud of plasma.
    no need to LOUD so loudly! it is necessary that there was a SURPRISE for our partner friends!
    1. Voronbit
      +1
      11 2014 June
      it is unlikely that in the next decade the effect of a plasma cavity will be realized on airplanes
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. postman
      0
      12 2014 June
      Quote: Nitarius
      Around the aircraft creates a special plasma formation, which, on the one hand, absorbs the energy of electromagnetic waves irradiating the enemy’s radar,

      Have you seen the Chelyabinsk meteorite?
      T.V. this is a flying (albeit with a higher speed and large size) object surrounded by a PLASMA CLOUD.

      Now figure it out - is it easy to detect, accompany, give tsu?
      or so (the object is comparable in size)
      Flight of warheads on kura


      well, or ball lightning




      this is an analogue of your la, in a cloud of plasma
      Quote: Nitarius
      and on the other hand, makes electromagnetic waves go around a plasma cloud.

      cool Is light EM waves?
      Why don't they "go around"?

      ======
      well
      1. The real scientific boom was caused by WEGordon's proposal in 1958 to use thermal Thomson free electron scattering to study the characteristics of the medium. According to Gordon’s calculations, spectrum of a signal scattered by free plasma electrons, for a locator with a working wavelength of 2 m, it should have VidGaussians with a width of ~ 200 kHz, and the radar should have an unprecedented sensitivity in the meanwhile. Such a US radar launched a radar in Jicamarca (Peru), where at the end of 1958 KLBowles made the first measurements of the signal scattered by the athermal inhomogeneities of the ionospheric plasma
  11. Nightcrawler
    +1
    11 2014 June
    no need to LOUD so loudly! it is necessary that there was a SURPRISE for our partner friends!

    This is not even secret information, since it is even written about it in children's encyclopedias like "I get to know the world"
  12. Wolland
    0
    11 2014 June
    Yes, I'm sure Putin from a slingshot can bring down a couple of ravens near Australia ......... Deer ...
    1. 0
      11 2014 June
      What does Putin, Bush, Obama, etc. have to do with it? The duration of such programs is 20 years or more - i.e. more than 2 double terms of any president. These are long-term national programs that determine the face of the Air Force. Woe to those who do not have them.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        21 2014 June
        despite the fact that he is your president. for 15 years in a row bully
  13. +5
    11 2014 June
    It seems to me that the author of this article is somewhat superficially versed in matters of military aviation, and in particular the creation of new machines.
    The beginning of the article is good, but then ..... darkness.
    complete ignorance, and often distortion of facts, as if the task is specifically set to reduce awareness of the real capabilities of the machines of a potential enemy
    I will not pull out absurdities from the author from the article, this article is in itself delirium on delirium and delirium drives.
    Friends! I want to convey to you only one thing.
    Do you really think that mattresses, the name is the rich history of aviation design, and who created such beautiful cars as Mustang, Aviakobra during the Second World War and before the F-15 (which is really a dangerous enemy in the air) will put into service a frank city that should determine the appearance of their air force for the next 20-40 years
    No, colleagues, let's not deceive ourselves, our pilots should still be preparing for fights in the air with a dangerous and competent rival in technically advanced machines.
    1. +1
      11 2014 June
      I absolutely agree. At the moment, the F-22 system, (not just one aircraft but a system that includes both weapons and detection and maintenance and tactics and application strategies) is the most dangerous enemy for our Air Force.
    2. -1
      11 2014 June
      Do you really think that mattresses, the name is the rich history of aviation design, and who created such beautiful cars as Mustang, Aviakobra during the Second World War and before the F-15 (which is really a dangerous enemy in the air) will put into service a frank city that should determine the appearance of their air force for the next 20-40 years


      Why not? Who is not wrong? Or loot can only be sawed in "Rashka"? Moreover, no one says that airplanes suck. It's just that the amers' advertisement advertised them too much.
      I, of course, am not an expert in these matters. But I don't think stealth is so important as to sacrifice maneuverability. If only for the reason that at present an air battle is conducted not by an aircraft, but by a complex, which includes ground and airborne detection systems, ground and air electronic warfare systems, not to mention air defense. As a result, powerful active and passive radars, which can give our aircraft target designation, may well reduce the advantages in stealth and range of amers' avionics. Thus, we can say that our aircraft are good in close combat and as part of a complex. Given the small number of electronic warfare aircraft, the emphasis is on ground systems, that is, on defensive actions and actions in the tactical depth of enemy defense. Whereas the issues of engaging the operational depth have been given to Iskander-type missile systems. Which fully corresponds to the defensive strategy that the Russian Federation will be forced to conduct in case of war. Whereas the Americans are developing their aircraft for the possibility of action against weak air defense and outdated enemy aircraft. Hence the emphasis on stealth, since they can shoot the enemy without entering the zone of action of his outdated detection equipment, as it was in Yugoslavia. In this case, stealth and detection range of the enemy are more important than maneuverability. Also, apparently, amers' planes should have been included organizationally in the "disarming strike" system. In this situation, they would have to overcome our air defense, albeit partially upset by the attacks of the first volleys of tomahawks and UAVs. In this case, stealth is also very important, and a strong avionics are very important, since electronic warfare and AWACS aircraft will not climb behind them into the enemy's strategic rear, which means that the rapids will have to rely on their detection means and electronic warfare and be as less noticeable as possible in order to break through to targets, bypassing or breaking through the surviving air defense lines. Therefore, amers' planes are aggressor planes against our defender planes.
      1. +2
        11 2014 June
        Quote: alicante11
        Therefore, Amer’s planes are aggressor planes against our defensive planes.

        Unfinished phrase. It was necessary to add - "... and therefore our planes are always better!"
        1. 0
          12 2014 June
          But I didn't say that. There are no planes for all occasions. And the "donkeys" of the "messengers" failed if they were used correctly and with good pilots. Also in the confrontation between ours / amers, if you use the entire complex of air force and air defense forces correctly, then the vaunted "stealth" will fall one after another. And the Americans understand this, otherwise why are we still not Libya? And you can dry out everything that is a simple hack.
      2. 0
        13 2014 June
        Quote: alicante11
        ... RF in case of war ...
        ... in this situation, they would have to overcome our air defense ...
        ... Therefore, Amer’s planes are aggressor planes against our defensive planes.

        probably hurray-patriots flattered that they can "attack" and something there to "overcome" such a terrible Matrasia. Calm down, hearts - the most terrible weapon that the United States undividedly owns and shamelessly uses is not missiles and airplanes, and not even the ILC from Delta Force.
        It - dollar.

        And we have long been defeated with these weapons.
        The children of our "elite" study in England and America, they receive treatment in Israel and France, and they keep their money in the accounts of the Swiss bank corporation.
        And here you are talking on the forums about sausage scraps, whose hypothetical flyer is hypothetically steeper - the one that does not fly (and does not fly another 5-7 years), or the one that does not fly (because nafih is not necessary, the Donkey loaded with gold is more effective).
        1. 0
          14 2014 June
          Oh, come on, we heard these stories. Moreover, the most interesting thing is that we began to hear them exactly when the power of the "dollar" began to weaken. And when they were really defeated, it was "the world of friendship, bubble gum".
          Yes, children and money and even property of some representatives of the authorities (and a little earlier than the majority) are in the West, because the Russian Federation is integrated into the Western economic system and there they are "safer" from the people. But with the onset of the acute phase of confrontation, the elite is forced to return home. And what happens to those who do not want to return - see the example of BAB. So tie a thick troll according to the ancient manuals of the State Department.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            21 2014 June
            BAB in general, the victim of a duel of the oligarchs, although they did not finish him off
            that the oligarchs there, that the ones are one synagogue
  14. +4
    11 2014 June
    I looked at the first picture, looked at the table, where next to the Su-35С raptor, and next to the 2 lightning MiG-35. I decided not to read.
  15. 0
    11 2014 June
    The article is "informative" and is not an expert opinion, just a reason to think. And you can compare either the whole complex or individual solutions ad infinitum, but no one has canceled the asymmetrical answer yet! While they increase the speed and invisibility of their aircraft, we can quietly dig up all the runways for them, using some kind of WRI ...
    1. Kassandra
      0
      21 2014 June
      well ... lovers of knocking out aircraft at airfields are just them (June 1941, June 1967).
      from this they bought F35 (Yak-141) in the Russian Federation, and they have an English harrier, but in the Russian Federation it was all the other way round. but all this, of course, was not done specifically ... (in June 1941 and in June 1967, too).
  16. +4
    11 2014 June
    I’ll start with the fact that the 5 generation fighter should be better, more maneuverable, faster than the previous generation of machines, this is a prerequisite ... and therefore I would not call it an advertising move ... we can criticize Amer’s weapons for a long time and praise ours, but f35, as well as f22 and our PAK FA, are under development, refinement, etc. ... so talking about something on the merits of the issue is pointless so far ... yes there is some information about the prohibitive cost of Amer’s cars, and this is good for us ... the planes themselves are not everything, maybe for these ma in are developing a new weapon ... and the arsenal is also not clear not among the amers, we don’t have any (there are vague statements and no more .. and what will get the cars in the production version is still a big question) The author is right when speaking about the level of pilots and their professional suitability (the most important unit of any fighter is a pilot) ... I would not say that Russia is far behind the United States in the creation of the 5 generation fighter, given the many problems that Americans are solving by stamping a few dozen expensive and raw cars ... the question is how soon will the US bring at least one and From fighters to a normally and efficiently functioning machine that meets the requirements and tasks for new generation vehicles ... now, as for us and for amers, the main criterion is time ... but there is no need to rush like our opponents otherwise we get the same haemorrhoids that they ... to all of the above, I’ll say that our moment 16,15 and 35 and Su 35 will not retire soon, and speaking about the advantages and disadvantages of state fighters, I think it would be fairer and more correct to compare them and not f22 with our PAK fa, maybe they are the main shock I am power for the coming 5-10 years ....
  17. +4
    11 2014 June
    Yesterday, the first flight of a fifth-generation Russian PAK FA aircraft took place from the Komsomolsky-on-Amur airfield.


    Yesterday is January 29, 2010 winked Something is some old article.
  18. 0
    11 2014 June
    With prices, an ambush.
    Su-35S costs 2 times more (but still cheaper than F-22 or F-35).
  19. +3
    11 2014 June
    I wanted to write to the author on the shelves why he was completely illiterate and not far-fetched amateur, but here it was already said without me that the article was frank nonsense. A bunch of fictional facts, contradictions, distortions and inept sophistry.
  20. typhoon7
    -2
    11 2014 June
    The opinion of an amateur, I think the current fifth generation, both ours and Amerov’s, is not a final phenomenon, it is the first test of strength. from here and so much windbreak. Therefore, the 4 ++ generation will not soon leave the stage. That is, if you can compare the last XP vindyushka and the eighth vindyushka, powerful but absolutely raw. On these machines still work and work.
  21. rosarsenal
    +1
    11 2014 June
    I am not an expert in the aircraft industry, but respected commentators, if you pretend to be experts, then at least write without grammatical errors.
  22. +5
    11 2014 June
    Quote: sevtrash
    Someone doubt that the quantity and quality of scientific work in the United States is higher than in Russia? Or, what is the number of US universities included in the world top 100 or top 1000 in the USA is again higher? Maybe someone doubts that the technological level of enterprises in the USA is higher too?
    I am sure that there are those who not only doubt but also believe that the opposite is true. Then, of course, we can assume that, for example, Curiosity or Opportunity can be done on the knee and, with a good swing, thrown to Mars.
    I doubt ... I will say more, leave your tops for glamorous magazines ... immigrants from the USSR with diplomas of Moscow State University and Baumanka teach at their institutes and universities, and the development of the latest weapons is also often done with the help of our specialists ... about their level in some way, such a figure as Psakhi, Obama and others like them speaks ... Do you speak apartunity? If they are doing so well, then explain to me that on the ISS these geniuses fly on our carriers? m. And they buy our rocket engines ? ... of course they have good specialists, you can’t argue with that, but r to say that our developers are sitting and cabbage soup slurping and looking at these Einsteins stupidly and without reason ... in what we are them and in what they are us ... and often for some reason in what the Americans invest billions, and they seem to get qualitative results, in Russia they make equipment much less often sometimes an order of magnitude higher than that of the vaunted egghead clever men from Harvard, Yale, and Oxford ...
    1. +2
      11 2014 June
      Yes, doubt as much as you want, just make doubt a movement towards knowledge. Type - doubt - the criterion of truth. First, look at the data on your computer, see where the processor, OS, and programs are developed. Then make a rating of samples of military equipment - only objectively. Find out how many Nobel Prize winners and from which countries. Open the page of an American university, for example, the Massachusetts Technological University and count how many teachers of Russian origin are there, how many are American.
      Geniuses are born everywhere and their number depends on the number of people in the country, and the realization of genius on the level of education, its accessibility, the possibility of subsequent employment with the provision of the necessary conditions for the realization of this genius, etc.
      Do not you understand this?
  23. +4
    11 2014 June
    and you, in turn, take a look - the creation of a mobile device, phone, tank, etc. ... I could give endless examples ... but I see that your faith in such a fucking kind of education in the USA can not be blocked ... and therefore , read better than Amer’s classics ... I understand there are not many of them, but this is a treasure ... well, then read fairy tales, beauty and the beast, little red riding hood ... hmm, but mine is also not their ... Nobel Prize speak? ... well, let's talk about this too ... Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize .. hmm ... let me curiosity last years 20 who is the most warring country? m .. Gorbachev is also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize too ... I wonder how many people in Russia think he did a good deed? ... and leave your lordly, condescending tone for such patriots of Amer’s pseudo-culture ...
    1. 0
      11 2014 June
      Hard case. Although not a single one.
      1. +3
        11 2014 June
        I can say the same about you ...
    2. 0
      13 2014 June
      Quote: NEXUS
      and you, in turn, take a look - creating a mobile device, phone, tank, etc. ...

      Yeah, this is so in our opinion, to create, print, for example, in the "technology of youth", and even forget. And "Well, stupid" now, together with the Jews, bring it to mind.
      1. +3
        13 2014 June
        here you are right ... and not only in youth technology ... and in young technology too
  24. +2
    11 2014 June
    Something nonsense and not an article at su 35 craving under 29kls and who told him that su 35 35 million dollars crazy article
  25. +3
    11 2014 June
    Stunned, even if I smoke a particularly successful variety, I won’t be able to collect such porridge in one article !!! laughing
    This took the tovara-author))))))))))))
  26. 0
    11 2014 June
    I read somewhere that in Yugoslavia the F-117 was shot down after during the discovery of the bomb bay he temporarily lost his stealth.
    If you think logically, it turns out that the F-22 (F-35) when opening its bomb bays will become much more noticeable. Moreover, as I understand it, our radars are now more modern than they were before.
    Accordingly, at this moment there is a high probability of detecting them and trying to bring them down.
    1. jonh
      0
      July 1 2014
      and I read. about the fact that the bomb bay at 117 did not close, and therefore it became possible to direct the rocket into the plane. and I also read that the pilot had warned the base in advance of the malfunctions and that the rescue team had been sent in time. and at the time of opening the hatch, the raptor will become more noticeable. but what rocket will be guided by x after closing? After all, it is also inconspicuous with a small EPR. and quickly I know there are certain requirements for pointing a rocket
  27. arthur_hammer
    +1
    11 2014 June
    with a maximum speed of 2700 km / h the F-22 seems to be too much
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      July 2 2014
      But your table is oddly false! request
  28. Docklishin
    0
    12 2014 June
    That's when I do not understand anything, then I try to include at least some sort of logical thinking. And somehow I read the article, comments and became sad. The first question is - for what purposes is the T-50 manufactured. Question two - who is seen as the main enemy of the T-50? And finally, in what conditions of a military conflict will the T-50 be used? It is logical to assume that the main competitors are Yusovskie cars. Then why make a non-competitive machine. Cheaper generation 4+ and 4 ++ to file. Z.Y. terms of reasoning - this is the absence of selfish motives from the customer. All the same, we are no stupider than a steam locomotive.
  29. Docklishin
    0
    12 2014 June
    Ps Watch from 10 minutes.
  30. 0
    12 2014 June
    Recently, near Moscow burned tons of 50. The pilot is alive, thank God!
  31. 0
    14 2014 June
    The article is clearly old, because we read the same thing for a long time. Then little was known about the T-50. And I would like to see this in the article. For one and the actual number of such aircraft, we and they have.
  32. fall
    -2
    14 2014 June
    And Mig-35 where they stuck, his older brother Mig-29 for 36.5 years of military service shot down only one enemy aircraft in 2007 (there is a video) .................. ...... GEORGIAN UAV! But he was shot down 9 (!) Times! An outstanding fighter for ............................ suffered! Ask Zubenko he in 1991 .................... stole ..... in Turkey!


    F-22 will be the first of the fifth generation to be used in battle!
    1. 0
      16 2014 June
      Quote: beifall
      his older brother Mig-29 for 36.5 years of military service


      MiG-29 is only 29 years old, no need to dabble.

      Quote: beifall
      shot down only one enemy aircraft in 2007 (there is a video) ........................ GEORGIAN UAV!


      Well, firstly, do not juggle the facts, do not want to remember about the air victories over the Ethiopian MiGs-21/23 in 1998-2000, about 2 victories in 1991 (the Gulf War) and about the downed Su-25 on 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX ??? Historian of you worthless!

      Quote: beifall
      F-22 will be the first of the fifth generation to be used in battle!


      And the predictor is not the best! negative
      1. jonh
        -1
        July 2 2014
        and lopped down planes from a Boeing or Lockheed?
        1. Kassandra
          0
          July 2 2014
          About the same number as he was shot down, despite the fact that they always surpassed him more than tenfold
          Not a single country that has a Su-27 and not a MiG-29 NATO did not dare even climb with such an advantage.
        2. 0
          July 2 2014
          Quote: jonh
          and lopped down planes from a Boeing or Lockheed?


          How SINGLE MIGs were supposed to fight against the F-15C units when the latter were covered by REP aircraft and the AWACKS were detecting ?! Do you even think the victory of desperate Arab and Serbian pilots against such a horde ??? Learn to analyze air battles and not bring down all the failures on one plane.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            July 2 2014
            Strangely enough, especially the Serbs fought.
            1. 0
              July 2 2014
              Quote: Kassandra
              Strangely enough, especially the Serbs fought.


              I know, you better explain it to the Moldovan comrade!
  33. fall
    0
    20 2014 June
    In total, about 1600 MiG-29 fighters of the disaster were produced:
    Experienced:
    15th of June 1978
    31th of October 1980
    Adopted:
    1984 - a clash of two instants on February 4 (the roots died), and then on February 7 another clash (the trays died)
    September 1986 died. ilyin
    October 3, 1986 9 died and 54 wounded
    October 14, 1987 died at. panin
    June 8, 1989 a collision with a bird near Paris
    1992 p. Oscans
    July 24, 1993 Farnborough - The Clash of Two Moments
    In 1993, 22 migrations broke on 29 (February 3, June, June 24, Mary)
    On September 11, 1995, Shaposhnikov S.N.
    1995 year died Siplivets Chita region
    March 1996, again the Chita region, the blast furnaces collided for two instant
    1998, Yegorov died there.
    November 2 1999 city
    March 22, 2001 Astrakhan region Mig-29ub
    June 19, 2003 again 29ub in the Krasnodar Territory
    November 12, 2003 in Armenia, Erubeni base
    January 28, 2004 Ryazan Region
    May 12, 2006 Tver Oblast
    March 21, 2007 clash of two twinks
    October 17, 2008 under the cheat
    December 5, 2008 keel fracture due to corrosion
    Summer 2012 in Siberia
    Algeria 2 aircraft
    Bulgaria September 1994
    Hungary June 1998, May 11, 2005, April 2008
    India 1986 -1997 4 lost, 1999 two more, September 2006 lost
    Azerbaijan one moment
    Belarus On April 21, 2010 at 20.15 local time, a clash of 2 instants, on September 23, 2010, another moment crashed - Colonel s. Kovalenko and Major A. gigailo
    Ukraine for 17 years crashed in 4 instants: June 20, 1995 (2 pilots died), July 30, 1996 died in Kirilchuk, October 1996 fell into the Black Sea (2 pilots died), March 26, 1998 died. Dudkin
  34. Beiderlei
    -1
    January 7 2015
    I put in America!

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

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