Military Review

Nobel Prize for the radar for the F-35

205


The airborne radar mass is 1% of the take-off mass, but it is the radar characteristics that determine the capabilities of modern fighters. The combat use statistics for the last 15 years gives a clear picture: all the air battles in which fourth-generation fighters took part took place over long distances (100% of victories were won using medium-range and long-range air-to-air missiles).

The radar is the main element of the aircraft sighting and navigation system. Modern multi-functional stations provide effective search, detection and tracking of air and ground targets, remotely program the autopilots of the launched rockets, measure the altitude and allow mapping the terrain. The most "advanced" samples are used as transmitters in high-speed data exchange systems, perform the functions of EW and RTR facilities - up to the implementation of the "beam" principle weapons!

The basis of modern radar systems are three major technologies:

Radar with phased antenna array (PAR). The use of a group of antenna emitters (instead of a single “plate”) made it possible to realize a whole range of advantages, the main of which was a quick scan of a selected area of ​​space (within a 1 millisecond). Electronic beam control eliminated the cumbersome drives and cardan suspensions required for mechanical control of conventional antennas. Efficiency. Reliability. Multifunctional. The best sensitivity and noise immunity.

Nobel Prize for the radar for the F-35

MiG-31 surprises the public with its huge radar "Barrier" (air show LeBurgé-91)


Aperture synthesis technology. The aperture (linear size of the antenna) determines the width of the radiation pattern (beam width). To obtain high azimuth resolution, antennas with as large aperture as possible are necessary, while the fighter antenna radar dimensions cannot exceed the 1,5 meter.

Synthesized (artificial) aperture is a technique based on the sequential reception of signals at different positions of a real antenna in space. For that split second, while the radar pulse lasted, the plane managed to fly 10 meters. As a result, the illusion of a huge antenna with an aperture of 10 meters was created!



The appearance of synthetic aperture radar has allowed the review and mapping of the earth's surface with a resolution comparable to the quality of aerial photographs. Modern fighter-bombers got unique opportunities for attacking ground targets - in any weather and time of day, from a great distance, without entering the zone of action of enemy air defense.

Radar with active phased antenna array (AFAR).


H010 "Zhuk-A" radar for the MiG-35 fighter


An array of thousands of individual receiving-transmitting modules (MRP) that do not need a single high-power radiator. The advantages of the technology are obvious:

- Antenna modules can simultaneously operate at different frequencies;

- smaller mass dimensions: due to the smaller dimensions of the antenna itself, the absence of a high-power lamp and the associated cooling system and high-voltage power supply unit;


Pay attention to how small the nose of the F-35 is compared with our “dryers” and MiGs


- increased reliability: failure / damage of one element will not lead to loss of performance of the entire radar (however, the presence of a complex cooling system of thousands of AFAR modules largely eliminates this advantage);

- high sensitivity and resolution, the ability to scale and work in the "magnifying glass" (ideal for work "on the ground");

- due to the large number of AFAR transmitters, there is a greater range of angles to which rays can be deflected - many of the limitations of the geometry of the arrays characteristic of PARs are removed;

- high transmitting capacity of AFAR allowed to integrate it into the communication and data exchange system:
In 2007, the Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications tests enabled the Raptor Fighter AFAR to operate as a Wi-Fi access point, transmitting data at 548 speeds in megabits per second, which is 500 times faster than the standard 16 NATO link .



Dassault Rafale


Currently, seven serial multipurpose fighters can take advantage of the AFAR technology: five fourth-generation modernized fighter jets and two 5 generation vehicles.

Among them: the French "Rafale" (radar RBE-2AA), export F-16E / F "Desert Falcon" air force UAE (these fighters are equipped with radar AN / APG-80), export fighter-bomber F-15SG military Singapore Air Force (equipped with AN / APG-63 (V) 3), while American Strike Needles are also being upgraded with the installation of AN / APG-82 (V) 2 radars. In addition to them, the radar with AFAR AN / APG-79 received upgraded deck F / A-18E / F "Super Hornet".

All of these radar models for 4 + fighter generation represent the evolution stages of conventional radars. For example, the APG-63 (V) 3 and APG-82 (V) 2 are improvisations based on the old APG-63 radar of the F-15 fighter. Therefore, despite the new antenna and updated processor, the end result was not very impressive.

The APG-79 shows a slight increase in performance compared to the APG-73. The results of practical tests did not reveal any noticeable advantages of F / A-18E / F fighter jets, equipped with AFAR radars, before vehicles with conventional radar radars.

From Director of Test & Evaluation (DOT & E), 2013.

This is despite the fact that the cost of the new radar increased markedly. Even in the era of digital technology, when the cost of production of each AFAR module has decreased to several thousand dollars, the final cost of the grid of thousands of APM is many millions. Of course, the price is not an argument for the United Arab Emirates, where the sheikhs wanted to equip their F-16 fighter jets with as steep radar as possible.


F-16 with AN / APG-68 radar



F-16 Block 60 with radar with AFAR


Well, while the "majors" are having fun with their "toys", real work is in full swing in serious scientific centers.

The teams that worked on avionics for the F-22 and F-35 fighters achieved the greatest success in creating radars with active phased arrays. For these machines, radar stations of a new generation were created, where large computational capacities allowed realizing the full potential of AFAR technology.


F-22 and its AN / APG-77 radar

What can the radar of the Raptor fighter from what the radar radars of other airplanes do not?

At first glance, nothing special. According to the military directory "Jane", the radar "Raptor" has a working detection range of 193 km, which provides 86% target detection probability with EPR = 1 square. m. on one pass of the antenna beam. For comparison: the domestic radar H035 "Irbis", according to the developers, sees air targets at a distance of 300-400 km (EPR = 3 sq. M.). By and large, these values ​​should not be taken seriously - in combat conditions, under the influence of various hindrances and situational limitations, the actual detection range will decrease by several times. As for the energy potential, AFAR, with all its advantages, has greater energy dissipation and lower efficiency, compared with PPAR.

Theoretically, this could equalize the chances of “Raptor” and Su-35. But it is worth remembering that the mutual detection range in an air battle depends not only on the energy capabilities of the radar and the EPR air target.

Radar "Raptor" has a special mode of operation LPI (low probability of interception), which is especially important for the aircraft, built on technology "stealth". Unlike conventional radars, the Raptor emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range. This eliminates the effectiveness of enemy EW and RTR equipment - the enemy does not even know that F-22 is close and has already launched an attack. The only one who is able to understand the random flow of signals at different frequencies is the AN / APG-77 radar processor itself, which gradually accumulates data and, according to the theory of probability, finds the true position of the target.

The second most important advantage of the “Raptor” radar is the possibility of simultaneous operation in the air-to-air and air-to-surface modes. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this moment for pilots of fighter-bombers that are searching in relief folds tank enemy columns in the presence of a threat from the enemy aviation.

According to common data, AN / APG-77 with synthetic aperture allows detecting targets with 30 EPR square meters. m. (tank) at a distance of 50 km, and a bridge or a large ship (1000 sq. m.) at a distance of up to 400 km! However, do not forget that the max. The resolution of the radar is not achieved in the entire sector of the review, but only in the form of a narrow “searchlight” beam. In addition, high-resolution mapping imposes certain restrictions on the flight profile and is possible only in the absence of active opposition from the enemy’s aviation and air defense.

In addition to the functions of detection tools, AFAR, in theory, is capable of itself turning into a formidable weapon. By focusing radiation in the form of narrow “death rays,” such a radar can “burn” the electronics of incoming enemy missiles. What would be the real effectiveness of the Raptor radar as an electromagnetic weapon, the question is complex. Nevertheless, the topic has gone beyond the secret laboratories and is now being actively discussed in the circle of aviation specialists.



It remains to add that, in addition to the sci-fi properties, AN / APG-77 has all the usual advantages of the AFAR technology: relative compactness and increased reliability. The use of radar with AFAR, it is not strange, had a positive effect on the reduction of the EPR of the Raptor itself (due to the absence of mechanical drives and mirror surfaces under the nose fairing + reduction of the size of the nose). Starting with the "32 Block" version, APG-77 has been able to make directed radio-electronic interference, including for several targets simultaneously. Finally, do not forget about the potential possibility of integrating radar into high-speed data exchange networks.

The conclusion is obvious: with all its limitations and shortcomings (the main of which is cost!), The AN / APG-77 system represents a real breakthrough in the field of radar. Pledged potential is so high that even after two decades, the radar continues to bring surprises and open up new opportunities.

Even greater success was achieved by the scientific team that created the radar for the multipurpose F-35 fighter. The academic community is convinced that the developers of the system, which received the designation AN / APG-81, could seriously claim the Nobel Prize in Physics - and, possibly, will receive their award when their designs lose their secrecy.



In comparison with the powerful radar "Raptor" the APG-81 radio-electronic miracle has modest dimensions and less energy potential. Nevertheless, it provides the pilot with almost a large amount of information. It's all about the unique mathematical signal processing algorithms: for example, extracting useful information from the noise reflected from the "side lobes" AFAR.

But the main features of the F-35 radar are revealed when working on ground targets: the creators of the APG-81 with incomprehensible images managed to achieve a min. permits on the ground within 30 x 30 centimeters. This allows, literally, when viewed from stratospheric heights, to distinguish a tank from a BMP!



If earlier there was only a mark on the screen, nowadays the software and the hardware capabilities of the radar station allow us to reconstruct the appearance of the target.

What awaits us in the near future? The main development trend is already known today - the creation of a mathematical apparatus for a three-dimensional model of radar.
Author:
205 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Magic archer
    Magic archer 25 November 2014 07: 27
    +11
    An interesting article. As a result, the Americans equipped the mediocre aircraft with excellent electronics and good radar. In principle, it always has been
    1. Pervusha Isaev
      Pervusha Isaev 25 November 2014 09: 37
      +10
      The scientific community is convinced that the developers of the system, designated AN / APG-81, could seriously apply for the Nobel Prize in physics - and


      It's all about the unique mathematical algorithms for signal processing: for example, extracting useful information from the noise reflected from the "side lobes" of the AFAR.


      Don't you think there is a contradiction between these two statements? if the "most unique" thing in these radars is mathematics, then the Nobel radar will not get the maximum snobel due to the fact that they do not give a Nobel for mathematics, but as for the "modest dimensions of the radar" f35, then they are modest due to the fact that the airplane itself is low-energy , moreover, it is declared as a vertical, so it is contraindicated to carry large weights of F35 ...
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 November 2014 09: 49
        +2
        Well, as for the "modest dimensions of the radar" f35, then they are modest due to the fact that the airplane itself is low-energy, and even declared as a vertical

        He's not exactly vertical. There are three options: normal take-off landing (F-35A), short take-off / vertical landing (F-35B), vertical take-off landing (F-35C).
        1. Pervusha Isaev
          Pervusha Isaev 25 November 2014 10: 00
          +3
          Quote: Wedmak
          vertical takeoff landing (F-35C).


          he himself said that vertical or vertical lines will not be a radar? or will there be other radars on non-verticals? but nothing is known about it, like on all three modifications - one radar - therefore its lightness is not a Nobel’s improvement, but a fit for a vertical modification ...
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 25 November 2014 13: 52
          +4
          Quote: Wedmak
          He's not exactly vertical. There are three options: normal take-off landing (F-35A), short take-off / vertical landing (F-35B), vertical take-off landing (F-35C).

          In fact, these are three different aircraft with maximum unification. For example, AK, PKM and SVD unification is also quite serious, but will anyone dare to call these weapons models a single whole?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 November 2014 19: 21
            0
            In fact, these are three different aircraft with maximum unification.

            In fact, yes. But ... we have already seen a dispute about universality and specialization. I continue to claim that each horse has its own cart. A fighter should be a fighter, not a vertical. Indeed, in fact, the lifting rotor after takeoff is an extra load! Yes, it’s better to put a couple more missiles in it!
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 25 November 2014 19: 25
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              A fighter should be a fighter, not a vertical.

              The time of pure fighters has passed. Won F-22, nowhere cleaner.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 19: 53
                +1
                Quote: Pimply
                The time of pure fighters has passed. Won F-22, nowhere cleaner.

                After the multi-purpose upgrade.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 25 November 2014 20: 47
                  +1
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  After the multi-purpose upgrade.

                  Most are not yet
      2. opus
        opus 25 November 2014 13: 39
        +5
        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
        due to the fact that they don’t give a Nobel for math,

        will give in physics
        ==================
        there is also:
        Abel Prize (Premium size: $ 1,2 million)
        Turing Award (Award size: $ 250 000)
        -Balzan Prize (Bonus size: € 1,3 million)
        mathematician Andrei Kolmogorov



        8 600 000 lines C ++ program code for DO-178B Real Time Operating System (RTOS) non-muhra muhra

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
        they are modest due to the fact that the airplane itself is low-energy, and even declared as a vertical, so carrying heavy loads on the 35 is contraindicated ...

        1. AN / APG-81 weighs less than 220 kg (Beetle-8-II - 240 kg weight)
        Type: Airborne dual mode radar
        Frequency band: X-band Frequency range: 8-12.5 GHz
        Antenna type: Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
        Antenna size: 1,200 element array
        Azimuth coverage: + -70ºElevation coverage: + -70º


        Air-to-air maximum range (mode)
        Look-up high aspect target: 125 km
        Look-down high aspect target: 125 km


        2. Promising NORA M-AESA for JAS39 “Gripen” (airplane even less = 8-9000kg): even easier and less, and the parameters are BETTER

        3. The miniature Picosar radar is several times superior to the Lynx-II RSA, and not inferior to the AN / APG-81
        IT'S ALL ABOUT the used frequency (X, C, S, L) in the number of PPMs and their sizes and execution of "sizes" (4-X QTRM)
        QTRM


        4-X QTRM

        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 November 2014 14: 28
          0
          Quote: opus
          will give in physics

          There is also a Fields Medal
          1. opus
            opus 25 November 2014 17: 06
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            There is also a Fields Medal

            I doubt that the ethnic Asian (the main software for 81), a US citizen will be seduced by 15 000 canadian dollars.
            He gets a lot more per week.

            Yes, and she) (medal) is more for theorists, such as Grigory Perelman
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 25 November 2014 19: 29
              0
              Quote: opus
              I doubt that the ethnic Asian (the main software for 81), a US citizen will be seduced by 15 000 Canadian dollars.

              Do you know what's the funniest thing? Fields Medal is considered the most prestigious in the mathematical community. You give out your idea of ​​the world and your attitude to it as someone else's opinion.
              1. opus
                opus 25 November 2014 19: 36
                0
                Quote: Pimply
                The Fields Medal is considered the most prestigious in the mathematical community.

                Controversial issue
                Abelian Award is considered a mathematician, not a wiki. Well, what, what MF 1 times in 4 year
                Quote: Pimply
                You give your view of the world and your attitude to it for someone else's opinion.


                ?
                You probably did not understand what you wrote (sometimes doing rhyming and verse writing, wrote just such nonsense).
                Decipher, kindly like this:
                I can give my view of the world as someone else’s opinion ( I referred to the World Cup?)
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 25 November 2014 20: 49
                  0
                  Quote: opus

                  Controversial issue
                  Abelian Award is considered a mathematician, not a wiki. Well, what, what MF 1 times in 4 year


                  Quote: opus
                  I can give out my view of the world as someone else’s opinion (Did I refer to the World Cup?)

                  Quote: opus
                  I doubt that the ethnic Asian (the main software for 81), a US citizen will be seduced by 15 000 Canadian dollars.
        2. picca2
          picca2 25 November 2014 16: 29
          -1
          Physics? /// fool Maybe in physiognomy.
          1. opus
            opus 25 November 2014 17: 11
            +1
            Quote: picca2
            Physics?

            Yes Yes-PHYSICS(The laws of physics underlie all natural sciences)
            WITHOUT knowledge in the field of Continuous Electrodynamics, Relativistic Electrodynamics, Quantum Electrodynamics, etc.
            CREATING THIS SOFTWARE is not possible, as the radar itself.
            To the information of your weak education: these are all codes in the classification systems of knowledge in physics

            Quote: picca2
            fool Maybe in physiognomy.

            You’d better knock your forehead, and there’s more sense if you knock a thread on your forehead.
            ==============
        3. Santa Fe
          25 November 2014 21: 56
          0
          ---User "opus" has been warned.___ 25.11.2014 21: 55

          Reasons: the intellectual level of your comments does not correspond to the subject of the site
      3. AKM9
        AKM9 25 November 2014 15: 35
        +3
        I would like to note at the expense of air battles. After "Desert Storm" and Yugoslavia, mattress makers developed the expression "Massacre in a telephone booth." This suggests that close combat prevailed, the Americans themselves spoke about this, and there are old vidosics (of course it is difficult to find them now) from Yugoslavia, where the twenty-first MiGs hammer the F-16 in the tail. In World Aviation I read the victories and losses of the West in air battles during Desert Storm (their version). The list of losses there is not even sour, but as they write, they were all lost from air defense fire, although according to their own words, the Iraqi air defense as such was destroyed within 40 hours. Their losses were within the range of XNUMX aircraft, and we know perfectly well that such a number of aircraft can only be shot down by an ideal air defense system and not less than two months of intense battles. So it turns out that they lost about half of their vehicles in air battles and if you read the testimonies of the American pilots themselves, then mainly the battles were close-range, this is due to the small territory of the states (Iraq and Yugoslavia) over which the air battles took place.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 November 2014 16: 39
          +2
          Quote: AKM9
          Yes, and there are old vidosiks (of course it’s difficult to find them now) from Yugoslavia, where the twenty-first MiGs hammer the F-16 in the tail.

          Well, you look. Interesting after all
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 25 November 2014 18: 40
          +2
          Somewhat not so. On the first day, we mostly hollowed at control posts, large radars and airfields. SAMs, especially small ones, remained. Of course, Saddamych had air defense poor, but with a huge number of sorties, the losses ran in. Moreover, it was the last war, where NATO aircraft massively used casting iron in daylight conditions, as they did in WWII, so there is nothing surprising in such losses from air defense
      4. evgenaleks
        evgenaleks 29 December 2016 08: 43
        0
        Award na PHYSICS
    2. Santa Fe
      25 November 2014 09: 54
      +3
      Quote: Magic Archer
      equipped mediocre plane great electronics

      The domestic media continue to "rub" the masses with the idea of ​​how the Americans are sawing the budget and selling a bad plane to their allies. "Well, stupid"! (C)



      8 tons of combat load - like a domestic Su-34 super-bomber!
      2 internal bomb bay and 6 nodes for external arms

      Three modifications based on one aircraft: basic for the Air Force, marine for aircraft carriers and "vertical" for the Marine Corps.
      Max. operational overload + 9g
      Wing load at normal. take-off weight - from 520 to 606 kg / sq. m. - approximately like that of the Su-35
      The thrust-to-weight ratio with a combat weight (50% of fuel) is close to 1. Simply put - if you put the F-35 on its tail - it would take off like a rocket))
      The reason is the powerful Pratt-Whitney F135 engine with thrust on the afterburner 19,5 tons (without afterburner - 13). For comparison, the most modern Russian engine AL-41F1С (Su-35) has traction on the afterburner 14,5 tons (without afterburner - 8,8)

      Normal light class fighter-bomber (empty weight 13 tons against 19 tons at Su-35)

      The only thing that the F-35 is accused of is that it cannot boast of such excellent maneuverability as the domestic Su. "Pancake", "cobra", etc. feints

      However, they forget that Bogdan twists loops on the Su-35 without any suspensions.

      in real combat, with suspended bombs and missiles, the maneuverability of the F-35 and Sukhoi will be the same - this is clear without argument. Any weapons on the external sling impose their restrictions on piloting the aircraft. At the same time, the American killer will also benefit from the presence of internal bomb compartments - where missiles are not afraid of air resistance and thermal heating.

      + stealth - all the same, parallel edges, stamped surfaces of double curvature - with minimal gaps and the number of fasteners, an uninterrupted lamp and S-shaped air intakes - the detection range of a small Lightning will be several times less than that of MiGs or Su

      + outstanding sighting and navigation system

      - radar with AFAR AN / APG-81
      - AN / AAQ-37 DAS All-View IR Detection System
      - optoelectronic sighting system AN / AAQ-40
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 November 2014 10: 42
        +32
        8 tons of combat load - like a domestic Su-34 super-bomber!

        And with such a load, the F-35 will resemble a pregnant cow, if it takes off of course (the vertical with 8 tons? Yes, you're fantastic!).
        2 internal bomb bay and 6 nodes for external arms

        Yeah, two ... in which, again, two 902 kg of bombs with difficulty get in. And with an external sling, talking about stealth is somehow embarrassing.
        Three modifications based on one aircraft: basic for the Air Force, marine for aircraft carriers and "vertical" for the Marine Corps.

        Well, yes, good. It seems to be. In fact, neither fish nor meat averaged over the LTX airplane.
        The thrust-to-weight ratio with a combat weight (50% of fuel) is close to 1. Simply put - if you put the F-35 on its tail - it would take off like a rocket))

        Yeah, this is where his flight will end.
        The reason is the mighty Pratt-Whitney F135 engine

        If anything, the thrust-weight ratio of the Su-35 with a normal mass of 1.1, with a maximum take-off mass of 0.8. And how many F-35?
        Normal light class fighter-bomber (empty weight 13 tons against 19 tons at Su-35)

        Cool! Bravo! Lightweight security compare with a heavy fighter! Have you forgotten about MIG-29?
        However, they forget that Bogdan twists loops on the Su-35 without any suspensions.

        However, they forget that the Su-35 is capable of carrying much more dangerous weapons than adjustable bombs and medium-range missiles.
        in real combat, with suspended bombs and missiles, the maneuverability of the F-35 and Sukhoi will be the same

        Yes? Chet hardly believe! Given the already not very good maneuverability of the F-35.
        the detection range of the small Lightning will be several times less than that of MiGs or Su

        This of course will greatly complicate the counteraction ... Until the air defense come into play.
        outstanding sighting and navigation system

        Well, that is a given. Otherwise, how can one bomb a bearded Afghans who do not have noticeable air defense?
        1. Santa Fe
          25 November 2014 11: 09
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          with such a load, the F-35 will resemble a pregnant cow


          F-16 with bombs, PTB, conformal tanks and sighting containers. The airplane itself is 30% lighter than the F-35. A jet engine (more precisely - its hurricane thrust) works wonders
          Quote: Wedmak
          (vertical with 8 tons? yes you are fantastic!).

          I didn’t speak for the vertical
          8 tons - this is the combat load of the F-35A with a normal take-off

          VTOL aircraft with a shortened take-off - will raise tons of 5-6
          Quote: Wedmak
          LTH averaged airplane.

          here from here in more detail
          Quote: Wedmak
          Have you forgotten about MIG-29?

          There is nothing to compare

          Combat load - 2 tons. Tiny range.
          The entire load reserve "ate" the second engine
          Quote: Wedmak
          Yes? Chet hardly believe! Given the already not very good maneuverability of the F-35.

          Nothing depends on LTX. Limitations are set by rockets on external suspensions (air resistance, thermal heating, overload)
          1. adept666
            adept666 25 November 2014 13: 35
            +5
            A jet engine (more precisely - its hurricane thrust) works wonders


            In this case, the integral layout allows him to work miracles, which the F-35 does not have, therefore, it can only be pulled by the engine. yes

            8 tons - this is the combat load of the F-35A with a normal take-off


            If necessary, and 9 will raise smile

            here from here in more detail


            Very mediocre dynamic characteristics: speed, rate of climb, maneuverability. All of this is at the mercy of compromises. But this is the result of a concept, and not of the crooked hands of the gentlemen from Lockheed, naturally (except in part laughing )
            1. Santa Fe
              25 November 2014 22: 23
              +1
              Quote: adept666
              In this case, the integral layout allows him to create miracles.

              Thrust

              With the advent of jet engines, aviation moved to a new level - the combat load of a modern fighter many times higherthan the "Flying Fortress" with four piston engines and a wingspan of 31 meters


              Quote: adept666
              allows an integral layout that the F-35 does not

              It seems you just don’t know what it is - they wrote, just to write something

              Integral layout = supporting housing. The carrying fuselage can make a very significant contribution to the lift of an aircraft.

              ALL modern 4/5 generation fighters have this. Especially in the "stealth" F-22 and F-35, where fbzelazh with air intakes - a single whole. And to understand where the wing plane begins is impossible with an external examination.
              Quote: adept666
              dynamic characteristics: speed, rate of climb, maneuverability

              Speed ​​- inferior to SR-71)) speed does not really matter today. Air battles are conducted at subsonic speeds, as is the attack on ground targets. The main part of the flight takes place at extremely low altitudes, where the air density does not physically allow you to set speed records.
              One and a half speed of sound is enough.

              Rate of climb is a variable thing. If you accelerate the plane to Mach 1 and take on the RUS, the plane will fly into the sky with a candle (climb 300-400-500 m / s). The tables usually indicate the value of the established rate of climb (F-35 200 ... 230 m / s versus 300 for Su-35) but has little relation to reality - it all depends on the combat load and, most importantly, the current position of the aircraft in space (speed / height). Dynamic modes.

              Maneuverability - wing area and load on the F-35 wing, like any 4 / 5 generation aircraft. AND?

              Where do the "fireballs" about the "unusable plane" come from?
              1. adept666
                adept666 26 November 2014 06: 35
                +2
                Thrust

                Is it true? All jet aircraft have thrust. However, how do you explain the simple fact that an airplane with thrust on afterburner in the region of 13.000 kgf can carry about the same combat load as an airplane with afterburner thrust of ~ 19.000 kgf and at the same time not inferior to it in the flight characteristics?
                Looks like you just don’t know

                In the know, in the know))
                Integral layout = supporting housing. The carrying fuselage can make a very significant contribution to the lift of an aircraft.

                Well, what am I talking about? wink
                ALL modern 4/5 generation fighters have this.
                .
                There is, only depending on the design, its value for some specimens can be neglected to a large extent smile
                Especially the stealth

                At this point, the F-16 smiled indulgently, like so: smile
                Speed ​​- inferior to SR-71))

                Yields much slower than this outstanding aircraft in all respects.
                the speed of our days does not really matter

                Yes, of course, why then make the board supersonic in general and put a megadour engine with an afterburner on it? Would put Pratt & Whitney F100, removed the afterburner and here you have happiness - no problem. Speed ​​is not needed laughing
                One and a half speed of sound is enough.

                One and a half speed of sound - this is at altitude, but what about: The main part of the flight takes place at extremely low altitudes ?
                F-35 like any 4/5 generation aircraft. AND?

                And the fact that it does not exceed the same F-16 in terms of performance characteristics, with an equal combat load, but is heavily overburdened by fuel due to the gluttonous engine, which in turn is necessary for it to at least somehow compensate for the not very successful aerodynamic design fellow
                Where do the "fireballs" about the "unusable plane" come from?

                And where did I write to you about an unusable plane? You asked in more detail about the mediocre LTH, I wrote about them, and also wrote why it happened: the result of many compromises. yes
                1. Santa Fe
                  26 November 2014 07: 35
                  0
                  An airplane having thrust on afterburner in the region of 13.000 kgf can carry about the same combat load as a plane whose boost thrust is ~ 19.000 kgf and at the same time not be inferior to it in LTX?

                  What kind of aircraft are we talking about
                  depending on the design, its value for some specimens can be largely neglected

                  More specific please

                  what prevents the f-35 design from having an integral layout
                  why then do you need to make the board supersonic and put on it a mega-engine with an afterburner?

                  Engine? All dynamics depends on it (acceleration / rate of climb)
                  How can I leave F-25 on 100 tonning - like on f-16, which is one third easier?
                  Quote: adept666
                  But what about: The main part of the flight takes place at extremely low altitudes?

                  There do not fly faster 1 Mach
                  The record at the time was at f-111 and MiG-23 - they flew on the PMN 1700 km / h. But these planes have long been gone. As there are no super-speed SR-71
                  Quote: adept666
                  he does not exceed the same F-16 in LTX

                  But was such a task posed?
                  Quote: adept666
                  significantly overwhelmed by fuel due to the gluttonous engine, which in turn is necessary for him to at least somehow compensate for the not entirely successful aerodynamic design

                  mixed in a bunch - horses, people

                  It is simply bigger and more powerful than the F-16. What is the secret meaning here?
                  1. adept666
                    adept666 26 November 2014 09: 20
                    +3
                    What kind of aircraft are we talking about


                    Well, in the photo that you presented the F-16, but of course compared with the F-35 (although if you were more careful, you would have guessed wink)

                    More specific please


                    Which is more specific? Depending on the design of the airframe, the integrated circuit gives different values ​​for the increase in lift. For F-16 it is about 30-35%, for the base MiG-29 about 40%. At F-35, although it is present, it is near-zero (I exaggerate).

                    what prevents the f-35 design from having an integral layout


                    Nothing interferes, but does not give a significant increase in lift.

                    Engine? All dynamics depends on it (acceleration / rate of climb)
                    How can I leave F-25 on 100 tonning - like on f-16, which is one third easier?


                    Well, since I just know this, and you take it out of context, these are your words that I commented on:
                    the speed of our days does not really matter

                    Why F-35 in this case
                    all dynamics (acceleration / rate of climb)
                    if this in your opinion is not important?

                    There do not fly faster 1 Mach


                    Fly, for example, Su-35S, F-15 1,2Max.

                    But was such a task posed?

                    Let's not move on to a similar discussion: what came before the egg or chicken))) What tasks were set during the design neither I nor you know for sure, but there is a fact that his cruising speed is not supersonic, although this parameter was set as one of the main for 5th generation aircraft at least. However, we are talking about LTH, I affirm that they are very mediocre for a 21st century aircraft.

                    mixed in a bunch - horses, people


                    I don’t know what you mixed up and there is no secret here, everything is written definitely clearly and clearly:

                    heavily overweight combustible because gluttonous enginewhich in turn to him needs so that somehow compensate for the not entirely successful aerodynamic design


                    It is simply bigger and more powerful than the F-16. What is the secret meaning here?

                    More powerful in what? In engine thrust? - Of course, but at the same time they carry the same combat load and at the same time have almost the same combat radius, the same overload (with a suspension), dynamics and speeds, which in principle confirms my words written above with highlighting key thoughts so that you don’t mix smile
                    1. Santa Fe
                      26 November 2014 10: 08
                      -1
                      Quote: adept666
                      At F-35, although it is present, it is near-zero (I exaggerate).

                      Wow, how interesting

                      What is the reason for this?
                      Quote: adept666
                      the speed of our days does not really matter
                      Why F-35 in this case
                      all dynamics (acceleration / rate of climb)

                      pursuit of max. speed and dynamics - things are different
                      Quote: adept666
                      Fly, for example, Su-35С, F-15 1,2Max

                      It’s necessary to watch what kind of pendants and what limitations
                      It is possible that f-35 will benefit from WWI due to the presence of internal bomb bay
                      Quote: adept666
                      What tasks were set during the design, neither I nor you know reliably

                      In terms of performance characteristics, F-16 could not exceed the task, because
                      - Ф-16 leader in maneuverability among single-engine aircraft - it is already built at the limit of the possible (though it is small, relatively simple and cheap)
                      - Ф-35 is much heavier and more inert, moreover, its appearance is partly disfigured by the requirements of stealth technology (for example, why does it need two keels?)
                      Quote: adept666
                      Of course, but at the same time they carry same combat load

                      Come on!

                      And the internal arms bays of the F-35?
                      A new radar and an abundance of sighting systems (which the F-16 drags on an external sling)?
                      Stealth technology elements - coatings, V-plumage, etc.
                      ------------------------------------
                      All this "gobbled up" the load reserve - otherwise, the combat load of the F-35 should be even higher


                      LITENING hanging sighting and navigation containers for F-16



                      Integrated f-35 Optoelectronic Aiming System


                      Quote: adept666
                      What prevents the f-35 design from having an integrated layout?
                      Nothing interferes, but does not give a significant increase in lift.

                      Quote: adept666
                      In this case, he can do miracles integral layout that the F-35 does not have

                      something you darken
                      1. adept666
                        adept666 26 November 2014 12: 16
                        0
                        Wow, how interesting
                        What is the reason for this?


                        It is connected with the fact that the fuselage is built according to the traditional scheme using separate integrated solutions: a smoother influx of wing consoles in the place of attachment to the fuselage, the lower edge of the engine air intake entrances is located below the fuselage contours, etc., all this attempts to create they are similarities of a single bearing surface, but they are not fully, and if you use the integrated layout not properly, this leads to an increase in the midship of the aircraft and, accordingly, to an increase in drag, which negates the overall contribution of the fuselage bearing surface to lift. smile

                        pursuit of max. speed and dynamics - things are different


                        Those. you want to say that two devices with the same engine and with the same mass-dimensional dimensions, but having different fuselage designs will have the same dynamic characteristics, but different speeds? smile

                        It’s necessary to watch what kind of pendants and what limitations


                        Yes, what is there to watch standard 5.5g. It is quite realized in horizontal flight at 1,2 Max with a suspension on PMV.

                        - Ф-35 is much heavier and more inert, moreover, its appearance is partly disfigured by the requirements of stealth technology (for example, why does it need two keels?)


                        This is not disfiguration (I missed it), but an improvement in lateral, longitudinal and static stability at low speeds with shortened / vertical take-off / landing.

                        Come on! And the internal arms bays of the F-35?


                        And what about the internal compartments? The maximum combat load is still 8-9 tons, just like the F-16, as it were smile

                        A new radar and an abundance of sighting systems (which the F-16 drags on an external sling)?


                        Well, it depends on the tasks, and on the F-35, too, the PTBs are hung on a suspension. An abundance of what I'm sorry? One optoelectronic complex? (How many tons does it weigh laughing ) The F-35 radar is lighter than the F-16 ... Elements of the stealth technology, well, let it add a ton and a half, and it should not, in theory, but the F-35 engine is almost twice as powerful as it were) )

                        something you darken


                        I love this thing laughing See the answer above, begins with the words
                        Due to the fact that the fuselage ...
                        smile
                      2. iwind
                        iwind 26 November 2014 13: 03
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        And what about the internal compartments? The maximum combat load is still 8-9 tons, just like the F-16, as it were

                        Only how much you forget about the PTV that will eat 3-4 tons, these PTBs will also occupy the most lifting pylons.
                        Quote: adept666
                        Well, it depends on the tasks, and on the F-35, too, the PTBs are hung on a suspension. An abundance of what I'm sorry? One optoelectronic complex? (How many tons does it weigh) The F-35's radar is lighter than the F-16 ... Elements of the stealth technology, well, let it add a ton and a half, and then in theory it should not, but at F- 35 engine is almost twice as powerful as if))

                        Show a picture of the F-35 with PTB. The F-35 also has EW, RTR, DAS tools inside, all that the 4th generation had to wear in the controllers in the fifth crazy inside.
                        Quote: adept666
                        Yes, what is there to watch standard 5.5g. It is quite realized in horizontal flight at 1,2 Max with a suspension on PMV.

                        The Su-35 at H = 200 m, km / h 1400 km / h - and the big question is what external suspension, and how much will be 50-100 meters? So 1.2 per pmv (about 20 meters) is very strong.
                      3. adept666
                        adept666 26 November 2014 14: 53
                        +1
                        Only how much do you forget about the PTV that will eat 3-4 tons


                        Why are they obligatory for him? This is an option, you need 1400 km of combat radius - hang it, no? - Well, fight on the base 800-1000.

                        Show a picture of the F-35 with PTB.


                        He has this option in the performance characteristics, that there is no such picture (maybe there is a search for crowbars) he doesn’t talk about anything, he just didn’t fly to such a range.

                        The Su-35 at H = 200 m, km / h 1400 km / h - and the big question is what external suspension,


                        Yes, there are no questions there, aerobatics are performed at exorbitant angles of attack with a suspension of 3 missiles (2 near and one medium), and even horizontal flight is generally without problems.

                        and how much will be 50-100 meters?

                        1300 km / h, it has changed the case? The density of air is not much different.

                        So 1.2 per pmv (about 20 meters) is very strong.


                        PMV - this is a flight height of less than 200m, which you already come up with: PMV (about 20 meters) And it still depends on the terrain.
                      4. iwind
                        iwind 26 November 2014 16: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: adept666
                        This is an option, you need 1400 km of combat radius - hang it, no? - Well, fight on the base 800-1000.

                        Only in dreams F-16, real no more than 600.
                        Quote: adept666
                        He has this option in the performance characteristics, that there is no such picture (maybe there is a search for crowbars) he doesn’t talk about anything, he just didn’t fly to such a range.

                        Did not fly. Someday fly, but not very soon. It is not necessary, except during distillation
                        Quote: adept666
                        PMV - this is a flight height of less than 200m that you already come up with: PMV (about 20 meters) And it still depends on the terrain

                        In general, I agree, but ....
                      5. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 26 November 2014 23: 13
                        0
                        Quote: iwind
                        In general, I agree, but ....

                        Where is she, the supersonic wave?
                      6. iwind
                        iwind 26 November 2014 23: 40
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Quote: iwind
                        In general, I agree, but ....

                        Where is she, the supersonic wave?

                        What wave? I am not saying that airplanes fly at a supersonic level.
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Yes, it is the prototypes that, after being adopted for service, all of these F-35s will undergo modernization to the level adopted for service, information from American publications.

                        No, it's still not prototypes. All modernization plans concern mainly software and more powerful processors; they also expand the range of weapons. The main changes are what will be transferred from Block 2A (training configuration) to Block 3F, etc. No new radars, OLS, etc. will not be.
                        https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software
                      7. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 27 November 2014 10: 52
                        0
                        Quote: iwind
                        What wave? I am not saying that airplanes fly at a supersonic level.

                        Got it, otherwise I thought we were about women.
                        Quote: iwind
                        No it's still not prototypes

                        Prototype (engineering) - a working model, a prototype device or part in design, construction, modeling.
                        You can certainly not call it a prototype. But he is not the final decision, there will be more changes before adoption.
                        Quote: iwind
                        Block 3F etc. No new radars, OLS, etc. will not be.

                        Who knows what will come out in a year.
                      8. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 27 November 2014 22: 00
                        +1
                        about women, of course ... a leap of compaction - waves on the sound.
                        the prototype (in American) was called the X-35
                    2. iwind
                      iwind 26 November 2014 11: 44
                      0
                      Quote: adept666
                      And the fact that it does not exceed the same F-16 in terms of performance characteristics, with an equal combat load, but is heavily overburdened by fuel due to the gluttonous engine, which in turn is necessary for it to at least somehow compensate for the not very successful aerodynamic design

                      Come on, that is, such an F-16 is the best LTX? Here the pilots are more than confident that with equal load the F-35 is superior to the F-16
                      1. adept666
                        adept666 26 November 2014 12: 57
                        +1
                        Come on, that is, such an F-16 is the best LTX?


                        Remove the PTB and GBU-31 (or attach to the F-35) and it will be better.

                        Here the pilots are more than confident that with equal load the F-35 is superior to the F-16


                        Which pilots? Names, links to interviews, etc. Without this, this is your unfounded statement.
                      2. iwind
                        iwind 26 November 2014 14: 23
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        Remove the PTB and GBU-31 (or attach to the F-35) and it will be better.

                        What for??? this F-35 carries it inside, while the F-16 carries it outside and even more so it no longer has a seat.
                        In this configuration, the fuel supply of the F-35 and F-16 is almost equal.
                        Quote: adept666
                        Which pilots? Names, links to interviews, etc. Without this, this is your unfounded statement



                        The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35, ”Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I thinkwould probably outperform it.”
                        pilot checked out on the F-35. Lt col lee kloos
                        http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/eglin-f-35-initial-cadre-s



                        tart /

                        "The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission , "says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot
                        http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/eglin-f-35-initial-cadre-s



                        tart / # sthash.CbWXFcyS.dpuf
                        What the F-35 has is more manoeuvrability than I ever had in the CF-18 as an air show pilot, "Billie Flynn told QMI Agency.
                        Flynn said he has flown dozens of different planes, including taking the CF-18 into combat in Kosovo and testing the Eurofighter Typhoon.
                        http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/07/test-pilot-raves-about-f-35
                      3. adept666
                        adept666 26 November 2014 14: 43
                        +2
                        What for??? This F-35 carries it inside, while the F-16 carries it outside


                        The GBU-31 is not among the F-35 weapons nomenclature, and it doesn’t fit into its belly in terms of mass and dimensions, the F-16 PTB is also not required, so if you want equal conditions, either write an F-35 story or remove it from F -sixteen

                        and even more than that, he no longer has a place.


                        The F-16 has 11 suspension points.

                        The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I thinkwould probably outperform it.”
                        pilot checked out on the F-35. Lt col lee kloos


                        Probably superior to him? That says it all laughing
                      4. iwind
                        iwind 26 November 2014 15: 42
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        Probably superior to him? That says it all

                        cling to a straw, More experienced speaks just more confidently. Lt Col Lee Kloos has just embarked on flights certain doubt in his words is normal. It might not fly yet at full load. You asked for an interview, I provided you, here is another interview with the pilots https://www.f35.com/resources/test-pilot-tuesdays.
                        Quote: adept666
                        The GBU-31 is not among the F-35 weapons nomenclature, and it doesn’t fit into its belly in terms of mass and dimensions, the F-16 PTB is also not required, so if you want equal conditions, either write an F-35 story or remove it from F -sixteen

                        Your knowledge of the program is increasingly touching.
                        April 10, 2013: Air Force Lt. Col. Peter Vitt flew F-35A AF-1 on its 300th flight. The mission involved a successful GBU-31 separation test over the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Center ranges. Photo by Paul Weatherman


                        Quote: adept666
                        PTB F-16 is also optional

                        Quote: adept666
                        The F-16 has 11 suspension points.

                        Once again, the F-16 4500 has fuel, the F-35 has 8200kg Without PTB, it will have a combat radius of 500-600 kilometers 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg ) bombs "
                        . There may even be eleven points, but the 3 most lifting ones occupy the PTB, another 2 occupy the navigation pod and navigation pod. Without the PTB, the F-16 almost does not fly, especially on a combat mission.
                      5. adept666
                        adept666 26 November 2014 16: 55
                        +2
                        cling to the sunThe more experienced says just more


                        It seems to me more and more that I’m talking with a robot that hasn’t learned the Russian language a bit (no offense wink ) All these perhaps и probably They say that not everything is so simple.

                        Your knowledge of the program is more moderate.


                        Ok I admit yes I did not know that the GBU-31 in the version with the BLU-109 / B head can be pushed into the intestines of the F-35, just in the photo where the F-16 is shown with the Mk84 head, which is + 10 cm in diameter and heavier. Although now I'm not sure, maybe she can be crammed laughing Have a photo with this option? smile

                        Once again, it has 4500 fuel, the F-35 has 8200 kg. Without PTB, it will have a combat radius of 500-600 kilometers.


                        The basic modification of the F-16 with ~ 3 986 liters of fuel, the combat radius is 550 km. When using the CTB (+ 1700 l) it reaches 800-1000 km (depending on the load) without using the PTB.

                        but the most 3 lifting ones occupy PTB, another 2 occupy ...


                        It depends on the task, and when using KTB it is not necessary at all.

                        Without the PTB, the F-16 almost does not fly, especially on a combat mission.


                        Versions without KTB are possible and sometimes not always.
                      6. iwind
                        iwind 26 November 2014 19: 40
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        It seems to me more and more that I am communicating with a robot that has not learned Russian a bit (no offense). All of these are possible and most likely indicate that not everything is so simple.

                        At the same time, I’m working with the forum, so such a casik tablet with t9 is not the most convenient way to dial. No offense here :)
                        Quote: adept666
                        The basic modification of the F-16 with ~ 3 986 liters of fuel, the combat radius is 550 km. When using the CTB (+ 1700 l) it reaches 800-1000 km (depending on the load) without using the PTB.

                        550 is just the ctb for the F-16 Block 50. The usual one is somewhere around 400km. But it already started to bore me - such obstinacy is already too much. In addition, let's analyze your numbers, we have 3 986 add 1700 liters, this is somewhere around 42%. Further, this KTB, as it were, was not to spoil the aerodynamics (smaller than the PTB, but still), adds weight. And after all this, we get a radius of almost two times more than 800-1000km ???
                        And the external suspension of bombs and ptb is still strong to spoil the aerodynamics and reduces the radius, that is, if the PTB doubles the amount of fuel, then the radius increases 1,6-1,8 times.
                        Quote: adept666
                        Well, I admit, I did not know that the GBU-31 in the version with the BLU-109 / B head can be pushed into the intestines of the F-35, just in the photo where it shows the F-16 with the head of Mk84, which is + 10 cm in diameter and harder. Although now I'm not sure, maybe she can be crammed

                        Now the grants of the wrong system ... I’m already too lazy, if you're interested, look.
                        Quote: adept666
                        All of these are possible and most likely indicate that not everything is so simple.

                        In life, little is unambiguous. But you just have stubbornness.
                        F-35 maintain control to the angle of attack of 73, and operational 50, while the F-16 somewhere around 28-30 degrees.
                        http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusafs-f-35a-aircraft-completes-high-




                        angle-of-attack-testing

                      7. adept666
                        adept666 27 November 2014 07: 07
                        +1
                        At the same time, I’m working with the forum, so such casiki tablet with t9


                        Now it’s clear, because errors are not spelling, but more syntactic smile

                        550 is just the ctb for the F-16 Block 50.


                        Firstly, there is also the F-16 Block 60, but 550 is without KTB

                        But it already began to bore me; such obstinacy is already too much. In addition, let's analyze your numbers


                        Here, as always, there are nuances smile The fact is that: 1) I indicated depending on load 2) The combat radius is indicated for the machine in the strike version with two heavy bombs, going along the flight profile large-small-small-large height (and this is very important: a low-altitude flight profile eats fuel with a big appetite yes ) And here, for example, for Block 50 in the version of a fighter (without conformal tanks), 3 liters in the PTB, 940 × AIM-2, 120 × AIM-2 = 9 km, we remove the tanks, the radius drops by half (although less, no weight tanks and goryuchki, but let it be doubled - we will hang two more 1 × AIM-760) = 2 km smile We add conformal tanks and now we have more than 1000 km. wink

                        Now the grants of the wrong system ...


                        Well, the GBU-31 is equipped with different heads, they differ in diameter, weight and dimensions, what is shown in the photo of the F-16 is the Mk84, what is shown in the photo of the F-35 is BLU-109 / B. They differ in both mass-dimensional characteristics, purpose and performance characteristics. What does this or that system have to do with it? These are two different bombs in essence.

                        In life, little is unambiguous. But you just have stubbornness.


                        Well, that too laughing It’s just that the conversation started with SWEET_SIXTEEN for the LTX F-35 and smoothly switched to comparing with the old F-16, which, if in any way inferior, is not critical, although the combat capabilities of one F-35 should be compared with two or three F- sixteen wink
                      8. iwind
                        iwind 27 November 2014 09: 39
                        -1
                        Quote: adept666
                        3 940 liters in the PTB, 2 × AIM-120, 2 × AIM-9 = 1 km, remove the tanks, the radius drops by half (although it’s less, there is no weight of the tanks and fuel, but let it be half, we’ll hang two more 760 × AIM- 2) = 9 km We add conformal tanks and now we have more than 880 km.

                        The F-16 BLCOK 60, by default, is considered to be with ktb; it's still not so easy to remove them.
                        And again, you are considered in the lightest configuration with missiles that patrol at altitude.
                        Our goal is to equalize the conditions. That is 2 bombs and a set of containers for missile drums. And you see here, at least three hundred but the F-35 has almost twice as much fuel in Internal tanks from this and where not to go.



                        Quote: adept666
                        osto, the conversation began with SWEET_SIXTEEN for the LTX F-35 and smoothly switched to comparing with the old F-16, which, if in any way inferior, is not critical, although in terms of price ratio it is necessary to compare the combat capabilities of one F-35 with two or three F- sixteen

                        By stealth on the lock, by impact characteristics the same is not weak.
                        And now about valuable.
                        Let's look at the F-16 block 60 and see the estimated prices for the most sophisticated $ 150-200 million
                        http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uae-raises-possible-deal-for-quotblock

                        -61quot-f-16-395235 /
                        and if you add spare parts and training in 270 million.
                        http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/united-arab-emirates-equipment-support-dire

                        ct-commercial-sale-f-16-block-61
                        Japanese F-2 (copy of F-16) costs $ 127 million.
                        That is, the latest modification is not very cheap.
                        And in the F-35, the last contract goes for 94 for a glider + engine from 10 to 15 million, it will turn out somewhere around $ 108 million
                        http://www.janes.com/article/46129/pentagon-finalises-f-35-lrip-8-contract
                      9. adept666
                        adept666 28 November 2014 08: 42
                        +2
                        And again, you are considered ...
                        Well, that's why I wrote that it depends on the load (which will be for the airplane in different flight modes, it’s harder, it’s easier smile) and indicated 800-1000.
                        Our goal is to equalize the conditions. That is 2 bombs and a set of containers for missile drums
                        The F-35 without PTB has a combat radius of ~ 1000 km, but it is not said with which set of weapons this is time.
                        And you see here, at least three but three F-35s have almost twice as much fuel in their internal tanks ...
                        I understand, as well as I understand, that with an engine that is almost twice as powerful it has worse acceleration and dynamic characteristics than the F-16, and this in turn means that it has more mass, the aerodynamic profile is worse and more frontal resistance during horizontal flight, which levels even its ability to carry weapons in the abdomen. Yes, he has more fuel, as it were, but his engine eats more (without afterburner: F-135 - specific consumption: 0,86 kg / kgf · h; Various engine options for F-16 - from 0,69 - 0,77 , 16 kg / kgf · h). Further, well, let there be two bombs, two PTBs and two hanging containers of equipment and a strike profile (high-low-low-high). In such equipment, the F-1400 has a combat radius of ~ 35 km. The PTB can be reset if necessary, just after it has been bombed, you can leave the combat zone very quickly, and the F-XNUMX with a significantly larger mass (even empty) and worse dynamic performance risks, ceteris paribus, not leaving the zone in a timely manner wink
                        By stealth on the lock ...
                        It all depends on who plays on the "other side", if this is air defense ala Iraq of the 70s, then flying along the high-low-low-high profile will not give any special advantages to the F-35 in stealth (because they just do not will be detected and not taken to escort the F-16), if developed layered air defense systems play against you, there will be a gain, but not so significant, modern radars are able to find stealth. But even in this case, if you think over the flight route so as to correctly use the terrain, then the F-16 will pass such air defense. There is an advantage, but not total.
                        And now about valuable.
                        Let's look at the F-16 block 60 and see the estimated prices for the most sophisticated $ 150-200 million
                        Yes, only this with several sets of spare parts (especially engines) + weapons for 50 hours of combat, since the machine, although localized / adapted, is exported + the cost of modernization distributed per unit of output. Same thing with the Japanese version. These prices have nothing to do with the cost price; if they were built for themselves, then a maximum of 70-80 million. smile
                        get somewhere around $ 108 million
                        Yeah, and now include for each cost of the program, spare parts and weapons and a unit price smoothly so ... several times grow. If an advance payment has already been made for the plane, this does not reduce its cost. smile
                      10. iwind
                        iwind 28 November 2014 14: 51
                        -1
                        Quote: adept666
                        Well, that’s why I wrote that it depends on the load (which will be for the airplane in different flight modes, it’s harder, it’s easier) and indicated 800-1000.

                        and we get 550 km with four 450 kg bombs.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Yes, he has more fuel, as it were, but his engine eats more (without afterburner: F-135 - specific consumption: 0,86 kg / kgf · h; Various engine options for F-16 - from 0,69 - 0,77 , 16 kg / kgf · h). Next, well, let there be two bombs, two PTBs and two hanging containers of equipment and a strike profile (high-low-low-high). In such equipment, the F-1400 has a combat radius of ~ 35 km. PTB can be reset if necessary, just after it has been bombed, you can leave the combat zone very quickly, and the F-XNUMX with a significantly larger mass (even empty) and worse dynamic performance risks, ceteris paribus, not leaving the zone

                        Where did this data come from? I have already given you so many links to my opinion.
                        Even according to your data, the expense is the highest percent by 20%.
                        1400 km is very doubtful, even if without VV missiles.
                        And again, where are the data about the worst dynamic characteristics of the F-35. And for now, this is only your statement.
                        If you load F-16 with 5-6 tons of fuel, then the question is how much will remain on combat, and what kind of aerodynamics will he have ...
                        You can always drop the PTB, but do the rear ones without the necessary fuel? And with all this we cannot to enlarge combat load no weight no place.
                        According to the F-35, this is the basis of the requirement for programs to provide a combat radius of 1000 km with internal load.
                        Quote: adept666
                        It all depends on who plays on the "other side", if this is air defense a la Iraq of the 70s, then flying along the high-low-low-high profile will not give any special advantages to the F-35 in stealth (because they just do not spotted and not escort the F-16),

                        You know, engineers all over the world bother with stealth, including ours (Pak-FA, Pak-YES), but you do not give an advantage. Apparently, it gives a lot, and the F-16 ESR with these pendants will be 100 times more than with the F-35. So I trust them more.
                        Quote: adept666
                        Yes, only this with several sets of spare parts (especially engines) + weapons for 50 hours of combat, since the machine, although localized / adapted, is exported + the cost of modernization distributed per unit of output. Same thing with the Japanese version. These prices have nothing to do with the cost price; if they were built for themselves, then a maximum of 70-80 million.

                        I agree that the F-16 Block 60 270 is a spare part, etc. Let half remain anyway around $ 100. And in Japan it is production costs that are estimated from 108 to 120 million per aircraft.
                        Eurofighter Typhoon the same 120 and it's without afra.
                        That is, it already costs like a 4th generation airplane. Or do you suggest to continue to cost an airplane 80 years? The target price for 2018 -19 at the F-35 is $ 90
                        Quote: adept666
                        If an advance payment has already been made for the plane, this does not reduce its cost.

                        What did you mean?? This is a reference to the last contract on F-35- and its valuable production is already more than adequate.
                      11. iwind
                        iwind 28 November 2014 15: 36
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        I understand, as well as I understand, that with an engine that is almost twice as powerful as it has the worst acceleration and dynamic characteristics than the F-16, which in turn means that it has more mass, the aerodynamic profile is worse and more frontal resistance during horizontal flight, which levels even its ability to carry weapons in the abdomen

                        By the way, it’s just interesting, you really think that aircraft developers and engineers don’t know all this. I’m more than sure that the people creating planes are VERY and VERY smart. And they already know all this for sure and calculated.
                      12. adept666
                        adept666 29 November 2014 19: 48
                        +1
                        By the way, it’s just interesting, you really think that aircraft developers and engineers don’t know all this. I’m more than sure that the people creating planes are VERY and VERY smart. And they already know all this for sure and calculated.


                        And who says they are fools? Based on what the customer demanded they got out, you can say solid 4+. These are not bad engineers, but customer requirements that are inadequate to the modern scientific and technological development and industry potential.
                      13. iwind
                        iwind 28 November 2014 18: 02
                        -1
                        Quote: iwind
                        more than 4 years (> 35040 h) on 11 bench installations and in ideal conditions? Even if you just divide it turns out to be 2363 hours out of 400

                        I figured it out. You are just perfect, I calculated the "average temperature in the hospital." This does not characterize you in the best way.
                        I already see basically one obstinacy. It already bored me
                        So let everyone stay with their opinion.
                        Or provide any evidence supporting your opinions.
                        Although I already wanted to end this dialogue, it was interesting but already tiring. drinks
                        PS Something reminds this topic http://topwar.ru/63498-rossiya-i-turciya-perehodyat-na-vzaimoraschety-v-nacional
                        nyh-valyutah-otkazyvayas-ot-dollara-i-evro.html. The ruble collapsed by 50%, but for some reason the dollar is a piece of paper.
                      14. adept666
                        adept666 29 November 2014 19: 53
                        0
                        This does not characterize you in the best way.


                        For a long time, you thought ... After 3 posts how this idea visited you, that this also does not characterize you in the best way wink

                        I already see basically one obstinacy.


                        And who told you that everyone should agree exclusively with your opinion? And what is it exceptionally true?

                        It already bored me


                        Well, so what's the question? But I do not force you to write 10 answers to my comments by force and convince me of something, this is exclusively your own desire, why are these groans?

                        So let everyone stay with their opinion.


                        Yes, and so we will, even if we continue, so that we can stop drinks
                      15. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 November 2014 00: 51
                        0
                        it's good if this "talent in pictures" hasn't included you in the list yet ... so that you don't see what kind of dregs they are pouring into people's brains here No.
                        they all use their trolleybus for 2-3 months. back, they "taught" service professionals to verticals, and also fought for battleships that at the Falklands, they say, would sweep the entire English Task Force to pieces - and apparently the fate of the cruiser General Belgrano was not a decree to them ... angry
                        well, not talking about Pearl Harbor and Leyte Gulf
                        By the way, when Belgrano was still an American ship, he survived a raid on a harbor pier (because although the cruiser was not a battleship). but the war in the south Atlantic is no longer there.
                      16. iwind
                        iwind 2 December 2014 11: 29
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        For a long time, you thought ... After 3 posts how this idea visited you, that this also does not characterize you in the best way

                        and where, I thought so?
                        Quote: adept666
                        And who told you that everyone should agree exclusively with your opinion? And what is it exceptionally true?

                        That's why I try to provide links to confirm my opinion.
                        And from you, I have not seen this yet.
                      17. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 2 December 2014 12: 00
                        0
                        give him a link that the earth is flat. or concave ... let them enter them into the manager's quotation book.
                      18. adept666
                        adept666 29 November 2014 19: 44
                        +1
                        and we get 550 km with four 450 kg bombs.


                        Above I calculated about how much will be in air patrol mode.
                        Similarly with 2 GBU-31 Mk84 (~ 900kg each), 2 * 1 PTB + conformal tanks combat radius along the flight profile: high-low-low-high ~ 1400. 2 PTB = ~ the volume of internal tanks. Total with approximately conformal tanks will be> 700 km.

                        1400 km is very doubtful, even if without VV missiles.


                        You can doubt it - your right smile

                        And again, where are the data about the worst dynamic characteristics of the F-35.


                        The value of the rate of climb and maximum speed on the afterburner relative to engine thrust and aircraft mass.

                        Even according to your data, the expense is the highest percent by 20%.


                        In the maximum mode. For F-16 770kg * 7,9 = 6083 kg per hour. F-35 860kg * 12,7 = 10922 kg per hour. smile

                        You know, engineers all over the world bother with stealth, including ours (Pak-FA, Pak-YES), but you do not give an advantage.


                        I'm not saying that it does not give an advantage (or rather, not everywhere), but its value is too exaggerated, so our engineers do not pursue a total reduction in ESR and at the same time a deterioration in LTX, actually in the USA they also came to this and the F-35 has worse reduction values EPR compared to the older F-22.

                        So I trust them more.


                        Believe)))

                        Let half remain anyway around $ 100. And in Japan it is production costs that are estimated from 108 to 120 million per aircraft.


                        I repeat once again - this is the export price; it has nothing to do with the cost of the machine. For foreigners, the price for an F-35 unit and equipment for it will be more than for the United States (not counting those countries that participated in its creation program)

                        What did you mean?? This is a reference to the last contract on F-35- and its valuable production is already more than adequate.


                        This is me about> 50 billion $ spent on its creation. smile
                      19. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 November 2014 01: 20
                        0
                        just a trillion to drink, they spent only 500 thousand dollars on its creation, "having bought" it in the Russian Federation in 1992 and restyling the Yak in the F35 was done by the same who made the yak and not the Americans, then how they approached the big money from Lockheed (and most of USA) were thrown out.
                        The "creation" of the F35 in Lockheed was carried out by the same gang of ghouls that had previously carried off BAE from under McDonnell through the creation of a fake consortium having combined all the documentation for the harrier from the British, then they threw out the British consortium and so AV-8 with just a new wing became 100% American by plane.
                        The United States is such a country that itself has not done anything with this technique ... but which as a result has got everything.
                        other versions of F-35 A and C are still the same F-35B (the same Yak) in which they locked the nozzle and threw out the rotator (and stuck a landing hook on the F-35C), these are the same delusional cars as if all the same done at Harrier (nozzle locking and hook fitting) winked
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 26 November 2014 17: 16
                  0
                  The SR-71 is not an outstanding aircraft in every way. The MiG-31 will be better in height, and unlike it is a combat aircraft and not just a scout.
                  By the way, it was made from Soviet enriched titanium bought in the USSR - the Americans did not have the technology for cleaning it ... Murmansk was shot down alone on the 1987st in 31, so they later began to say that they generally didn’t fly there except for 3 weeks in the 70s ... although they went to reconnaissance of the SF bases strictly after 15 days.
                  about the F-35 that America acquired in Russia for 500 thousand tanks and then began to remake crookedly - do not argue with them, they are on a salary.
                  on the F-16 conformal tanks detachable and the F-35 for this purpose will have to ... saw wassat
        2. iwind
          iwind 25 November 2014 11: 37
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          8 tons of combat load - like a domestic Su-34 super-bomber!
          And with such a load, the F-35 will resemble a pregnant cow, if it takes off of course (the vertical with 8 tons? Yes, you're fantastic!).
          2 internal bomb bay and 6 nodes for external arms
          Yeah, two ... in which, again, two 902 kg of bombs with difficulty get in. And with an external sling, talking about stealth is somehow embarrassing.


          Why so? Inside we fix pieces 4-6 SDB2 +
          aim-120,

          on the external compartments we mount the AGM-158D with a launch range of up to 980 km,

          on the next we fasten two or three ADM-160 MALDs,

          and get such a good set for opening an air defense. cruise missiles are launched at a safe distance from the enemy + after some time false MALD targets are added to them (and 6 additional targets appear in the air defense), and SBD-2 are already working on a freshly opened air defense
        3. goose
          goose 25 November 2014 14: 04
          +14
          I read you, except for advertising and lies nothing is visible.
          As the maximum value of the combat load, you have given the sum of the masses that the suspension points on the F-35 can withstand. Well, this is a lie, according to the manufacturer’s materials, this aircraft cannot have a payload of more than 4,5 tons, which is identical to the old MiG-29.

          How far will he fly? It does not have such extensive INTERNAL tanks as Sushki and even MiG-29M2 / MiG-35, respectively, part of the EXTERNAL suspensions will be occupied by tanks, or the combat load will be limited, or the tanker will have to be driven. Most likely there will be a second option. New fashionable pregnant cows with conformal ersatz tanks F15E and F16 have significant load limits, and cannot be fighters in fact, although they have a range that is almost reached to the latest Dryers and MiGs.

          Well, aerodynamics even with suspensions never makes the F-35 the same with the Su-35 in particular.

          The characteristics of the radars that the F-35, that the F-22 has not yet been confirmed, are being finalized. I believe that not so long and everything will be, but not yet.
          1. iwind
            iwind 25 November 2014 14: 38
            +7
            Quote: goose
            I read you, except for advertising and lies nothing is visible.
            As the maximum value of the combat load, you have given the sum of the masses that the suspension points on the F-35 can withstand. Well, this is a lie, according to the manufacturer’s materials, this aircraft cannot have a payload of more than 4,5 tons, which is identical to the old MiG-29.

            And you have some fantasies ... look at the manufacturer’s website and see .. Weapons payload 18,000 lb / 8,160 kg.
            http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35a-ctol-variant.html
            Quote: goose
            It does not have such extensive INTERNAL tanks as Sushki and even MiG-29M2 / MiG-35, respectively, part of the EXTERNAL suspensions will be occupied by tanks

            Internal fuel capacity 18,200 lib or 8 255kg fuel. We look at how much the Mig-29m has 5830kg, upss ... Even a much larger aircraft with two engines like the SU-30 has 9 kg of fuel.
            http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su30mk/lth/
            Quote: goose
            accordingly, part of the EXTERNAL suspensions will be occupied by tanks, or the combat load will be limited, or the tanker will have to be driven

            Having 8 tons of fuel and one engine there is no need for PTB.
            1. goose
              goose 13 June 2019 11: 03
              0
              Quote: iwind
              ..Weapons payload 18,000 lb / 8,160 kg.

              Do you know that this is the loading capacity of the arms consoles, and not the weight that an airplane can take off the ground?
          2. iwind
            iwind 27 November 2014 00: 12
            +1
            Quote: goose
            I read you, except for advertising and lies nothing is visible.

            By the way, cute.
            Almost all of your numbers or statements are untrue. But you put 17 pluses. I directly feel the waves ....
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. patsantre
          patsantre 25 November 2014 19: 49
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Yeah, two ... in which, again, two 902 kg of bombs with difficulty get in. And with an external sling, talking about stealth is somehow embarrassing.

          How to understand with difficulty? 2 902 kg of bombs and 2 AIM-120 missiles fit quite well there. Do not mislead people. And SDB bombs are hung in 3 pieces per suspension point.
          Bombs JSOW and KR JASSM have EPR much less than that of the aircraft, and their presence on the external sling will not greatly affect the EPR. Yes, and they will be applied anyway before entering the enemy’s defeat zone.
          Quote: Wedmak
          However, they forget that the Su-35 is capable of carrying much more dangerous weapons than adjustable bombs and medium-range missiles.

          Given that in the same areas you mentioned, we are behind. And the arsenal of the F-35 is also not limited to this.
          Quote: Wedmak
          This of course will greatly complicate the counteraction ... Until the air defense come into play.

          And for them, the laws of physics do not work or what?
          1. yehat
            yehat 4 December 2014 23: 30
            -1
            Quote: patsantre

            Given that in the same areas you mentioned, we are behind. And the arsenal of the F-35 is also not limited to this.

            I'm not a big specialist, but the deception is clearly visible here. Look at the planes that really expect to use advanced weapons with guidance: everyone has a hefty unit of equipment sticking out under their belly. The F35, in addition to the AFAR and a set of passive observation devices, has nothing. And to maintain stealth mode, any target designation equipment will simply have to be turned off. Be that as it may, the F-35 has neither the opportunity to TAKE the necessary equipment, nor the ability to turn it on, if it is miraculously glued somewhere, otherwise it deliberately becomes on a par with the 4th generation, having additional disadvantages, the presence of which stupid to deny.
            I ask you not to include the Su-34 in the discussion - this is a specialized aircraft with its own characteristics, for example, it has substantial reservations.
            1. goose
              goose 13 June 2019 11: 05
              0
              Quote: yehat
              Be that as it may, the F-35 has neither the opportunity to TAKE the necessary equipment, nor the ability to turn it on

              In fairness, you can hang a container, like LANTIRN, or the like, to obtain target designation for ground targets, but then you can not talk about stealth.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 10: 45
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Three modifications based on one aircraft: basic for the Air Force, marine for aircraft carriers and "vertical" for the Marine Corps.
        Max. operational overload + 9g

        Really seriously say?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        However, they forget that Bogdan twists loops on the Su-35 without any suspensions.

        In fact, they twist and with the suspension, of course not 8 tons.
        I recalled the lines of my beloved poet.
        Mixed in a bunch of horses, people,
        And the volleys of a thousand guns
        Merged in a long howl ...

        The difficult thing is aeronautics. Here is the wing load, for example, but the difference in the mass of the aircraft?
        Somewhere I heard that a US pilot put it:
        -F-35 is pushing through the sky only because of the bestial power of the F-119 engine.
        Although maybe "I heard the ringing but did not know where he was."
        1. Santa Fe
          25 November 2014 11: 13
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Really seriously say?

          Typical for modern aviation
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          lines of my favorite poet.

          And mine!
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Here is the wing load, for example, but the difference in the mass of the aircraft?

          In these matters, all modern 4 + / 5 fighters are twins. Moreover, it is impossible to establish the exact take-off mass (what is included with us and with them, what% of fuel supply, suspension).
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          F-35 is pushing through the sky only because of the bestial power of the F-119 engine.

          Well said
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 12: 27
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Typical for modern aviation

            Maximum operational overload:
            F-35A: + 9 G
            F-35B: + 7 G
            F-35C: + 7,5 G
            She is not the same.
            Americans always present their performance characteristics in the most favorable light, for example:
            -Triiden-2 rocket flies on 11000 km.
            But they are silent that the mass of the warhead in this case, about 800 km, is just, well, on planes as well, a lot of confusion. It is best to consider with normal takeoff weight in this case, the load on the wing of the Su-35 is 410 kg / m², F-35S is 569 kg / m².
            The F-35 radar is certainly interesting as well as avionics.
            The glider will be modified for a long time, since they have some problem of calculating sopromat at dynamic loads, they usually solve it by fixing errors after trial operation, while they are rich and can afford it.
            1. opus
              opus 25 November 2014 17: 56
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Americans always present their performance characteristics in the most favorable light, for example:
              -Triiden-2 rocket flies on 11000 km.
              But they are silent that the mass of the warhead in this case about 800 km is just, well, there’s also a lot of confusion on airplanes.

              1. Does the type we (or the Chinese) "understate"?
              2.UGM-133A Trident II (D5) REALLY "flies" 7,456 miles (less than 12000 km) with a LOWER number of BBs 4 (and someone says all 6) MIRV Mk 4 (W76 100 kT) for the Americans (for the British less, there are other BG)
              This was strenuously proven when money was knocked out to replace Trident I (C4) UGM-96A
              / DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 (Senate - August 11, 1995), AMENDMENT NO. 2398, Page: S12318, S12319
              really not out of the water
              Full Range of FBM Expertise and Service Launch with Canaveral, Florida,
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 20: 34
                0
                Quote: opus
                Like we (or the Chinese) "understate"?

                I can’t say for the Chinese, but our people are simpler.
                I read your comments and wonder, are you by any chance a relative of the postman?
                They say a lot of interesting things about Triden-2, for example, to increase the abandoned combat load, they significantly reduced the reservation of the warhead.
            2. Santa Fe
              25 November 2014 22: 43
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              F-35A: + 9 G
              F-35B: + 7 G
              F-35C: + 7,5 G

              Maud. B and C - 10% of the total output, senseless vertical and the same freak deck

              We're talking about "A"
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              they are silent that the mass of the warhead in this case, about 800 km, is only

              Hedgehog it’s clear that with a reduced number of blocks
              So set any records, other matter, that with the full combat load Trident-2 works wonders
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Best viewed with normal take-off weight.

              And what is included in this "normal take-off weight"?
              % fuel? arms suspension? How to read and correlate it with different types of aircraft, different weight categories and different application concepts?
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Su-35 is equal to 410 kg / m², Ф-35С is equal to 569 kg / m².

              In strike operations, where the aircraft drags tons of bombs and PTBs, the value of the wing load is not particularly significant. Maneuverability suffers from any aircraft

              In aerial combat - they enter there with a reduced fuel supply, without anti-tank fire and with mines. number of pendants.
              HOW DO WE CONSIDER?
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              some problem of calculating sopromat under dynamic loads

              Yes, there was a crack in the wing after 8000 hours test

              About LTX - my opinion is this: all these Su, MiGs, Rafali, F-22 / 35, different F-15 and Eurofighter are twins. Minimal differences in table values ​​(10-20%) in practice mean nothing. Everything is determined:
              1. The current position of the aircraft in space (speed / altitude - remember the concept of "dynamic ceiling"? wink)
              2. A lot of fuel and the presence of suspensions
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 26 November 2014 23: 53
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Maud. B and C - 10% of the total output, senseless vertical and the same freak deck

                Are not your words?
                Three modifications based on one aircraft: basic for the Air Force, marine for aircraft carriers and "vertical" for the Marine Corps.
                Max. operational overload + 9g
                Wing load at normal. take-off weight - from 520 to 606 kg / sq. m. - approximately like that of the Su-35

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                In aerial combat - they enter there with a reduced fuel supply, without anti-tank fire and with mines. number of pendants.

                HOW DO WE CONSIDER?

                This is the normal calculation.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Yes, there was a crack in the wing after 8000 hours of testing

                This is a long history of American aviation, the wing crack is not the only one, there are many problems there, but the cracks in the wings are a frequent occurrence of new American aircraft, not only the F-35th, usually after the 4th modernization they cope with this, but the performance characteristics are underestimated
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The current position of the aircraft in space

                It’s all true, but this expression sometimes changes everything:
                - I almost reached it.
              2. yehat
                yehat 4 December 2014 23: 41
                +1
                As for the TTX comparison, you probably slept in recent years: a number of events took place, where the F-15 and Su-27, su-30 were compared. Where a tremendous advantage in favor of sushki is revealed. Passed on this basis and the scandal in the United States, which hooked Congress. Do you all think that LTX is close ...
                Finally, WATCH a video of demonstration flights to see everything.
                I respected Rafal until I saw real video demonstrations.
                Well, the difference in the dynamics of drying and rafal is striking.
                The notorious over-maneuverability is not just words, it is really visible,
                it is clear that in close combat an experienced pilot on drying will not leave anyone a chance.
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra 26 November 2014 00: 11
              0
              Yah...

              radar just might be inter-radar like radar ... it can be put on any plane
              vertical is not vertical - now is not the 60s, almost all aircraft with thrust-to-weight ratio are more than one.
              in short, the "moral" of this fable is:
              1.google "worthy successor to Penkovsky" next follow CIA link - this is where the Americans got the FAR and AFAR from, and then until 2006 they could not master this technology, and on the MiG-25 it was back in ... see for yourself what year what
              2. Where did the F-35 come from - Lockheed "bought" it at the Yakovlev Design Bureau. for just a mile (more precisely, half a lam)

              Americaa, Americaa the Best Country in the world! bully
        2. patsantre
          patsantre 25 November 2014 19: 54
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          -F-35 is pushing through the sky only because of the bestial power of the F-119 engine.

          It's about the F-22.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 20: 36
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            It's about the F-22.

            Perhaps I will not argue, but this does not change the essence in this case.
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 November 2014 10: 49
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The domestic media continue to "rub" the masses with the idea of ​​how the Americans are sawing the budget and selling a bad plane to their allies. "Well, stupid"! (C)

        So it's clear that ... if the automotive industry was being analyzed here, then the Tesla Model S would have been declared an obvious "drank", and Lada Vesta makes this Tesla in all respects ...
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 25 November 2014 10: 57
          +8
          if automobile industry were disassembled here

          Do not confuse soft with warm. If you are comparing Lada Vesta and Tesla S, then let's compare the F-35 with the T-50. And then, something quickly blows you to the Su-27 and Mig-29 not entirely fresh modifications.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 25 November 2014 13: 43
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            If you are comparing Lada Vesta and Tesla S, then let's compare the F-35 with the T-50

            Yes, please compare who does not give you ...
            Quote: Wedmak
            And the fact that something quickly blows you to the Su-27 and Mig-29 is not entirely fresh modifications.

            And where did you notice that? I always compare EXISTING machines.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 25 November 2014 13: 57
            +4
            Quote: Wedmak
            T-50.

            There is too little data on the T-50 to really compare. The Americans have a hundred airplanes in the air.
        2. Papakiko
          Papakiko 25 November 2014 11: 36
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          then Tesla Model S would have been declared an obvious "saw", and Lada Vesta makes this Tesla in all respects

          After a year of operation of "Teslas" their "sores" were revealed.
          And the most important is the limited operation at zero and (Oh God) IMPOSSIBILITY at negative values ​​of the ambient temperature.
          Most of all, what amused me personally about Teslas is: Naked Salon those. the absence of armrests between the seats of the first row and all kinds of pockets, not to mention the umbrella in the doorway, like the "Rolsarois".
          I will modestly remind you of the "super accumulator" from a set of thousands of "batteries" (R6, LR6, 316, A316). There are big doubts that ultra-modern air-independent submarines are equipped with such batteries.
          "Tesla" is a very expensive toy and under certain conditions, when moving from point A to point B, it grabs from Lada Vesta (and not only) not only for both cheeks but also on the very L3 (vertebra).
          So it is with the analysis of the supernosity of "FU-22 FU-35" and our aircraft.
          1. iwind
            iwind 25 November 2014 12: 04
            +2
            Quote: Papakiko
            After a year of operation of "Teslas" their "sores" were revealed.
            And the most important is the limited operation at zero and (Oh God) IMPOSSIBILITY at negative values ​​of the ambient temperature.


          2. Pimply
            Pimply 25 November 2014 13: 58
            +4
            Quote: Papakiko
            And the most important is the limited operation at zero and (Oh God) IMPOSSIBILITY at negative values ​​of the ambient temperature.


            Tell it to the Norwegians. There Tesla is one of the most popular cars. I wonder if the conditions are very different from Russian.
      4. tomket
        tomket 25 November 2014 11: 04
        +10
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in a real battle, with suspended bombs and missiles, the maneuverability of the F-35 and Sukhoi will be the same - this is clear without argument

        Even during the Second World War, Fokke-Vulva, before entering into air combat, usually get rid of the bomb load. This time. Two, there is such a thing as a configuration of gaining superiority in the air. That is, the Su-35 will not be sent to patrol with the KAB-500 clusters suspended under the wing. Due to the location of the missiles in the internal compartments, here you also need to see how negative overloads and the position of the aircraft in space will affect the launch of these missiles. Further, the maneuverability of an aircraft is determined not only by the magic number 9g of the F-35. I think even you will not argue that the Su-27-35 family has no equal in maneuverability. If in doubt, send you to the training battles between f-15 and su-27. Actively maneuvering a target in the 9g range reduces the range of a missile fired at a target by about half, for AIM-120C. This figure drops from 120 km to 60-70 km. Which will force both the f-22 and the F-35 to approach distances that are advantageous for the Su-35 and Su-27.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 November 2014 12: 00
          -2
          Quote: tomket
          Even during the Second World War, Fokke-Vulva, before entering into air combat, usually get rid of the bomb load.

          Well, then if you drop missiles in-in, then what will have to fight?
          Quote: tomket
          At the expense of the location of the missiles in the internal compartments, here you also need to look at how negative overloads and the position of the aircraft in space will affect the launch of these missiles.

          Tests to launch missiles from the internal compartments during maneuvering and reloading on the F-35 were carried out. But there is one thing but ...
          Quote: tomket
          I think even you will not argue that the Su-27-35 family has no equal in maneuverability. If in doubt, send you to the training battles between f-15 and su-27.

          This is the very BUT. The fact is that the training battles you indicated are the same BVB in which the Su-27/35 seems to have advantages, but will it even exist? Referring to the Indiana Jones movie. A guy with a sword famously waves it, showing the art of owning a blade, Indiana Jones takes out a revolver after a pause and shoots the guy, he falls, the scene is over. Did the melee art help that uncle?
          Quote: tomket
          Actively maneuvering a target in the 9g range reduces the range of a missile fired at a target by about half, for the AIM-120C. This figure drops from 120 km to 60-70 km. That will force both the f-22 and the f-35 to come close to distances that are advantageous for the su-35 and su-27.

          How did you get the idea that the Su-27/35 has any advantages at medium distances? Modern missiles in-in with TGS have long passed in their range to the category of medium-range missiles allowing them to fight at a distance of 30-40 km., Leaving the BVB in the valley of guns ...
          But here again BUT. F-35 missiles with TGS cannot be carried in the internal compartment (so far, work is underway, but not very successfully so far) and therefore it simply will not be possible to join the BVB.
          1. tomket
            tomket 25 November 2014 12: 12
            +4
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, then if you drop missiles in-in, then what will have to fight?

            It was about bombs. About rockets, I mentioned the configuration of gaining superiority in the air.
            Quote: Nayhas
            Tests to launch missiles from the internal compartments during maneuvering and reloading on the F-35 were carried out. But there is one thing but ...

            When overloading 9g?
            Quote: Nayhas
            But will it be at all?

            Are there any difficulties in reducing the distance from medium to near?
            1. iwind
              iwind 25 November 2014 13: 00
              0
              Quote: tomket
              When overloading 9g?

              At 5-6g we tested, and most importantly, do not forget that with all these manners, the radar mirror should be aimed at the enemy.
              Quote: tomket
              Further, the aircraft’s maneuverability is determined not only by the 9g magic number on the F-35. I think even you will not argue that, by maneuverability, the Su-27-35 family has no equal

              F-35 is not necessary for maneuvering close combat, rockets with gas-dynamic rudders will do it for it, they have much more available overloads than any aircraft.
              Video about rockets is not the first freshness of AIM-9 Block 0.
            2. Nayhas
              Nayhas 25 November 2014 20: 06
              0
              Quote: tomket
              Are there any difficulties in reducing the distance from medium to near?

              The desire of opponents. wink
            3. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 20: 48
              0
              Quote: tomket
              Are there any difficulties in reducing the distance from medium to near?

              Quote: Nayhas
              and therefore, simply joining the BVB simply will not.

              He will simply say absolutely no.
              1. tomket
                tomket 25 November 2014 21: 31
                +2
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                and therefore, simply joining the BVB simply will not.
                He will simply say absolutely no.

                And impose sanctions)))))
          2. tomket
            tomket 25 November 2014 12: 13
            +6
            Quote: Nayhas
            and therefore, simply joining the BVB simply will not.

            Nuuuu, there are two options, either refusing a battle will result in the disruption of the combat mission, or the f-35 pilot, in fact, no one will ask if he deigns to participate in the BVZ today or postpone this matter for later ....
          3. sivuch
            sivuch 25 November 2014 18: 49
            +1
            The fact is that the training battles you indicated are the same BVB in which the Su-27/35 seems to have advantages, but will it even exist?
            ----------------------------------------
            I think that anyone who can say it will not say it here. To do this, one needs to know whether the Reb equipment on the Su-35 can crush the AMRAM’s GOS? Well, plus a few more similar questions.
            If you are talking about short-range missiles, then 30-40km for them is purely advertising numbers. For IR mics, this is probably a reality, but it was not seen on Lightning.
            And whether or not the 35th will join the BVB is not only dependent on him
        2. Odysseus
          Odysseus 25 November 2014 13: 28
          0
          Quote: tomket
          I think even you will not argue that the Su-27-35 family has no equal in maneuverability.

          This is a stupid myth from Sukhoi lobbyists. I will not say for foreign planes, but at low and medium altitudes the Mig-29 surely beats the Su-27.
          Due to the large EPR in the DVB, the Su-27 also has no advantage.
          In general, the main advantage of the Su-27 is its long range.
          As for the F-35, it is most logical to compare its capabilities with the capabilities of the T-50 even when both aircraft will actually be in service.
          1. tomket
            tomket 25 November 2014 13: 53
            +2
            [quote = Odyssey] a myth from Sukhoi lobbyists. [/ quotFor me, Kharchevsky’s opinion is more important in this matter than Sukhoi lobbyists. The effectiveness of the f-15 has always been higher than the efficiency of the f-16, which allows us to draw conclusions about the superiority of the concept of heavy fighter aircraft of the f-15 class, su-27. the battles between Su-27 and MiG-29 in Eretria ended in victory for Su-27. That allows us to draw conclusions about the superiority of the Su-27 family.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 25 November 2014 15: 09
              +2
              Quote: tomket
              For me, Kharchevsky’s opinion is more important in this matter than Sukhoi’s lobbyists.

              Well, Kharchevsky has always been a fan of the Su-27. Just like, for example, Menitsky MiG-29.
              Quote: tomket
              The effectiveness of the f-15 has always been higher than the efficiency of the f-16, which allows us to draw conclusions about the superiority of the concept of heavy fighter aircraft of the f-15, su-27 class.

              The concepts of the Air Force of the USSR and the USA were different due to the different tasks facing them and the different capabilities to solve these problems. That is, the ratio F-15 / F-16 is completely not identical to the Su-27 / Mig-29. The effectiveness of the F-15 in aerial combat was really higher simply because the F-16 was designed as a relatively cheap fighter-bomber.
              Quote: tomket
              battles between Su-27 and MiG-29 in Eretria ended in victory for Su-27

              The result of an air battle depends on a huge number of factors. I do not think that the collisions in Eritrea (which by the way are told differently) can serve as a strong argument in favor of the Su-27.
              Although no one argues that you can shoot down the Mig-29, you just need to wait until it runs out of fuel smile
              On the whole, the Su-27 family, of course, is excellent in its maneuverable character packs, but to say that in this regard the Su-27 is somehow superior to the MiG-29 or, for example, Rafal and Typhoon means to sin against the truth.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 26 November 2014 16: 45
                +1
                The Su-27 is still the only statically unstable production aircraft.
                such an aircraft can simply turn around its tail, and the JAS-39 will crash ... tafun in this respect is generally a log.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 25 November 2014 18: 52
            0
            Sorry, but I also read this with combatant pilots. To be more precise, opinions are different. In DVB there is an advantage at least due to a larger number of missiles (i.e., twin launches), incl. with the letter E
            By the way, the communication complex on dry is better.
          3. patsantre
            patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 03
            +1
            Quote: Odyssey
            Due to the large EPR in the DVB, the Su-27 also has no advantage.

            The difference in the EPR is minimal there, the difference in the detection range will be generally ridiculous, despite the fact that 27 radars are much more powerful.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 26 November 2014 00: 32
              0
              Quote: patsantre
              The difference in the EPR is minimal there, the difference in the detection range will be generally funny, despite the fact that the 27 radar is much more powerful

              Yes, theoretically the way it is. The power of the Sword was supposed to provide the Su-27 with a sustainable advantage. But practically, it’s not so simple))
              Perhaps this is not an EPR.
              In general, there are a lot of nuances, for example, in the first 9-12 radars, it worked so badly that for them the Mig-23ml was an insurmountable opponent. Or, the build quality of the combatant Mig was often not high, which greatly affected LTX. But the Su-27 , for example, is much more difficult to control, especially in complex modes.
              But returning to the original thesis, the idea of ​​the super = capabilities of the Su-27 in maneuverable combat is an advertising thesis from the beginning of the 90s.
              And there is nothing wrong with this in general - you need to be able to advertise your planes.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 26 November 2014 16: 42
                +1
                this is not advertising, but also because of what NATO has still not fit into any country that has a Su-27
        3. goose
          goose 13 June 2019 11: 10
          0
          Quote: tomket
          Actively maneuvering target in the 9g range reduces the range of a missile fired at a target by about half

          Probably harder, that's all. Rather, we are talking about the fact that in this missile, on the last segment of 30 km, the opportunity to defeat a maneuvering target, both in speed and in overloads, greatly decreases. AIM120C and D are not able to intercept a maneuvering fighter at a distance of more than 80 km (at the same time, they can get into a Tu-95 aircraft), but at a shorter distance you need to look at the taxiway modes in detail.
          Actually, it is not a question of reducing the range of destruction, but of a strong reduction in the probability of defeat, depending on the firing distance.
      5. 0255
        0255 25 November 2014 11: 42
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Magic Archer
        equipped mediocre plane great electronics

        The domestic media continue to "rub" the masses with the idea of ​​how the Americans are sawing the budget and selling a bad plane to their allies. "Well, stupid"! (C)

        Oleg Kaptsov, you yourself wrote the same thing in the article "F-35 lost the battle". There you wrote that the F-35 is full of guano and instead of it you can take the f / a-18 super hornet, which is steeper than the thirty-fifth in all respects. First you write one thing, tomorrow another
        1. tomket
          tomket 25 November 2014 11: 44
          +1
          Quote: 0255
          First write one, tomorrow another

          He writes either for the malice of the day, or the person was re-educated)))))))
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 20: 59
            +1
            Quote: tomket
            He writes either for the malice of the day, or the person was re-educated)))))))

            Well said. Especially "re-educated", that's for sure about him.
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 November 2014 12: 08
          -1
          Quote: 0255
          You wrote that the F-35 is a complete guano and instead you can take f / a-18 super hornet, which is cooler than the thirty-fifth in all respects.

          Oleg never wrote that the F-35 is a complete guano, and that at the lowest cost the F / A-18E / F Silent Hornet is capable of performing the same tasks. Those. The F-35 is redundant for our time ...
          1. 0255
            0255 25 November 2014 12: 33
            +6
            Quote: Nayhas
            Quote: 0255
            You wrote that the F-35 is a complete guano and instead you can take f / a-18 super hornet, which is cooler than the thirty-fifth in all respects.

            Oleg never wrote that the F-35 is a complete guano, and that at the lowest cost the F / A-18E / F Silent Hornet is capable of performing the same tasks. Those. The F-35 is redundant for our time ...

            And Oleg Kaptsov also wrote an article "The invincible f-15 how the Syrians clipped the eagles' wings", where he gave an interview about how the f-15 were shot down in Lebanon in 1982 and Yugoslavia. And now he claims that the F-15 was never shot down. They say that Oleg praised aircraft carriers, and now he writes that aircraft carriers are not needed. I would like to get an answer from Oleg why he writes this or that.
      6. sivuch
        sivuch 25 November 2014 12: 34
        +7
        The domestic media continue to "rub" the masses with the idea of ​​how the Americans are sawing the budget and selling a bad plane to their allies. "Well, stupid"! (C)
        ----------------------------------------
        I won’t say for all the Russian media, but more competent write that the plane is not unsuitable, but not optimal. I live in Israel. And the latter does not need a vertical plane or a deck for free, we need to replace the F-16 in the stealth version. If it was being developed it was in that capacity that I would have been ready, would have cost less, and would have had a better performance. Okay, Lightning is in the form of military assistance, i.e. there is no direct payment (citizens of other states indirectly pay for the development of options that they do not need), but the number of aircraft received will be less
        8 tons of combat load - like a domestic Su-34 super-bomber!
        -------------------------------------
        In fact, the Su-34 BN has -12 tons, + the ability to cling products to 3 tons in weight.

        However, they forget that Bogdan twists loops on the Su-35 without any suspensions.
        -------------------------------------------------- ---
        Well, no one with a full body kit is navigating a BVB. 2-4 short-range missiles will practically not affect either the LTH or the piloting.

        At the same time, the American killer will also benefit from the presence of internal bomb compartments - where missiles are not afraid of air resistance and heat heating
        -------------------------
        Uh, sorry, but was it very scary before? By the way, how many seconds does it take to get into the stream?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 November 2014 14: 02
          0
          Quote: sivuch
          And the latter doesn’t need a vertical deck or deck for nothing,

          I do not agree. Both that and another option are convenient for take-off from small runways.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 25 November 2014 18: 53
            +1
            Well, it’s not in vain that we don’t need it.
      7. Pimply
        Pimply 25 November 2014 13: 54
        0
        Oleg, thanks. Great article
      8. 73bor
        73bor 25 November 2014 18: 03
        0
        Have you forgotten that there are two engines on the Su-35 and flatten the thrust, the suspension arms are calculated for the aircraft's operating overloads, only the cost of the F-35 "fighter" is three times more and all the tests have not yet passed.
      9. srelock
        srelock 26 November 2014 10: 02
        0
        the Americans are sawing the budget and pushing their worthless aircraft into their allies

        Indeed, the F-35 is nothing more than an ambitious commercial project.
        Article:

        Oleg, do you understand / believe what / what you wrote? Maybe it is worth starting a "popular fiction" section on the site?
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 26 November 2014 17: 37
          0
          what's wrong? F-16 coupled to 26 countries is also not a SEAD exterminator ... then they will send to the Arab or Russian air defense systems all of these Danes, Poles and Romanians before themselves loved ones ...
          neutral countries with American brains take the F-18 tokloo, and the F-15 is sold only to the most inveterate allies ... F-14 was allowed only to get hold of the Shah of Iran.
    3. tomket
      tomket 25 November 2014 11: 16
      +3
      Quote: Magic Archer
      An interesting article. As a result, the Americans equipped the mediocre aircraft with excellent electronics and good radar. In principle, it always has been

      It's not even a mediocre aircraft, it is much more interesting that having created good radars for the F-22 and F-35, the Americans did not supply them with weapons that could fully use the capabilities of these radars. the notorious target detection range of 193 km does not in any way implement the principle of "first saw, first launched a rocket" in practice, because you still have to approach the missile launch distance, and this indicator is 120 km, at best, for a non-maneuvering target.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 November 2014 12: 34
        +3
        Quote: tomket
        It does not in any way implement the principle of "first saw, first launched the rocket" in practice, because all the same it is necessary to approach the missile launch distance, and this figure is 120 km, at best, against a non-maneuvering target.

        Missiles with a long launch range are characterized by large sizes (R-37) because for flying at such a distance you need a lot of fuel. Moreover, thanks to their dimensions, such missiles are easy to detect and intercept with the TGSN missiles, while the declared speed of 5M is only the maximum that it develops in the initial section, then the speed drops. Next, hover problems begin. The first 100 km. the rocket flies receiving data for correction from the radar, then 100 km. flies by ANN, and the last 100 km. the missile’s radar is turned on and it starts to search for a target that changes its position in space during the rocket’s approach and the probability of its capture by ARLGS is low, and its capabilities are rather modest (ARLGS at R-37: 9B-1103M-350, target capture range with EPR 5m2 more 40km.)
        Therefore, "long-range" missiles against enemy fighters are ineffective.
        1. tomket
          tomket 25 November 2014 14: 51
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          Missiles with a long launch range are characterized by large dimensions (P-37) because for flying at such a distance you need a lot of fuel.

          Then it is advisable to switch to BB missiles with detachable steps, so that the booster blocks do not interfere with the maneuver of the rocket at the time of the destruction of the air target))))))))
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 25 November 2014 20: 52
            0
            Quote: tomket
            Then it is advisable to switch to BB missiles with detachable steps, so that the booster blocks do not interfere with the maneuver of the rocket at the time of the destruction of the air target))))))))

            The dimensions of the short-range missiles are such that absolutely nothing interferes with maneuvering. It should also be understood that the missiles of the direct action have long crossed the line of this "short-range action".
            Recall that the first airborne missiles with the TGSN had a range of 10 km. At the same time, at such a range, it was very difficult to capture the target of the TGSN, and this was more related to shooting in the rear hemisphere. On the opposite courses, the range was reduced and therefore aerial battles were similar to those that were characteristic in the pre-reactive era. Reason: low characteristics of thermal GOS.
            Now modern "short-range" missiles fly from 35 to 40 km, while the TGSN is capable of capturing a target at a distance of 15 to 20 km (depending on the manufacturer), and in the 70s this was considered an average range!
            That is why close combat at distances of 1,5-2 km. rockets and 250-350m. guns are now almost impossible. The exchange of missiles with the TGSN will begin at the turn of 20 km., And there will be no time for catch-ups, it is practically impossible to get away from modern missiles in-in with the TGSN.
            1. goose
              goose 13 June 2019 11: 14
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              It’s almost impossible to get away from modern-day missiles from the VV with TGSN.

              There are still chances in the front hemisphere, where the capture range of the TGSN is reduced to about 10-15 km, and even more under certain conditions.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 25 November 2014 13: 50
        +2
        Quote: tomket
        It’s not even a mediocre airplane, it’s much more interesting that, having created good radars for the F-22 and F-35, the Americans did not supply them with weapons that could fully use the capabilities of these radars

        Let's just say that our situation with weapons is just awful. Worse than with locators.
        True, there is progress, refinement of the P-73M. Now the main thing is to saturate the troops with it.
        1. tomket
          tomket 25 November 2014 14: 24
          +2
          Quote: Odyssey
          Let's just say that our situation with weapons is just awful. Worse than with locators.
          True, there is progress, refinement of the P-73M. Now the main thing is to saturate the troops with it.

          What's wrong with them? it seems that all the niches are filled, from the "long arm" to short-range action.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 25 November 2014 14: 34
            +2
            Quote: tomket
            What's wrong with them? all niches seem to be filled, from the "long arm" to short-range action

            In the combat units there aren’t those missiles that are carried around the exhibitions. The situation with high-precision air-to-ground weapons (missiles, oops, kabs) is especially critical.
            Now, new planes, thank God, have gone, so the issue of saturation with new weapons, along with the issue of DRLO, EW, RTR aircraft, is the bottleneck.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 25 November 2014 18: 55
            0
            Unfortunately, no. Say. With the main caliber Mig-31 problems remained
    4. Pervusha Isaev
      Pervusha Isaev 25 November 2014 12: 31
      +1
      in short about f35 radars it’s clear that wanting a nobel and getting a nobel are two different things, but about the su35 and f35 thrusts, then there are such observations of the f135 and the high-torque engine, but its weight is different from 1,7t-2.4t, and al41f 1.4t there will be less, the second BATTLE LOAD that f15, f16, f35 is considered not with full tanks, but how many are poured there? therefore, of course, the BATTLE load is increasing, so it would be nice to conduct CORRECT COMPARISONS ...
    5. Pimply
      Pimply 25 November 2014 13: 50
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Interesting article. As a result, the Americans equipped a mediocre aircraft

      Do not read Soviet newspapers at breakfast (c)
      In fact, the Americans created three aircraft, and these machines can be called mediocre only by reading the yellow press. These are very serious and dangerous cars.
      1. 0255
        0255 25 November 2014 14: 53
        +3
        Quote: Pimply

        Do not read Soviet newspapers at breakfast (c)

        ... and American too))) Do you think that in the Western press there is no bullshit? wink
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. picca2
        picca2 25 November 2014 17: 30
        +1
        you "Soviet" when you saw ??? And even in the morning ...
        Considering the F-35 "mediocre" is silly, if only because of the technology embedded in them.
        But the problems are full, and the glider (overload) and the gathering of missiles (fighter speed?).
        Regarding here, the laundered launch databases and missile launch SDs.
        Combat experience shows that the probability of hitting a maneuverable target "fighter" is greatly reduced. And close combat is conducted at a speed of about M = 0,8. Who has more chances in such a situation?
        Therefore, all the virtual fights conducted lead to the same result.
  2. Artandrey
    Artandrey 25 November 2014 07: 45
    +9
    America is the strongest! , this is from the article, as I understand it!
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 25 November 2014 10: 03
      +8
      And the conclusion: buy only from us! Everyone else - tremble! And from below in small letters - in combat conditions, use only in conjunction with toilet paper.

      And the most unexpected thing will be that in some part of the air defense an ancient lamp radar will suddenly start working, and an old warrant officer will sit behind the escort handles in the cockpit, who does not care about the jamming algorithm, he grabbed a point on the screen and will not let go, he already "selected". And hello, targets whose electronic warfare and coverage are not designed for the frequency of operation of drainage stations ... :)
      1. Santa Fe
        25 November 2014 11: 25
        0
        Quote: Andrey NM
        on the frequency of the work of the drain stations ... :)

        And what was the frequency of work of ancient stations? )))
        1. Locksmith
          Locksmith 25 November 2014 21: 49
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And what was the frequency of work of ancient stations? )))

          The ancient stations had one cool toy-TWT, with any interference, even for a second, the operator saw the target in range, and this is surely, the planes and the azimuth of the aircraft could not move spacecraft instantly and the experienced operator easily corrected.
          Yes, and noise suppression systems helped, well, the last magic tool - "carat", if not very dark, then do not care about the interference.
          1. Santa Fe
            25 November 2014 22: 47
            +1
            You have left the answer
            Quote: Locksmith
            targets whose electronic warfare and coverage are not designed for the frequency of operation of drainage stations ..

            So what were the operating frequencies of the "ancient stations"? If they are not affected by electronic warfare and stealth coatings?
            even for a second, but the operator saw the target in range

            most importantly - how did you see and aim at the target of the GOS missile?
            magic means - "carat",if not very dark do not care for interference.

            What a horror, how did you not guess to put a thermal imager
      2. patsantre
        patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 18
        +1
        So then the ancient tube radars are not purchased then, but, on the contrary, are they derived?
        And in your opinion, the laws of physics do not apply to them, I don’t understand?
  3. MolGro
    MolGro 25 November 2014 08: 12
    +3
    ha) direct agit advertising)
    Ok, let it be super cool and the most!
    When a couple of thousand pilots die they will understand that something is wrong with him.)
    1. Jackking
      Jackking 25 November 2014 10: 58
      -2
      It’s foolish to underestimate the enemy ...
      We heard a lot about the unsurpassed performance of the MIG 29 - and so what? Not a single victory with classmates - only defeat, even from junk.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 November 2014 11: 02
        +8
        We have not heard such songs about F-117. Nevertheless, he was lowered to the ground, with the help of junk ...
        1. 0255
          0255 25 November 2014 11: 46
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          We have not heard such songs about F-117. Nevertheless, he was lowered to the ground, with the help of junk ...

          F-117 Oleg Kaptsov also praises and scolds)))
        2. Jackking
          Jackking 25 November 2014 12: 57
          +1
          1 F117 was shot down almost manually, at an altitude of up to 3 km - and this despite the fact that F117 made about a thousand sorties
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 30 November 2014 01: 44
            +1
            ... after which they were withdrawn from service since a quarter of their fleet was actually lost - in Iraq alone, 15 of these subsonic fiberglass planes in which there was nothing but a thermal imager were shot down at the curtain. bully
            but the truth is they managed to bomb almost everything they wanted, but with such a numerical superiority over all types of aircraft, this is no wonder.

            Americans themselves already recognize the loss of four F-117s, just some pimply Israelis here below want to be Americanists of the Americans themselves.
        3. Pimply
          Pimply 25 November 2014 14: 08
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          We have not heard such songs about F-117. Nevertheless, he was lowered to the ground, with the help of junk ...

          One plane was lowered, and not because technology failed, but because people failed. And due to the fact that it was on the old days that there was an optical target designator. Do not forget the Yankees about the basics and do not fly on the schedule along the same route then, F-117 would have remained unbroken
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 25 November 2014 18: 59
            +3
            They shot down on the third night of the conflict, so there is no need to talk about beaten paths. And another one was damaged a month later. I won’t even argue whether it was restored or not. The main thing was that there was another capture and launch.
            By the way, all the discoveries are only by Terek, really ancient
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 30 November 2014 01: 58
              0
              in all, at least 3 F / A-117s were shot down during the Serbian war and another B-2 crashed near the border in Bosnia.
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 November 2014 19: 06
            +1
            One plane was lowered, and not because technology failed, but because people failed.

            Correctly! That's why our debate about the coolness of US and Russian fighters is somewhat absurd. We can measure ourselves with technologies and capabilities, but a man sits at the helm of each aircraft and only he can show and prove the strengths and weaknesses of any aircraft.
          3. Locksmith
            Locksmith 25 November 2014 21: 52
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            what exactly was an optical target designator

            At night they actually shot, and at night the "carat" was blind, it was simply very carefully led by an experienced operator - at such a distance, it didn’t care about its stealth properties.
      2. activator
        activator 25 November 2014 12: 24
        -4
        Quote: Jackking
        It’s foolish to underestimate the enemy ...
        We heard a lot about the unsurpassed performance of the MIG 29 - and so what? Not a single victory with classmates - only defeat, even from junk.

        It’s so patriotic to blame it right away, but there is something to refute in the case, let’s say that the number of victories of our airplanes also very much confuses me and the excuses for monkeys at the helm do not calm me down.
        1. 0255
          0255 25 November 2014 13: 10
          +6
          Quote: activator
          Quote: Jackking
          It’s foolish to underestimate the enemy ...
          We heard a lot about the unsurpassed performance of the MIG 29 - and so what? Not a single victory with classmates - only defeat, even from junk.

          It’s so patriotic to blame it right away, but there is something to refute in the case, let’s say that the number of victories of our airplanes also very much confuses me and the excuses for monkeys at the helm do not calm me down.

          But I am embarrassed by the American statements that niadin f-15 is nibblesbit, niadin abrams is nibble from t-72, that in Korea there was a loss ratio of 1 saber to 10 mig-15, that f-22 and f-35 could not be defeated.
          As for the MIGA-29 - Iraqi and Yugoslav pilots declared victories, if NATO does not recognize them, this does not mean that they weren’t.
        2. AKM9
          AKM9 25 November 2014 16: 35
          +7
          When you go out in a dogfight with a link against twenty cars, you don’t have a single chance at all, no matter what cool car you fly. Go on the Internet, there are pictures from US satellites where MiGs take off from forest glades because airfields are destroyed, the air defense system that should direct them (all exported Soviet cars have very weak radar) are destroyed, and the air has long been waiting for them. In this situation, you will be at least three times Pokrvshkin and Kozhedub, you have no chance, you will not even really take off you will be dropped. Eternal memory to the pilots of Serbia who died in battles in the sky of Yugoslavia.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 30 November 2014 01: 37
            0
            and yet they shot down there more than they lost ...
        3. sivuch
          sivuch 25 November 2014 19: 00
          0
          And where were they minus?
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra 30 November 2014 01: 42
        0
        where does this information come from? already even Wikipedia writes about Iraq and Balkan wars differently ...
  4. ramsi
    ramsi 25 November 2014 08: 41
    0
    if one aircraft can simulate a synthesized aperture, then the pair should act even tighter; if we were first discovered and attacked, then it may be time to move from interference and false targets to anti-ballistic missiles or other methods of active defense
  5. Wedmak
    Wedmak 25 November 2014 09: 08
    +6
    Oh, this Oleg Kaptsov ... In some places, it seems like a fantasy. Glory to the Americans or something ... As if under the influence of electronic warfare, all this smart electronics did not quack at the most opportune moment.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 November 2014 10: 00
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      As if under the influence of electronic warfare, all this smart electronics did not quack at the most opportune moment.

      She will not "grunt" as you put it, and will not reflect the goal. Electronic warfare means only jamming, the hardware is not damaged.
      In this case, the F-35 has an electron-optical system consisting of several sensors located along the body of the aircraft. Together with a good radar (you can argue, but the USA in the field of radar has always been ahead of the whole planet) this allows you to get the most information in difficult interference conditions. While in the world there are no military aircraft with a similar set of detection systems.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 10: 31
        +7
        Quote: Nayhas
        but the USA in the field of radar has always been ahead of the rest of the planet)

        Not quite so, the first headlamp was put on a plane in the Union.
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 November 2014 10: 45
        +8
        It will not "grunt" as you put it, and will not reflect the goal.

        Already good, then can’t aim.
        In this case, the F-35 has an electron-optical system consisting of several sensors located along the body of the aircraft.

        Which are mainly designed to fix a missile attack, but not aiming.
        While in the world there are no military aircraft with a similar set of detection systems.

        Yeah. That is, MIG-31, controlling the sky at 200 km in depth and 200 along the front, like garbage ...
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 November 2014 11: 01
          -2
          Quote: Wedmak

          Which are mainly designed to fix a missile attack, but not aiming.

          Missile launch detection is one of many possibilities ... The main function of any ECO is the detection of air, surface, ground targets.
          Quote: Wedmak
          Already good, then can’t aim.

          I would say I can’t detect the target with the help of radar.
          Quote: Wedmak
          Yeah. That is, MIG-31, controlling the sky at 200 km in depth and 200 along the front, like garbage ...

          The MiG-31 controls the "sky" within the capabilities of its avionics. The speech was about a complex of systems allowing this. The MiG-31 has a heat direction finder, but its level does not allow comparison with modern OES ...
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 November 2014 11: 04
            +2
            The main function of any ECO is the detection of air, surface, ground targets.

            That is, you say that fist-sized shit, sitting in the F-35's body, can detect a tank-like target .. isn't it too hard ... a ship-like target at any reasonable distance ???? And then why should he AFAR ???????
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 25 November 2014 11: 36
              +3
              Quote: Wedmak
              That is, you say that fist-sized shit, sitting in the F-35, can detect a target like a tank .. isn’t it too difficult ... a target like a ship at any reasonable distance ????

              This is surprising to you, but yes. For example, the ECO installed in the "Sniper" suspended container allows from a height of 10 km. identify an armed person among the unarmed. Or, for example, the OLS-35 detects an air target of the Su-30 type at a distance of 40 km. in the front hemisphere. Here you need to understand that the OLS-35 is far from a masterpiece, but the result of the transfer of technology (far from advanced) by the French.
              Quote: Wedmak
              And then why should he AFAR ???????

              To work in a complex. One eye is good, two is better. And of course, AFAR has much more opportunities, the only drawback is active detection tools ... ECOs are passive.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 25 November 2014 19: 01
                0
                And can you read more about technology transfer?
              2. Wedmak
                Wedmak 25 November 2014 19: 09
                0
                But, but do not replace one with another! Are we talking about direction finders in the skin of an airplane or about complete sighting systems ??? These are different things!
            2. iwind
              iwind 25 November 2014 14: 05
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              The main function of any ECO is the detection of air, surface, ground targets.

              That is, you say that fist-sized shit, sitting in the F-35's body, can detect a tank-like target .. isn't it too hard ... a ship-like target at any reasonable distance ???? And then why should he AFAR ???????

              She is much bigger.

              And yes, it’s done for this, AFRA is good, but it won’t be able to detect a column of tanks with air defense systems somewhere on the side or hiding in an ambush, and then cover 360 degrees. Distance detection is a difficult question, but here the whole world establishes the difference of OLS including Su, Mig, etc. Remember how the F-117 was shot down, the zrk was in an ambush and somehow could not detect it 117.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 25 November 2014 19: 13
                0
                I will never believe that this thing can at least distinguish something against the background of the earth at a safe distance! Maybe when this pepelats "hovers" over a contrasting target in a couple of kilometers, he will see something ... But not in battle, and not in opposition. It just won't have time to highlight at least something.
    2. tomket
      tomket 25 November 2014 11: 29
      +4
      Quote: Wedmak
      all this smart electronics did not quack at the most opportune moment.

      There was a case when the F-22 almost fell into the ocean due to the failure of the electronics, when changing time zones, when flying to Okinawa. Saved only by the presence in the ranks of the leader-tanker, who brought them to the base. And then another story appeared about the "mysteriously missing" Avengers "of our time" ...
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 November 2014 11: 36
        +4
        Quote: tomket
        when changing time zones

        When passing through the date line, 180 meridian.
        1. tomket
          tomket 25 November 2014 11: 45
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          When passing through the date line, 180 meridian.

          This is the details))))
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 November 2014 12: 08
            +6
            Yes, details. But according to rumors, the planes glitched well. "Your plane is frozen and will be reloaded" (c)

            But this is essentially nonsense compared to the Raptors' attempts to cut off the oxygen to their pilots. The war of robots against humanity has already begun, so far only in the form of sabotage, sabotage and assassination attempts. laughing
    3. Jackking
      Jackking 25 November 2014 14: 54
      0
      It is not necessary to consider those who install this system as fools - nothing, especially from electronic warfare, will not grunt. And the proofs in the form of "how-if" and "if-only" are better left to the UFOlogists and the REN-TV channel ...
  6. Kostyanich
    Kostyanich 25 November 2014 09: 08
    +1
    I wonder how many Russian antenna specialists went to the USA in the 90s?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 November 2014 10: 01
      +2
      Quote: kostyanich
      I wonder how many Russian antenna specialists went to the USA in the 90s?

      Are you in order to complain or "it was thanks to our guys that did this!"?
      1. 0255
        0255 25 November 2014 14: 46
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: kostyanich
        I wonder how many Russian antenna specialists went to the USA in the 90s?

        Are you in order to complain or "it was thanks to our guys that did this!"?

        And what is wrong with the Kostyanych? In the 1990s, many first-class specialists left for the USA, thanks to the perestroika
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 November 2014 20: 16
          0
          Quote: 0255
          And what is wrong with the Kostyanych? In the 1990s, many first-class specialists left for the USA, thanks to the perestroika

          I was interested in the attitude towards these people. At the expense of rights / wrong, I did not stutter.
  7. iwind
    iwind 25 November 2014 09: 14
    +4
    Great efforts are now being spent on making AFAR the main electronic warfare tool. A new electronic warfare aircraft (NJM) is being created, where the AFAR will be the main emitter; tests of the aircraft should begin in 2015.
    http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/the-10b-next-generation-jammer-is-on-track-on

    -schedule /

    The fleet is also not far behind, the new AMDR Arleigh Burke radar must also fulfill the function of electronic warfare.
    So these are probably future EW systems. The only thing, however, is that all this is classified, information about this almost does not appear.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 November 2014 10: 10
      +2
      Quote: iwind
      A new electronic warfare aircraft (NJM) is created, where the AFAR will be the main emitter

      Not a plane, but a hanging container in which a radar with AFAR.
  8. Alexander
    Alexander 25 November 2014 09: 22
    +1
    The author tried so hard, so much scribble and all sheer conjecture! A recent meeting of the MiG-31 and F-22 showed that our Barrier + R-33 will give it easy to crawl! So you can continue to praise such beautiful, technological and invisible aircraft, and only reality has shown that the Mig31 will be more handsome!
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 25 November 2014 14: 10
      +1
      Quote: alexandr
      The recent meeting of MIG-31 and F-22 showed that our Barrier + P-33 will give it easy to crawl! So you can continue to praise such beautiful, technologically advanced and invisible airplanes, but only reality has shown that MiG31 will be more handsome!

      Details
      1. opus
        opus 25 November 2014 19: 27
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        Details

        Real photobut it was not MIG-31

        F-22 failed to "leave"
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 25 November 2014 19: 02
      0
      Sorry, but this is still a technical site.
    3. patsantre
      patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 25
      0
      We see you have some kind of alternative reality. Go oversleep.
  9. gregor6549
    gregor6549 25 November 2014 09: 27
    +3
    The radar technique is developing at such a fast pace that it is very difficult to say who, whom and in what way has overtaken in this area. For example, a very interesting radar (Euroradar_CAPTOR-E) was developed by BAE Systems to replace existing radars on Eurofighter Typhoon fighters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroradar_CAPTOR; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KySYpQhFog4
    The combination in this radar of electron beam scanning provided by the active antenna array with mechanical scanning of the entire antenna significantly expands the radar's field of view compared to those radars where the active antenna array is stationary. Expanding the radar viewing area, in turn, expands the possibilities of creating a single mobile r / l field in a group of two or more fighters, and also improves the fighter’s performance on ground and air targets.
  10. umah
    umah 25 November 2014 09: 32
    +2
    There is a wonderful phrase in Russian for such self-praise:
    "In words, you are Leo Tolstoy, but in reality the hose is empty." "Hose empty" can be replaced with a rougher rhyme bully
    1. Santa Fe
      25 November 2014 10: 23
      -3
      Quote: umah
      "In words, you are Leo Tolstoy, but in reality the hose is empty."

      Rogozin: F-35 is inferior to the Russian PAK FA

      "F-35 will be easy prey for T-50" - "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", link - http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/19/t50-site.html

      "Vladimir Putin noted the technical characteristics of the T-50 aircraft, which should enter the troops in 2016. According to the president, in many parameters, in particular, in maneuverability, the aircraft will surpass its American rival F-35."
      - "straight line with GDP", 2013


      Surge engine super fighter at the air show MAKS-2011


      the fifth and last T-50 flight copy made to date, burned out in the Ramensky summer of 2014
      According to eyewitnesses, already during the landing of the fighter from the nozzle of his right engine smoke was coming, and when the T-50 stopped, a flame appeared over the right wing.


      The F-35 assembly line at the Fort Worth (Texas) plant, where a pre-production, trial (!!) batch of 100 fighters has been manufactured to date. It is curious that in spite of the abundance in the domestic media of telongue about "an ugly duckling who supposedly cannot fly at night and in bad weather," not one of the 100 flying copies of the Lightning was lost in flight accidents. Moreover, their operation has been going on for seven years. And by no means in ideal, greenhouse conditions like the GLITs in Ramenskoye


      Night vertical take-off from the deck of the ship



      Air tanker refueling
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 25 November 2014 10: 29
        +12
        Take it easy!
        The T-50 prototype didn’t burn out at all! And now it’s almost restored! And neither the 1 T-50 PAK FA is lost now in flight accidents !!!!
        Once again, you praise Western technology to heaven, not a word from you about our successes. Continue in the same spirit, I can’t say anything else.
        1. Santa Fe
          25 November 2014 10: 51
          -13
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          neither 1 T-50 PACK FA is not lost now in flight accidents !!!!

          so there are only five of them built))
          moreover, one already caught fire in flight and what is happening to him now is unknown to anyone
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          - about our successes

          You probably wanted to write "the successes of the Kremlin")))
          1. Reader
            Reader 25 November 2014 11: 06
            +8
            But in fact, none of the T-50 is lost. And this is our first 5th generation aircraft. We have lost 10 years because of the Kremlin’s chefs of the 90s, so it’s not a matter of fat.
            But the F-22 Americans have already lost seven of the fewer than 200 built.
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 12: 39
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            moreover, one already caught fire in flight

            F-35 not so long ago also caught fire, new planes run in, deficiencies will come out, such is life.
            In terms of quantity, the F-35 rivets the entire progressive world. At one time, the release of the Mig-29 was also impressive.
            The F-35 added a refueling device in the nose, came to the conclusion that it is more universal.
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 November 2014 10: 54
        +9
        Well, let's look ... the first thing that comes across:
        23 June 2014 year on the plane F-35, marching to take off at the Eglin air base, the engine caught fire.
        Oops!
        I think there’s no need to talk about spending a lot of money on fine-tuning this pepelats.
        1. Santa Fe
          25 November 2014 11: 21
          -4
          Quote: Wedmak
          23 June 2014 year on the plane F-35, marching to take off at the Eglin air base, the engine caught fire.
          Oops!

          From 100 built
          For 7 years of operation

          FEW!!
          Quote: tomket
          Availability of a trial series from STA !!!!! aircraft

          Naturally, the Yankees filled them with all the test centers + development of production technology

          the stakes are high - in total, contracts for 3000+ Lightnings have been signed under the JSF program
          1. adept666
            adept666 25 November 2014 13: 03
            +3
            From 100 built


            The fact is that this accident occurred due to the destruction of the CPV blade. Earlier, in December 2013, on the bench tests of the same engine, the first KND stage collapsed in the same way, after which they decided to modify the compressor and, in particular, abandon the use of hollow blades, the blades were replaced, but the problem remained ... Yes, gentlemen from Lockheed say that the problem is not systemic, but doubts do. smile This engine also has problems with the fuel system (for example, on June 13 of this year there was a fuel leak directly in the air) and this is only what is known, since it is necessary to limit or completely suspend the operation of machines.

            Naturally, the Yankees filled them with all the test centers


            100 pre-production prototypes - this is extremely, just madly not natural yes laughing
            1. Santa Fe
              25 November 2014 23: 02
              -1
              Quote: adept666
              100 pre-production prototypes - this is extremely, just madly not natural

              PROTOTYPES?

              They will not be put on the shelf - full-fledged combat vehicles from the first batch. Now in test centers. then, when new packs go, they will join the ranks of training and combat squadrons
              1. adept666
                adept666 26 November 2014 06: 43
                0
                They will not be put on the shelf - full-fledged combat vehicles from the first batch.


                This is still a big question, there are a lot of comments on this aircraft, so it’s not a fact that all of them will go to combat units, some of them most likely cannot be redone, except to test the resource, but for this it’s not necessary to build such a quantity. It seems that about the same situation happened as it used to be with the Tu-22 ... But time will tell.
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 26 November 2014 21: 48
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                PROTOTYPES?

                Yes, it is the prototypes that, after being adopted for service, all of these F-35s will undergo modernization to the level adopted for service, information from American publications.
            2. iwind
              iwind 25 November 2014 23: 31
              0
              Quote: adept666
              Naturally, the Yankees filled them with all the test centers

              100 pre-production prototypes - this is extremely, just madly not natural

              But does this also apply to SU-35? Prior to arming in ser. 2015, they will be at least 40 pieces.
              For 100 pieces of training manuals, one would have to produce all of them, and the first planes always go to training. At the same F-22, the first 15-20 work in training, even in planned upgrades they take on the residual basis.
              Quote: adept666
              The fact is that this accident occurred due to the destruction of the CPV blade. Earlier, in December 2013, on the bench tests of the same engine, the first KND stage collapsed in the same way, after which they decided to modify the compressor and, in particular, abandon the use of hollow blades, the blades were replaced, but the problem remained ... Yes, gentlemen from Lockheed say that the problem is not systemic, but doubts do

              The F-35 has a huge plsyu; it has an engine of the fifth generation ... And we?
              See the report of UMPO OJSC
              http://www.umpo.ru/Files/godovoy_otchet_2013_ot_05.06.14.pdf
              PD for PAK FA (Product 30). Developer - OJSC "UMPO" (represented by the branch "OKB named after A. Lyulka").
              The PD technical design for PAK FA was successfully defended by the commission for reviewing the component part of the T-50 facility of the technical design of the 30 product. It is confirmed that the materials presented contain the final technical solutions for the product, giving a complete picture of the design of the product and the fundamental technological solutions for its manufacture in industrial conditions and basically comply with the requirements of the Technical Assignment. The Commission recommended that the ROC continue to create the product.
              Product 117. The head developer is UMPO OJSC (represented by the A. Lyulka Design Bureau branch). As part of the development work
              by product 117:
              The resource tests of 117 products were completed: one for the assigned resource of 1500 hours, the second for the first 750 hours before overhaul;
              flight of the fifth PAK FA (T-50) with products 117 manufactured by UMPO OJSC was ensured;
              5 products were manufactured and delivered by the RF Ministry of Defense;
              an order has been placed for 12 of additional 117 products for PAK FA T-50 2 stage facilities.

              That is, in the coming years, the 7-10 engine will not be the second stage, now only those exist in the main. documentation, the engine itself (30 products) do not exist even in the bench version. As a result, for the first 6 PAK-FA of the second stage, 12 engines of the first stage were ordered (product 117).
              And with the resource, the 117 product is all very far from ideal, there is not a little work to do.
              "for item 117:
              endurance tests of 117 products were completed: one for the assigned resource of 1500 hours, the second for the first 750 hours before overhaul "
              1. adept666
                adept666 26 November 2014 07: 18
                0
                But does this also apply to SU-35?


                Be sure to at least build them and less than 100 pcs. Already a couple of times returned to the factory due to defects, which suggests that the machine is still raw. sad

                The F-35 has a huge plsyu; it has an engine of the fifth generation ... And we?


                And we have good engines of the first stage and an excellent aerodynamic design, which together gives an advantage in terms of performance characteristics. Even with these engines, all the declared characteristics of the T-50 confirms that the engine of the second stage will not have a special mega effect on the LTX of the machine, it will have a longer resource, more economical with the same thrust values, add acceleration dynamics of 10-15 percent, allow a little more energetic maneuvers, so it’s okay that we don’t have a 2nd stage engine yet. smile

                endurance tests of 117 products were completed: one for the assigned resource of 1500 hours, the second for the first 750 hours before overhaul "


                This only suggests that the engine was driven for 1500 hours. Its practical resource can be much larger. Yes, and I would be skeptical of this kind of reports, since hardly real data are indicated. If we talk about the F-35 engine, then the resource of its various parts is from 1500 to 4000 hours, which, as you can see, is within the same limits. In 2013, as I wrote above, during the resource tests, after passing about 2000 hours, the KND compressor blade was destroyed, this summer the same destruction, but already on the plane (I doubt very much that this engine worked for more than 2000 hours)
                1. iwind
                  iwind 26 November 2014 12: 04
                  0
                  Quote: adept666
                  Be sure to at least build them and less than 100 pcs. Already a couple of times returned to the factory due to defects, which suggests that the machine is still raw.

                  Value, these 100 pieces are nothing for the program at all. Now make the F-35 BLOCK 3F. I repeat, I still can’t do without training boards. Moreover, some of them are being modernized, but I think 80 percent, I will always stay in school. F-35s now produce about 50 a year, and then even more, and all of them will need trained pilots and technicians.
                  Quote: adept666
                  it just says that the engine was driven for 1500 hours. Its practical resource can be much larger. Yes, and I would be skeptical of this kind of reports, since hardly real data are indicated. If we talk about the F-35 engine, then the resource of its various parts is from 1500 to 4000 hours, which, as you can see, is within the same limits. In 2013, as I wrote above, during the resource tests, after passing about 2000 hours, the KND compressor blade was destroyed, this summer the same destruction, but already on the plane (I doubt very much that this engine worked for more than 2000 hours)

                  F-135 total flying time of more than 30.000 hours. Engine problems are solved at the expense of the manufacturer. Nothing is critical, the problem was polyimide seals and spatulas; this is not such an insoluble problem - the problem (they already know how to solve it in the principe). Yes, and the resource 1500 is for the vertical fan, and now we are talking about the F-35A version, there is a resource from 2000.
                  And with 117 capital every 750 hours ...
                  Anyway, it will be possible to compare when we have an engine of class F-119 or F-135.
                  1. adept666
                    adept666 26 November 2014 13: 33
                    0
                    F-135 total flying time of more than 30.000 hours.


                    For 100 cars in more than 8 years from the first take-off? negative

                    Engine problems are solved at the expense of the manufacturer.


                    So we do not have any special problems with the engines, they are solved in the same way.

                    polyimide seals and spatulas - this is not such an unresolvable problem


                    Well, yes this is just one of the most critical parts of a gas turbine engine, and so everything is ok laughing

                    Yes, and the resource 1500 is on the vertical fan


                    No, this is on the individual components of the engine itself, the vertical fan does not apply directly to the engine (you do not refer the differential of the car to the engine smile or relate? laughing )

                    there is a resource from 2000.


                    Which he did not confirm with test results. good

                    And with 117 capital every 750 hours ...


                    AND? Kapitalka, depending on the specific technical condition, may consist in wiping with a cloth, or it can save the entire engine, say, in case of timely detection of damage received from objects falling into the turbine or birds. The claimed motor resource of him, like the Americans, is 4000 hours.

                    Anyway, it will be possible to compare when we have an engine of class F-119 or F-135.


                    What does it mean when they appear? smile Saturn has a classmate F-135 - AL41F (18000 kgs afterburner) F-119 classmate - AL-41F1 (aka product 117 - 15000 kgs) What else should appear?
                    1. iwind
                      iwind 26 November 2014 15: 04
                      0
                      Quote: adept666
                      What does it mean when they appear? Saturn has a classmate F-135 - AL41F (18000 kgs afterburner) F-119 classmate - AL-41F1 (aka product 117 - 15000 kgs) What else should appear?

                      :))) where are these fantasies about 18.000 ??? Share the link to the manufacturer.
                      Only now the F-119 is in the normal 10.500 mode and the fast and the furious 15.600. and AL-41F1 has 8.800 and 15.000, don’t say it’s a difference, and these indicators have been achieved by reducing the resource.
                      learn.
                      Quote: adept666
                      AND? Kapitalka, depending on the specific technical condition, may consist in wiping with a cloth, or it can save the entire engine, say, in case of timely detection of damage received from objects falling into the turbine or birds. The claimed motor resource of him, like the Americans, is 4000 hours.

                      laughing laughing Kapitalka .... this is a complete engine overhaul ... You at least learn the terms. And then kapitlka = wiping with a cloth it .....
                      Quote: adept666
                      there is a resource from 2000.

                      Which he did not confirm with test results.

                      mmm 26,000 ground test hours ..... He only has 26000 ground hours ... and 19,500 overall flight hours to date ...
                      Well, yes, I did not confirm ... laughing
                      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/aero-summit-pratt-idUSN9N0MF01G2014090

                      9
                      Quote: adept666
                      Yes, and the resource 1500 is on the vertical fan

                      No, this is on the individual components of the engine itself, the vertical fan does not apply directly to the engine (you do not relate the differential of the car to the engine or relate it?)

                      This is an hour-long airplane design that is not even done by P&W. and we're talking about the F-135.
                      1. adept666
                        adept666 28 November 2014 10: 35
                        0
                        where are these fantasies about 18.000 ??? Share the link to the manufacturer.


                        NGO Saturn. The AL41F engine was created for the MiG 1.44 under the IFI program (do not confuse it with AL41F1)

                        Only now the F-119 is in the normal 10.500 mode and the fast and the furious 15.600. and AL-41F1 has 8.800 and 15.000, don’t say it’s a difference, and these indicators have been achieved by reducing the resource.


                        The F-119 is heavier by more than 200 kg. And his appetite is 1,943 kg / kgf · h wassat

                        Kapitalka .... this is a complete engine overhaul ... You at least learn the terms. And then kapitlka = wiping with a cloth it .....


                        Thank you, I am aware of what kapitalka is, feel the difference EXHAUST engine and REPLACEMENT parts. The engine is new, so the BULKHEAD is prescribed more often than it is actually necessary in order to:

                        adept666save the entire engine, say, with timely detection of damage received from objects falling into the turbine or birds.


                        mmm 26,000 ground test hours .....


                        More than 4 years (> 35040 hours) on 11 bench installations and in ideal conditions? Even if you just divide it turns out to be 2363 hours out of 4000, while not so long ago, in 2013, at about the same mark (~ 2000 hours), a compressor blade was destroyed on one of the stands (after which they abandoned hollow blades and changed the LPC, i.e. it was not a marriage, but a constructive flaw), then on one of the flight copies in the summer of 2014 exactly the same accident occurred. smile

                        This is an hour-long airplane design that is not even done by P&W. and we're talking about the F-135.


                        And what is this opus for? what Actually, I just pointed out to my opponent during the discussion that the fan was the fan, and the engine was the engine, and that when I talked about 1500 hours for some parts of the engine, I had in mind the engine itself.
                      2. iwind
                        iwind 28 November 2014 15: 22
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        NGO Saturn. The AL41F engine was created for the MiG 1.44 under the IFI program (do not confuse it with AL41F1)

                        Explanations here. Can you tell me, where does this engine fly? And then it's like comparing a horse with unicorns or taking into account its speed, endurance, etc. This engine is not there, and its characterization is a big question (traction, resource, weight). Someone who is rather
                        Quote: adept666
                        Which he did not confirm with test results.
                        so is he.
                        Quote: adept666
                        The F-119 is heavier by more than 200 kg. And his appetite is 1,943 kg / kgf · h

                        his performance characteristics are a little more than completely classified; it’s just someone’s fantasy. And maybe more can less. But this is too classified aircraft, there will be one demagogy here there is nothing to discuss. There is only of. traction data and all.
                        F-22 flew 4000 km without PTB on a combat mission. so in general all the rules.
                        Quote: adept666
                        more than 4 years (> 35040 h) on 11 bench installations and in ideal conditions? Even if you just divide it turns out to be 2363 hours out of 400

                        oh ... understand them not one-dimensional "twisted" one can have 10.000 thousand. others have 1000. And again, if you clean off that this is bad, then what about 117 which in August 2014 have 4000 hours for 22 engines ....
                      3. adept666
                        adept666 29 November 2014 19: 05
                        0
                        Explanations here. Can you tell me, where does this engine fly?

                        At the moment, nowhere, since the MFI program is officially closed, but it does not fit the other T-50 / Su-35C machines in terms of mass and size characteristics, it will probably get a rebirth if a MiG-31 replacement appears. About 20 copies of the operating time under the program were made and are used to create a second-stage engine for the T-50.

                        his performance characteristics are a little more than completely classified; it’s just someone’s fantasy.


                        The same can be said about AL-41F1 and T-50

                        F-22 flew 4000 km without PTB on a combat mission. so in general all the rules.


                        Nude, nude ... but the source did not forget to indicate how many air corrections there were? laughing

                        oh ... You see, they are not one-dimensional "twisted" one can have 10.000 thousand. others have 1000.


                        Maybe yes if ... I calculated the average value having the total number of hours worked. You didn’t indicate the conditions: how much each person worked, what was changed in it after how many hours of work, etc. There are facts: two accidents with less than 2000 hours of operation for two engines, both connected with low pressure and blades, and this is very serious.

                        You will find that it’s bad, then what about 117 which in August 2014 have 4000 hours on 22 engines ....


                        Where did you get such data? Even on two bench engines: 1500 h. + 750 h, not counting flight specimens.
                      4. iwind
                        iwind 2 December 2014 12: 35
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        Maybe yes if ... I calculated the average value having the total number of hours worked. You didn’t specify the conditions: how much each worked,

                        I do not work in PW. The physical is impossible to get with a dozen engines from your pocket. First, a few are created for the resource test, then new ones join them.
                        Quote: adept666
                        The same can be said about AL-41F1 and T-50

                        Of course, this is why I am not discussing what has not been officially announced.
                        Quote: adept666
                        About 20 copies of the operating time under the program were made and are used to create a second-stage engine for the T-50.

                        Then why will the engine of the second stage be in 10 years?
                        They didn’t take shovels or materials, they do everything all over again.
                        There is not even a second stage engine demonstrator, while in the USA there is already a 6th generation engine demonstrator. If there is a suitable engine (technology), then why waste so much time ?????
                        Quote: adept666
                        Where did you get such data? Even on two bench engines: 1500 h. + 750 h, not counting flight specimens.

                        According to the Director General of UEC Vladislav Masalov
                        http://www.ato.ru/content/novyy-dvigatel-dlya-istrebitelya-5-go-pokoleniya
                        "
                        Now the prototype T-50 vehicles, developed by Sukhoi under the PAK FA program, use the Product 117 engines. To date, 22 prototypes of these engines have been manufactured, which are undergoing a complex of resource, special and flight tests, including on T-50 aircraft, Masalov said. Their total operating time is about 4 thousand hours.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Nude, nude ... but the source did not forget to indicate how many air corrections there were?

                        I didn’t forget, two. . The bottom line is that the aircraft can perform a combat mission at a distance of 4000km. In what, in what, and the US Air Force has no problems in air refueling.
                        Dassault Rafale in a similar task flew the same way with two refueling, and he had even more fuel in this configuration.
                    2. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 26 November 2014 18: 11
                      +1
                      2000 resource of what? vertiator blades, vertiator motor, or vertiator lace for which you have to yank to make it work?
                      Now the F-35B should only be operated with UDC if there is a coastal airfield nearby, because in every fourth case it cannot land vertically.
                      somewhere around 2018, it is planned to curtail the program altogether, since the amount of dough will already be mastered normally, and on the F-35C there is also a critical glider destruction from hard landings with gear on the deck (in addition, USN requires it, and it has always been required for the last half century that all their deck jets were twin-engine)
                      it flies somewhere only from 150 to 300 F-35A and that’s all ... and almost all of this will be what Avtosralia is trying to do now ... by the way, what they will do with their HMAS Canberra and others - it’s understandable.
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 November 2014 19: 17
            +2
            From 100 built
            For 7 years of operation

            Of the 5 constructed surges in one, and closure in the second. For three years of testing. AT EXPERIENCED EXAMPLES!
            Naturally, the Yankees filled them with all the test centers

            So, figs are clear, dofig money, that’s build in batches, and the tests are carried out in parallel. Give ours as much, if only PAK YES would be lifted into the air.
      3. tomket
        tomket 25 November 2014 11: 10
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        despite the abundance in the domestic media of chernukha about "an ugly duckling who supposedly cannot fly at night and in bad weather",

        Actually, most of the distributors of this most seamy side is the United States itself. Availability of a trial series from STA !!!!! aircraft, clearly does not apply to the compliment for the aircraft. If you like the idea that not a single f-35 has been lost so far, then take better for statistics flight incidents with spent f-22.
      4. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 November 2014 21: 29
        0
        The pre-production batch of 100 cars is actually really bad, because they do it when all the deadlines are broken and then the whole batch will need to be brought to mind. And this is VERY big money.

        The T-50, unlike the F-35, has not yet set deadlines, moreover, the declared dates are clearly underestimated in relation to the real ones, and based on the experience of F-22, which had 8 years from the first flight to the series.
        1. Santa Fe
          25 November 2014 23: 05
          -1
          Quote: EvilLion
          The pre-production batch of 100 cars is actually really shitty

          in fact, the Yankees have long launched a plane into a series and began mass training of pilots))

          without waiting for the Fort Worth factory to be completed and brought to full capacity



  11. gregor6549
    gregor6549 25 November 2014 10: 53
    +7
    I did not see in Kaptsov's article either praising the "foreign" radars, or belittling Russian radars. Normal technical review and nothing more. Moreover, the radar is only a component of a complex system of which any of the modern fighters is, and how effectively this radar will be used in this system is determined by such a number of factors that only the combat use of the entire system in various versions of real combat conditions and for a sufficiently long time can give an answer which from systems is better and in what.
    But even such an answer is not all, because the plane (fighter, bomber, etc.) is only one of the elements of the aircraft and much depends on how much these elements are organically respected with each other. Isolated episodes of the meeting of such systems in a peaceful sky still do not speak about anything. moreover, information about such meetings is most often biased.
    The vehement discussions of non-specialists on very specific technical issues are also tiring, and to discuss them at an acceptable level, an appropriate level of education and experience with this technique are required.
    The AFAR word has become fashionable and they are brandishing like a club with everyone who is not lazy, not realizing that AFAR, like any other complex system, has its advantages, its shortcomings, and its difficulties in development and production, especially when production not experienced or single. After all, riveting a couple or a dozen experimental or experienced AFARs and releasing these same AFARs in large batches are two big differences, as they say in Odessa.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 25 November 2014 11: 37
      +1
      According to the military reference book "Jane", the "Raptor" radar has an operating range of 193 km, which provides 86% of the probability of detecting a target with RCS = 1 sq. m. on one pass of the antenna beam. For comparison: the domestic radar N035 "Irbis", according to the developers, sees air targets at a distance of 300-400 km (RCS = 3 sq. M.). By and large, these values ​​should not be taken seriously - in combat conditions, under the influence of various interference and situational restrictions, the actual detection range will be reduced significantly.
      This is from Kaptsov ...
      That is, in combat conditions, the Irbis will be more than two times less effective ... And will the enemies apparently increase their characteristics accordingly?
      Yeah ... Impartial!
      1. xtur
        xtur 25 November 2014 13: 04
        +3
        > According to the military reference book "Jane", the "Raptor" radar has an operational detection range of 193 km, which provides 86% of the probability of detecting a target with RCS = 1 sq. m. on one pass of the antenna beam. For comparison: the domestic radar N035 "Irbis", according to the developers, sees air targets at a distance of 300-400 km (EPR = 3 sq. M.). By and large, these values ​​should not be taken seriously - in combat conditions, under the influence of various interference and situational restrictions, the real detection range will be reduced significantly.

        which is curious, it is written in such a way that it is not clear, the last phrase refers only to the characteristics of the Russian radar, or it is not necessary to seriously apply to the declared characteristics of both radars.
        Well, it would be a kind of polemical device for raising the sharpness of the discussion, but if we proceed from the usual practice of communicating with Kaptsov, it is clear that this is a carelessness of speech - that is, for a person who has been writing articles for many years, this is already a big and fat professional minus for speaking .

        The second problem - two different characteristics are compared - an object with an EPR size of 1 square meter at a range of 190 km and an object with a size of 3 square meters at a range of 300-400 km. For clarity, it is necessary to bring to the same size and compare ranges - either the brains were not enough to do this, or there was not enough respect for the readers, which in both cases is also a fat professional minus
        For example - 1 sq. M for 193 km, say we could lead to 3 sq. M per 570 km or vice versa - to say that 3 sq. M per 400 km is equal to 1 sq. M per 130 km. And then one could compare these numbers.
        In fact, the resolution characteristics of these antennas depending on the distance can be completely different, where there is a complex mathematical processing no linearity is guaranteed. And it is unlikely that such numbers will be freely available - but then it must be clearly said, there is nothing to compare, the numbers are different and not comparable, and not to cast a shadow over the wattle fence from scratch by vague linguistic phrases
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 33
          0
          Quote: xtur
          For example - 1 sq. M for 193 km, say we could lead to 3 sq. M per 570 km or vice versa - to say that 3 sq. M per 400 km is equal to 1 sq. M per 130 km. And then one could compare these numbers.

          And it concerns you - the march for the materiel. They themselves said that there is no question of linear dependencies, there is a 4th degree dependency in fact.
          1. xtur
            xtur 25 November 2014 22: 11
            +1
            > And it concerns you-a march for materiel.

            I am not an antenna designer, although we did it, and my classmates at one time collected PHARs for a diploma. If I was interested in this process, I would choose a different specialty in due time :-)

            But I do not go beyond my competence.

            > They themselves said that there was no question of linear dependencies

            I gave only an obvious example of what numbers should be compared with each other, and I made the choice of a linear characteristic for simplicity and clarity, while I specifically stipulated that these antennas are unlikely to have linear characteristics, therefore, the conversion methods should be different

            > there is a dependence of the 4th degree actually

            EM fields are characterized by inverse square relationships. And how much the emulation of a parabolic antenna will differ in properties from it I myself can’t even imagine, but this is a very difficult process of physical and mathematical processing, I can’t even imagine its characteristics
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 25 November 2014 19: 04
        0
        Then it would be worth writing under what conditions these 400 km were obtained, in particular, in which solid angle
      3. patsantre
        patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 31
        0
        Quote: mpa945
        This is from Kaptsov ...
        That is, in combat conditions, the Irbis will be more than two times less effective ... And will the enemies apparently increase their characteristics accordingly?
        Yeah ... Impartial!

        Before you carry the nude, familiarize yourself with the basic radar equation. Hint: even from that quote it follows that the Irbis is more powerful.
  12. gregor6549
    gregor6549 25 November 2014 11: 55
    +2
    Uv Pavel,
    In real combat conditions, the performance characteristics of all radars, regardless of their nationality, differ from the declared ones, and in some situations these performance characteristics may be higher, and in some situations lower. For example, the range of detection of an air target by fighter radar is very dependent on the angle of the observed target. But the detection range is not yet an exhaustive characteristic of the radar and its associated target tracking system. There are many other parameters there and how these parameters will behave in real combat, neither mathematical nor semi-natural, nor other types of modeling in peacetime can answer. Those. you can get some kind of estimates on them in order to understand that, in principle, a radar can, what is not and whether it is worth investing in it the money that is required to develop and manufacture this type of radar, but no more. Therefore, it’s hardly worth it now to speak about the fact that we, and not only we do not know. And one should not seek out in the open press reviews a certain malicious intent with the subsequent stigmatization of the person who published the collected
    (and not him) materials on this site.

    I would also like to note the inadmissibility of references to V. Putin or D. Rogozin as the greatest authorities in specific areas of military equipment and weapons. May God grant them to be specialists in those areas for which they are responsible, and leave the technology to the specialists in technology. Well, it would be good if I V Putin and D Rogozin would not let themselves be carried away on the chaff which sometimes very "cunning" specialists sometimes slip on them.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 25 November 2014 21: 36
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      I would also like to note the inadmissibility of references to V. Putin or D. Rogozin as the greatest authorities in specific areas of military equipment and weapons. May God grant them to be specialists in those areas for which they are responsible, and leave the technology to the specialists in technology. Well, it would be good if I V Putin and D Rogozin would not let themselves be carried away on the chaff which sometimes very "cunning" specialists sometimes slip on them.

      It is very correctly noted, especially "which is often slipped on them by sometimes very" cunning "experts who are on their minds"
  13. sevtrash
    sevtrash 25 November 2014 11: 55
    0
    Good article in terms of new knowledge, as for me. However, not unexpected. Impressed - "hidden" radar operation mode, radar as a weapon against electronics / missiles / aircraft, radar as an access point. Well, the type of "ordinary" things - the simultaneous detection of air and ground targets, range, resolution in size. Why do we expect the result - the volume and quality of funds, research, specialists in this area (probably in all the others) are higher among Americans, therefore the result is appropriate.
  14. jesus045
    jesus045 25 November 2014 12: 26
    0
    The praise of the American military-industrial complex in the article is visible with the naked eye, from the category "Barack Obama was given the prize for world peace."
  15. arslan23
    arslan23 25 November 2014 12: 51
    +1
    The radar is a very important thing, but the f35 did not come out face because it is very difficult to make a bomber and a fighter in one fuselage. Armament is of great importance and the range of its launch is not less than the ability of the radar. And so imagine that the T50 flies at supersonic speed without a pile towards f35. How long does it take to get closer at a distance of 200 km? And if there are a lot of goals. When 10 f35 meet with 10 t50 everything will very quickly develop into a dog fight where they will all fly in a swarm and beat into each other's arms. And here maneuverability and aiming systems and weapon systems are of great importance. At super sonic speed, you will overcome 1 km in 3 seconds. And the approach speed will be 2 times the speed of sound. That is why the fighter is always trying to get in the tail of the enemy. Will the f35 group of exterminators have enough time to destroy the T50 group before they face them. And then you need to remember that the t50 has two engines and the f35 has only one. Super duper but one. Two engines are not only more powerful but also safer. Failure of one is not fatal for the T50, you can hold out. And if you flew to f35 and the fragments of an exploding neighbor damaged your engine ??? All catapult is my salvation.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 November 2014 16: 58
      +3
      "That is why the fighter always tries to follow the enemy's tail. ///"

      Your knowledge is behind the years on 20 ... Now they don’t go to the tail.
      BB missiles have learned to turn on 180 degrees
      and attack back sighting.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 25 November 2014 19: 06
        +1
        Nevertheless, it’s better to get in the tail. Somehow it will be more reliable and faster.
      2. opus
        opus 25 November 2014 19: 17
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Your knowledge is behind the years on 20 ... Now they don’t go to the tail.

        Vietnam, AIM-9B, C, D, E "Sidewinder", with thermal seeker (TGSN), created for close combat, the sensitivity of the seeker of the first Sidewinders made it possible to use them only to the rear hemispherewhere the infrared radiation of a jet engine is maximum. That was a long time ago, but more than 40 years
        full range melee rockets with TGSN

        Quote: voyaka uh
        BB missiles have learned to turn on 180 degrees
        and attack back sighting.

        Come on?
        Which ones can?


        1. And will "catch up then" doing such a circle of honor?
        2.A enough fuel to turn around and catch?
        3.And how much will it weigh?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 25 November 2014 19: 56
          +1
          No lap.
          It takes place immediately after
          separation from the pylon BEFORE gaining speed.
          1. opus
            opus 25 November 2014 20: 58
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            It takes place immediately after
            separation from the pylon BEFORE gaining speed.

            Even "cooler". Fiction is solid.
            1. Let the carrier fly at a speed of 900 km / h (250 m / s), at an altitude of 5 km (P = 26500PA = 26500N / m2, p (air density) = 0,79kg / m> 3
            2. A drag force (dynamic pressure) from the incoming air flow will act on the racket (AIM-9 type).

            where Cx is the drag coefficient, V is the flow velocity, m / s, S is the cross-sectional area (mid-section), m X NUMX, p is the density of the medium
            dividing (roughly, on the "knee") this force by S nozzle (and for AIM it will be practically mid-section), we obtain the pressure created by the oncoming flow
            Take Cx = 1,11, as for the disk, although this is controversial, IF the ROCKET "flies" with the nozzle upstream), p = 0,79kg / m> 3, S = 0,0127m> 2 (AIM-9 diameter = 127mm, 0127m)

            4.GETING PRESSURE (dynamic flow effect) at the nozzle exit (d = 100mm)
            P = 27403 PA (from incident) + 26500PA (from atmospheric).
            Those. TWO (practically) atmospheric pressure.
            ================================================== =====
            Will the rocket engine start? (yes, AGAINST the air flow)
            ==============================================
            the racket will have "not weak", but that's not all.
            1.First, it (the rocket) "against" the grain must EXTENSE the carrier speed (250m / s)
            2. Then she needs to gain the height that SHE will lose while damping the speed of the 1.
            3.Then she needs to CHOOSE the speed of 2M (680.m / s)
            Questions:
            - how much time will it take?
            - how much fuel will it take?
            - where during this time there will be an attacked target?


            eibo, the option "in a semicircle" is better.
            [Img][/ Img]


            And if the speed (that of the carrier, that the target) is SUPERSONIC?
            ==================================================
            You left the question WITHOUT ANSWER: what kind of missiles START against the grain
            ===========================================
            You are so for reference:
            -NO such full-fledged missiles
            -There are tests (yes, all so far unsuccessful, because of absurdity)
            - they try to shoot such a self-defense rocket in a PC (streamlined shape, at an angle of attack, so as not to lose height due to the lifting force), which at least reduces the pressure at the rocket engine nozzle cut
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 25 November 2014 21: 54
              +1
              The Python-5 rocket of the BB has been in the arsenal of the Israeli Air Force for 10 years.
              Productions of Israel. Makes a full U-turn and attacks back.
              There is video on the net.
              Therefore, the Israeli Air Force refers to "super maneuverability"
              skeptical. From "Python" tricks like a cobra will not help you dodge.
              And you don’t need to go into the tail again.
              1. opus
                opus 25 November 2014 22: 12
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                The Python-5 rocket of the BB has been in the arsenal of the Israeli Air Force for 10 years.

                I know her. All thanks to the DAC complexed ANN
                Xnumx years not yet

                Quote: voyaka uh
                Makes a full U-turn and attacks back

                So all the same "full reversal" or
                Quote: voyaka uh
                No circlea.
                It unfolds in place immediately after
                separation from the pylon BEFORE picking up speed
                .

                ?
                Quote: voyaka uh
                ... From "Python" tricks like a cobra will not help you dodge.


                Funny.
                Degree off -Boresight Angle 60gr C (MAXIMUM), and the carrier must also have angular velocity in the direction of the target being attacked.
                At the same time, there is no question of any 20km (in this case)
                1. angolaforever
                  angolaforever 27 November 2014 10: 48
                  0
                  I would like to see the comment of the Professor
  16. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 25 November 2014 13: 19
    +1
    One thing can be said. Time will put everything in its place. And a large number of pre-production f35s can be explained by the haste of the lockhide, since they disrupted all conceivable and unimaginable terms and they are now nibbling for it, plus customers go around and buy airplanes only after a conversation in the State Department. smile
  17. Odysseus
    Odysseus 25 November 2014 13: 41
    +3
    It is difficult to argue that the radar and the F-35 ballistic missile systems have fantastic characteristics (although no one knows how much they will correspond to reality in a combat situation), and besides the radar there are other interesting systems, for example, the AAQ-40 camera, or a disabled helmet smile
    However, there is a silver lining; there are difficulties with the engine and the glider, the time to achieve the combat readiness of the aircraft is always delayed, so we have a certain reserve of time in order to catch up with the adversary.
  18. Prager
    Prager 25 November 2014 14: 00
    0
    Just a great article, I gladly tested it. thanks to the author.
  19. Tanks
    Tanks 25 November 2014 14: 31
    +2
    Compare the cost of f35 and su35. it costs like 2 sou 35, so compare it with 2 su 35 or 3 su34. they keep up with the times. And in the article they wrote as if they created a UFO.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 37
      0
      Firstly, less than 2, secondly, the same cost is unattainable with such a difference in economies, and thirdly, quality can not always be compensated by quantity.
  20. rubin6286
    rubin6286 25 November 2014 14: 46
    +2
    The article is interesting, informative, but "not all the gold that glitters." It is too early to sing praises to American designers. The reality is that the Su-30SM, Su-35, MiG-31 radars provide detection of American aircraft with a probability of 0,86 at the same range as the AN / APG-77 and APG-81 mounted on the F-22 and F- 35, and Russian all-angle air-to-air missiles are capable of successfully hitting them.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 25 November 2014 20: 37
      +1
      Quote: rubin6286
      The reality is that Su-30SM, Su-35, MiG-31 radars provide detection of American aircraft with a probability of 0,86 at the same range as the AN / APG-77 and APG-81 mounted on the F-22 and F- 35, and Russian all-angle air-to-air missiles are capable of successfully hitting them.

      Is this your alternative reality, or can you confirm your words with something?
  21. dvvv
    dvvv 25 November 2014 17: 24
    +1
    Seriously, the question is: how are air-to-air missiles used when placed in internal compartments? I believe only long or medium range, because you need to open the flaps and at subsonic speed, then you need time to launch this rocket and close the flaps. In close combat, this, I believe, is impossible. It is more likely to launch gliding bombs, air-to-surface missiles, and long-range missiles. F117 they flew like that: silence, one bomb in the compartment at night ... He threw off and quickly carried away his legs. With an external suspension, invisibility will not work ... and if a melee rocket and at medium distances is hung on an external suspension, it will already begin to glow on the screens, albeit not very brightly. Or am I misunderstanding something?
  22. dvvv
    dvvv 25 November 2014 17: 29
    0
    Another question: how to deal with the weather? Here is dust, dirt, soot and sticking snow, which is inevitable in real use, and even more so in combat conditions. After all, Papelans, perfectly washed in fine weather, are measured?
    I think everything will not be so beautiful in life as in trials
  23. opus
    opus 25 November 2014 18: 57
    +1
    Quote: Author
    If earlier on the screen there was only a mark, then these days the software and hardware capabilities of radar systems allow you to reconstruct the type of target.

    ...
    mmm
    RADAG Pershing-2 system in 1983 managed without PCA

    At present, airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) radars make it possible to solve specific reconnaissance tasks (to survey the Earth’s surface in various modes), select mobile and stationary targets, analyze changes in ground conditions, carry out surveys of objects hidden in forests, detect buried and small-sized ones marine objects.
    The main purpose of SAR is a detailed survey of the earth's surface.
    Shooting modes of modern SAR (a - detailed, b - overview, c - scanning)

    1. The first space experiment of imaging the Earth's surface using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in the L band ("Seasat-A") was conducted by the USA in 1978.
    2. Cosmos-1500 in the 1983 year, - the use of side-scan radars (RBO)
    3. Continuous observation of the Earth's surface using SAR for military purposes has been carried out since
    US launch in 1988 of the LACROSSE spacecraft, for civilian purposes with the launch of the ERS-1 spacecraft in 1991 by the European Space Agency
    4.TerraSAR-X (1 and 2) for the first time in a year for the first time carried out the survey of the entire surface of the Earth's land using SAR. Based on the obtained data, the world's first three-dimensional high-precision digital elevation model of the Earth (DEM - Digital Elevation Model) is being constructed



    Although of course: The resolution level reached today to units of meters,penetration depth of the order of 10 meters (FOPEN SAR, USA; CARABAS-2, Sweden) provides the ability to effectively solve special problems (surveillance technology covered under foliage, camouflaged and deep targets, as well as targets located below the ground
    (oil and gas pipelines, communications, bunkers, etc.).
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 26 November 2014 00: 38
      +1
      Quote: opus

      Although of course: The resolution level reached up to a few meters today, the penetration depth of about 10 meters (FOPEN SAR, USA; CARABAS-2, Sweden) provides the ability to effectively solve special problems (surveillance technology covered under foliage, masked and deep targets, as well as targets, located below the surface of the earth
      (oil and gas pipelines, communications, bunkers, etc.)

      Not getting into the essence of what was written (although everything seems to be true), I would like to note that in style your messages are very similar to the messages of the Postman.
      He loved to write something so furious (especially in space) that he immediately wanted to appoint him Chief Designer of the Martian Expedition smile
      1. Santa Fe
        26 November 2014 01: 20
        0
        Quote: Odyssey
        He loved to write something so furious (especially in space) that he immediately wanted to appoint him Chief Designer of the Martian Expedition

        Drive such a neck from the topvar! And also INTELLIGENCEEE!

        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 26 November 2014 16: 49
          0
          yeah, and from the Party too ...
      2. opus
        opus 26 November 2014 03: 38
        0
        Quote: Odyssey
        Your posts are very similar to Postman posts.

        And who is this?
        And what kind of mail did he bring here?
        Quote: Odyssey
        furious (especially in space)

        Eeee.
        Why is that so "furious" and "cosmonautical"?
        Quote: Odyssey
        Its Chief Designer for the Martian Expedition

        You’d better appoint me, and not any messenger, with the appropriate salary.
        I'm not against!
        (What is the social package?)
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 26 November 2014 16: 50
          +1
          while you are starring, it may already be delivering mail beyond the orbit of Saturn ...
  24. EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 November 2014 21: 34
    +2
    1) The battles in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war passed precisely to the near ones.
    2) We crossed it precisely because you’ll kill someone at medium range, the target avoids defeat, you know that she also has sensors, and guidance implies increased exposure.
    3) The stealth mode on the Su-27 with the MiG-29 was significant. OLS, no, I have not heard.
    4) Any radar with a HEADLIGHT due to electronic scanning can work simultaneously through the air and on the ground.
    5) The air defense zone is equal to the radio horizon, according to energy indicators, tiny rackets on airplanes and stationary air defense missiles like C-400 are not comparable.
  25. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 25 November 2014 23: 46
    +1
    "An array of thousands of individual transmit-receive modules (TPM) that do not need a single high-power radiator. The advantages of the technology are obvious:

    - antenna modules can simultaneously operate at different frequencies; "

    1. Where did the "thousands" of PPMs come from?
    2. How will the PPM work WITHOUT a "high power emitter"?
    3. How will the modules work at different frequencies? They are just PPM, not frequency generators.
    1. opus
      opus 26 November 2014 04: 03
      0
      Quote: The Cat
      1. Where did the "thousands" of PPMs come from?

      AN / APG-81 has 1,200 element array (before: 1200, (counting: 1676count))

      APG79 before: ~ 1100 counting: 1368

      APG80 before data: ~ 1000 elements counting: 1020 elements




      Quote: The Cat
      2. How will the PPM work WITHOUT a "high power emitter"?

      So each MRP is: antenna gap, phase shifter, transmitter, and often also the receiver all rolled into one. / As a shampoo and conditioner, together with rinse aid, in one bottle


      QTRM - Quad Transmit Receive Module (4-Channel T / R Module)
      here is more detailed: http: //micro.apitech.com/pdf/aesa/x-band-qtrm.pdf
      Toshiba TGI8596-50 GaN HEMT: 50W / X-band
      WHY DOES IT HAVE GREAT POWER?
      in a phased array the power of one "large" emitter is divided into 1000 small ones, here 1000 small ones, why do they need a "big" one?
      Quote: The Cat
      3. How will the modules work at different frequencies? They are just PPM, not frequency generators.

      p-receptiontransmittingm-module (TRMs)
      same TGI8596-50 GaN HEMT: operates in the 8.5GHz to 9.6GHz , 47.5dBm 1 (typ.), Linear gain of 9.0dB1 (typ.), And drain current of 4.5 Amps (at 24V and 25 ° C
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 26 November 2014 16: 55
        +1
        VAR and AFAR have both advantages and disadvantages
        on an ordinary plane, it is advisable to have a HEADLAMP and not an AFAR against a stealth, on a stealth - an AFAR or have nothing at all
        The fundamental difference between the PAR and AFAR is only that a large powerful central lamp has been replaced by a large number of low-power semiconductor generators.
  26. over
    over 26 November 2014 08: 24
    0
    To me, a person far from aviation and radar, it was very interesting and informative to read the comments and all the arguments. I think you should not compare the United States and Russia. We do not have such a printing press and pressure lever around the world. However, I believe that now smart people are sitting in the gene headquarters and they know what they are doing.
    Our strategy is defensive and with a well-built defense, all these F-22s and! Single-engine! F-35 are just expensive toys and nothing more. I believe that we should first of all modernize the existing fleet of aircraft and rivet 34/35 more dryers. T50 is certainly a good aircraft in the future, but a dozen proven aircraft are better than one such a handsome man who does not comply with the LTH. It must be brought calmly and systematically. We are not in a condition to throw dust in our eyes. Let this be the lot of our partners. Still MIGI 35 I would like to see in our parts ...
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 26 November 2014 17: 00
      0
      T50 riveting is also not a problem, why is it expensive? it’s all about stealth based on the Su-27, it was ready back in the 1980s to polchra a year earlier than the F-22, just the stealth technology itself was still not good enough then the Americans halted their program twice and the T-50 then even in small series did not go...
  27. Midshipman
    Midshipman 26 November 2014 10: 56
    +1
    Who will explain where the shadows from objects in radar images come from?
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 26 November 2014 17: 01
      0
      ... you want to say that the Americans have never been on the moon? ;-)))
  28. SergeyIV
    SergeyIV 26 November 2014 12: 49
    0
    I think it is possible to discuss the issue for a long time and to no avail.
    The only thing that can really show the advantage of the aircraft is a real combat collision. But here a lot will depend on the pilot and his training.
    But if we continue to dream up what concerns the Air Force as a whole, then the advantage will certainly be with NATO aviation. Many will say: what about our air defense systems, because we are building a defensive strategy? I will say this, a preliminary massive missile strike can significantly weaken our umbrella. Here it is necessary to take into account unmanned vehicles, which are intensively developed and implemented in the air force of the conditional enemy. They will certainly serve as a first strike, the purpose of which will be the depletion and detection of our air defense systems. The first attack will be repelled, but the subsequent strike with precision weapons will cause serious damage to our air defense. And only then will manned aircraft be deployed.
    A slightly different situation will be with a large-scale conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. Here the stakes are much higher - all or nothing.
    1 Several regional conflicts will be launched in uncomfortable directions for us: the Asian, Caucasian region. Conflict on the Norwegian border is not ruled out. Purpose: distraction, pulling and scattering our aircraft.
    2 Unprecedented pressure from the West. The maximum possible economic blockade. Betrayal in top management or in the immediate environment. The increasing complexity of the political situation in the country. Purpose: weakening, eliminating, changing the leadership in the country - any result is sufficient, the further development of the situation depends on it.
    3 Conducting large-scale sabotage and reconnaissance operations on the territory and on the border. Large-scale cyber attacks, blocking Internet resources and software.
    Purpose: to inflict the greatest damage to infrastructure, management, to bring chaos.
    I note that paragraph 3 will be implemented on time in the most acute period of paragraph 2.
    4 Approaching fleets at a strike distance. Detection and maximum destruction of the Navy, especially the submarine fleet. Destruction of a satellite constellation.
    5 Air and missile strike as described earlier + simultaneously with a missile strike to suppress air defense, mass launch of ICBMs and high-precision weapons for the most important purposes: command centers, defense industry, energy supply, locations of aircraft and nuclear arsenal. (You should take into account the development of space attack and promising samples of hypersonic weapons)
    Points 4 and 5 will be held simultaneously or as close as possible in time.
    PS It's not a fact that I missed something, but the order and actions will be approximately the same. Success is most likely when all conditions are met.
    But everything will depend on the development of response and control over the situation. Preventive strike during the sweep of the most acute phase of preparation (i.e., p. 3) breaks the whole scheme.
    The probable loss or significant damage to the enemy fleet will nullify the blow from the sea. An outburst of misinformation, attacks on enemy servers, sabotage, simultaneous attacks on military facilities and command centers on land and at sea, the suppression and destruction of missile defense, space groupings and missile capabilities - victory in the war will depend on the achievement of these goals. No.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 26 November 2014 17: 49
      +1
      in response to
      Quote: SergeyIV
      pre-massive missile strike

      The RF Ministry of Defense will simply start "downsizing" one by one.
      no one, like in China, has been slow to use nuclear weapons, and it would not be necessary to wait until the United States used it first.

      and in general, we can right now withdraw from all kinds of treaties and give out the most modern weapons, including NBC to the same Guatemala and Mexico, that will take California and Texas back from the USA (we also have something) and they will not be in our Mormon reservation again.
      you just can’t imagine how your America and NATO (and some others) are "loved" all over the world. bully
      Do you want that? interrogate ...
  29. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 26 November 2014 14: 40
    +2
    Quote: opus
    AN / APG-81 has 1,200 element array (before: 1200, (counting: 1676 counting))

    APG79 before: ~ 1100 counting: 1368

    APG80 before data: ~ 1000 elements counting: 1020 elements



    So there is a very big difference between "thousand" and "thousand" wink

    Quote: opus
    So each MRP is: an antenna slit, a phase shifter, a transmitter, and often also a receiver in one person. / As a shampoo and conditioner, together with rinse aid, in one bottle


    Quote: The Cat
    3. How will the modules work at different frequencies? They are just PPM, not frequency generators.

    p-receiver, p-transmitter, m-module (TRMs)
    The same TGI8596-50 GaN HEMT: operates in the 8.5GHz to 9.6GHz, 47.5dBm 1 (typ.), linear gain of 9.0dB1 (typ.), and drain current of 4.5 Amps (at 24V and 25 ° C


    I didn't know that. Apparently, technologies have made a big step forward, if now one PPM is "all in one".
    1. opus
      opus 27 November 2014 12: 03
      0
      Quote: The Cat
      So there is a very big difference between "thousand" and "thousand"

      Right...
      I just didn’t pay attention, maybe it’s like this: "there are hundreds of radars, thousands of PPMs have been installed"
      ? belay
      Quote: The Cat
      But he did not know.

      so this is the meaning of the PAR: phase shift across the entire opening in microseconds (among other things, NAM, OL, etc.)

      Ericsson and IBM announced a strategic partnership to develop headlamp antennas for 5G networks. The configuration of the headlamps allows more precise directing and control of the antennas electronically. This will enable the use of the headlamp in wireless networks with small cells that are used to transmit mobile data inside buildings and in densely populated areas.
  30. Beiderlei
    Beiderlei 1 December 2014 14: 44
    0
    You need to take a closer look at this airplane!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 2 December 2014 11: 25
      0
      as in that joke - you don’t have to remove the wheel ... with a mount on the nose cone and take the radar :-)
      the rest (that is, the samoliot itself) is better to drop :-)))
  31. norman-70
    norman-70 5 October 2015 02: 18
    -1
    Zadornovskoye — well, what kind of Americans are stupid, I just want to apply to domestic haters, meaning Americans, stupid, are creating new types of combat aircraft in vain, but in the Russian Federation, the old Soviet SU-27 comes out with every replacement tire and repainting, new, , model, then Su 30 then Su 31 then Su 34 and 35, and so on, and according to the essence of the same Soviet SU 27! this is how their Italian VAZ 2103 Scoop ,, Invented ,, VAZ2106 - find the differences ???
    1. dvvv
      dvvv 4 March 2016 03: 57
      0
      Do you believe what you wrote? Here are the F-16s of the first series and the last, how are they different? essentially the same, but the Americans do not sell them to everyone, and from what? The former generally left in the furnace, and the latter only to the very friends. The basis of course is Su-27, but the difference is not the same as with Lada and Fiat
  32. norman-70
    norman-70 5 October 2015 02: 22
    -1
    since 2006, 68 Su 34 have been post-boarded with grief in the Russian Air Force, but this is the same old and good Soviet SU 27, it seems to be stamped on proven technology and put in the troops, where 70% of Soviet junk is! but no, but here we waved to the T 50, which is several times more expensive and still raw, it's like with the theme of Putin's aircraft carriers, they are not and never will be
  33. evgenaleks
    evgenaleks 29 December 2016 08: 57
    0
    Quote: Kassandra

    The fundamental difference between the PAR and AFAR is only that a large powerful central lamp has been replaced by a large number of low-power semiconductor generators.
  34. evgenaleks
    evgenaleks 29 December 2016 08: 58
    0
    Quote: evgenaleks
    Quote: Kassandra

    The fundamental difference between the PAR and AFAR is only that a large powerful central lamp has been replaced by a large number of low-power semiconductor generators.

    REPLACED and controlled independently - from a computer. maybe so ?
  35. Oilpartizan
    Oilpartizan 26 November 2017 13: 42
    0
    The arguments of the “specialists” who have never seen the fifth generation American planes alive about their unsuitability for fulfilling the goals for which they were actually created amuse us.
    And stubborn attempts to compare them with the Russian 4 +++++++ give only the engagement of "specialists" and the usual Russian hat-making.
    I would like to remind you that even ordinary radio stations on Soviet aircraft of the initial 2MB period were not massively put and the right to exchange information when performing a combat mission was in the best case the unit commander, at worst - the squadron commander.
    Meanwhile, in every plane of the Anglo - American allies, the radio station was installed regularly, not to mention the opposing Luftwaffe, famous for the quality of its radio stations.
    The use of radars, both ground and air, does not apply to the strengths of the air defense and the air forces of the USSR.
    For the entire period of the war with the USSR, air defense of the country had only two radar stations stationed in the suburbs, and the Air Force never received a combat night plane equipped
    1. Oilpartizan
      Oilpartizan 26 November 2017 13: 47
      0
      night combat fighter - interceptor equipped with a radar.
      This historical excursion to the fact that the state of affairs in modern aviation electronics and in Russia of the 21st century is no better than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, taking into account the tasks set by the time with technological progress and the tactics of modern air combat.
    2. neradzurri
      neradzurri April 13 2022 11: 30
      0
      la you down, natural at what.
  36. kotofeyich
    kotofeyich April 20 2018 11: 00
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FD3TFGy5bw Пелите Шура-пелите....
  37. yehat
    yehat 13 June 2019 11: 08
    0
    Quote: goose
    but then one can not talk about stealth.

    Moreover, in this case, f-35 will be frankly worse than rafal or f-18
    I saw what is loaded for the f-18 strike mission. Penguins will never fly like that.
  38. yehat
    yehat 13 June 2019 11: 09
    0
    Quote: goose
    Quote: yehat
    Be that as it may, the F-35 has neither the opportunity to TAKE the necessary equipment, nor the ability to turn it on

    In fairness, you can hang a container, like LANTIRN, or the like, to obtain target designation for ground targets, but then you can not talk about stealth.

    then it makes no sense to lift it into the air - much cheaper f-16.
  39. asr55
    asr55 11 November 2019 14: 35
    0
    The main disadvantages of afar radars are not only power dissipation and cost, but also noticeable operation in active mode. And about "... a special mode of operation of LPI (low probability of interception) ..." you tell "grandma" on old airplanes. In this mode, there is no point in talking about maximum distances at all, in order to see, for example, the Su-35s, it needs to fly "close enough" and wave a hand, and the Su-57 generally needs to "sit on its tail." But this is unlikely to be done, because he will already be shot down. We are generally silent about the advantages of the second radar OLS. Radar stations with afar or pfar have both advantages and disadvantages, and there is no need to fill in here about the undeniable advantages of one over the other. You and Damantsev are good at it when it comes to arming the United States. It is just not clear how these best NATO aircraft of all modifications, including the F-22 Raptor, suddenly lose in training battles in "dry" (God forbid, in real ones) Indian and Malaysian pilots on su-30 mki and su-30 microns without aircraft drlo and half-turned on radars. There is a big difference between "like" and reality. You can't hide an awl in a bag, the weight of PR collapses as soon as real information leaks out. This topic is very interesting, but it gets boring to read about NATO armaments, everything multiplied by 5 times, up to the Nobel Peace Prize .. Somehow you need to really approach explaining the advantages or disadvantages.