Military Review

Russia needs "stealth"

178



Noon, XXI century. But some people continue to persistently deny the role of modern technology. Especially if the conversation concerns foreign samples of military equipment. Especially if they are stealth. Then uhh, the discussion will be hot.

However, burn about this topic is not as dangerous as before. At present, the whole generation of modern technology comes into service with the Russian Armed Forces, whose design contains the very technology “stealth”.

This material presents an analysis of the article “On invincible stealth,” recently published on the pages of one popular Internet resource. In my opinion, that article is replete with various inaccuracies and, in general, has the wrong message, aimed at underestimating the role of stealth technology in modern combat.

Stealth is not invisibility for radars, stealth is only "low" visibility.

The Russian word “invisible” was coined by the Russian-language media. Abroad, "Stealth" has remained "stealth" (which means "secretly, covertly").

It is not clear why the author took the word “small” in quotes. The effect of reducing visibility exists and is proven in practice. We can judge how small he is by the facts below.

Stealth is perfectly visible in the optical range, near IR, far IR

For years, 50 has been the main and primary means of detecting airborne targets. Low attenuation of electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere allows to obtain long detection ranges in all weather conditions.

The author deliberately disingenuous, switching the reader's attention to the optical and infrared ranges, although with the same success it is possible to declare the visibility of “stealth” in the ultraviolet.

Tear off your monitor for a second and look from the depths of the room at the window. There is a fly on the window. Barely visible point on the glass. This is how a pilot fighter sees a fighter from a distance of five kilometers. In general, in the century of radar and supersonic speeds at large (and even medium) distances, it is useless to rely on the visible range.

Optics helped only once. The most intelligible of all versions of the destruction of F-117 over Belgrade is the use of an optical guidance channel: the anti-aircraft gunners accidentally saw a brazen “stealth” flying below the clouds, and managed to launch a rocket. This is indicated both by the characteristics of the C-125 air defense system (“Karat-2” television viewer) and the testimony of the incident participants themselves - battery commander Zoltan Dani and the pilot of the Nighthouk shot down Dale Zelko (shot down when the lower edge of the clouds pierced). More luck was not repeated. Although, according to NATO, the clumsy stealth of the first generation made over 700 sorties over Yugoslavia.

An optical-location station (OLS) helps pilots of the modern “Su”, but this technique is still focused on close air combat. While the technology also does not stand still: there are proven ways to reduce the infrared signature of the aircraft (mixing exhaust gases with cold air). Note the flat nozzles of the F-22 engines. Or the stern part of the F-117 and B-2 stealth bomber: it is designed in such a way as to exclude the possibility to “look” into the engine nozzles from the lower hemisphere. However, that is not the point.

At medium and large distances, the main and only means of detection remains the radar.

That is why stealth has such chopped forms and many parallel edges and edges.

Russia needs "stealth"


Fair observation. Parallelism of edges and edges is the basis of modern stealth technology. As well as:

- the requirement of an internal suspension of armaments;
- masking of engine compressor blades (curved air intakes, radar blockers);
- with the exception of protruding parts on the surface of the fuselage and wing (antennas, sensors, LDPE);
- installation of a cabin-free lantern;
- improving the quality of assembly, the use of large-sized panels of complex shape and a decrease in the gaps between the joints of cladding panels;
- “sawtooth” shape of the edges of the holes;
- as well as auxiliary measures in the form of ferromagnetic paints and radio-absorbing coatings.

... To be detected by a certain hypothetical radar not at a distance of 400 km, but only at 40 km, the plane must dissipate the reflected signal 10000 times less

ESR conventional fighter estimated value of the order of 10 square meters. According to our specialists, the EPR F-22 should be at the level of 0,3 square. m, that is, only in 300 times less, and not in 10000.


We will help a little dear author in arithmetic. Dividing 10 by 0,3 will give ≈30.


The detection range of a radar target depends on the generator power, antenna directional coefficient, antenna area, receiver sensitivity and target EPR


Further, using the basic radar equation, it is easy to establish that reducing the ESR by 30 times will give approximately 2,3 times the smaller detection range of “stealth” compared to a conventional fighter.

And this is already a catastrophe.

Air patrols using only the radars of the fighters themselves, irradiating a given area from many angles, greatly increase the risk of detection.

That is why in combat conditions so no one does.

Detection of airborne targets is assigned to an aircraft of long-range radar detection (AWACS), while the radar of the fighters themselves are activated only at the time of the attack.

To detect the "stealth" AWACS will be forced to go closer to the enemy. This contradicts the concept of AWACS, which should control airspace, being hundreds of kilometers away, out of range aviation the adversary.

F-22 in the hidden mode for the sake of reduced visibility should itself become almost blind and deaf. The mode of complete radio silence, the radar is turned off and hidden, even the radio signal cannot be simply accepted, because for this you need to set up at least some antennas that immediately begin to dissipate the signal. The only option is some kind of one-way satellite communication channel, when receiving devices look up into space

Everything is just like that. Fighters try not to turn on their radar, detection and targeting comes from AWACS via satellite.

On the shock F-117 radar was absent as such. In flight over the territory of the enemy, the “Night Hawk” pilot even turned off the radio altimeter. Only passive means of collecting information (radio interception, thermal imagers, GPS data).

As they say, well, well. What will happen with the EPR of the F-22 with the side or even multi-angle illumination, that there he generally has with the EPR in projections that are different from the front, then the great US state secret.

The best is kept secret by the one who does not know it, but in the case of the “Raptor” everything is written on his fuselage. Even without going into the calculations, the EPR of the F-22 and the PAK FA should be ten times lower than that of the 4 generation fighters (details in the paragraph about the parallelism of the edges and edges). In any of the selected projections.

Moreover, bearing in mind its lesser visibility, an unobtrusive fighter is much more likely to take a favorable position for an attack than a regular fighter. Go to the flank “stealth” will not be easy.

For example, H035 "Irbis", radar Su-35С. Aim with ESR 0.01 sq.m. it detects at a distance of 90 km.

The source of this data is a proven resource “Wikipedia”, and a further link to the site of NIIP. V. V. Tikhomirova confirms everything, except data on the target with the 0,01 ESR EF. m

Once the game has gone according to the rules, what prevents us from bringing data from another trusted source?


Detection of air targets depending on their EPR and distance (in nautical miles). The best characteristics among the presented radars are demonstrated by the AN / APG-77 station (Raptor fighter radar). But even she, in the opinion of the Yankees themselves, can discern a target with an 0,01 ESR apt. m at a distance of no more than 50 km. A goal with EPR 0,3 sq.m. - no more than 100 km

Finally, it should be understood that the fighter’s radar is not the “all-seeing eye” due to the limited size of the antenna, whose aperture (diameter) does not exceed one meter. What can this “baby” see when even the huge antennas of the C-400 ADMS distinguish a fighter-type target at a distance of no more than 400 km?

Maybe something and see. But advertising booklets will never tell in which sector the maximum detection range of the “Irbis” is ensured (according to one of the versions - in the field of view 17,3 ° x17,3 °, ie 300 square. Degrees). And what is the time for data accumulation for which the radar processor will be able to determine the location of the target in the selected part of the sky with a probability of 90%. But this is precisely what ultimately determines the capabilities of radar in real conditions.

Ground-based radars are not strictly limited to either the size or the number of antennas, nor the power, nor, as a result, the centimeter wavelength range. For the waves of the meter range that stealth is not stealth - everything is one.

Another appeal to the ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum with the expectation of a gullible man in the street. The joke is that absolutely all the radars that are part of the anti-aircraft missile systems (C-300 / 400, Aegis, Patriot), operate in the range of centimeter and decimeter waves.

The meter range radar has long been decommissioned, even in third world countries. The military's dislike for such radars is explicable: such a radar is not capable of forming a narrowly focused “beam” and, as a result, it has low resolution. The second incurable disease meter radar - the huge dimensions of the antenna.



The exception only confirms the general rule: the Russian Army adopted an interspecific 55ЖХNNXXМ “Sky” radar complex, which includes a module with a radar meter range (RLM-M). Alas, this complex is not intended for use as part of anti-aircraft missile systems and serves only to control air traffic.

It is worth noting that at least two radars are used as part of the air defense system. Depending on the level of those. development and the chosen method of control / guidance, an observation station is needed (sometimes multifunctional, capable of programming the autopilots of the launched missiles) and the fire control radar, which “highlights” the target. In the extreme case, the “shot and forget” scheme is used when the missile defense system is equipped with an active radar seeker, which independently “highlights” its target.

Of course, there can be no talk of any meter range radars.

The nose cone F-22 in the hidden mode should not be radiolucent, so as not to violate the geometry of the reflecting surfaces of the aircraft. But if you want to at least passively peep the radar around the air, you have to make the radome transparent, otherwise the radar, if it can emit a signal through it, will not be able to receive anything back ... Trouble ...

Trouble: dear author did not hear about frequency selective surfaces.

The only long-range missile in the F-22 armament is the AIM-120C. Its range is 50-70 km (already a dangerous distance, even in stealth mode), in the new modifications state about 100 km.

AIM-120 AMRAAM medium / long-range guided missile
The “C-7” modification has a max. 120 km launch range (adopted 11 years ago). The newer version “D” has a launch range of 180 km.

You can, of course, rest your horn and say that the engineers “Raytheon” do not understand anything about rockets. But these are the numbers that broadcast all the sources. The data given by the author about 50-70 km are related to early modifications of AMRAAM, originally from 80's.

It flies to the target "through memory", with the help of an inertial guidance system. If you do not make a radio correction, then the plane fired by such a rocket, at the time of detection of radiation by a radar (it means that someone came and probably shot out), changed the direction of the flight rather sharply so that the rocket “from memory” flew not at all to where through 40 -60 seconds (flying time AIM-120 from the maximum range) will be its target.

A two-way communication channel, like any other modern long-range air-to-air UR, fighter radar station continuously counts the target position and broadcasts corrections to the missile. The attacking fighter has nothing to fear at this moment - the enemy doesn’t have enough time to take over the radar station's work and take retaliatory measures. The attack began, the flight time of 40-60 missiles seconds.

Then the fighter radar can be turned off again. The results of the battle to the pilot will tell the operators from flying behind AWACS.

Her homing head captures the target only at a distance of 15-20 km.

And maybe not exciting. There are reasonable doubts about the effectiveness of ARGSN modern missiles against low-profile “stealth” aircraft. The miniature radar in the nose of the rocket hardly distinguishes even conventional fighters (EPR 3 ... 10 meters) at a distance of a couple of tens of kilometers. You can imagine how hard a rocket will be to find a “raptor” or a PAK FA!

Combined guidance (ARGSN + IK GOS), attempts to reduce the likelihood of a miss and take the rocket to the closest distance to the target - within hundreds of meters, from which its GOS will be guaranteed to detect the target ... Fighting stealth will require changing the usual approaches to creating rocket weapons. Headache enough for everyone.

Low visibility matters only as one of the factors when no other characteristics of the aircraft are sacrificed to it.

From the unusual appearance of dozens of polygons, the “lame dwarf” F-117 was obliged to 70's technology. The computational power of ancient computers clearly lacked the calculation of the EPR of complex surfaces of double curvature.

At present, the issue with computer equipment for calculating EPR and 3D printers, which allow manufacturing large-sized panels of complex shape, can be considered closed. LTH fighters of the fifth generation are no different from their predecessors, and in some ways even superior. The requirement of parallelism of the edges is not always effective from the point of view of aerodynamics, however, the engineers were able to compensate for this circumstance due to the greater thrust-to-weight ratio of the Raptors and PAK FA. A certain role was played by the placement of weapons in the internal bomb storage compartments, which also “ennobled” the appearance of the vehicles, reduced frontal resistance and reduced the moment of inertia of the fighters.

This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that only Americans are worn with “stealth”, while the rest of the world switched to practical work in this area only when it became possible to develop stealth aircraft without sacrificing other characteristics.

Quite a strange statement.

The Yankees were pioneers in this area: the first flight of “Have Blue” (the predecessor of the F-117) took place almost 40 years ago, in the 1977 year. To date, the fourth stealth aircraft (not counting experimental models and UAVs) is already being built overseas.



Since 2010, Russia has officially joined the stealth aircraft developers club, demonstrating the flight of its fifth-generation fighter. In fact, the development of the Russian PAK FA has been going on for 15 years, since the beginning of the 2000s.

In the back of our heads, China breathes with its crafts J-20 and J-31.

The effect of reducing conspicuity exists and is aimed at increasing the survival rate of the machine in modern combat. Above a partial reduction in visibility work even where the creation of low-profile technology was not originally planned (Su-35C, F / A-18E / F, upgraded “Silent Eagle”).

At the heart of the technology “stealth” there are no secrets and materials with unusual properties. Stealth is sound logic, multiplied by a competent calculation and supported by the power of modern technologies. Ultimately, the result of reduced conspicuity is based on the shape of the aircraft and the quality of the manufacture of its skin. In this regard, modern methods of technology “Stealth” can not cause the deterioration of the flight characteristics of aircraft.

The high cost of unobtrusive fifth-generation fighters, like the B-2 stealth bomber, is not due to stealth technology, but to the cost of developing high-tech “stuffing” for these aircraft (radar, electronics, engines).

Domestic and foreign samples of stealth technology:




Corvette Ave 20380 ("guarding")



Stealth frigate type "Lafayette", France, 1990 year



Stealth destroyer "Zamvolt"



Chengdu J-20, China
Author:
178 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Odysseus
    Odysseus 10 March 2015 06: 42
    12
    Well, the fact that Russia needs "Stealth" is obvious simply by the fact of work on the PAK FA and PAK DA. You can certainly make the assumption that the whole concept is wrong, and that Russian designers (like the designers of other leading industrial powers) are wrong -but this requires very strong arguments.
    Here I would, the only thing, draw attention to the fact that "Stealth aircraft" are very difficult to repair and operate. That is, you need to think not only about the design of the aircraft and its weapons, but also about its maintenance and repair, about the training of relevant specialists ,etc. In addition, the transition to mass serial production of such aircraft requires technical re-equipment from the industry, production culture.
    Thus, a whole range of measures is required to prepare the Air Force for the operation of such aircraft.
    1. crazyrom
      crazyrom 10 March 2015 07: 24
      +2
      Although the author refutes some statements, in general it turns out that we have an excellent PAK FA. I completely agree, we are doing it wisely. Type stealth is good, but you do not need to forget about the plane.
      1. MBA78
        MBA78 10 March 2015 08: 48
        -5
        it’s enough to develop a special coating or a modular device to apply in any technique even in a car or in a cornfield and go where you want ...
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 10 March 2015 13: 44
          +2
          In this case, no. In Mikoyan’s office, too, they thought for a while that they’ll cover the entire RPM fuselage and everything will be okay (well, in general, very good)
          1. [comment-show]
            HDN
            HDN 10 March 2015 14: 38
            +5
            Trouble: dear author did not hear about frequency selective surfaces.

            There are many ways to mask radar antennas.

            Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics RAS (ITPE RAS)

            It is well known that, along with the power plant, the antenna of the airborne radar station (radar) is another of the main sources of the secondary (scattered) field of the aircraft in the front hemisphere.

            The antenna compartment is unmasked due to scattering of the incident wave on the metal elements of the equipment installed in the compartment, and scattering on the antenna sheet. Equipment (electronic components and mechanisms) can be covered with conventional radar absorbing materials. As an example in fig. Figure 14 shows a typical frequency dependence of the reflection coefficient of a coating developed in ITPE. This is a lightweight magneto-dielectric coating based on polyurethane foams to mask the rear of the radar antenna compartment.


            (open in a separate window)


            It is much more difficult to reduce the visibility of the antenna itself. A typical design of a slot antenna array is shown in Fig. 15. The main contribution of such an antenna to a scattered field is determined by the mirror reflection of the wave from the metal surface of the disk (in directions close to the normal to its plane), as well as by diffraction by a system of slot emitters.



            For the purpose of anti-radar masking of antennas, as well as to improve some parameters of radiating systems (for example, indicators of electromagnetic compatibility), special screens can be used that are built into the fairing or mounted on the antenna. EPR reduction is achieved due to the fact that the special shape of the antenna screen provides less backscatter as compared to an unprotected antenna (Fig. 15d). Such screens can be made of thin structured materials. In a particular case, the basis of the screen can be a frequency-selective surface (CHIP), i.e. perforated electrically conductive foil, a grid with cells of a special shape or an electronically or photo-controlled film. To mask antennas, you can use controlled and unmanaged screens.

            [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
            The comment was deleted.
            [/ comment-deleted]
  1. HDN
    HDN 10 March 2015 14: 39
    +6
    Managed screens can provide a very wide range of functions. An example of a technical solution of this kind is the deposition of a photosensitive film on the inner surface of the antenna fairing, the resistance of which would change under the influence of control optical radiation.

    An alternative technical solution can be a screen based on a CHIP with a system of periodic holes of a certain shape, configured to pass electromagnetic waves in a narrow band of the natural frequencies of the locator. For electromagnetic waves of other frequencies, such a screen works as a reflective one. Introducing control semiconductor systems (for example, with electronic or photo control) into these openings (open resonators), you can optionally make it opaque in the locator frequency band.

    One of the experimental designs of the screen layout for masking the waveguide-slotted flat headlamp with a diameter of 0,34 m is shown in Fig. sixteen.



    Depending on the specific antenna, both the designs described above and the technology based on the use of plasma screens can be used. Such a screen can be mounted inside the fairing in the same way as a frequency selective screen. However, its principle of operation is somewhat different. When turned off, the screen is transparent at all frequencies. When voltage is applied to the screen, a low-temperature collisional plasma is ignited in it, as a result, the radiation is partially reflected from the screen in safe directions, and partially absorbed in the screen. The screen is effective for electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies, less than plasma. The value of the plasma frequency in such systems can be very large. Long-term studies on the processes occurring in a low-temperature plasma made it possible to find the optimal parameters of both the composition of the gases forming the plasma and to optimize the high-speed plasma generation system necessary for the reaction to a rapidly changing external environment. The conducted flight tests demonstrate the high efficiency of the proposed solutions to reduce the radar visibility of the antenna compartment.

    http://www.itae.ru/science/topics/№4 (стелс).pdf


    (open in a separate window)
  • SAXA.SHURA
    SAXA.SHURA 10 March 2015 13: 49
    13 th
    These abstruse articles fool people, but do you really think that our military engineers and scientists creating unique weapons are more stupid than you all, then why are you writing here and not creating the latest weapons for our army and navy, enough for people ride on the ears.
    1. Lapkonium
      Lapkonium 16 March 2015 04: 28
      +2
      with this approach it’s better to close the site altogether
  • yehat
    yehat 10 March 2015 09: 48
    0
    But what is the complexity of the repair? operation yes, more complicated, but nothing out of the ordinary.
    1. FID
      FID 10 March 2015 10: 02
      +9
      Quote: yehat
      But what is the complexity of the repair? operation yes, harder, but nothing out of the ordinary

      The integrity of the varnish layer (on top of the paint, aircraft, even civilian ones, are varnished), i.e. there can be no talk of any PARMS. Painting in factory or aircraft repair plants, at least. Plus, complex avionics (although it is modular, but testing the complex after replacing one of the modules is still work ...). This complicates the repairs.
      1. Santa Fe
        10 March 2015 10: 10
        0
        Sergey, how do you assess the possibility of repairing an engine with an OVT / UVT in military conditions, in the hangar of an airfield

        The most difficult knot: heat-resistant materials, progressive movement of parts, work in extreme conditions
        1. FID
          FID 10 March 2015 10: 21
          +5
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Sergey, how do you assess the possibility of repairing an engine with an OVT / UVT in military conditions, in the hangar of an airfield

          The most difficult knot: heat-resistant materials, progressive movement of parts, work in extreme conditions

          I don’t appreciate it at all - this is nonsense. Even a modular repair (and it has been mastered for PS-90) in conditions of PEACE time - only in the conditions of ARZ ...
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 11: 34
            +3
            Quote: SSI
            I don’t appreciate it at all - this is nonsense.

            Hello. And what about the modernization of strategists? What are they going to do with the Tu-22M3?
            Maybe something new is heard about the MS-21?
            1. FID
              FID 10 March 2015 11: 42
              +5
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              What are they going to do with the Tu-22M3?

              Hello. Tu-22M3 should be modified for Tu-22M3M, but so far with a plug engine, and so, overhaul of 22-x is on. 3 cars should give this year. MS-21 ... This is a big question, very big. In principle, this is just like a super constructor, though with a smaller share of imports, but ... I don’t know, they promise to raise the first one next year, but I don’t know, I don’t know ...
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 12: 38
                +2
                Quote: SSI
                I don’t know, they promise to raise the first one next year, but I don’t know, I don’t know ..

                They began to form the MS-21 building back in 2013, the EMNP, under it they modernized production in Voronezh, Ulyanovsk, Irkutsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur and built something in Kazan.
                And how do you personally evaluate the plane?
                1. FID
                  FID 10 March 2015 12: 50
                  +5
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  And how do you personally evaluate the plane?

                  Not really ... This is a modernized Yak-42, Yakovlev did not make long-range aircraft, only local ones. Yakovlev has always had a VERY large power ratio (3 motors for small cars), how will it be now? The control systems are imported, the motors are still being designed ... I do not trust this car, although ... maybe it’s age-related, but with age, they say experience comes ...
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 10 March 2015 14: 59
                    -2
                    Thanks, ridiculed. The Yak-42 in terms of dynamics with normal machines like the Tu-154 can not be compared in principle.
                    1. FID
                      FID 10 March 2015 15: 11
                      +1
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Thanks, ridiculed. The Yak-42 in terms of dynamics with normal machines like the Tu-154 can not be compared in principle.

                      Did I compare? He wrote that the power supply of Yakovlev cars was overstated. Do you know why this was done?
                    2. patsantre
                      patsantre 10 March 2015 15: 36
                      +2
                      For what?..........
                    3. FID
                      FID 10 March 2015 15: 44
                      +4
                      Quote: patsantre
                      For what?.........

                      Highlands. These planes were supposed to operate in the mountainous regions - Transcaucasia, Pamir, Altai ...
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 15: 04
                +3
                Quote: SSI
                I don’t trust this car, although ... maybe it’s age-related, but with age, they say experience comes ...

                And what are you working on now, if not secret?
                1. FID
                  FID 10 March 2015 15: 34
                  +3
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  And what are you working on now, if not secret?

                  Maintain airworthiness as usual. Repair of "autopilots" (automatic steering and trajectory control systems), "glass cockpit", consultations with colleagues (with whom he worked at the plant) on strategists and long-range vehicles, consultations with Cuban friends, business trips to component manufacturers, to aircraft factories .. Something like this .. Yes, according to MS-21, although it is more correct to call the Yak-242, the control systems are French and German, ours of these systems are sensors, therefore, well, the edge ...
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 22: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: SSI
                  . Something like that .. Yes, according to MS-21, although it is more correct to call Yak-242, the control systems are French and German, our of these systems are sensors, therefore, so, by the edge ...

                  I wish you success.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 11: 29
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The most difficult knot: heat-resistant materials, progressive movement of parts, work in extreme conditions

    And that without a UVT, a jet engine will be repaired in a hangar? Or just with UVT impossible to repair in the hangar?
    I'm more interested in the process of replacing an engine on a fighter in a hangar.
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 10 March 2015 11: 40
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    how do you assess the possibility of repairing an engine with an airborne / airborne military equipment in military conditions, in the hangar of an airfield

    All that concerns the "afterburner" - is done even by other enterprises than those who produce the "engine" itself, i.e. main unit, or module :)))
  • Afotin
    Afotin 13 March 2015 09: 47
    0
    Composite materials are certainly great, but field repair of products made from them is impossible. In fact, this translates into the need to keep significant quantities of large-sized spare parts at airfields.
  • serega.fedotov
    serega.fedotov 10 March 2015 11: 27
    0
    Quote: Odyssey
    Well, the fact that Russia needs "Stealth" is obvious simply by the fact of work on the PAK FA and PAK DA. You can certainly make the assumption that the whole concept is wrong, and that Russian designers (like the designers of other leading industrial powers) are wrong -but this requires very strong arguments.

    Strong arguments are a major war !!!
    So let the designers train on "cats"!
    Although, in theory, radio coverage is much better than "playing" with shapes, stealth is certainly good, but you shouldn't forget about "ordinary" planes, especially since radio coverage has been developed for them since the late 70s!
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 10 March 2015 11: 37
    +3
    AMRAAM-120 in the modification of 180 km, it seems it was not accepted for service.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 13: 08
      +1
      Accepted, ordered and it seems even delivered.
      1. tomket
        tomket 11 March 2015 10: 44
        +1
        Quote: patsantre
        Ordered and it seems even comes.

        These are different rockets, how many copies can already be broken on this subject. Koptsov for AIM 120D means AIM-120 c-8, in which the launch range compared to c-7 has changed slightly, and is within 120-130km. The mythical 180 km is the declared data of another rocket, the development of which was curtailed. Hence the confusion.
  • Denis fj
    Denis fj 10 March 2015 17: 46
    +1
    Russia does not need stealth, but Russia needs a fifth-generation fighter like air!
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 12 March 2015 14: 09
      0
      In general, the mind needs to work on a hypersonic jet engine - there must be cruising hypersonic (even better - hypersonic in an economic way) and extremely aerodynamic forms. And the plasma bag arising at hypersonic speeds will give the plane absolute invisibility - it is impossible to see the target in the plasma cloud in principle.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 12 March 2015 14: 52
        0
        shuttle as it was seen.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 12 March 2015 17: 30
          0
          But we understand that this is not the same thing at all.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 12 March 2015 18: 33
            -1
            one and the same thing.
  • Nitarius
    Nitarius 10 March 2015 07: 06
    +3
    To grind the same subject on 15 already tired of it!
    well, by golly.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 10 March 2015 07: 22
      +1
      the comment format was not enough ... wassat
      0,03 sq.m according to F-22 as of 2003

      if the author looks at the same J-20, he will see that his "casing" compared to the nozzles is thick, therefore, however, there is a deterioration in flight characteristics due to stealth. and the subsonic stealth F-117 barely flew at all.
    2. Santa Fe
      10 March 2015 07: 50
      +6
      Quote: Nitarius
      To grind the same subject on 15 already tired of it!

      About Ukraine and the imminent collapse of the dollar?
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 10 March 2015 08: 34
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        About Ukraine and the imminent collapse of the dollar?

        Oleg, don't you know that by default all US aircraft, and even more so which use the technology of low radar signature full "G"? Especially? the characteristics of the F-22 radar that you cite in the publication are of no interest to anyone and do not matter in reality, everything has already been decided.
      2. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 10 March 2015 17: 22
        0
        Just not that, Oleg. And so a rare article that you read with pleasure. Thanks, by the way.
  • puteovii
    puteovii 10 March 2015 07: 08
    0
    A akakje stels eto gu-no i ih videat vradari ili "ameri potrateli kuciu bobla na svoi nevidimki a mi ih starenikoi raketoi zbili" ceot tovarisci vi ne postoeanie. stop
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 10 March 2015 07: 20
    +1
    Oleg recently just merciless to the townsfolk. Each article is like a bitter hangover for the reader
    1. Santa Fe
      10 March 2015 07: 51
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Each article is like a bitter hangover for the reader

      you need to slightly increase those. literacy among the population

      not all the time to gossip about Obama
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 March 2015 15: 01
        0
        And then write about "only 400 km of range at AWACS". Actually, 400 km is like a radio horizon already.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 10 March 2015 11: 43
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Oleg recently just merciless to the townsfolk. Each article is like a bitter hangover for the reader


      I propose a topic for Oleg - "Advantages and disadvantages of the T-34 in comparison with the Sherman, there will be a mahach !!!;)))
      If you take it ...
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 10 March 2015 13: 40
        +3
        but what about ... Korean war, "belly-forward" Sabers with thrust-to-weight ratio 0,38 versus 0,55 in MiG won 21: 1 (Hollywood), no 17: 1, no 7: 1, no 1,8: 1 (RAND) maybe even 1,3: 1 - so the T-34 was also worse!
        1. viktorR
          viktorR 10 March 2015 23: 31
          0
          It became attached to Oleg's campaign "belly forward" after he proved to me that the moment-29 and f-35 fly belly forward)))
          1. Santa Fe
            11 March 2015 00: 03
            -2
            Quote: viktorR
            as he argued to me that the instant-29 and f-35 fly belly forward)))

            Is this required to prove?

            Bernoulli's equation alone is not enough to create lift

            1. viktorR
              viktorR 11 March 2015 09: 44
              +1
              Oleg, I will not argue with you. It’s simply impossible to prove to you that you are wrong, that’s your character, apparently.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 11 March 2015 02: 52
            0
            ozyuyushki, then the T-34 in Korea also drove sideways ... laughing
    3. sivuch
      sivuch 10 March 2015 13: 49
      +4
      And you did not try to calculate how many mistakes in the article?
      1. Technical engineer
        Technical engineer 10 March 2015 15: 51
        -1
        curious. how much?
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 10 March 2015 16: 46
          +2
          A lot. Below I started to answer, but maybe a part will be skipped. You don’t get angry
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 10 March 2015 16: 21
        +2
        Quote: sivuch
        And you did not try to calculate how many mistakes in the article?

        These are not mistakes, this is a deliberate distortion, the author interferes with the truth and half-truth and falsehood.
    4. Setrac
      Setrac 10 March 2015 16: 19
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Oleg recently just merciless to the townsfolk. Each article is like a bitter hangover for the reader

      The author is disingenuous, claims that meter radars have been withdrawn from service even in backward countries, and immediately declares their presence in Russian air defense systems. He says that you won’t miss a missile with a meter-range radar, but radars are not just for pointing missiles.
  • saag
    saag 10 March 2015 07: 53
    +3
    texts are repeated like bravura marches :-)
  • Darkmor
    Darkmor 10 March 2015 08: 01
    +4
    In general, in the age of radar and supersonic speeds at large (and even medium) distances, relying on the visible range is useless.

    Just the opposite. A camera of good resolution + a computer recognition program allows you to do something that no one can do, in a completely autonomous mode.
    Over time, they will probably come up with adaptive camouflage (as well as adequate stealth technologies, they came up much later than radars), but so far the optics are ahead.

    Stealth, as an addition to the capabilities of an interceptor, a bomber, or even an attack aircraft, is excellent.
    Stealth, for a reconnaissance aircraft - a must.
    But stealth, as an indispensable element, to the detriment of something else - it seems to me that this is a very serious matter of prioritization.
    Perhaps if you fly at a speed of 5 max in the upper layers of the stratosphere, you don’t really need stealth. Purely my, profane opinion laughing
    1. frame5
      frame5 10 March 2015 08: 46
      +1
      And what, such speed will save you from something? Maybe the rocket won't catch you?
      A fresh example of how bad things are in the confrontation between aviation and air defense is Ukraine, where the presence of several not the newest anti-aircraft systems at the militia completely paralyzed all the Ukrainian air forces. Stealth is seen here as a necessary thing.
      1. Darkmor
        Darkmor 10 March 2015 09: 21
        +1
        Quote: frame5
        Maybe the rocket won't catch you?

        Have you seen many rockets capable of catching up with hypersonic targets? smile

        Quote: frame5
        the presence of several not the newest anti-aircraft systems in the militia completely paralyzed all the air forces of Ukraine.

        Come on. Everything stopped flying there long before the appearance of TORs and OS, captured near Ilovaisk in the fall.
        The main losses for the "Air Force" of Ukraine, from the man-made anti-aircraft missile systems with thermal guidance and from the old age of the aircraft fleet, multiplied by the lack of fuel and ammunition for carrying out sorties.

        Stealth may well come in handy for breaking through enemy air defense, as an option. But with Ukraine there is an extremely unfortunate example.
      2. Bugor
        Bugor 10 March 2015 19: 57
        0
        So the rocket still needs to get to the stratosphere. Remember how much blood the U-2 drank before it was missed off with a rocket. So the rocket launched from the ground, it can be given fuel, how much will take. And an interceptor with such a racket will be hard ...
    2. opus
      opus 10 March 2015 13: 04
      +3
      Quote: Darkmor
      Perhaps if you fly at a speed of 5 max in the upper layers of the stratosphere, you don’t really need stealth.

      This will require EVERY time to use (as an accelerator) something similar to the "Proton" launch vehicle or a carrier of the B-52 type
      North American X-15

      Maximum speed: 7 274 km / h
      Weight: 6 kg (TOTAL)
      Length: 15 m
      Range: 450 km
      Wingspan: 6,80 m
      Engine type: rocket engine






      and how difficult it is
      1. Darkmor
        Darkmor 10 March 2015 14: 11
        0
        Quote: opus
        This will require EVERY time to use (as an accelerator) something similar to the "Proton" launch vehicle or a carrier of the B-52 type

        You refer to experiments of more than 50 years ago.
        In those days, the f-117 was considered really invisible, and hypersound was something unattainable. The United States developed both this and that - and the choice, quite naturally, fell on stealth technology.
        But time goes forward - what was considered invisible, sometimes turns out to be quite noticeable when modern computers post-process even old radar types.

        I do not know exactly what speeds the PAK FA and DA can develop (this miracle is not even known what it looks like), but when designing, sooner or later, the question will arise - which is better, to reduce the characteristics of the airframe and engine in favor of stealth, or to focus at speed and capacity - and in what proportions. And I would really like the engineers to make the right choice (maybe it will be stealth), and not follow the American track with the Soviet logic "since they have a stealth bomber, we also need a stealth bomber, just more."
        F-117 is an excellent example of how something very effective at the design stage is out of work some ten years after the release, crushed by technical progress.
        1. opus
          opus 10 March 2015 15: 58
          0
          Quote: Darkmor
          You refer to experiments of more than 50 years ago.

          nothing revolutionary (fuel) has since appeared
          Quote: Darkmor
          In those days, the f-117 was considered really invisible, and hypersound was something unattainable.

          -117 was not considered "invisible" (Faceted forms, implemented in the architecture of the aircraft, provide the main share - up to 90% - reduction of RCS)
          they experimented with hypersound on the X-20 Dyna-Soar from October 24, 1957 to December 10, 1963 and the Aerospaceplane (from 1958 to 1963)


          Quote: Darkmor
          I don’t know what speeds PAK FA and YES can develop (this miracle is not even known what it looks like),

          there are data on PAK FA, PAK FA decided to make subsonic (and this is reasonable)
          Just moving at SUCH heights with SUCH speeds is VERY ENERGY (expensive in itself, expensive design, terribly expensive runways)
          and!
          Open question:
          -how and what kind of weapon will you use (launch) from an apparatus moving with 5-6M?
          just imagine this non-trivial task
          Quote: Darkmor
          F-117 is a great example, as something very effective

          117 completed his task and not bad
          -The device is designed for point strikes day and night, in simple and difficult weather conditions, acting without cover.
          US Invasion of Panama (1989)
          Gulf War (1991)
          Operation Desert Fox (1998)
          NATO war against Yugoslavia (1999)
          Iraq war (2003)


          -6,56 billion USD, including R&D. This is acceptable in order to go to generation 2 (F-22), and the last flight 117 was made in 2008, for 64 pieces since 1981 NOT BAD?
          But two celebrities prepare pancakes in one kitchen (Zelko - on the left, Dani - on the right).
          1. Santa Fe
            10 March 2015 20: 57
            0
            Quote: opus
            and the last flight 117 made in 2008

            Wrong!

            F-117 fly so far (spotted in the area of ​​a / b Tonopa)



            http://theaviationist.com/2014/10/03/photo-f117-still-flying/

            http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/we-now-know-why-the-f-117-is-still-fly
            ing /

            Vigilant citizens deservedly put a "minus" on the comment of comrade opus!
    3. Kassandra
      Kassandra 10 March 2015 15: 23
      -3
      The SR-71 has such influxes (they didn’t appear on it immediately) to reduce radio visibility, and not for high-speed characteristics - they are not on the MiG-31.
      1. opus
        opus 10 March 2015 16: 02
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        SR-71 has such influxes (they didn’t appear on it immediately) to reduce the radio visibility

        nonsense

        These influxes have nothing to do with radio signature.
        Who and what will irradiate an airplane in the upper hemisphere if it flies at an altitude of 26 km?
        CONTINUOUS AERODYNAMICS
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 10 March 2015 17: 40
          -2
          read a book which is thicker and heavier about the history of its creation.

          there db pictures of the early A-12 which did not have them yet, and indicated why they appeared.

          by the way they can’t be stepped on.
          1. opus
            opus 10 March 2015 18: 58
            +2
            Quote: Kassandra
            read a book which is thicker and heavier about the history of its creation.

            Which one?
            1. I read and saw live, heresy (about "influx and stealth")
            The company has developed a radar absorbing tenon design with a plastic honeycomb core that can withstand heat up to 275 ° C. On the SR-71 radar absorbing material used in the construction of wing socks and elevons.
            and this is FOR SR-12 (A-12)! Does the role for the main structural material of the airframe - titanium alloy B-120 and for Pratt & Whitney JT-11D-20B?
            CAN ANSWER
            Quote: opus
            Who and what will irradiate an airplane in the upper hemisphere if it flies at an altitude of 26 km?

            once "read" a fat and thick book
            2.
            -4 zrdn military unit 40083 on about. Russian (distance from the border 78 kilometers), SAM S-200V, the flight of the reconnaissance aircraft SR-71 was quite a short time from 3 to 5 minutes, ONLY once it managed to appear suddenly, it was detected 100-105 km away, at altitudes from 24 km, from the air defense station (with an altimeter PRV- 17, the target was reliably detected, and with "tension", target designation was issued)


            Quote: Kassandra
            there db early A-12 pictures

            And?
            Show pictures of the "early" TU-22 and Tu-22M3?
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 35
              -1
              what did you see? how did you do it?

              without inflows, it was discovered much further, and therefore they were made.

              What does plastic honeycomb and Tu have to do with it?
              1. opus
                opus 11 March 2015 01: 17
                +1
                Quote: Kassandra
                what did you see? how did you do it?

                him, 71st
                fool

                Quote: Kassandra
                without inflows, it was discovered much further, and therefore they were made.

                And how much? It is possible without la-la only.

                It was difficult to escort (For С-200В), because of the high azimuthal speed (along the border), these are the features of the radar 200. and to detect the titanium "plate" Area under: 200 m² (only wing 141,1 m²) is not difficult

                Quote: Kassandra
                What does plastic honeycomb and Tu have to do with it?

                same as
                Quote: Kassandra
                there db pictures of the early A-12 that didn't have them yet,
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 11 March 2015 03: 49
                  -1
                  ... did you touch them with your hands? fellow

                  You can find it yourself. ESR SR-71 due to the influx has become smaller than that of the F-14,

                  How does adding moldings and spoilers to the airframe correlate with a completely different airplane?
                  1. opus
                    opus 11 March 2015 12: 12
                    +1
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    ... did you touch them with your hands?

                    touched in the museum. What next? I’ve touched the 71st, but what do you always touch with your hands?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    ESR SR-71 due to the influx has become smaller than that of the F-14,

                    nonsense. I myself personally did not give the Central Administration and escort to the 71st (as well as to the 18th), but I saw the notes and read the service notes.
                    1. The Sapphire-25 radar station at ranges of about 140 km gave the EPR value for the 71st about 19 m2, about the radar N004 "Zasalon" generally I’m silent
                    2. About full-time, ground-based air defense systems, generally shh.
                    Even during the Vietnam War, our S-75 air defense system was tasked with shooting down the SR-71. As a rule, the detection of a scout by the stations of the ONC division took place immediately before or after the target enters the firing zone, which was a narrow sector with Dmax of about 40 km and Dmin of 20 km, target tracking station captured the target at best, before her approach to the near boundary of the zone, firing after her was impossible.
                    I wrote about the S-200V (flight tables were compiled regularly, and this is for "invisibility", with EPR
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    smaller than the F-14



                    3. EPR F / A-18E / F = 1,2 m2, for F / A-18С / D EPR with suspension is in the region of 2,4 - 2,5 m², F-14 EPR in the area of ​​4-5,5 m2
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    How does adding moldings and spoilers to the airframe correlate with a completely different airplane?


                    1.Not moldings and spoilers.
                    2. You show me that 71 is a different plane compared to the Sr-12. I answer you (by example).
                    What are the problems? with an adequate perception of the world?
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 11 March 2015 16: 11
                      -1
                      Quote: opus
                      touched in the museum. What's next?

                      great! what else do you have for aviation?

                      Quote: opus
                      but he saw the notes and read the memos.

                      what was written on them in the upper right corner?
                      and F-14 then with its smaller EPR, in general, how was it detected?

                      you are in here about Tu-22 / Tu-22M3
                      "first flight" - they will write to you ...
                      such influxes are not an integrated power part of the airframe, such as on the F-16, on which they appeared immediately, unlike the A-12.
                      too lazy to look for a thick heavy book or type in Google "measures to reduce radar notices A-12", see immediately here:
                      http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/lockheed/a/12/a12.htm
                    2. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 12 March 2015 17: 16
                      -1
                      Threat. By the way, how did you feel a piece of the Motherland? These airplanes were made exclusively from Soviet titanium.
                      the link about A-12 is not written the whole truth, the influx was added after the first 3Max flights, and not after removing the radar signature on the training ground.
  • Santa Fe
    10 March 2015 08: 33
    +5
    beautiful car

    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 10 March 2015 11: 38
      +2
      The bottom photo was photoshopped using color filters.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 11: 54
      +5
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      beautiful car

      Yes, the car is beautiful and flies well.
  • 501Legion
    501Legion 10 March 2015 08: 45
    0
    Chinese aircraft of allegedly 5 generations are very doubtful that such are. looking at the J20 it’s not at all clear where the stealth is.
    1. opus
      opus 10 March 2015 12: 59
      +2
      Quote: 501Legion
      looking at the J20 it’s not at all clear where the stealth is.








      only PGO and a pair of ventral keels "interfere"
      1. Val_y
        Val_y 11 March 2015 02: 36
        0
        Well, anyway, I don’t believe in Chin stealth, negative in my opinion a 100% copy in horizontal projection 1.44 with alteration under, ... again, copies of the al-31fn engines, avionics along the way ... I'm French, so ... fellow
  • sso-xnumx
    sso-xnumx 10 March 2015 09: 12
    +2
    Russia needs "stealth"

    So what is in the way? Or who?
    1. FID
      FID 10 March 2015 09: 22
      +5
      There is no industry, and so ... We have a good aviation science!
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 10 March 2015 10: 56
        +1
        Why not? In 2014, only combat aircraft were delivered more than anyone else. True with all sorts of AWACS and EW trouble.
        1. FID
          FID 10 March 2015 11: 07
          +5
          Quote: patsantre
          In 2014, only combat aircraft were delivered more than anyone else.

          Considering that the Yak-130 can only be called conditionally combat (after all, this is a training aircraft, it was designed like that), all kinds of Su are made with outdated equipment and old, in the truest sense of the word, workers. I had this in mind when speaking of the absence of industry. And now, with a reduction in personnel (it should be borne in mind that in the charters of ALL JSCs, etc., etc. of enterprises, the main result of work is profit, and with a large number of personnel, the value of this profit decreases) oh, I do not like all this, oh don't like it ...
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 10 March 2015 11: 20
            +3
            Quote: SSI
            Su made on obsolete equipment and old, in the truest sense of the word, workers.

            My acquaintance Su-34 does, it’s not old, he says there are enough young people ... Although the equipment is yes, it’s old. They still do it using the plazo-template method ... I read that they switched to electronic digital modeling at KnAAZ.
            1. FID
              FID 10 March 2015 11: 37
              +4
              Quote: Nayhas
              My acquaintance Su-34 does

              You see, Novosibirsk and Irkutsk survived thanks to export to the dashing 90s. What about the Gorky factory? In Komsomolsk-on-Amur, electronic documentation, so what? In the city itself, the population is not very large, with whom to expand production? For the production (assembly and debugging) of supers, teams from 3 factories (from Voronezh, Kazan and Ulyanovsk) traveled to Kosomolsk. And for the T-50 assembly, even with electronic documentation, where do people come from? From Irkutsk or from Novosibirsk? So they have a job for themselves ... Something like this, but I'm more aware of citizens and long-distance and strategists, so ... everything can be ...
              1. gladcu2
                gladcu2 10 March 2015 17: 52
                +1
                Provide refugees from Ukraine with housing and work. They will be happy.
                But CNC and a monkey can be trained in 3 months. This is if, more complicated. And to do the same type of details, this is enough for a week.
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas 10 March 2015 18: 19
                +2
                Quote: SSI
                You see, Novosibirsk and Irkutsk survived thanks to export to the dashing 90s.

                Well, then NAPO named after Chkalov in Novosibirsk did not export ... They made the Su-24 and repaired the Su-15. Then, in the late 80s, they started making the Su-27IB (the ancestor of the Su-34), my friend studied at the aviation technical school and talked about boiling up when the on-board computer was compromised with the Su-27IB ... And that's all ... The Su-27IB did not go , the An-38 passenger tried to do, but it didn’t work, the situation was terrible, the people ran away because they didn’t really pay, they gradually finished the Su-34 (there were four buildings in the workshops), well, the salvage rental ... So I survived it is spoken against all odds ... Therefore, as it were, there are personnel, however, the equipment is old, the city is huge, there is someone to teach ...
              3. Gogia
                Gogia 14 March 2015 19: 55
                0
                Hello to Kazantsam!
          2. vladimir_krm
            vladimir_krm 10 March 2015 12: 08
            -1
            Oh well. Here http://kramtp.info/news/18/full/id=19198; photo report from KNAAPO. Check out the "old" equipment and "old" workers ...
            1. FID
              FID 10 March 2015 13: 07
              +4
              Quote: vladimir_krm
              photo report from KNAAPO

              I am sorry, but do not confuse the production of super and fighter ... You would still recommend the airbus workshop to look ... And, according to GSS reports, more than 100 planes were released, about 50 flies (this is taking into account Mexico and Aeroflot). The question is - where are the others? And why then do you need these photo stories? This is not KNAAPO, this is a dedicated production of GSS.
              1. vladimir_krm
                vladimir_krm 10 March 2015 13: 24
                0
                There is no rigid division of production at aircraft plants: the same equipment is used for the T-50. Like the average age of workers, you can determine from these images, and not from photos from secret workshops.
                "This is not KNAAPO, this is a dedicated production of SCAC"
                Well, yes, for the GSS, super-machines and young specialists were allocated, and the PAK FA rivet 90-year-old grandfathers on their knees ... I see ...
                1. FID
                  FID 10 March 2015 13: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir_krm
                  Well, yes, for the GSS, super-machines and young specialists were allocated, and the PAK FA rivet 90-year-old grandfathers on their knees ... I see ...

                  Imagine, the way it is. DSP KnAF CJSC "GSS" is translated as - final assembly shop of the Komsomolsk-on-Amur branch of the closed joint-stock company "Sukhoi Civil Aircraft". Separate accounts and all that ... Nonsense, but nevertheless, workers' salaries are different ...
          3. patsantre
            patsantre 10 March 2015 13: 05
            0
            There is no arguing with you. But then pictures of some plant flickered, in my opinion, Irkut, everything looked very good. Don't we have modern aircraft factories?
            1. FID
              FID 10 March 2015 13: 12
              +4
              Quote: patsantre
              Don't we have modern aircraft factories?

              Briefly - NO. Even the dedicated production for the construction of super-power in Komsomolsk cannot be called a full-fledged modern aircraft factory ...
              1. Val_y
                Val_y 11 March 2015 02: 58
                -1
                Ehh read your comments, and could not resist, I ask in advance generously and all that, but judging by the meaning of the comments, you either grumble or panic sad Speaking of benefits, you understand that if you want to steal, then they steal, and do not invest billions and trillions in new construction and development of new industries, as well as the creation and refinement of ALL new types of weapons and most importantly, new technologies. So, in my opinion (maybe I'm mistaken) theft cases are definitely present, BUT NOT MUCH (I know how it looks, I worked in the 90s on Odessa January, produced 250-ton cranes, now a full hap, at best, Juff's warehouse (CRANLOD workshop ) and the Poplavsky Institute (design bureau of the plant). But you started to rewind the 90s and return production. So ... everything is fine, work is moving, it may not be as fast as we would like, but ... do not forget that, almost the entire Western world is against (though there is a FOR, though less ...). So ... Once again ... hi
                1. FID
                  FID 11 March 2015 14: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: Val_Y
                  You either squeam or panic

                  To panic - I’m old, to grumble - yes, I have to, but I’ve been in aviation for more than 30 years ... Nobody has invested money with Poghosyan and before him. It’s only the crazy jingoistic patriots who can consider the superjet a domestic and breakthrough product. I go to aircraft factories, believe those impressions, because I have something to compare ...
  • uestlend
    uestlend 10 March 2015 09: 19
    0
    At the expense of advertising booklets, they are 100% right, they embellish and set such conditions that in reality they simply practically do not exist.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 10 March 2015 09: 27
    +1
    I read that if there is at least one disagreement in the development / decision-making group, then the quality of this very final decision is higher, there are fewer mistakes. In this case, the dissenting person may not be right. This is me about the author of the article "On Invincible Stealth" - it seems and it is clear that he is wrong, but once again read the advantages of stealth, too, does not hurt. But again, the majority will be against it, although how to submit an article is material. Actually it depends on the goal, the search for a type of truth is one thing, the interest of the public is another.
  • heruv1me
    heruv1me 10 March 2015 09: 43
    0
    can anyone know that we have the technology for manufacturing without a binding light for the cab?
    1. opus
      opus 10 March 2015 13: 19
      +1
      Quote: heruv1me
      can anyone know that we have the technology for manufacturing without a binding light for the cab?

      A non-binding lamp is polycarbonate (Organic glass or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA))
      PC technology is vacuum molding, hot vacuum molding technology

      More than 2M - it cannot "fly".
      Are there any speed records for the F-16 and F-22 based on 500 km and 1000 km?
      ====================================================================== =================


      untreated silicate hinged parts of lamps
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 March 2015 09: 57
    +4
    stealth technologies, as new requirements for modern technology are certainly needed. But at this stage of the technology level, I would not speak about the priority of this quality. There is the concept of stealth and for the sake of this parameter I sacrifice many other qualities of modern weapons systems. For example, f -22 and PAK FA ... the Raptor's concept is all subordinate precisely to stealth technology, to the detriment of maneuverability, versatility, etc. ... the PAK FA is all the other way around, over-maneuverability, versatility and speed are paramount, and stealth goes as an auxiliary property of this complex. That is, the view and opinions on the use of stealth technologies are different. For me, our manufacturers and inventors of weapons have a more balanced and reasonable position on such technologies. I repeat, due to the current level of technology, so far, stealth technology is not may be a priority, because you have to sacrifice many other vital parameters of weapons, which is unacceptable.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 10 March 2015 10: 09
      +1
      The concept of f22 - yes, in fact, almost all weapons - one, this is the first to see / find - the first to shoot / shoot down. So the Americans have created such a technique, there is not a single "balanced" enemy nearby. On the contrary, they have already created a multifunctional f35. "Very expensive", "cut", "ugly" - but what, who has something similar?
    2. Santa Fe
      10 March 2015 10: 11
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      Raptor’s whole concept is subordinated to stealth technology, to the detriment of maneuverability, versatility, etc.

      Arguing!
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 10 March 2015 10: 59
        0
        Although the Raptor has a very solid performance characteristics, in particular excellent speed and, to the surprise of many patriots, maneuverability, it is not adapted for work on the ground and does not have an OLS. This is from the obvious.
        1. tomket
          tomket 11 March 2015 10: 55
          +1
          Quote: patsantre
          very solid performance characteristics, in particular excellent speed

          To the surprise of many patriots of everything Western, in fact, the Raptor does not have such outstanding performance characteristics for an aircraft with such a takeoff weight. Firstly, the thrust-to-weight ratio turned out to be not so record-breaking as it was announced. Next, about speed. The speed is significantly limited by non-adjustable air intakes. Therefore, it loses in the range of subsonic speeds and those ranges that go beyond 1.5 m. The actual range was also significantly lower than that which was assumed based on the declared take-off weight of the aircraft. So, for example, the pilots of the Raptor were greatly surprised by the pilots of the Typhoons in close combat, although the advantage of the Raptor remained at a distance of ranged combat.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 March 2015 11: 28
        +2
        Arguing!
        easy ... let's look at the Raptor nozzles. They are narrowed and have a rectangular shape so that this particular shape of the nozzles gives less heat transfer and allows better dissipation of exhaust heat. But at the same time, these nozzles can move only in a vertical plane, which affects the maneuverability of the fighter Secondly, this is the lack of versatility of the F-22. I'm talking about work on ground targets. Third, I think, although the characteristics of both the PAK FA and the Raptor are hidden, the T-50 has better speed characteristics, if only because our designers knew some As a result, in air combat, I think the Raptor will not have superiority over the PAK FA due to its greater stealth, as it was said above, the F-22, however, like the F-35, always works with AVAKAS in a pair, as well as our T-50 with A-100. Accordingly, the concept of "first saw, first opened fire" does not work here. from howl better maneuverability and speed. And lastly, I would not forget about such a moment as the electronic warfare systems of fighters. And here the question is far from clear. Because what kind of electronic warfare systems are on the Raptor, what on the PAK FA and their capabilities no one knows. there may be a lot of surprises both from the amers and from our side. I do not think that only one electronic warfare system "Himalayas" is installed on the PAK FA, although little is known about it.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 10 March 2015 11: 39
          0
          by the way about nozzles ... I know that in Russia for PAK FA narrow nozzles are also developed in the manner of Raptorovsky, only they seem to work in all planes, and therefore super-maneuverability and high-speed characteristics will not suffer. But when they will be installed on the T-50 no information yet.
        2. patsantre
          patsantre 10 March 2015 13: 02
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          look at the Raptor nozzles. They are narrowed and have a rectangular shape so that it is this shape of the nozzles that gives less heat transfer and allows better heat dissipation of the exhaust. But at the same time, these nozzles can only move in the vertical plane, which affects the maneuverability of the fighter.

          Horizontal deviation is practically useless, all these spectacular maneuvers are done through pitch + roll. So here by.
          Quote: NEXUS
          Third, I think that although the characteristics of both the PAK FA and Raptor are hidden, the t-50 has better speed characteristics, if only because our designers obviously knew some of the technical characteristics of the opponent’s complex and designed the car with a backlog.

          Sorry, but your "think" here is of no interest to anyone, and the argument "look at them and do better" is ridiculous. As if the characteristics of the aircraft depend on the characteristics of the opponent, and not on our technical capabilities. Complete nonsense.
          Quote: NEXUS
          As a result, in an air battle, I think the Raptor will not have superiority over the PAK FA due to its greater stealth, as it was mentioned above, the F-22, however, like the f-35 always works with Avakas in tandem, as well as our t -50 with A-100.

          What is the result of this conclusion? The laws of physics do not apply to AWACS or what? A-50 will likewise detect raptors from a shorter distance than E-3 will detect PAK FA, precisely due to the EPR of the raptor and PAK FA. I'm not talking about the fact that it is far from always possible to provide support for AWACS aircraft (especially in Russia because of their small numbers), which, moreover, can be shot down.
          Quote: NEXUS
          Accordingly, the concept of "first saw, first opened fire" does not work here. And everything will be reduced to combat at close range,

          Another delusional conclusion, based unclear on what. What does it mean that the concept does not work, why should everything come down to melee? What will prevent them from launching rockets at each other, say from 100 km, unless of course they see each other at such a distance?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 10 March 2015 13: 24
            +1
            Horizontal deviation is practically useless, all these spectacular maneuvers are done through pitch + roll. So here by.
            dear, why did you get the idea that I was talking only about horizontal deviation? PAK FA nozzles change the angle in any degree, which can’t be said about the Raptor. So your conclusion is absolutely not for the cash register.

            Sorry, but your "think" here is of no interest to anyone, and the argument "look at them and do better" is ridiculous. As if the characteristics of the aircraft depend on the characteristics of the opponent, and not on our technical capabilities. Complete nonsense.
            First of all, here on the forum people share their thoughts and thoughts, and therefore my "think" is quite appropriate here. Besides, if you are not interested in my "think", why are you commenting on my post? them and do better, "then this strategy has been and will be relevant at all times. And I do not see any nonsense here, because it was this strategy that gave rise to the arms race in general.
            Another delusional conclusion, based unclear on what. What does it mean that the concept does not work, why should everything come down to melee?
            because taking into account the speed of fighters, electronic warfare systems, maneuvering techniques, and so on, it will reduce everything to a "dump for dogs".
            What will prevent rockets from launching each other, say with 100km
            Nothing will hurt. But I repeat for those who consider arguments that do not coincide with their delirium, I WOULD NOT FORGET ABOUT THE EW SYSTEMS INSTALLED ON THE PACK FA AND RAPTOR, AS WELL AS ON A-100 AND AWAXE. To all it is not you, I cannot to know exactly which electronic warfare systems with which characteristics are on these machines, and even more so which systems are on Avaxs and A-100. As a result of this, long-range combat may be, but whether it will be effective is a big question. And by this, there is no evidence yet that the American concept is true, based on my conclusions, I am of the opinion that Russia yskaya concept correctly. hi
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 10 March 2015 14: 26
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              dear, why did you get the idea that I was talking only about horizontal deviation? PAK FA nozzles change the angle in any degree, which can’t be said about the Raptor. So your conclusion is absolutely not for the cash register.

              Which does not negate the fact that, as already mentioned, the aircraft maneuver with pitch and roll, so vertical deflection is enough.
              Quote: NEXUS
              First of all, here on the forum people share their thoughts and thoughts, and therefore my "think" is quite appropriate here. Besides, if you are not interested in my "think", why are you commenting on my post? them and do better

              I meant that your "think" is not an argument.
              Quote: NEXUS
              With regards to "looking at them and doing better," this strategy has been and will be relevant at all times. And I don't see any nonsense here, because it was this strategy that gave rise to the arms race in general.

              It does not seem to you that when creating aircraft, the designers are trying to give their product the maximum possible performance characteristics with the available technological potential, and not "we will make it like a raptor but 200 km / h faster, so the raptor will fly 100 km / h and we will 300 and do not care, which can be 10 times faster. "
              Quote: NEXUS
              because taking into account the speed of fighters, electronic warfare systems, maneuvering techniques, and so on, it will reduce everything to a "dump for dogs".

              How does this cancel out the first-find-first-fire concept? How, tell me? Are the planes now detecting each other and simultaneously launching? Just like knights in the Middle Ages! All this only suggests that the BVB and the dog dump are in principle possible and should not be forgotten, but in no way diminishes the role of a powerful radar, stealth and long-range missiles that allow them to hit the enemy before he can do it.
              Quote: NEXUS
              AND ALSO ON A-100 AND AWAX

              And can you elaborate on electronic warfare systems on AWACS aircraft? wassat
              Quote: NEXUS
              To all not you, not I can not know which electronic warfare systems with what characteristics are on these machines

              In your imaginary wars, melee missiles are immune to electronic warfare?
              Quote: NEXUS
              , while there is no evidence that the American concept is correct, based on my conclusions, I am of the opinion that the Russian concept is more correct.

              And what is the evidence that the Russian concept is more correct? Well, besides your assumptions? It's about evidence. Here the Americans several wars in a row smashed the enemy air force (consisting, by the way, of our aircraft) to smithereens. Russian modern aircraft proved something at all, do not enlighten?
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 10 March 2015 14: 58
                +1
                Which does not negate the fact that, as already mentioned, the aircraft maneuver with pitch and roll, so vertical deflection is enough.
                that is, you are claiming that this nozzle design does not in any way impair the Raptor's maneuverability against the PAK FA? In other words, do you really think that the F-22 will fight the T-50 on equal terms in the "dog dump"? Based on the dynamics of fighter design, This can be seen especially well in comparison of 4th generation fighters, Russian fighters are much more maneuverable and this advantage in this indicator only grows against Western models. For example, our Mig-29, which was transferred to NATO as part of the German Air Force.
                It does not seem to you that when creating aircraft, the designers are trying to give their product the maximum possible performance characteristics with the available technological potential, and not "we will make it like a raptor but 200 km / h faster, so the raptor will fly 100 km / h and we will 300 and do not care, which can be 10 times faster. "
                of course you are right. But you do not take into account some points, such as the financial component of any project, for example. And besides, the enemy doesn’t also wait until they overtake him ... and nobody knows the TTX of the same PAK FA, and I won’t be surprised if they find themselves head and shoulders above the performance characteristics of the same Raptor. The difference between them is almost 20 years
                a dog dump is in principle possible and you should not forget about them, but in no way detracts from the role of powerful radar, stealth and long-range missiles, allowing you to hit the enemy before he can do it.
                and where did you see that I argued that the radar is not important or the battle at long or medium range is impossible?
                In your imaginary wars, melee missiles are immune to electronic warfare?
                It’s just that I talked about what should be taken into account in the air combat strategy of the EW system. Therefore, I said that as a result of this, the effectiveness of long-range combat is controversial.
                Here the Americans several wars in a row smashed the enemy air force (consisting, by the way, of our aircraft) to smithereens. Russian modern aircraft proved something at all, do not enlighten?
                To begin with, they, as you put it, defeated the enemy’s Air Force, which was poorly trained. And those pilots who were in the cockpits of our fighters very reminiscent of good aces. But remembering, say, Korea, Vietnam, where our pilots really fought against Amer , the bill was far from in favor of the USA lol As for the Russian aircraft ... Yugoslavia, the MIG-29 shot down the super-modern F-117 at that time, despite the fact that the air defense of this republic was destroyed, and the f-117 was considered invulnerable invisible.
                1. patsantre
                  patsantre 10 March 2015 15: 45
                  0
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  So you say that this nozzle design in no way impairs the Raptor’s maneuverability against PAK FA?

                  Very little.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  In other words, do you really think that the F-22 will fight the T-50 on equal terms in the "dog dump"?

                  I did not state this either. I think the T-50 will have an advantage, but there can be no certainty. Those who believe that the Raptor has problems with maneuverability are, to put it mildly, wrong.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  and where did you see that I argued that the radar is not important or the battle at long or medium range is impossible?

                  You have argued that the first-find-first-fire concept does not work. I don’t know how to nullify the advantage in the detection range and the range of destruction. It will take place anyway. So the concept is working.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  It’s just that I talked about what should be taken into account in the air combat strategy of the EW system. Therefore, I said that as a result of this, the effectiveness of long-range combat is controversial.

                  Almost all targets of American aircraft in modern wars were hit by AIM-120 missiles.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Yugoslavia, the MIG-29 shot down a super modern F-117 at that time.

                  What? Maybe we will not rush fiction?
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  To begin with, they, as you put it, defeated an enemy air force that was poorly trained.

                  This is yes.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  But remembering, say, Korea, Vietnam, where our pilots really fought against Amerov’s, the bill was far from in favor of the United States

                  I don’t know whose benefit the bill was in, but since then a lot has changed.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 10 March 2015 16: 02
                    0
                    What? Maybe we will not rush fiction?
                    what are these fictions when the case had a place to be and this is no longer a secret.
                    I don’t know whose benefit the bill was in, but since then a lot has changed.
                    I don’t have to equalize the professionalism of Amer’s pilots with Yugoslav or Iraqi. I gave you an example where Russian and American asss really converged. The bill there went several times. For every shot down Soviet fighter there were several Amerov’s. And this is a fact. Has something changed now? I think the professionalism of our pilots is at least not inferior to the American, and perhaps even superior.
                    1. patsantre
                      patsantre 10 March 2015 16: 53
                      0
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      what are these fictions when the case had a place to be and this is no longer a secret.

                      Who is not a secret? Is there any evidence? Lost Confirmed? The only confirmed and proven loss is a downed S-125th nighthawk. All other losses of the F-117 and B-2 - speculation and fiction, suitable only for posting in all kinds of tapes and trolling.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 04
                        -1
                        evidence must be notarized?

                        US Air Force recognizes the loss of at least 4 F-117
                        The list of losses of the US Air Force and NATO for local wars on the Internet is presented.

                        Is this your chtoli tape? bully
                    2. patsantre
                      patsantre 10 March 2015 16: 57
                      +1
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      . I gave you an example where the Russian and American asss really converged. The bill there went several times. For every shot down Soviet fighter, there were several Amerov fighters. And this is a fact.

                      I was not interested in losses in these wars. Are there any proofs, or conjectures again?
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Has something changed now? I think the professionalism of our pilots is at least not inferior to the American, and perhaps even superior.

                      And again speculation, moreover stinking stupid patriotism. The annual raid of American pilots today is 2 times higher than ours, the total is many times higher, and they also have combat experience and very well-coordinated coordination and interaction. Talking about the higher professionalism of our pilots is very stupid and naive.
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 10 March 2015 17: 44
                        +1
                        The only confirmed and proven loss is the downed C-125 nighthawk. All other losses of F-117 and B-2 - speculation and fiction, are suitable only for posting in all kinds of tapes and trolling.
                        dear, since when did the Americans confirm anything like this? In Yugoslavia, among other planes, 3 and NUMX were lost ... one of them was shot down by Gvozden Đukić - this is a combat alias used by Zoltan Dani during war ... and where does urapatriotizm and trolling?
                        I was not interested in losses in these wars. Are there any proofs, or conjectures again?
                        https://www.google.md/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ve

                        d=0CEcQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fairforce.ru%2Fstaff%2Fjet_aces%2Findex.htm&ei=gf3-V

                        MvTGczpUp-LgPgD&usg=AFQjCNHQ8uLkufkSMd5GTfMlGdN7qfhPQg&bvm=bv.87920726,bs.1,d.ZW

                        U here is the link, read it. There are also Kozhedub's memories.
                        And again speculation, moreover stinking stupid patriotism.
                        dear, maybe your patriotism and stinks. I am absolutely not ashamed of this feeling
                        The annual raid of American pilots today is 2 times higher than ours, the total is many times higher, and they also have combat experience and very well-coordinated coordination and interaction.
                        And you can ask in what conditions they flew this watch and against whom they fought? When these your super-duper asses decided to fly into the territory of at least the same Yugoslavia, at first all the air defense of this republic was very meticulously destroyed. And with whom did they fight? 13 in seconds?
                        Talking about the higher professionalism of our pilots is very stupid and naive.

                        "The magazine" Aviation and Cosmonautics "in 1998 published in its issue of an interview with an American instructor, who told that American pilots are forbidden to participate even in training battles of any nature with Su-27 aircraft at exhibitions, in demonstration performances or anywhere else The official reason was not named, but the instructor reluctantly said: “So that the pilots do not get psychological trauma.” Literally, this means one thing: not to be afraid of the superiority of Soviet aircraft. Even the ICAAS system (Integrated Control and Avionics for Air Superioriti ), allowing to synchronize the actions of a flight (four aircraft) in a battle against several air targets - did not help. Computer simulations showed that the Su-1992, even without a numerical superiority, is able to deal with the entire link of the F-27 with half the forces. "and MORE TO THIS SAME- "in 15, US Air Force Commander General Ralston, explaining the reasons for starting work on the F- 1995, bluntly stated: “I do not need any reconnaissance methods and a hundred agents in order to understand the superiority of the Su-22 over everything at our disposal. The F-27 is inferior to him in everything. In armament, thrust-to-weight ratio and maneuverability. This is not a hysteria in order to knock money out of the country, this is an established and well-known fact. ”“ But you and I understand that this is not only about the superiority of the machine itself. what THE MAIN WEAPON OF ANY FIGHTER IS A PILOT hi
                      2. patsantre
                        patsantre 10 March 2015 18: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Dear, since when did the Americans confirm anything like that?

                        Well, downed Zoltan confirmed the same.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        In Yugoslavia, in addition to other aircraft, 3 f117 were lost ... one of them was shot down by Gvozden Đukić - this is a combat pseudonym used by Zoltan Dani during the war ... where does urapatriotism and trolling?

                        How? There is evidence photo of downed aircraft? Or just statements by Serbs and Murzilka from yellow newspaper? You probably believe in the Apache shot down from a gun in Iraq? Proofs for downed planes will be or do we consider them your fiction?

                        Quote: NEXUS
                        And you can ask in what conditions they flew this watch and against whom they fought? When these your super-duper asses decided to fly into the territory of at least the same Yugoslavia, at first all the air defense of this republic was very meticulously destroyed. And with whom did they fight? 13 in seconds?


                        I did not say that the enemy was strong, but at least they have the experience of full-fledged military operations and interaction, many pilots are psychologically prepared. Unlike ours.
                        And again a link to the magazine. You can write anything. And fake quotes too. We have a former pilot, waf, sitting, and I’m sure he won’t share this opinion. So it’s better to give links to the source, and not to Murzil. If we were talking about computer modeling, did the Americans simulate the superiority of the F-22 over the Su-35 as 10 to 1. So do we take the simulation for the truth, or do you not like these numbers?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        The F-15 is inferior to him in everything. In armament, thrust and maneuverability.

                        At the expense of armaments, to put it mildly, cunning, but today we are generally significantly behind. In terms of avionics, the F-15 has always surpassed the Su-27.
                      3. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 10 March 2015 19: 00
                        +1
                        Or just statements from the Serbs
                        So you believe Amer’s tales, but don’t say Serbian words? Well then, the flag is striped in your hands ...
                        I did not say that the enemy was strong, but at least they have the experience of full-fledged military operations and interaction, many pilots are psychologically prepared.
                        what are they ready for? To beat a deliberately defenseless opponent? You save this nonsense for those who are looking into your mouth
                        And again a link to the magazine. You can write anything you want. And fake quotes too.
                        I will begin with the fact that this incident was, and the statement of US Air Force Commander General Ralston is a confirmation of this.
                        At the expense of armaments, to put it mildly, cunning, but today we are generally significantly behind. In terms of avionics, the F-15 has always surpassed the Su-27.
                        so this statement is not a jingo of Russian patriots, but General Ralston, the US Air Force commander. But I’m more than sure that you, as an expert, are much better at it than this general hi
                      4. patsantre
                        patsantre 10 March 2015 21: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        So you believe Amer’s tales, but don’t say Serbian words? Well then, the flag is striped in your hands ...

                        What do I believe in Amer’s tales? I believe what is proven. The loss of one F-117 is proven. The remaining losses are not only not confirmed, but there is no significant evidence. Or are you ready to provide them?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        what are they ready for? To beat a deliberately defenseless opponent? You save this nonsense for those who are looking into your mouth

                        The experience that they have is much better than the missing experience. That's better?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        I will begin with the fact that this incident was, and the statement of US Air Force Commander General Ralston is a confirmation of this.

                        Again, the link to the source will be?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        so this statement is not a jingo of Russian patriots, but General Ralston, the US Air Force commander. But I’m more than sure that you, as an expert, are much better at it than this general

                        I still would like to see the source. And I do not dispute the fact that the Su-27 had many advantages over the F-15, at some times even significantly superior. But a lot of time has passed. And we have gone far from the subject of the dispute, re-read the first comments.
                      5. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 10 March 2015 21: 29
                        0
                        The loss of one F-117 is proven.
                        how? did the Americans provide the photo and said that this f117 hit was shot down by Serbian air defense or the air force? You can present this evidence as much as you like. For me, the word of the Serbs is against the word of the Amers ... and for some reason I believe the Serbs more.
                        Again, the link to the source will be?
                        find it yourself ... I gave you the name and essence of the incident, and look for the English source yourself. I didn’t write Vasya Pupkin from the lower Zhmerenka ... but he gave the specific name of the American general.
                        And I do not dispute the fact that the Su-27 had many advantages over the F-15, at some times even significantly superior.
                        Drying always exceeded f-15, no need to invent ... our argument was about the professionalism of our and US pilots.
                        The experience that they have is much better than the missing experience. That's better?
                        COME ON laughing collapse with a whole NATO bloc on a weak republic with weak air defense and 13 = instantly, what do you call experience and a raid? Are you serious? Or take Iraq with the same problem as air defense and the air force ... I recall the address of the Serbs as a greeting, when Belgrade was bombed with impunity when meeting with the Russians ... they said hello instead of S-300 ... and I remember which high Washington raised, warning Moscow that these complexes were not delivered to Yugoslavia. This is not a combat experience, because the enemy was essentially nonexistent. The combat experience was in Vietnam, in Korea Where there were real battles, losing the helm and our MiGs were aces like their phantoms and seybronami amerovskie aces.
                      6. Santa Fe
                        10 March 2015 22: 19
                        0
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        did the Americans provide the photo and said that this f117 hit was shot down by Serbian air defense or the air force?

                        Serbs

                        F-117 and F-16 wreckage at the Aviation Museum in Belgrade
                        there is also an A-10 engine, a UAV Predator and a French radio-controlled toy hooked on tree branches



                        French UAV Sagem Crecerelle
                        Why exhibit such crafts, if you can put F-15? F-18? B-2 stealth bomber?

                        If the Serbs had debris of something more solid - they would undoubtedly put them on public display
                      7. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 00
                        -1
                        the wreckage fell mostly outside Serbia, and the Serbs exhibited not only these - this is a permanent exhibition.
                      8. Santa Fe
                        10 March 2015 23: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        wreckage fell outside of Serbia mostly

                        I agree +
                        Serbia - the size of a matchbox
                      9. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 11 March 2015 02: 07
                        -2
                        as with
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Serbs exhibited not only these - it is a permanent exhibition.
                        ?

                        the Allies made some kind of contribution - only a few tornadoes ... on one died the grandson of a famous German ace, entangled in a parachute in the lake.

                        Threat. in the USSR, the museum seems to contain only fragments of a Powers plane, although in total about 200 American and English aircraft were shot down over the USSR.
                        In Vietnam, count the exposure on the finger ... so what? the country needed aluminum for the national economy.
                        In Iraq, more than 50 F-16s were shot down, mainly during attacks on SAM systems - the Americans admit this ...
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 11 March 2015 01: 18
                  -1
                  not just a word - at least the same telemetry ... well, like for example, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation proved by marks of targets and radio signatures that there was a Su-25 in the crash area of ​​a Boeing.

                  and the wreckage of the Chinook with the remains of the groups that went to rescue the downed pilots to Serbia, these two undoubted trolls also interse?
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 12
              -1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Well then, the flag is striped in your hands ...

              and rainbow in ...
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 21: 00
            +1
            Quote: patsantre
            Well, downed Zoltan confirmed the same.

            Their confirmation was no longer necessary; he was lying on Serbian territory.
          3. Santa Fe
            10 March 2015 22: 08
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            he was on Serbian territory.

            And the rest of the "wounded" flew far?

            from Belgrade to the coast - 300 km, not all of them fell into the sea
          4. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 10 March 2015 22: 23
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And the rest of the "wounded" flew far?

            The farm and the wreckage will fit wassat Do you think the Serbs have gone far from Ukrainians?
            Oleg drinks something brings you lately request -Maybe better about the reactor? About your favorite moon tractor? wassat
          5. NEXUS
            NEXUS 10 March 2015 22: 30
            +1
            Do you think the Serbs have gone far from Ukrainians?
            do you think the Nazi battalions and the Serbian army can be compared? ... do you think that the Serbs attacked the NATO forces and bombarded Belglad, and they slaughtered whole villages of Albanians? In Yugoslavia, people fought with the aggressor and in Ukraine in the Donbas who regular troops are fighting Ukraine in your opinion?
          6. Santa Fe
            10 March 2015 22: 41
            0
            Quote: Ruslan67
            The farm and the wreckage will fit

            Where did the photo and video evidence go?

            The fall (and many hours of fire at the crash site) of the 30-ton aircraft - such an event could not go unnoticed. 1999 year, did the provision of Serbs with photographic equipment be like the peasants in the 19 century?

            Debris on the farm? strange, what the hell surrendered to them charred pieces of rubber and mangled duralumin. Frets, let them show the roof from the sheets of the sheathing B-52, boast

            alas and ah, not a single material evidence and eyewitness for 16 years ...

            By the way, what did the fragments of these ones not pull off?
            http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/201280-oblomki-chernyh-yastrebov-poteri-
            nato-v-yugoslavii.html
          7. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 10 March 2015 22: 46
            +2
            With humor, too, after battles it’s bad crying
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            was the provision of Serbs with photographic equipment like the peasants had in the 19th century?

            funny but there until the end of the 20th century, steam locomotives walked on the internal lines
          8. Santa Fe
            10 March 2015 22: 52
            0
            Quote: Ruslan67
            there until the end of the 20 century, steam locomotives walked on the internal lines

            in the Russian Federation are still massively traveling in Zhiguli

            How does this relate to the spread of iPhone smartphones among the Russian population?
          9. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 10 March 2015 22: 57
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            in the Russian Federation are still massively traveling in Zhiguli

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            how does this relate to the spread of iphone smartphones

            Lada are cheaper wassat But this is a vehicle. And iPhone ... Ponty is more expensive than money laughing
          10. Kassandra
            Kassandra 11 March 2015 02: 16
            -1
            were there many smartphones or cell phones with a camera at that time? or everyone who turned over the F-117 had a digital camera?

            there are many videos where they kicked the F-16?
            this guano was raining there, like bombs, in order, and it was not interesting to many on a dark night in the rain.

            on the nevdimik who fell in reach, some local flocked ...
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 23: 01
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And the rest of the "wounded" flew far?

    So it was about that which Zoltan shot down.
    The Americans on the resources come across information about wounded F-117.
    But I was always interested in the result of the use of F-117 in Iraq 2003 of the year, but in response to silence, as if there was none.
  • Santa Fe
    10 March 2015 23: 16
    +1
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    The Americans on the resources come across information about wounded F-117.

    "on one wing" request

    http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=se
    arch&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADA4695E8E4162&p_field_direct-0=
    document_id & p_perpage = 10 & p_sort = YMD_date: D & s_trackval = GooglePM # profF-117

    About the crash during landing caused by the possible consequences of combat damage: he barely flew whole.
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    But I was always interested in the result of the use of F-117 in Iraq 2003 of the year, but in response to silence, as if there was none.



    The 1991 year is much more interesting. Obviously, stealth then did not suffer losses, because:
    - The Iraqis did not provide the wreckage - Mikhail knows for sure, but someone may not know, in 1991, Operation Desert Storm, the occupation of Iraq was not carried out. The goal was the liberation of Kuwait. Stealth flew to bomb Baghdad, if they were shot down, they would have remained in Iraqi territory controlled by Saddam's troops.

    Alas, Not a single evidence

    - all the secret sooner or later becomes apparent (25 years have passed and there has already been more than one Snowden + lawsuits from the families of the dead pilots + human rights defenders + corrosive reporters) Alas, for a quarter of a century, there has been NO at least one oral evidence


    Regarding 2003, there was no army there already. Iraq was taken from the fly in two weeks. Otsbda logic: if Iraq’s most powerful air defense did nothing to the stealth at 1991, what could its remnants do at 2003?
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 11 March 2015 02: 37
    0
    did the Iraqis generally provide any debris in 1991?
    in 1991 the first stealth was shot down by them on the 2nd day of the war

    the goal of the Americans was, as always, when they delved into Iraq they didn’t hide it, but then they didn’t get it and then they pressed it with sanctions for 12 years (although Kuwait was already released).

    2003 is much more interesting, because they were shot down there in order, for both wars no less than 15 pieces.

    PS. and what reporters were supposed to make noise, these?
  • sivuch
    sivuch 11 March 2015 09: 34
    +2
    Yes, Saddam did not have any powerful air defense even in '91. About 2003 there is nothing to say
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 11 March 2015 15: 09
    -2
    maybe he still had no tanks at all?
    only F-16s were spent on Iraqi air defense about 50 pieces.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 11 March 2015 16: 09
    +1
    http://forums.airbase.ru/2015/01/t90884--irakskoe-pvo-91.html
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 11 March 2015 17: 15
    -1
    Is this a doc file with a virus written by a friend who has something to do with it?

    about the Israeli same link you will not throw off?
  • sivuch
    sivuch 12 March 2015 09: 42
    +1
    I wrote about Saddamitch’s air defense. I am very sorry if I didn’t notice the file with the virus. On the actual side, are there any complaints? I mean Iraq — in the part that about the USSR’s military air defense there may well be flaws, scratches and inaccuracies
    Saddam had tanks, but I did not think that they should be included in the number of air defense systems
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 12 March 2015 14: 14
    -1
    and you definitely had access to everything there?

    and then here the Bongo user does not know some things.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 11 March 2015 11: 57
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The 1991 year is much more interesting. Obviously, stealth then did not suffer losses, because:

    But the most impressive, perhaps, is the assertion that with only 2,5% of the total number of aircraft deployed in the Persian Gulf, F-117A hit about 40% of all strategic targets attacked by the Allies. Speaking later at a meeting in the US Congress, the commander of the Air Force of the multinational force in the Persian Gulf, Lt. Gen. Horner, based on these data, said that stealth aircraft, such as F-117A and B-2, would be indispensable in future local conflicts similar to the Gulf War.
    So 2,5% hit 40% of the targets, the generals are delighted, and suddenly in 2006-2008 all F-117s are withdrawn from service, some of them were only 15 years old. The youngest of the V-2 is now 16 years old, did not hear that they are written off.
    So why about F-117 on Yugoslavia a bunch of articles, on Iraq 1991-1999 a bunch of articles on Iraq 2003.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Alas, NO evidence
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 11 March 2015 00: 37
    0
    and you need to show everything and report on each?

    B-2 in Bosnia fell, she does not go to the coast ...
    Serbia is a small country, from Belgrade to the border less than 100km. they generally rarely flew into Serbia, shelling it from all sides.
  • yehat
    yehat 14 March 2015 12: 53
    0
    as for weapons, I think there was no guile. At the time he was speaking, we had an advantage in melee missiles. A formally existing range of cool long-range missiles was actually ineffective among the Americans and very expensive, which is why real firing was rare.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 10 March 2015 17: 01
    0
    But what has the "professionalism of the yugs" to do with it, when they had radars only up to 40 km, and many times outnumbered enemy groups shot them from afar without even entering the airspace of Serbia? one before he was shot down dodged at least 11 missiles - is that not professionalism?
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 10 March 2015 16: 58
    0
    significantly - you can compare the aerobatics of both cars and not flog nonsense.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 18: 02
      0
      Well, compare.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 18
        +1
        your opinion?

        except for an energetic slide, and at the very least - bells, the F-22 cannot do anything.

        maybe they just never watched Sukhov aerobatics?
        cobras, vipers, barrels ... controlled flat corkscrew?
  • opus
    opus 10 March 2015 16: 19
    +2
    Quote: patsantre
    And can you elaborate on electronic warfare systems on AWACS aircraft?

    Group defense electronic warfare aircraft do this, equipped with two main variants of the jamming system (AN / ALQ-99E and AN / ALQ-137)



    + passive jamming machines.




    EW on DRLJ (most) post silly ...
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 16: 58
      +1
      I talked about this.
  • tomket
    tomket 11 March 2015 11: 00
    +2
    Quote: patsantre
    Here the Americans several wars in a row smashed the enemy air force (consisting, by the way, of our aircraft) to smithereens.

    Given that the Iraqi Air Force retreated during both wars in the Gulf. The Libyan Air Force seems to have ceased to exist at the beginning of attacks on Libya. The Yugoslav Air Force was crushed by a huge numerical superiority. What else, will we disassemble the Taliban Air Force?
  • adept666
    adept666 11 March 2015 12: 33
    +2
    Horizontal deviation is practically useless, all these spectacular maneuvers are done through pitch + roll. So here by.


    It can also pass you by, because say nonsense, yet how useful. All these maneuvers are really done through pitch + roll, only you forgot about the accompanying limitations that such a nozzle helps to level, and if we are talking about near-zero speeds ...
  • adept666
    adept666 11 March 2015 12: 29
    +2
    But at the same time, these nozzles can only move in a vertical plane from which the maneuverability of a fighter suffers.


    This is not an argument, on the experimental Su-37 the nozzles also moved only in a vertical plane, however, he did not suffer from lack of maneuverability because all-angle nozzles are not super-maneuverability yet, but only part of it. The argument in this case is: a tangible loss of traction during the transition between a circular and a rectangular cross section + loss of traction when the flow vector changes, the round nozzle (when the flow vector changes) also has it. It is quite possible to make an all-perspective flat nozzle, but what wild draft loss will be quite expected in this case ... Therefore, everything is in the grip of compromises

    The second is the lack of versatility of f-22. I'm talking about working on ground targets.


    He knows how to work on ground targets, albeit specially made for him by means of this and not the most effective, but he knows how. Make a discount at the time of its creation ... it is already an old man. laughing

    Third, I think, although the characteristics and PAK FA and Raptor are hidden, the t-50


    Dynamic characteristics in different modes, depending on the design of the aircraft, can be better in one mode in one than in the other and worse in another mode. It will be possible to speak of some complete superiority only when at least second stage engines will appear.

    in which PAK FA has an undeniable advantage


    PAK FA is a new board, and the vulture is already a pensioner, and the very fact that new modern cars are still being compared with him suggests that the pangolin is even now very relevant, and when it appeared it was a serious threat.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 11 March 2015 16: 25
      +1
      PAK FA is a new board, and the vulture is already a pensioner, and the very fact that new modern cars are still being compared with him suggests that the pangolin is even now very relevant, and when it appeared it was a serious threat.
      they’re not comparing because of its relevance or uniqueness, but due to the fact that there’s nothing more to compare with. For example, the Raptor is the zero point from which we, the Chinese and Europeans, are repelled. And about the serious threat ... hmm ... maybe for he is a threat to the Papuans or Taliban, and for a more or less advanced air defense he is just a piece for breakfast.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 11 March 2015 16: 35
        0
        they moved in different planes relative to each other, they cannot be placed on the F-22 so obliquely due to the fact that they are flat.

        the scraper, on the contrary, before its last modification did not pose any threat, and PAX is older than it and slightly newer than T-10-1
        1. adept666
          adept666 11 March 2015 21: 06
          +1
          they moved in different planes relative to each other, they cannot be placed on the F-22 so obliquely due to the fact that they are flat.


          Who does he have? And sorry in what different planes ??? wassat

          the scraper, on the contrary, before its last modification posed no threat


          Ah ... well, yes of course laughing But our designers and the military have a slightly different opinion, not well if you said so it means.

          PAX is older than him and a little newer than T-10-1


          M ... in the Sukhoi Design Bureau and do not know about this campaign. Where did the firewood come from?
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 11 March 2015 23: 04
            -1
            any Russian or Soviet aircraft with such nozzles.
            in such - look at how OBT works on Su and MiGs

            did you personally communicate with them?

            and why do you have such a bad nickname?
            1. adept666
              adept666 12 March 2015 06: 27
              +1
              in such - look at how OBT works on Su and MiGs


              It is arranged differently at different sides. My post was about the experimental Su-37 (terminator), his nozzle deviated only in the vertical plane +/- 18 degrees (like F-22 +/- 20 degrees). Do not confuse with CLIVT on the MiG-29 OVT, MiG-35 and Su-35S they have an all-round axisymmetric nozzle.

              did you personally communicate with them?


              Yes, there are friends.

              and why do you have such a bad nickname?


              So that the enemies are afraid am
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 12 March 2015 06: 56
                -1
                Yes, I just don’t confuse it - not in the vertical but in one, each engine has its own.

                what smokers - LM?

                Well, what if the boss is interested? on the Far East such nicknames hang on garbage trucks.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 12 March 2015 08: 36
                  0
                  what smokers - LM?


                  Do not smoke, lead a healthy lifestyle.

                  Well, what if the boss is interested?


                  Which boss? Exhale already.

                  on the Far East such nicknames hang on garbage trucks.


                  And people like you hang on what? smile

                  Yes, I just don’t confuse it - not in the vertical but in one, each engine has its own.


                  wassat What is it like? one in the vertical deviated the other in the horizontal? laughing nonsense please do not project on this resource.

                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 12 March 2015 16: 40
                  0
                  there was a hint of a firm

                  there is no one in the oblique (in neither vertical, nor horizontal), and the second in the other oblique is mirrored to the meeting.

                  such...

                  Do not write your own here.
                3. adept666
                  adept666 12 March 2015 20: 36
                  +1
                  there was a hint of a firm


                  I understood. There was a reciprocal allusion to a healthy lifestyle. wink

                  there is no one in the oblique (in neither vertical, nor horizontal), and the second in the other oblique is mirrored to the meeting.


                  wassat You are able to explain normally laughing So they would have written that the rotation axes are offset from each other by an angle of 32 degrees (each relative to the longitudinal axis by 16 degrees). Then I would immediately understand what you are talking about, namely, the Su-30MKI and Su-30SM (and they were made so as to add an additional impulse through the yaw and roll channels), but it was about the Su-37, and he nozzles moved synchronously or differentially in parallel vertical planes. And your photo is not Su-37 yes And on mine it’s just him. As for the rectangular nozzle (with which the conversation began), it is just as possible to deploy technical obstacles for this along the longitudinal axis. However, this is not necessary and this is due to the design features of the raptor glider (the engines are not spaced apart as dry and therefore such a turn to each other is not possible), and not with a rectangular nozzle.

                  such...


                  Informative laughing But brevity, as you know, the sister of the same)))

                  Do not write your own here.


                  Yes, God forbid, if someone reasonably pokes his nose, I admit my mistake and go quietly to the corner to relive my shame. Just until it's you tongue
                4. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 12 March 2015 21: 02
                  0
                  I had it written briefly and "Su-37" was not written.
                  they will not fit into the F-22 because there are just technical obstacles in the dimensions of the nozzles themselves for this.

                  it looks like your room is round or all the corners are busy ...
                5. adept666
                  adept666 12 March 2015 21: 29
                  0
                  I wrote it short


                  You have written illiterate, or rather wink

                  and "Su-37" was not written.


                  Ahah type got out? Let me remind you, if memory brings you to what my comments are and what you answered:

                  I:This is not an argument, on an experimental Su-37 the nozzles also moved only in a vertical plane, however, he did not suffer from lack of maneuverability because all-angle nozzles are not over-maneuverability yet
                  you:
                  they are at it moved in different planes relative to each other, on F-22 to place them so obliquely does not work due to the fact that they are flat.

                  I:At whom it? And sorry in what different planes ???
                  you:у any Russian or Soviet aircraft with such nozzles.
                  in such - look at how OBT works on Su and MiGs

                  I:It at different sides arranged differently. My post was about the experimental Su-37 (terminator) his nozzle was deflected only in the vertical plane ... Do not confuse with CLIVT on the MiG-29 OVT, MiG-35 and Su-35S they have an all-angular axisymmetric nozzle.
                  you:Yes, I just don’t confuse it - not in the vertical but in one, each engine has its own.


                  they will not fit into the F-22 because there are just technical obstacles in the dimensions of the nozzles themselves for this.


                  Yes, there are no obstacles in the nozzle dimensions, the engines are there close to each other, if the engines are placed on the Su-30Mki, then it will not be possible to reduce the nozzles like this smile

                  it looks like your room is round or all the corners are busy ...


                  Do not flatter yourself, your knowledge is not enough to put me in a corner bully
                6. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 12 March 2015 22: 04
                  0
                  It was written correctly, and you get out here.

                  if the flat nozzle is set obliquely, then this will make the section of the tail section of the fuselage in the form of a beech "L" or "V", so this will not work.
                7. adept666
                  adept666 12 March 2015 22: 10
                  -1
                  It was written correctly, and you get out here.


                  You commented on posts about the Su-37 to which more than once I drew your attention. Therefore, your:

                  there is no one in the oblique (in neither vertical, nor horizontal), and the second in the other oblique is mirrored to the meeting.


                  It’s not at all right, because it has nothing to do with the Su-37 wink

                  if the flat nozzle is set obliquely, then this will make the section of the tail section of the fuselage in the form of a beech "L" or "V", so this will not work.


                  \\ _ // What does this option not suit you? wink
                8. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 12 March 2015 22: 18
                  0
                  I wrote something about
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  look at how OBT works on Su and MiGs

                  moreover, not to you.

                  stand in the nearest corner or walk around agent665, no matter which way.
                9. adept666
                  adept666 12 March 2015 22: 35
                  0
                  I wrote something about


                  It’s not good to take it out of context, one might say no gentlemanly negative Moreover, I just answered you the following:

                  It is arranged differently on different sides. My post was about the experimental Su-37 (terminator), its nozzle was deflected only in the vertical plane ... Do not confuse with KLIVT on the MiG-29 OVT, MiG-35 and Su-35S they have an all-round axisymmetric nozzle.


                  And you tell me this:

                  Yes, I just don’t confuse it - not in the vertical but in one, each engine has its own.


                  Why are you changing your shoes so ugly now? Just admit that you were mistaken ... who doesn’t happen to? wink

                  moreover, not to you.


                  And to deceive is even worse, even looking at the hierarchy of the tree of posts (not to mention the meaning of comments), you can see whose post you commented on.

                  stand in the nearest corner or walk in a circle


                  Today these activities are for you. lol
                10. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 12 March 2015 22: 51
                  0
                  ... and now to another.

                  you change shoes, get on with the Su-37, then they were deployed on it (at first in the wrong direction), then it crashed.
                  Nexus post, take a closer look.
                11. adept666
                  adept666 13 March 2015 05: 37
                  0
                  you change shoes, get on with the Su-37, then they were deployed on it (at first in the wrong direction)


                  laughing Those. dry engineers have never heard of dry resistance? The Su-37 for the yaw channel used a mismatch in engine thrust. Enough to fool around already.

                  then it crashed.


                  Crashed with ordinary nozzles. In addition to UVT, many more experiments were carried out on it, for example, there was no classical RUS on it.

                  Nexus post, take a closer look.


                  Yes, only if you read his comment and yours, there is no logical connection and reminds you: first: hello! second: yeah, the sun is shining laughing But if you read mine (well, the one to which the Nexus answered) and yours, then everything is logical. We assume that this allowed you to otmazatsya. Offer Peace Friendship Chewing gum)))
                12. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 13 March 2015 10: 28
                  0
                  someone else didn’t hear about the oblique

                  with which ordinary? ... and how long will the same ones turn?

                  maybe it’s such that someone has too proud a little maneuver to take everything at his own expense? bully
                13. adept666
                  adept666 13 March 2015 11: 51
                  0
                  someone else didn’t hear about the oblique


                  On the Su-37, no, I have not heard, apparently you secretly deployed them from everyone in the order of the experiment, but then whatever the child would have fun)

                  with which ordinary?


                  With conventional - this means without a swivel, that is, without a UVT cap!

                  ... and how long will the same ones turn?


                  Generally certainly not fast. Do you think that you can easily take and turn the nozzle on the ODA. angle? And to compensate for the dynamic loads of the outflowing jet on the nozzle walls at the turning point, and to extinguish striking impulses through various channels (in this case, yaw and roll), and to change the engine attachment points on the fuselage (with a change in the attachment design) taking into account the arising loads on the glider? smile

                  maybe it’s such that someone has too proud a little maneuver to take everything at his own expense?


                  The hint is understood, recorded and sent to the archive, I repent recourse there is a slight craving for greatness, but there is nothing to be done about it. But in this case it was guided exclusively by logic yes , your answer is more the answer to me than to the Nexus, for what you wrote about, he did not even comment, but I commented laughing
                14. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 13 March 2015 17: 14
                  -1
                  both of you didn’t hear, otherwise you would have driven right away.
                  answer to the Nexus (he was unheard of too).

                  somewhere a week went by, with all the approvals, they asked for two. ask your friends why.
                15. adept666
                  adept666 13 March 2015 18: 04
                  0
                  both of you didn’t hear, otherwise you would have driven right away.


                  laughing

                  somewhere a week went by, with all the approvals, they asked for two.


                  Have you personally participated? good And how many hours, minutes, seconds?
                16. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 13 March 2015 18: 24
                  -1
                  that is, people consciously composted the brain here? bully

                  is it so significant? could have been faster ...
                17. adept666
                  adept666 13 March 2015 19: 51
                  0
                  that is, people consciously composted the brain here?


                  Yes, I'm such a villain. I like to troll dreamers. smile

                  is it so significant? could have been faster ...


                  Of course, you can still milliseconds for fidelity.
                18. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 13 March 2015 22: 18
                  0
                  badly... am
                  However, the nexus in such trolling is also seen.

                  standards for this with similar accuracy are not developed.
  • adept666
    adept666 11 March 2015 20: 59
    0
    compare not because of its relevance or uniqueness, but due to the fact that there is nothing more to compare


    Come on? It still has the best engines in its class in its class, the most powerful radar and, obviously, the lowest ESR yet. At the same time, it has sufficient maneuverability (not outstanding of course). Which of these is not relevant today?

    And about the serious threat ... hmm ... maybe for the Papuans or the Taliban it is a threat, and for a more or less advanced air defense, it’s just a piece for breakfast.


    I'm embarrassed to ask, who has that very advanced air defense? And what do you understand by the term "advanced"? If such a board of the PAK FA or Raptor type will go to the night vision device in silence mode and passively collecting radiation data, then believe me - this is a problem for any air defense. It is possible to counteract such an infection only in a complex: deeply echeloned ground air defense + AWACS aviation + air defense aviation. And yes ... now no one in the world has such an echeloned complex, so the presence of about 150 such vehicles from the enemy is at least a reason to think.

    Say the Raptor is the zero point from which we repel both the Chinese and the Europeans.


    Of course, because they always compare with the best samples. So far, only the PAK FA was able to step beyond the performance characteristics of the vulture, but it is not significant, but the difference between their first take-offs is about 20 years. 20 years to keep the bar and a little lose to a modern aircraft, and even then only for one (maybe 10-15 years will remain), the result is excellent. Of course, the incident still intervened here - the collapse of the USSR ... the main competitor was lost, but nonetheless ...
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 11 March 2015 23: 37
      +1
      I'm embarrassed to ask, who has that very advanced air defense system? And what do you understand by the term "advanced"?
      Well, unlike you, I didn’t talk about layered air defense. But let’s say, the C-400 installations, set up somewhere in a country where the Americans decide to promote their democracy, will completely deprive these fighters of the desire to fly in this region ... and the question of the exclusivity of these fighters ... well then they were discontinued do not tell me, dear?
      Of course, because they always compare with the best samples.
      yes no ... the point is not that the best example. But that it is the only one from the 5 generation.
      So far, only the PAK FA was able to step beyond the performance characteristics of the vulture, but not significantly,
      Oh how what But I'm interested, do you know the real performance characteristics of these machines? laughing then enlighten the dark
      Of course, the incident still intervened here - the collapse of the USSR ... the main competitor was lost, but nonetheless ...
      as far as I know, the Soviet Socialist Republic in 90, when no one really knew about the Raptor, the fifth-generation fighter is the MIG-1.14. So the exclusivity of the Raptor is not as obvious as you are trying to describe here. I'm not saying that the Raptor is bad ... but it has one significant minus that more than covers all its advantages, it is its price, as well as the cost of operation.
      1. adept666
        adept666 12 March 2015 07: 09
        +2
        well I unlike you n
        He didn’t talk about layered air defense. But let’s say, S-400 installations set up somewhere in a country where the Americans decide to promote their democracy will completely deprive these fighters from hunting in this region ...


        If you do not have a layered air defense, then at least the S-100500 put your air defense open and crush and do it beautifully and elegantly. Do you seriously think that several S-400 divisions are capable of repelling a massive air raid from several directions? Moreover, which will take place after a preemptive missile strike? The S-400 is one of the best air defense systems to date, but if the air defense is only an object-like system and if there is no air defense component, it does not pose a special threat to the enemy. And ... S-400 in sufficient quantity, unfortunately, is not even present with us, and when the vulture appeared in our missile defense / air defense system, it was simply terrible and therefore for us it was not just a serious threat, but a serious one.

        .and to the question of the exclusivity of these fighters ... well then they were removed from production, do not tell me, dear?


        Expensive in production and difficult to operate (which also leads to higher prices). At the same time, excess performance characteristics for local wars (Aborigines can also be shot from cheaper cars), and most importantly, zero export prospects (even the United States could not purchase as much as they wanted initially).

        yes no ... the point is not that the best example. But that it is the only one from the 5 generation.


        The division into generations is basically arbitrary and when aircraft are compared, the performance characteristics are compared, and not what generation the board belongs to. F-35 is also of the 5th generation, however, serious experts do not compare the PAK FA with it, everything is somehow Su-35S.

        Oh, how what and I'm interested in, do you know the real performance characteristics of these machines?


        F-22 exclusively from open sources and opinions of KnAAPO specialists. As for the PAK FA, even its creators do not know its real performance characteristics, because the car is still being sawed.

        as far as I know, the Soviet Socialist Republic was 90, when no one really knew about Raptor, the fifth generation fighter was MIG-1.14. So the raptor’s exclusivity is not as obvious as you try to describe here


        I don’t know what kind of fighter MIG-1.14 it is, unfortunately, therefore I can’t say anything about it, but if you were sealed and meant MiG-1.44 MFI, which existed in only one flight instance and was empty fuselage with unfinished engines by resource. For the first time, a machine touched the sky with wings. By this time, about a dozen pre-production vultures had already flown. In addition, the IFIs no longer met the requirements for 2000th generation machines in the field of stealth, which, after much debate, came to our experts.

        this is its price, as well as the cost of operation.


        The price of PAK FA will also not be small (this is a fee for innovation), since only the preparation of mass production of components for it is from dozens of new technological lines (which, by the way, are still being finalized).
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 12 March 2015 07: 25
          0
          even serious amateurs never compare the Su-35S with the F-35 or the JAS 39NG, like Rafal and the MiG.
          1. adept666
            adept666 12 March 2015 08: 56
            +1
            even serious amateurs never compare the Su-35S with the F-35 or the JAS 39NG, like Rafal and the MiG.


            Apparently you are a very serious amateur, even a pro, with what is a guru like you comparing the Su-35S?
  • yehat
    yehat 14 March 2015 12: 47
    0
    there is still a very important parameter - fuel supply and time, range. The raptor achieved its performance characteristics due to the fact that the fuel supply is far from outstanding.
    And this limitation directly affects the ability to implement a new level of performance characteristics.
    It seems to me that this significantly limits it, unlike the T50
  • Hyppopotut
    Hyppopotut 10 March 2015 10: 44
    0
    In general, what kind of aircraft do you need "stealth" technologies for?
    For a fighter-interceptor, this is not at all a necessary complication and rise in price of the structure.
    For a long-range strategic bomber? - also not very. Well, they’ll catch a hunt about 500 km from the enemy’s territory. He has no task to enter the enemy’s air defense zone! Well, while they prepare the anti-aircraft complex or lift the interceptors - and he has already gone to the opposite course, firing cruise missiles. Even a supersonic fighter can be caught up at best through a thousand kilometers. And what is the range of the interceptor?
    Close-up bombers and attack aircraft? - Maybe. But given the short approach time and high speeds of this class of vehicles, the stealth of the "stealth" in this case is "the gun from which they shoot at sparrows."
    My not the most authoritative opinion "stealth" is a weapon for waging aggressive wars against an enemy with a weak (outdated) air defense system. Such as Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia ..
    But think about how much stealth is more expensive than a conventional fighter? Somewhere in order. So it is moved by the military-industrial lobby of our overseas sworn friends ...
    No, I absolutely do not deny the need for technologies of "low visibility", but it is not worth stamping them on all military equipment (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, tractors ... laughing )
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 17: 02
      +2
      And why fighter and fighter bombers bypassed? It is in them that stealth is used in most cases.
      Quote: Hyppopotut
      For a fighter-interceptor, this is not at all a necessary complication and cost of construction

      If you mean the MiG-31 - maybe.
      Quote: Hyppopotut
      For a long-range strategic bomber? - also not very.

      Very much. You can go into the defense more deeply, strike further and break through the air defense.
      Quote: Hyppopotut
      But think about how much stealth is more expensive than a conventional fighter? Somewhere in order.

      An order of magnitude - this is 10 times. In fact, we are talking about a rise in the cost of approximately 15 percent.
    2. Assistant
      Assistant 10 March 2015 21: 18
      +2
      In general, what kind of aircraft do you need "stealth" technologies for?


      For fighters gaining superiority in the air and front-line fighter-bombers, as soon as one of the measures to ensure advantages in aerial combat.
      I repeat what is written on the VO forum:
      At the forum http://malchish.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=685&start=120, this issue was examined in detail. And the following considerations were expressed there:
      1)
      In the absence of interference, a decrease in the detection range is proportional only to the fourth root of the ESR reduction, therefore the advantage of stealth aircraft is very slight: without interference, a decrease in the ESR by a factor of 1000 reduces the detection range by only 1000 ^ (1/4) ~ 5,62 times compared to with an ordinary airplane.

      2) but
      But with the correct formulation of the interference, a decrease in the detection range becomes proportional to the square root of the EPR reduction, the very law of the change in the detection range from the EPR changes, this is a huge advantage: with the correct formulation of the interference, the EPR reduction reduces the detection range by a factor of 1000 ^ 1000 ^ (1/2) ~ 31,62 times compared with a conventional aircraft covered by the same electronic warfare equipment and even more compared to a conventional aircraft not covered even by electronic warfare.

      The derivation of the formulas is in the source.
      SGA has a great practice of using electronic warfare aircraft in combat conditions. Allocating airborne electronic warfare escort aircraft is a typical American practice. And the manufacturer AN / APG-77 and AN / APG-81 claims that these radars as a whole can be used, among other things, for jamming. And this means that there is no need to give individual EW aircraft flying to the mission - a couple of their fighters will play their role, constantly changing at random intervals. This is so that the anti-radar missile is not brought into the jammer.
      Sworn friends blur the line between aircraft for various purposes. The dinosaur is going to be launched into an air battle, like a tag. But in addition to performing its direct functions, it will also work as an EW aircraft, and as a mini-AWAC, at least for its link. Similarly, a penguin is not only a replacement for a falcon, but also EW, and mini-AWACS, and a plane mapping the surface. And also a data transfer bus that allows the exchange of tactical information to the level of re-targeting aircraft in real time. All this leads to an increase in the versatility of aircraft in combat missions. When destroying an aircraft that performs one of the functions, another aircraft will take its place, and the function will be performed.

      My not the most authoritative opinion "stealth" is a weapon for waging aggressive wars against an enemy with a weak (outdated) air defense system. Such as Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia.


      And who in the world of air defense is fundamentally better? One or two of such countries, and miscalculated, and from them you can get vigorous-loaves.
      And against Yugoslavia, the SGA had an advantage not overwhelming, but overwhelming.

      But think about how much stealth is more expensive than a conventional fighter? Somewhere in order.


      Unfortunately, by an order of magnitude. Maximum - several times. But if we compare it with modern modifications of traditional aircraft, stuffed with the same electronic buns as "stealth", the difference will be even less.
      One thing is good - the development program is expensive. Although they are all expensive now ...
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 11 March 2015 01: 24
        0
        the falcon penguin will never replace - not that avionics, that is, aerodynamics.

        with proper jamming, conventional planes get an advantage.
        by the way rebuild from interference. it is also possible to interfere with aircraft, and it will be easier for the carrier than for the flying one.
        1. Assistant
          Assistant 11 March 2015 11: 52
          +1
          with proper jamming, conventional planes get an advantage.


          Especially on this issue:
          this is a huge advantage: with the correct formulation of interference, reducing the EPR by a factor of 1000 reduces the detection range by 1000 ^ (1/2) ~ 31,62 times compared with a conventional aircraft covered by the same electronic warfare equipment

          Stealth technology fully reveals its potential precisely with the use of electronic warfare.

          it’s also possible to interfere with airplanes, and it will be easier for the carrier than for the flying


          Of course. That is why, according to the American concept of the use of aviation, ground enemy air defense must be destroyed before aircraft enter the enemy airspace. Ideally, completely, in real life - as a single system. An example for Yugoslavia: it was the state’s air defense system that was destroyed by the first blow. The remaining air defense equipment provided only occasional resistance. With the recognition of morale and skill of the Yugoslavs: 2 downed planes - this is at the level of statistical error. They really were not given anything to do.

          falcon penguin will never replace


          This is if they put radar and OLS on the falcon like a penguin. And since both the falcon and the penguin produce LM, the question is: will they put AN / APG-81 on the falcon? That's the same.
          And with AN / APG-81 this is a completely different aircraft when used according to the American concept of "hitting from an invulnerable position".
          One thing pleases - the penguin is much more expensive to operate.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 11 March 2015 15: 35
            -2
            EPR is an EPR - it does not decrease from interference.

            technology reveals its potential in products, electronic warfare detects the fact of intent

            where did they get about 2 planes? the yugs really shot down somewhere at least 30

            penguins fly underwater and not in the air.
            1. Assistant
              Assistant 11 March 2015 22: 09
              +1
              where did they get about 2 Aircraft? the yugs really shot down somewhere at least 30


              Evidence in the studio. I will be glad for the Yugoslavs.

              EPR is an EPR - it does not decrease from interference.


              EPR is the same. But to us, the EPR itself is a blue star. It is important for us the distance from which the aircraft from our EPR is taken to escort the radar with a maximum diameter meter located under the nose cone of the enemy fighter.
              If active interference at the radar operating frequency is not placed next to the target, the detection range is proportional only to the fourth root of the EPR.
              If active interference at the radar operating frequency is placed next to the target, and the interference power in the frequency range of the enemy radar exceeds the power of the signal reflected from the target by orders of magnitude, then the reflected signal should be much more powerful. And in this case, it is proportional to the root of only the second degree from the EPR of the aircraft.
              Matan in the source: http://malchish.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=685&start=120. Constructive dialogue is attached.

              penguins fly underwater and not in the air


              Pratt & Whitney F135 weighing 1701 kg and a thrust of 124,6 kN (191,35 kN maximum) + EMDS work wonders.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 11 March 2015 23: 25
                -1
                studio in the country of fools ... as if a repeat - where did they get about 2?

                when Goering bombed Britain on a square in London was all that was shot down exposed?

                it is necessary to multiply with EPR where it is necessary to add. these interference direction finding

                EDSU works wonders on the Su-27 and a little on Gripen.
                the F-35 has a significantly worse thrust ratio than the F-22, which does not show any special miracles in comparison with them.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 10 March 2015 10: 45
    +9
    In a serious article, you should not use Wikipedia material - there is a lot of inaccurate and completely contrived, because ordinary users add material there, copying, often thoughtlessly, data from the network. Better to use specialized resources and reference books. And who is interested in stealth technologies not based on Hollywood films, I recommend the book by the father and ideological inspirer of this whole direction of the Soviet scientist Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev - "The method of edge waves in the physical theory of diffraction." Ufimtsev proves there that it is impossible to make an aircraft completely invisible to the Rada, and even if its EPR = 0, then there is an effective method for detecting such an aircraft. The book also outlines the mathematical concept of a stealth aircraft, which was later implemented in metal in the form of the F-117. Later Ufimtsev emigrated (lured in the 90s) to the United States, where he collaborated with Northrop Grumman on the development of the B-2.
  • patsantre
    patsantre 10 March 2015 11: 12
    +3
    Here is a link from the same site to the characteristics of Irbis, about which Oleg for some reason modestly kept silent. Irbis is really more powerful than the APG-77, although not to say that much. However, AFAR more than compensates for this advantage. It is unfortunate that not a single plane or ship of the Russian Federation still has an AFAR, while in the west such samples of equipment have been located for the second decade.
    On the other hand, Oleg modestly kept silent about the obviously lower ESR of the raptor compared to the T-50, so as not to cause the righteous anger of the patriots and to avoid exclamations about the pro-American article. Nevertheless, the above fact is obvious, in the T-50 they often cost half measures, using instead of bending the air intakes, radar blockers, the absence of an engine with flat nozzles, etc.
    This is obvious without even understanding the design of aircraft. The Americans have much more experience and experience in stealth technology, and it is their priority, the T-50 implies a more balanced concept with better performance characteristics.
    Well, whose path is more true we cannot know. The effectiveness and usefulness of stealth is confirmed by the fact that everyone went this way: the Americans develop all their combat aircraft based on stealth, to a lesser extent this applies to our PAK FA and PAK DA, FGFA, as well as all 5th generation fighter projects which at least have China, South Korea, Turkey and Japan.
  • Crabio
    Crabio 10 March 2015 11: 21
    0
    Article plus. We need a sober head and adequate assessments in everything, without unnecessary hat-making.
    I even think that it’s better to overestimate the enemy than to underestimate ....
  • RomanS
    RomanS 10 March 2015 11: 23
    0
    Where contact fighting is taking place, weapons and techniques developed 40-50 years ago are still effective. New types of weapons are used only with absolute confidence in the absence of a blasting fire. Where did f 22, f35, b2 fight? In wartime conditions, the main qualities of aviation are survivability, maintainability, low price and a short technological cycle. Therefore, to talk about the effectiveness of stealth technology, this is how to compare iPone and a button mobile phone. Both can call, but if dropped ...
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 13: 12
      +1
      Quote: RomanS
      Where f fought

      And where were they needed?
      Quote: RomanS
      f35

      It is not even adopted.
      Quote: RomanS
      b2

      Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya. He fought everywhere.
      You think in patterns of 50-100 years ago. Now wars are much more transient, and factories will be the first to be hit. The technique is much more complicated and in any case will be produced many times longer than then. Nobody has time to rivet anything during the war.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 14: 49
        -1
        Quote: patsantre
        And where were they needed?

        In Iraq, the Alahakbar could not be bombed without them.
        Quote: patsantre
        Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya.

        It remains only to plane pirates bomb the plane cost of an aircraft carrier.
        It’s strange how it turns out, the F-22s were not needed, but the B-2s were needed.
        Maybe it’s just that they didn’t have any sense of modernization until the F-22 was?
        B-2 was present in these conflicts for only one purpose, at least to somehow explain to the American taxpayer the meaning of their existence.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 10 March 2015 18: 19
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          In Iraq, the Alahakbar could not be bombed without them.

          What? What could not?
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          It’s strange how it turns out, the F-22s were not needed, but the B-2s were needed.

          This is strange for you. In fact, they have completely different tasks, and there is nothing strange. The capabilities of the F-22 were not needed there.
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          B-2 was present in these conflicts for only one purpose, at least to somehow explain to the American taxpayer the meaning of their existence.

          The fact that our Su-35, Tu-160, etc. have never been used in battle makes their existence meaningless?
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 10 March 2015 20: 38
            +2
            Quote: patsantre
            The capabilities of the F-22 were not needed there.

            But they were needed now in Iraq, what exactly factor caused the need for the F-22?
            What are the tasks of the F-22? Bomb ISIS taking off in Abu Dhabi and refueling along the way? Could the F-15E not handle this?
            Quote: patsantre
            Tu-160 and so on have never been used in battle makes their existence meaningless?

            Somehow you translated the arrows not in Russian.
            Why pointless? They planedly fly over strategically important directions, do what they were built for.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 10 March 2015 21: 52
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              But they were needed now in Iraq, what exactly factor caused the need for the F-22?
              What are the tasks of the F-22? Bomb ISIS taking off in Abu Dhabi and refueling along the way? Could the F-15E not handle this?

              No. They were not needed there. Used for window dressing.
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Why pointless? They planedly fly over strategically important directions, do what they were built for.

              What about the Su-35? Do not need mean? After all, did not fight. And the Su-27 of the Russian Air Force didn’t shoot anyone down. Why they bought it is not clear.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 21
                +1
                and before why did not apply for window dressing? bully

                Su-35 is needed, no one is trying to fight with Su-27 either.
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 27
              -1
              Clinton boasted that the B-2s carried bombs about the same as all tactical aircraft.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 11 March 2015 18: 31
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          alahakbarov bomb

          This in no way applies to respectable Muslims, it refers to rabid religious fanatics who, killing innocent people, praise Allah.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 11 March 2015 18: 56
            0
            and these are usually not Muslims at all ...
  • Pafos
    Pafos 10 March 2015 11: 37
    +1
    We’ll shoot garbage with files laughing This is my opinion. All these stealth shmels are the most natural cut of the state dough am both there and here. In the Soviet Union, due to hopelessness, the topic was closed and suddenly remembered in the post of Soviet Russia, but why are we worse and we will cut the loot. Ask yourself the question Why the hell to throw money into garbage which is still visible and which can be brought down? Further, in an air battle after exchanging missile strikes, planes still enter into a contact battle, because this is proved by multiple conflicts and the cannon weapons returned to fighters not to ram in the 21st century. The conclusion is that one stealth is good at cutting dough, a booming sale, and fighting the Papuans.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 10 March 2015 16: 45
      0
      just 10 years ago there were new materials that made stealth really dangerous
  • scientist
    scientist 10 March 2015 11: 45
    +2
    In terms of taking a critical look at stealth technology, the author of the LiveJournal article "On Invincible Stealth" is right in principle. It is not clear why Oleg decided to attack him with criticism at the level of the radar alphabet. Even the words touched me
    Trouble: dear author did not hear about frequency selective surfaces.
    I immediately thought, do I really have such gaps in knowledge! But no, everything is fine. I think Oleg himself needs to understand the fundamental possibility of installing a radio-transparent nose cone in front of the radar from this frequency-selective material. I advise you to talk with the designers. The problem of a large EPR AFAR really exists, a piece of iron all the same. But it is solved standardly by the very design of the RF path of the AFU of the AFAR elements (directional couplers-phase shifters-absorbers).
    Interesting, in my opinion, is the widespread belief that
    Quote: NEXUS
    At PAK FA, on the contrary, supermoveability, versatility and speed are put at the forefront, and stealth is an auxiliary property of this complex. That is, the view and opinions on the use of stealth technologies are different. For me, a more balanced and reasonable position regarding such technologies is our manufacturers and inventors of weapons.
    It is completely incomprehensible why our military developers chased after the Americans along the path of creating a universal multipurpose aircraft. And here it is not only that any engineer will tell you that any specialized system will always be many times better and more reliable and cheaper than a universal one. But even with the combat use of such universal weapons, not everything is clear.
    Firstly, it is necessary to conduct training for pilots who should become as universal. This means increasing the raid hours during combat training by at least 2 times, and these are resources comparable to the cost of the aircraft itself.
    Secondly, it is necessary to create some kind of universal command, which will simultaneously plan both air operations and ground operations. Moreover, if everything is quite simple with ground operations, then air defense and air force operations to gain dominance in the air are fundamentally different.
    Thirdly, try to find at least one example in the history of modern wars when aviation needed to simultaneously conduct an air operation and support ground forces from the air in one area? Theoretically, this is possible, but in practice the complexity of management, guidance and control will be simply unthinkable. If modern ACS with the priority of air targets still somehow manage, then what about the ground?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 March 2015 12: 03
      +2
      It is completely incomprehensible why our military developers chased after the Americans along the path of creating a universal multipurpose aircraft.
      I think the answer lies on the surface. This is very clearly visible on the history of the use and classification of tanks. Previously, there were medium, light, heavy and super heavy. There were breakthrough tanks. In general, as a result, everyone came to the same main tank. I think in fighter aircraft, they’re trying to do the same. Whether this is a successful thought can only be shown by the time and military use of these systems, since only in combat conditions can we talk about some real flaws and advantages of weapons.
      a specialized system will always be many times better and more reliable and cheaper than a universal one.
      Today, taking into account technology, this statement is not as certain as 10 years ago. Unification has its advantages and disadvantages. But about the price, I would not speak with such confidence.
      Secondly, it is necessary to create some kind of universal command, which will simultaneously plan both air operations and ground operations.
      due to a change in the tactics of war in general, I think that the command and control units will also have to change. There will be no tank battles as during the Second World War, there will be no sieges of cities, as with Leningrad, there will be no Brest Fortress ... tactics and strategy changed dramatically, and therefore, both the form and the organs of command of the armies are changing.
      1. scientist
        scientist 10 March 2015 13: 49
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        There will be no tank battles as in the days of the Second World War, there will be no sieges of cities, as with Leningrad, there will be no Brest Fortress ... tactics and strategy have changed dramatically, and therefore the look and the bodies of command of the armies are changing.

        I understand that you are talking about conflicts in the post-Soviet space, the roots of which are based on internal problems and external political and economic interference. But do not forget about NATO operations in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and dozens of other countries that they bombed with impunity. For example, according to our calculations, on a special software and mathematical complex for modeling the Spectrum, only to repel an attack on Yugoslavia, there should have been at least two full-fledged Soviet air defense armies there, i.e. when parts of air defense aviation are part of the air defense armies, they carry out missions to destroy important targets at long distances and are not distracted by ground operations. To collect such a number of troops to repulse the blow, at that time, even for Russia there was a problem.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 10 March 2015 14: 04
          0
          But do not forget about NATO operations in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and dozens of other countries that they bombed with impunity. For example, according to our calculations, on a special software and mathematical complex for modeling Spectrum, only to repel an attack on Yugoslavia, there should have been at least two full-fledged Soviet air defense armies there
          You did not take into account one moment that, in addition to air defense forces, other types of troops are also fighting. And say, if we assume for a second that the same Iraq would have such systems as Rubezh, Caliber, s-400 and so on and say EW systems Lever, large the question is how everything would turn out there and how many armies would be needed in the Soviet configuration. The strategy of war is changing very quickly. New types of weapons are appearing, and even new types of troops. As a result, the methods and concepts of command are changing.
          1. scientist
            scientist 10 March 2015 15: 14
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            that the same Iraq would have such systems as Boundary, Caliber, s-400

            According to unofficial data from some sources in the north of Iraq, the MiG-31 regiment was based. Saddam very much asked the leadership of the USSR to help and in words Gorbachev promised to help, but in fact he ordered him to be taken out of there immediately. But during the withdrawal to a dangerous distance, the American four F-16 approached, which was destroyed at long distances and with almost one salvo. It will be noticed without any technology by Stealth, the F-16 pilots simply did not understand anything and attributed everything to technical problems.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 10 March 2015 16: 53
              +1
              All four pilots did not understand that they were shot down? recourse
              They fly on parachutes and think: "How interesting: we have
              the airplanes broke. "
              Such stories are not even funny to read ...
              1. scientist
                scientist 10 March 2015 17: 26
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Such stories are not even funny to read ...

                The main thing that you liked. That's just not a single pilot can think of anything after the demolition of the R-33. This is almost 50 kg of explosive, equivalent to 100 kg spent with damaging elements. They were thought of on the ground when they found out why the four disappeared.
                By the way, on the vaunted modern means of warning about exposure and missile attack. They do not always work. Even modern ground-based radio intelligence equipment like the European Cicada, not to mention airborne. I had the opportunity to personally verify this.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 10 March 2015 16: 49
      -1
      the Falkland War, and the Arab-Israeli At least.
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 10 March 2015 11: 54
    -1
    I just read in one article that B2 was created to track Topol-type mobile missile systems.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/09/the-air-forces-b-3-bomber-i
    snt-as-secret-as-it-seems /? utm_campaign = yahootix & partner = yahootix
    1. spech
      spech 11 March 2015 13: 20
      +1
      I just read in one article that B2 was created to track Topol-type mobile missile systems.

      don't read forbes until noon laughing
  • vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 10 March 2015 12: 17
    +1
    The author did not understand what he wanted to say. First, Russia (USSR) joined the developers club in 1979 (MFI and Su-47, the beginning of development). Secondly, stealth is good as one of the factors, but if you make a fetish out of it at the expense of other qualities, as some countries like, then it is unlikely that something good will come of it. Thirdly, stealth is important not so much for enemy radars as for missile guidance: you have to make missiles with multichannel guidance, and the "fire-and-forget" technology already does not work well. Well, etc.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 13: 16
      +2
      Quote: vladimir_krm
      Russia (USSR) joined the development club in 1979 (IFI and Su-47, the beginning of development).

      The planes were never created, and stealth there didn’t particularly smell. In addition, in 1979, at best, they just started to conduct OCD; prototypes were rolled out only after 20 years.
      1. vladimir_krm
        vladimir_krm 10 March 2015 13: 32
        0
        This was a response to the author's statement: "Since 2010, Russia has officially entered the stealth aircraft developers club, demonstrating the flight of its fifth generation fighter. In fact, the development of the domestic PAK FA has been going on for 15 years, since the early 2000s."
        Developers! This is the answer.

        "and it didn't smell like stealth"
        Oh well. Some kid smarter than KB Mikoyan and Sukhoi :) Where are your works? :)
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 10 March 2015 14: 35
          +2
          I do not deny the use of some stealth technologies, such as RPM. But the developers did not even call it a full-fledged stealth aircraft. In general, everything is relative. Compared to the Su-27, it can be inconspicuous, compared to the Raptor and even the PAK FA - not at all.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 10 March 2015 17: 10
          0
          since the 1980s, started a year earlier than the Raptor
  • sivuch
    sivuch 10 March 2015 12: 43
    +5
    This is not to say that I completely agree with the previous article, but here it’s nonsense
  • The comment was deleted.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 10 March 2015 14: 02
    +1
    Stealth technology is a prodigy for the Papuans and for secondary sectors of the front.
    During operations in the conditions of modern air combat, a pilot (or rather an on-board computer) can receive information about the enemy from various sources. First of all, of course, is an AWACS aircraft. Further, the stations of the meter band are in vain discarded, as they are quite used as a means to detect the enemy. And then radars of a smaller wavelength range are purposefully searching for this target. Information can also be used from passive radar, which can detect other people's reflected waves, if several radars are operating in the area, then there will be no shortage of such waves from different sides.
    So stealth technology is, of course, an advantage. But not critical. I think that this is why they didn’t bother with this especially in the USSR. And now they are not in a hurry with PAK FA.
    1. FID
      FID 10 March 2015 14: 19
      +2
      You can add satellites ...
      1. opus
        opus 10 March 2015 16: 08
        +1
        Quote: SSI
        You can add satellites ...

        practically not implemented:
        -with geostationary not "see"
        -BUT the satellite must be in this place at this time

        Such photos are rare (that optics, that radar)



        1. FID
          FID 10 March 2015 17: 30
          +1
          Yes, I didn’t insist somehow ...
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 10 March 2015 19: 26
            +3
            Quote: SSI
            Yes, I didn’t insist somehow ...

            In vain my friend wink On lemon peels it's something good laughing
            hello, Sergey fellow drinks Long time no see request
  • Astartes
    Astartes 10 March 2015 15: 52
    0
    Well, for a modern aircraft, a lot of things are needed, not only the so-called "stealth" technology, but it should not be abandoned if it does not harm speed, maneuverability, etc.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 10 March 2015 16: 01
    +2
    Above, I wrote that the article mistakes like fleas on a dog. I will try to list those that can be noticed without a special education. Of course, I myself can be mistaken, because this discussion exists. First of all, there is no objection to the title. Stealth technologies need to be developed, but at the same time scratching turnips, how to counteract them.
    1. Maybe something will see. But the brochures will never say in which sector the maximum detection range of the “Irbis” is provided (according to one version - in the viewing area 17,3 ° x17,3 °, i.e. 300 square degrees). And what is the time for data accumulation, during which the radar processor will be able to determine the location of the target in the selected area of ​​the sky with a probability of 90%. But this is exactly what ultimately determines the capabilities of radars in real conditions
    -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
    ELM, for Irbis D.obn 400km is declared for a target with an EPR of 3 square meters in free space in a solid angle of 10X10 degrees with a signal accumulation time of 10 seconds. At an angle of 17 to 17 degrees -300km. This is just a clarification, Oleg does not insist on accuracy
    2. Terrestrial radars are not strictly limited by either the size, or the number of antennas, or power, or, as a consequence, the centimeter wavelength range. For meter wavelengths, what is stealth, what is not stealth - everything is the same
    ---------------------------------------------
    That's it. And for ground based radars, data is usually given for circular scanning.
    3.For meter wavelengths, what is stealth, what is not stealth - everything is the same
    -------------------------------------------------- -----------------
    But the author did not refute this claim. And in vain in the meter range, the stealth signature is also reduced, although to a lesser extent.
    4. Another appeal to the ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum with the expectation of gullible inhabitants. The joke is that absolutely all radars that are part of the anti-aircraft missile systems (S-300/400, Aegis, and Patriot) operate in the range of centimeter and decimeter waves
    -----------------------------------------------
    To put it mildly, it is inaccurate. And the S-300 and S-300V complexes were given quite a meter radar as a OVC radar.
    But this is not the main thing. All of the above complexes used semi-active guidance. And here, without centimeter SPN, nowhere is new. But using the active head opens up new, much wider possibilities. By the way, I do not want to give unsolicited advice, but effective managers who can’t torture 9M96 and 40N6 at least should be sent on an excursion to Kolyma.
    To be continued
    1. scientist
      scientist 10 March 2015 21: 30
      +2
      Quote: sivuch
      in the meter range, the stealth signature is also reduced, although to a lesser extent.

      I would like to inquire about the source of such information. As far as I know about research in the early 2000s in the m-band, the detection range of Stealth is slightly increased. The increase is due to the small number of "shiny points" due to which interference usually occurs and, as a consequence, the loss of energy of the reflected signal.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 11 March 2015 09: 42
        +1
        An interesting discussion was pleased on the Paralai website. I posted a PDF with a picture there
        http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1334&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=d7f0f8c896
        21355f65df209260b97e30&start=2610
        this is the aviation topic section questions and answers-89
        And here is an ancient article from the military-industrial complex
        http://vpk-news.ru/sites/default/files/pdf/issue_19.pdf
        from picture number 2 it follows that measures to reduce the EPR in the meter range still exist, but, of course, are much more modest
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 10 March 2015 16: 31
    -1
    Quote: patsantre
    Americans have much more experience and best practices in stealth technology

    what is the conclusion? with a candle both stood there and there?

    the Americans did not have rotary cylindrical nozzles ...
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 March 2015 17: 04
      +1
      From the fact that they have already created 4 types of stealth, ours are ours only PAK FA, which has not yet been fully created. MFIs and Su-47s were half measures, there was nothing really apart from RPMs and internal compartments, the planes weren’t even brought to condition.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 50
        0
        who is yours?

        the conclusion is wrong, the Americans simply did not know how to detect stealth, until 1994 they had no idea at all.
        Then the F-22 program almost closed twice, and there was a big break in their release.
    2. opus
      opus 10 March 2015 19: 06
      0
      Quote: Kassandra
      the Americans did not have rotary cylindrical nozzles ...

      Seriously?

      F-15s

      F-15 ACTIVE (AF Ser. No. 71-0290)

      Only on the F-15, everything "was"

      ================================================== ===========

      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 10 March 2015 23: 45
        -1
        Seriously - Soviet / Russian is much simpler and more reliable, so they fly, but the American ones don't.
        Americans rejected by 90 degrees have not mastered at all.

        Pribluda as in the last picture in general still stood on the V-2 - this is not Nescafe ...
        they also tested the unstable X-29 but didn’t go into the series and the Su-27 went.
        1. opus
          opus 11 March 2015 01: 04
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          this is not Nescafe ...

          Quote: Kassandra
          what is the conclusion? with a candle both stood there and there?

          ?
          a lot of crap

          The AV-8B Harrier II is called (among other things) McDonnell Douglas, ibid (McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis, Missouri USA and produced, now this is the Boeing Company). The first flight November 9, 1978 (YAV-8B), program AV-16 it was the same


          BAE Harrier II - the second generation of Harrier vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft. The British version is based on the American aircraft AV-8B, which, in turn, was developed on the basis of the British first-generation Harrier, which, in turn, originates from Hawker P.1127,

          which was "pushed" by the head of the Paris branch of the group to develop joint arms research programs, US Air Force Colonel Bill Chapman.

          Quote: Kassandra
          stray

          This "pridluda" (if they understood something in jet propulsion systems (nozzle / jet, jet)) is a very successful engineering solution


          Quote: Kassandra
          but did not go into the series and the Su-27 went.

          a lot of things have gone / not gone both with us and with them.
          However, this does not characterize the degree of technological / technical impotence.


          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 11 March 2015 03: 35
            -1
            Quote: opus
            a lot of crap

            yeah - you ... as well as pictures. bully

            Imagine I understand - the American version of Harrier-2 is a whole-copied British one (by the way, it is also not licensed), to which the "noble cowboys" just attached another wing.
            whoever prompted Colonel chapman there is not in the know.

            the same pack then moved from Boeing to Lockheed and about the same (even worse) unlicensedly slammed the Soviet Yak-41, it was the 35g all the same Soviet bureau that they took on subcontract to finish it in the F-1,5. Now Lockheed, 20+ years old, simply assimilates the budget (Americans have no proper straying, all that ended up on the X-14), makes minor changes to the F-35 due to the appearance of new materials and components, and writes shameful articles like this:
            http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 laughing
            1. opus
              opus 11 March 2015 12: 32
              -1
              Quote: Kassandra
              yeah - you ... as well as pictures

              pictures, for you, maybe you have difficulty with an adequate perception of OM
              Quote: Kassandra
              the american version of harrier-2 is a whole-copied british

              Yes Yes...
              And Zinc Chromate Yellow, the British, with difficulty mastered only in 1945, on the Martin-Baker MB5 aircraft - which the Americans "passed" from 1930 to 1940.

              And Sherman Firefly is
              Quote: Kassandra
              full copy
              American shnyaga M4

              Quote: Kassandra
              licensed slyamzila Soviet Yak-41

              Yes Yes.
              For your information:
              1. There is a Decree of the President of the Russian Federation (EBN) and a government decree.
              2. Who will give up the "freebie" if you can save on R&D?
              3. That 38, that 41, were to say the least neither
              4. About Rolls-Royce Nene to tell?

              And under what condition the license was transferred by the UK to the USSR (not to be used in combat aircraft), so we would have remained at the level of Jumo 004 and BMW 003 (and their clones - RD-10 and RD-20)
              Quote: Kassandra
              Americans have no proper stray

              touched. Even write here on "apmerican pribludah", use up to access the Internet and so on. At least take a look at the start of the BIOS.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 11 March 2015 16: 48
                -2
                spring huh

                none was the XFV-12, but the Convair-200 and VJ-101E weren't there at all.

                the alloy is another, German, three-component. Samples of Nene and Derwent were bought for money and in exchange for access to part of Soviet nuclear secrets because the United States threw Britain out of the Manhattan project after WWII, technology, and hence the license for their production, was not transferred. the technology was developed independently, the Nene engine was modified. Derwent, unlike the German ones, remained unclaimed.
                would not have been received - did another, much more dangerous, type Lippish P.13a or b

                didn’t they all know, or are you just earning yourself an American pension?

                I looked at the bios - there are hieroglyphs, but have you heard anything about BESM and Academician Lebedev?
                and the fact that intel ceased to be an office game console only when I bought Elbrus technology?
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 11 March 2015 17: 08
                -2
                PySy. Now compare this with the fact that the technology on the Yak was transferred to the Americans from hand to hand for 1,5 years, and then he was dopped by the Yakrevians in F35, in accordance with the wishes of Lockheed, and not by Lockheed himself, who just cut the coupons, and continues to do so.
                and all Soviet decisions were patented on them in the United States and England, with a gross violation of international law (well, almost the story is straight like with a boat of Dzhevetsky, still of tsarist times).
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 12 March 2015 02: 48
                  0
                  cons to the truth (both here and here), it certainly "characterizes" ...
  • sivuch
    sivuch 10 March 2015 17: 18
    +2
    Let's go further
    5. The meter radar has long been withdrawn from service, even in third world countries.
    -------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
    How interesting. And I read that recently the Vietnamese bought a batch of Vostok radars quite a meter range. The station itself is quite compact, collapses in 5-7 minutes and, in my opinion, would be very useful in replacing the Terek in Russian air defense. In addition to Belarus, new meter radars are being designed in Russia, Ukraine (although this, I think, is a thing of the past) and in China. And third world countries are willing to buy them (or upgrade existing ones)
    6.Optics helped only once. The most intelligible of all versions of the destruction of the F-117 over Belgrade is the use of an optical guidance channel: anti-aircraft gunners accidentally saw an impudent stealth flying below the clouds, and managed to launch a rocket. This is indicated by the characteristics of the S-125 air defense system itself (the Karat-2 television sight) and the testimonies of the incident participants themselves - battery commander Zoltan Dani and pilot of the downed Nighthook Dale Zelko (was shot down when he broke through the lower edge of the clouds). Luck was not repeated anymore. Although, according to NATO, the clumsy stealth of the first generation made over 700 sorties over Yugoslavia.
    -----------------------------------------------
    Once again, the primary detection was made by the P-18 radar. Do I have to give links or is it clear? Something to detect only with the help of Karat is impossible even in clear weather. Usually for the S-125 the scheme was this -first, the target detects the P-radar 15 or P-18, then capture of S-125 and only then capture by Karat. If the target is large, such as Tu-16, then Karat can capture without SNR-125. And F-117 was shot down at 8.15 pm, actually at night.
    Another goblin was damaged a month later; it landed safely, but that means there was at least one more case of detection and capture on the speakers.
    7. Guided missile medium / long-range AIM-120 AMRAAM
    Modification “C-7” has a max. launch range of 120 km (adopted for service 11 years ago). The newer “D” version has a launch range of 180 km
    For what conditions? After all, there is a corresponding diagram
    1. srelock
      srelock 11 March 2015 10: 30
      +2
      Quote: sivuch
      .AIM-120 AMRAAM medium / long-range guided missile
      Modification “C-7” has a max. launch range of 120 km (adopted for service 11 years ago). The newer “D” version has a launch range of 180 km
      For what conditions? After all, there is a corresponding diagram

      There is such a picture, of a degree of certainty not known to me:
  • Vadim12
    Vadim12 10 March 2015 19: 43
    +1
    Long-range missiles are good, but do not forget about close air combat. With the advent of air-to-air missile defense, the Americans even abandoned machine gun and cannon weapons, as it turned out, they hurried. Previously, they also thought that in the future aircraft would fight, without taking off from the airfield at all.
    The close battle has not gone anywhere, OLS are needed, you can’t hide a car in the infrared and optical ranges.
  • Russ_Dry
    Russ_Dry 11 March 2015 01: 46
    -1
    stealth course needed. however, the enemy’s presence of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles negates the effectiveness of all types of weapons. the sense of these weapons is if everyone who could give orders, control this very technique, provide repairs, they either died a little or are bent from radiation sickness.

    biological weapons (in the presence of sufficient antidotes) steers
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 11 March 2015 15: 29
    +2
    Before throwing slogans like "Russia needs stealth," it would be good to understand how the costs of reducing the aircraft's visibility are related to its combat effectiveness. Recently, a message flashed in the foreign press that the US Air Force was seriously thinking about whether it is worth further spending billions on creating new generations of stealth based on the experience of operating those "invisibles" that are already in service or are entering service (F22, B2, F35). The conclusion was quite unexpected: it's enough to throw money down the drain and it's better to invest it in simpler and cheaper designs. After all, even the experience of World War II showed that in the end the winner is not the one who has a limited number of "super duper" equipment, but the one who has much more similar equipment, even if it is simpler.
    Naturally, certain measures to reduce the visibility of the same aircraft or ships never bothered anyone, but until, for the sake of this very stealth, one had to sacrifice the combat qualities of the aircraft or pay exorbitant amounts for stealth, as in the case of the F35. And it would be okay to deal only with money, but after all, the timing of the creation of such aircraft is prohibitively delayed, and the weapons have to be hidden "inside" and how much can you hide there. And as soon as you hang the weapon outside or open the doors of the weapon compartment, forget about "stealth", get your grenade and sign for receipt.
    So it turns out that the money spent on stele technology goes mainly to create illusions.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 13 March 2015 22: 56
    0
    Quote: SSI
    Quote: yehat
    But what is the complexity of the repair? operation yes, harder, but nothing out of the ordinary

    The integrity of the varnish layer (on top of the paint, aircraft, even civilian ones, are varnished), i.e. there can be no talk of any PARMS. Painting in factory or aircraft repair plants, at least. Plus, complex avionics (although it is modular, but testing the complex after replacing one of the modules is still work ...). This complicates the repairs.



    It seems to me that what you wrote about is already out of date on 30-50.
    At least in the case of the F-35B.
    Restoring a square meter of coverage in an aircraft carrier - up to 1 hours.
    Replacing the engine under the same conditions with the forces of 3's - within 30 minutes.
    These are the standards.
    Standards are modern.
    To achieve such results, the oculars of dollars have been ruined.
    The technologies that allow these standards to be implemented are ditched.
    And no cut.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 13 March 2015 23: 44
      +1
      F-35B not used on aircraft carriers
      from allied countries, the same F-35 vassal slats are removed and sent for factory repair to the overlord.
      dollars were simply mastered ... lockheed practically did not share with anyone.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 18 March 2015 15: 04
        0
        And that the concept of the ship "Queen Elizabeth" has changed?

        Judging by these images, no.
        and nothing but F-35B will not be there.
        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/03/article-0-1F5C5C2B00000578-681_964x641
        .jpg
        и
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_in_Rosyth
        _Dockyard_MOD_45158230.jpg
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 18 March 2015 17: 01
          0
          yes changed under the F-35C
          meaning that neither of this will happen.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 18 March 2015 14: 43
    0
    Quote: Kassandra
    spring huh
    ...
    and the fact that intel ceased to be an office game console only when I bought Elbrus technology?


    Really, spring acts on you.
    There is no connection between the appearance of the first Intel Pentium and Vladimir Pentkovsky. The appearance of Pentkovsky in intel is secondary.

    In the post-Soviet era, Elbrus is the brainchild of SUN, and it was a fairly open project. There, the now forgotten Transmeta was presented no less than Babayan.

    Do not implement.
    Talk better with some real university teacher on microprocessor technology.
    From the oldies.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 18 March 2015 16: 59
      0
      SUN competed with Intel to buy Elbrus solutions and not vice versa.
  • Ivan the Fool
    Ivan the Fool 28 March 2015 15: 25
    0
    Well, do who's stopping - AGAIN Ukraine ??????