Military Review

Su-34 vs F-15E. Heaven's wrath

191
Su-34 vs F-15E. Heaven's wrath



All week on the pages of “IN” they have been arguing about the Su-34 and F-15E tactical bombers. Whose winged ship was cooler? Battle-hardened “Strike of Needles” or our “duckling”, plowed all over Syria and showed the whole world what a real air war is. Some aesthetes are convinced that the best are the multi-purpose Su-30CM or the deck-mounted F / A-18F “Super Hornet”, but the debaters themselves cannot decide how to properly compare such heterogeneous planes.

The discussion, as always, quickly degraded to the level of a sandbox. Not knowing the facts, the esteemed public began to come up with arguments and set rather strange priorities on the go. Instead of discussing avionics, they spent half of their time evaluating aviation guns. Weaponsto put it mildly, secondary to bombers. It's a shame, gentlemen. No less “pleased” the authors themselves, having made a number of mistakes in their articles, while forgetting to pay attention to many important factors. In any case, S. Linnik and K. Sokolov express my gratitude for the initiation of interest in this topic.

An analogue of the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber in the Russian Air Force should be the attack Su-34, and not the multipurpose Su-30CM.

And in response:

It is Su-30CM that is analogous to F-15E, and Su-34 stands apart in this comparison.

Gentlemen, they do not hit the passport in the air, they hit it in the face. All of these aircraft are designed for striking ground targets. All have outstanding dimensions, features and price. The best of the best. Elite. Fighting vehicles "first line". “Eagles” and “Drying” perform the same tasks. And if so - they are objects for comparison.

The concept of which aircraft is most adequate to the realities of the modern world?

On the Eagle put aiming container Sniper.

His name is LANTIRN. In translation - night sighting system for work at low altitudes. It was she who was the main feature of the Eagle, and it was under her that the F-15E was created in the distant 1986 year. It was believed that LANTIRN will bring tactical bombers to a fundamentally new level.

A pair of overhead containers with a radar warning of ground obstacles, a pair of infrared cameras, a laser range finder, target tracking sensors and a line-of-sight correlator for Mavrick rockets.

Later, LANTIRN containers appeared on other combat aircraft (for example, F-16, starting with the “40 Block”), but the pioneer “Eagle” became a pioneer in the field of such systems. The mentioned Sniper is a further development of the LANTIRN, while it is not focused on small heights, but on high-precision bombings from the stratosphere.



Due to obvious reasons of a socio-economic nature in the armament of the Russian Aerospace Force, target-navigation containers are absent. This dramatically reduces the capabilities of existing fighters (Su-27, MiG-29) to combat ground targets. On the other hand, the national strike aircraft uses built-in aiming systems - the SVN-24 “Hephaestus” (Su-24M), “Platan” (Su-34), “Kaira” (which has already become history, MiG-27K). How good they are in comparison with LANTIRN - let's leave this question for discussion by the ISIL militants.

A lot of copies were broken around the Su-34 armored capsules.

So why does he need armor? When flying with bending relief, armor will save only from small arms. The armor will not save from MANPADS, will not save from an air defense missile and will not save from an 30-mm gun. And many examples of downed aircraft from small arms?

117 aircraft and 333 helicopters, most of which were hit by fire from the ASC. The legendary “stinger” remained a cheap scarecrow, the 3 / 4 aircraft of the 40 army suffered all losses from the Basmach guns.

4 December 1982, combat loss of Su-17m3 aircraft, 136 apib (Chirchik), departure from Kandahar airfield, deputy. AE com Major Major Gavrikov - senior pilot art. Lt. Khlebnikov. The line from the SADC passed through the cockpit. In all likelihood, the pilots died in the air, so no one catapulted.


17 January 1984 g., Combat loss of Su-17m3, 156 apib (Mary-2), departure from the airfield Shindant. After dumping the aircraft, the plane at the pinout was crashing into a mountain and exploded. When inspecting the crash site, bullet holes were found in the K-36 headrest, most likely the pilot was killed during the shelling at the time of the withdrawal.


If those pilots were in the Su-34 cockpit, they would have survived. 17-mm titanium is enough to stop bullets fired from any weapon.

The topic of a separate conversation was the exorbitant “excesses” on board the Su-34. Too wide double cabin, bio-toilet, kitchen, sleeper (for a tactical bomber, whose combat departure duration does not exceed a couple of hours!). Had this happened on an American bomber, they would have ridiculed him - “they cannot fight without diapers and Coca-Cola”.

For some reason, equipped with an entrance from the bottom of the fuselage. Finally, the “Duckling” has to drag an entire gas turbine generator into the sky! Does this mean that domestic designers have lost their mind?

In “Drying” everything was done very well. The advantages of a double cabin are known since the F-111: the best ergonomics and coordination between the pilot and the weapon operator. A tiny microwave, a sleeping bag and a bio-toilet - everything fits in the place of the access hatch in the floor at the back of the cabin. It is not excluded that “Drying” someday will have to act as a “pocket” strategic bomber, as its ideological mastermind, F-111, needed.



Entrance through the niche of the front landing gear. At a minimum, such a solution prevents precipitation from entering the cockpit, which is quite inconvenient for conventional fighters with a sliding / tilting lantern.

The story of the gas turbine generator has a simple explanation. The 105 kW generator is located in the Su-34 tail boom and, in addition to its main function, is a counterweight ballast for the 1,5-ton armored cab. Without it, “Duckling” would have buried its nose in the ground.



Initially, the radar of the rear hemisphere was planned to be installed on this site, but due to its dubious combat value and high price, the designers opted for an auxiliary gas turbine installation. The presence of an autonomous generator allows pilots to be on duty at non-equipped airfields, while in the cockpit in the warmth and with powered on-board equipment, in readiness for quick engine start and accelerated take-off.

However, to operate such a powerful, complex and expensive aircraft from unequipped airfields can only come to a head. In reality, they are located at the best air base of Syria, where they are cherished from all sides, as befits superplanes for a hundred million dollars.

Considerable popularity gained news from Syria that the latest Russian developments allow the use of free-fall bombs with an accuracy corresponding to the best models of the WTO.

This news at lunch a hundred years. Sights with an analog computer were widely used during the Second World War. By the end of 50's, they had reached their perfection. The AN / ASG-105 bomb-sight calculator mounted on the F-19 fighter-bomber, linked to the navigation machine, provided automatic blind-bombing from horizontal flight, with tailing-in and over the shoulder.

The main difficulty was not so much the calculation of the trajectory of the bomb, as the receipt of data on the exact location of the object. Modern researchers are trying to answer this question by inventing more and more complex LANTIRNs, Hephaestus and Platans for work at night and in adverse weather conditions. With infrared and TV cameras, radar with synthetic aperture and a set of sensors to monitor the target.

A couple of words about gun armament.
The Su-34 - 30 mm cannon with 150 ammunition shells.
Eagle - 20 mm “Volcano”, 510 shells.

The main question is not whose better. Does she need a bomber?

And if the lighter and more maneuverable Eagle still has a chance to use cannon armament at ground targets and in the air (the only time he had to shoot at the attacking al-Qaeda fighters in 2002 year), then the 45-ton Su-34 has no such possibility .

Disputes about the capacity of fuel tanks also do not make sense, if there are systems for refueling in the air. Air tanker conducts to the target and will meet you on the way back.

Moreover, the Orlov and Sushek fuel system has approximately similar indicators. The only advantage of the F-15E is the US Air Force's refueling system using a rigid “boom”. This allows you to double the pressure in the system and reduce the refueling time. Secondly, the process itself simplifies - the pilot can only follow the tanker, the operator of the rod will do the rest.



The author points out about the difference in the target detection range between the Su-34 Sh-141 radar complex and the F-15E AN / APG-70 radar.

APG-70 is the last century. Since 2007, the Eagles have equipped the APG-82 radar with AFAR

In general, comparing the American F-15E Strike Eagle and the Russian Su-34, it can be noted that these machines are at a different stage of life. Su-34 is just beginning its long service, and F-15E is already preparing for its completion.

By the time of the combat debut of the Su-34, the Eagle's fire path was 30 years. Five countries in solid ruins.

In general, the layout is as follows.



Su-34

Empty - about 20 tons, max. Take-off weight - 45 tons. Specialized strike aircraft, like its ancestor F-111 belonging to the unofficial class of “pocket” strategic bombers. The only modern military aircraft with cockpit armor.



Sioux 30SM

Empty 18 t, max. takeoff ~ 29 tons. Close to the ideology of the Eagle. Due to the lack of sighting equipment for work "on the ground", in domestic VKS performs the functions of a fighter.



F-15E

Empty 14 t, max. takeoff - 36 tons. Proven killer, with excellent sighting systems and a wide range of weapons. From 113-kg planning SDB to the monstrous 2268 kg “laser-guided bunker bunker”.



F / A-18F

It is lighter and smaller than the “Eagle”. Retain all its properties, with the exception of a lower combat load. Extremely maneuverable. According to the chief designer of the Su-35, the “Super Hornet” is not inferior to the “Drying” in the melee. It has the smallest visibility among all fighters of the 4 + generation (ESR = 1,2 m). According to the US Navy, the duration of the Super Hornets' sorties reached 13 hours. Fighter-bombers took off from an aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, refueled and hung for hours over the mountains of Afghanistan.

Who will win this correspondence battle? Who is the most advanced tactical bomber?

The answer - all tear “Raptor” and F-35.

The design of Orlov, Sushchek and Hornets has a common flaw. These strike airplanes are based on air superiority fighter aircraft. With a small load on the wing. The main mode - subsonic flight and maneuverable air combat.

Wing average elongation does not have the necessary rigidity. When making supersonic throws, the shaking begins, exhausting the crew and causing damage to the structure.

For bombers, you need a rigid wing with a high load, which levels the negative effects of turbulence on supersonic flight modes. Along the way, helping to reduce drag and fuel consumption.

F-111 solved the problem by folding its wings behind its back. Effective, but not the most effective way.



Having built the “Raptor”, the Yankees created a universal aviation complex to destroy air and ground targets. Rigid trapezoidal wing of small elongation is perfect for breakthroughs to targets at supersonic speeds. And after the deadly cargo is dropped, the F-22 turns into a full-fledged fighter capable of standing up for itself in a melee.

Perfect air fighter! Due to the reduced visibility of such an aircraft has a great chance to perform a combat mission. Additional benefits are provided by a radar with active phased array having a better sensitivity when detecting ground targets. The creators of the F-35 went the furthest: its APG-81 radar has a max. 30 x 30 resolution. See. Using such a device it is possible to distinguish a tank from a BMP from the stratosphere.
Author:
191 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kir1984
    Kir1984 5 November 2015 06: 06 New
    15
    I have a feeling that pilots who can 100% use the unique potential of the F-22/35 can be counted on the fingers. Too complex machine and very computerized. Then, any software can fail, moreover at the most inopportune moment, all the more so complex.
    Shaking at supersonic on fighters 4 and 4 + ??? I didn’t hear ...
    1. Santa Fe
      5 November 2015 06: 19 New
      24
      Quote: Cyrus1984
      pilots who can use the unique potential of F-100 / 22 at 35% can be counted on the fingers

      Interestingly, many combat pilots of the Russian Aerospace Forces will be able to realize at 100% the potential of a fighter with an engine with a controlled thrust vector
      Quote: Cyrus1984
      . Then, any software can fail, moreover at the most inopportune moment, all the more so complex.

      CALL at least one example of a complex mechanical (electromechanical, hydraulic) system that can compare in reliability with microelectronics

      "may fail" - an example of the ultimate fault tolerance of an electronic system is the mainframe - a large universal high-performance fault-tolerant server. It stores your deposits in the bank and provides access to them

      Mainframes are used for integer operations that require speed of data exchange, reliability and the ability to process transactions simultaneously (ERP, online booking systems, automated banking systems). MTBFs of modern mainframes are estimated at 12-15 years.

      A simpler example is automatic interplanetary stations. Minimum number of moving mechanical parts. As a result, Voyager spent four decades in outer space, and communication is still being maintained.

      Today, after 37 years after their launch, they continue their journey in the interstellar ocean, moving away from Earth at a distance of 107 and 130 a.e. Radio signal delay from “Voyager 1” - 17 hours 36 minutes. The transmitter power is only 26 W, but its signals still reach the Earth.

      The memory capacity of the Voyagers on-board computer is 100 times smaller than that of a modern mp3 player. The unique equipment continues its work through vortices of electromagnetic storms and decades of work in outer space. A few liters of precious hydrazine remained in the tanks, and the power of the radioisotope generator still reaches 270 watts. Already beyond the orbit of Neptune, NASA programmers managed to “reflash” the Voyager's on-board computer: now the probe data is encoded with a highly secure Reed-Solomon dual code (it is interesting that during the launch of Voyagers this code was not applied in practice). By the beginning of the new century, the probes switched to a backup set of engines of the orientation system (the main set had made 353 thousand corrections by that time), but it is becoming more and more difficult for the Sun sensor to find its dim light against the background of thousands of bright stars. There is a threat of loss of orientation and loss of connection with the Earth.
      1. Kir1984
        Kir1984 5 November 2015 06: 44 New
        +2
        read, very interesting.
        I didn't mean which is better, electronics or mechanics. Nobody denies the amazing progress of computer systems. I'm talking about mechanics controlled by electronics, about the reliability of the "man - computer - machine" chain within a combat fighter, taking into account the reality of air combat, which can change in completely unpredictable ways. Will electronics catch up with this, and will a person sitting on a plane with such software be able to make timely decisions himself. Will two intelligences "interfere" with each other? Probably, I didn't put it very well.
        I really liked the article!
        1. crazyrom
          crazyrom 5 November 2015 22: 18 New
          +5
          I started the article for health, and suddenly ONCE - and rest.

          Most interestingly, no one pays attention to the very Su-34 gas turbine. This is superfluous ENERGY. 105 kilowatts. This opens up tremendous opportunities. For starters, you can have powerful electronic warfare systems, such that they will score and AWACS. If not one aircraft, then 2-3 for sure. Su-34 seems to be flying with the Khibiny at the wingtips already. Then, you can use a more powerful radar, regardless of electricity. Well, after that it’s already exotic, Su-34 is ready to install laser weapons, there will be enough energy! And this is an instantly won air battle, the laser will burn all the systems in the cockpit of the enemy, including the eyes and face of the pilot. Not humanely, but the enemy’s plane will crash to the ground, and ours will fly to the base.
          1. Bersaglieri
            Bersaglieri 5 November 2015 23: 27 New
            +4
            This is not "extra energy", but a "small addition". Calculate the power of the SU-34's remote control at "nominal";)
      2. qwert
        qwert 5 November 2015 07: 13 New
        24
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        CALL at least one example of a complex mechanical (electromechanical, hydraulic) system that can compare in reliability with microelectronics

        No electromagnetic pulse will damage the mechanical and hydraulic system. unlike microelectronics. Conventional kinetic ammunition is effective against these systems, and heaps of electronic warfare systems against microelectronics. In a war not with the Papuans, microelectronics becomes the most vulnerable element.
        1. Santa Fe
          5 November 2015 07: 59 New
          -12
          Quote: qwert
          No electromagnetic pulse will damage the mechanical and hydraulic system. unlike microelectronics.

          No shock from a close explosion will affect the operation of the chip
          Quote: qwert
          In a war not with the Papuans, microelectronics becomes the most vulnerable element.

          Did the Papuans learn to create directional electromagnetic pulses that can disable equipment over ten kilometers?
          1. ancient
            ancient 5 November 2015 15: 56 New
            23
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            None


            Oleg, dear, hello! drinks Quickly looked at your article ... frankly ... I did not like it, well, and immediately put MINUS !!!

            I explain why - your quote - "
            The story of the gas turbine generator has a simple explanation. The 105 kW generator is located in the Su-34 tail boom and, in addition to its main function, is a counterweight ballast for the 1,5-ton armored cab. Without it, “Duckling” would have buried its nose in the ground. belay wassat
            I read it and ... honestly ... RZHAL 15 minutes wassat

            Maybe you are not in the know, but the auxiliary gas turbine unit TA14-130-35 weighs ONLY 62 kg (!!!!!) what a ... "counterweight" wassat on which nose and who will fall? wassat
            And .. "not to sit in the warmth on duty", but to be able to quickly carry out repeated pre-flight preparation and exhibition of inertial systems and the entire PRN, and not wait ... "APA, TZ ... taxi" wassat
            And if an operational airfield with ancient technology is put on the "checkpoint" and they say "turn off everything ... then the tractor will roll out ... what will you do ... how to set the system if they have only the coordinates of the ends and the middle of the runway and KTA in the instructions of the aerodrome there is? wink
            1. ancient
              ancient 5 November 2015 15: 58 New
              12
              Quote: ancient
              And if the


              I will continue, otherwise everything did not fit ".. although he himself said that I will write a little bit wink

              Well, and take the main criterion for comparison is the quote - "" Eagles "and" Sushki "perform the same tasks. And if so, they are objects for comparison." ... this is SOMETHING. belay
              And what do we have other types of aircraft perform some other tasks ????
              So with us and all combat helicopters can conduct WB and attack aircraft, and even the Su-24MR wink

              Somehow "clumsily" expressed the idea that Lantirn is a Sniper is one and the same wassat So you can bring everything under this base by saying that the Scooter and Mercedes are the same thing ... if you really mean a vehicle ?! lol

              Okay, I won’t go on, but I’m disappointed with the article and therefore MINUS! But it doesn’t affect my attitude towards you drinks

              And then you will think that Seryoga and Kirill ... I protect ... no, they will be the same .. "rip off" if .. "deserve", but have not been noticed yet wink
          2. Malkor
            Malkor 5 November 2015 16: 46 New
            +3
            Microelectronics is much more responsive to mechanical stress - for example, it dropped an old Soviet TV (moreover, on the screen) from the stand and it worked fine later, but drop the LCD monitor - a product of microelectronics wassat . Also with an analog telephone and modern, etc.
        2. Alex_Rarog
          Alex_Rarog 5 November 2015 20: 34 New
          +4
          And you taste that a pilot without an on-board computer will not be able to control drying or instantly, since they have negative stability in the air (it provides super maneuverability.)
      3. Falcon
        Falcon 5 November 2015 09: 05 New
        13
        Greetings Oleg.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The story of the gas turbine generator has a simple explanation. The 105 kW generator is located in the Su-34 tail boom and, in addition to its main function, is a counterweight ballast for the 1,5-ton armored cab. Without it, “Duckling” would have buried its nose in the ground.


        Those. Want to say the Su-27 does not have APU? Or maybe this generator weighs 1,5t - if it gives such a counterweight?

        By the way, it is also installed on the Su-35

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        117 aircraft and 333 helicopters, most of which were shot down by fire from the DShK.


        Helicopters are a completely different story. But the planes - what sighting systems were on this technique? Su-25 and A-10 are also armored - as they need it. And the Su-34 is more expensive and had to perform more intelligent functions.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Since 2007, the Eagles have equipped the APG-82 with AFAR radar


        And many of these in the US Air Force?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Initially, it was planned to set up a radar for viewing the rear hemisphere at this place, but, due to its dubious combat value and high price, the designers opted for an auxiliary gas-tube installation.


        Or maybe the problem is that the USSR collapsed? Or do you think that initially they planned to do Su-34 without vsu?
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 5 November 2015 09: 12 New
          13
          Greetings Cyril!
          In my opinion, Oleg is once again "going too far." Expressing often sound thoughts, he does it in an overly categorical form, breaking away from reality.
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 5 November 2015 09: 29 New
            +8
            Quote: Bongo
            Greetings Cyril!
            In my opinion, Oleg is once again "going too far." Expressing often sound thoughts, he does it in an overly categorical form, breaking away from reality.


            Good day Sergey!

            I completely agree - categorization is the main problem of his articles. Despite the large amount of still interesting information.

            However, you asked a hot topic! The third article with your easy hand! smile
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 5 November 2015 09: 32 New
              21
              Quote: Falcon
              However, you asked a hot topic! The third article with your easy hand!

              drinks
              But on the site began to appear publications corresponding to its name.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 5 November 2015 10: 17 New
                +9
                Quote: Bongo

                But on the site began to appear publications corresponding to its name.

                What is true is true
                1. ancient
                  ancient 5 November 2015 16: 50 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Pimply
                  What is true is true


                  Hi, Zhenya! The "small" thing remained, and the "title photo" corresponded to the title of the article, +! drinks
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 5 November 2015 16: 59 New
                    +3
                    Quote: ancient
                    Hi, Zhenya! The "small" thing remained, and the "title photo" corresponded to the title of the article, +!

                    Hi Sasha. This is such a distant dream that eh ...
              2. mav1971
                mav1971 5 November 2015 15: 28 New
                +3
                Quote: Bongo

                But on the site began to appear publications corresponding to its name.


                Pleases.
          2. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 5 November 2015 11: 27 New
            17
            Quote: Bongo
            Oleg is "going too far" once again. Expressing often sound thoughts, he does it in an overly categorical form, breaking away from reality.

            Sergei, criticizing your and Kirill's publications, Oleg Kaptsov managed to write in one publication in two more controversial points than both of you combined. In my opinion, this is due to the author's pursuit of the "catchphrase". Oleg's publications are often spoiled by excessive emotionality and personal assessments that do not fit with reality. On the other hand, I was pleased that the author once again does not compare who is cooler - battleships or aircraft carriers. And he is not trying to prove that modern ships simply need meter armor.
            1. sniper
              sniper 5 November 2015 17: 53 New
              +8
              Quote: zyablik.olga
              . And he’s not trying to prove that meter-long armor is simply needed on modern ships.

              This is implied ... wassat There isn’t enough armor on all of them to put on ships, you need to remove them from planes ...
              I don't know, colleagues, I just want to ask: "VAF, where are you?" ... Still, highly specialized articles should be written by professionals ... Oleg writes beautifully, emotionally ... But this is the OPINION of a person who has nothing to do with aviation , even with aerodynamics, Oleg is a sign of the current by hearsay ... Yesterday he touched someone's comment: "I studied all the AFARs overnight ..." Guys, let's be realistic ... During the night, you can "study" the multiplication table, and it's not very hard ... it's all sad ...
          3. tomket
            tomket 5 November 2015 15: 07 New
            +7
            Quote: Bongo
            lay down once again "going too far."

            Compared to the F-35 "odes", there has been a noticeable progress! In general, a lot of common ideas are expressed in the article. So, regarding the need for booking. not only DShK shells and bullets can pose a threat to the crew. For example, in Desert Storm, planes were often damaged by missile shrapnel. There was a case when a rocket flew into the cockpit of the Jaguar and did not explode. The pilot was lightly wounded, but he still returned to base. Oleg's excesses went into the final stage, when he began to "mold" a drummer from a "raptor". What actually even the Americans do not do, preferring to keep it in air supremacy fighters. Various advertising tricks for dropping bombs from Syria will not be considered for their lack of seriousness. in addition, given the limited internal volumes of the compartments, it is difficult to imagine how a bombed "raptor" would enter into an air battle. the question is with what? with the same gun?
        2. Santa Fe
          5 November 2015 09: 28 New
          -9
          Hello.
          Quote: Falcon
          .e. Want to say the Su-27 does not have APU?


          Quote: Falcon
          Or maybe this generator weighs 1,5t - if it gives such a counterweight?

          Moment = Strength on shoulder
          it is no coincidence that he has such a tail boom between engines
          Quote: Falcon
          . But the planes - what sighting systems were on this technique?

          On the Su-17m3 mentioned in the article was a combined bombing and firing sight ASP-17Б and a Klen-PS laser illumination station

          The even more advanced Su-17M4 avionics was at the level of modern aircraft
          Quote: Falcon
          And many of these in the US Air Force?

          more and more
          for example, already 60 F-15C / D received a radar with AFAR
          F-15E of these were only 8 in the spring of 2014.
          Quote: Falcon
          Or do you think that initially they planned to do Su-34 without vsu?

          There initially was the question of what to put in the tail boom
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 5 November 2015 09: 36 New
            11
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Quote: Falcon
            .e. Want to say the Su-27 does not have APU?

            Quote: Falcon
            Or maybe this generator weighs 1,5t - if it gives such a counterweight?
            Moment = Shoulder Strength
            it is no coincidence that he has such a tail boom between engines


            APU Su-Xnumx
            GTDE-117 weight 42 kg


            APU SU-34
            TA14-130-35 weight 62 kg


            Not a big difference.

            1. opus
              opus 6 November 2015 13: 17 New
              +3
              Quote: Falcon
              APU SU-34

              THIS (62 kg) without mass generator and in my opinion "dry" (without cooling oil)
              highly efficient turbocharger and integrated oil cooling system

              Selected AC power, kVA30, 220 / 115V
              Data generator not found (in oi)
              But you can estimate "HKN":


              Or here

              SES for the Su-27 - as the main sources of AC system on an airplane two new generation integrated drive generator GP-21 oil-cooled, rated at 30 kVA each. This drive was an aggregate combining a constant speed hydraulic drive and a GT30NZH412 three-phase alternating current generator.

              Supplier: FED, Kharkov Machine-Building Plant, State Enterprise

              there (in the tail of the SU-34) is still part of the avionics (the mass of avionics in the installation should be about 4100 tog compared to 2500 kg on the Su-27)

              it is necessary to "jam" adversaries


              Quote: Falcon
              APU Su-Xnumx
              GTDE-117 weight 42 kg

              This is the APU (turbostarter), and not the SES for the Su-27 power source for avionics

              GTDE-117 is intended to start the main engines RD-33 and AL-31 on MiG-29, Su-27 aircraft and their modifications.
              Quote: Falcon
              Not a big difference.

              is great

              Really balances the mass:
          2. Falcon
            Falcon 5 November 2015 09: 43 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The even more advanced Su-17M4 avionics was at the level of modern aircraft


            At the plane plane level, at least?

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            F-15E of these were only 8 in the spring of 2014.


            Well, even more so. Then you need to wait for Su-30 with Beetle-A for comparison
            1. Santa Fe
              5 November 2015 09: 51 New
              -3
              Quote: Falcon
              At the plane plane level, at least?

              the nomenclature of weapons was the same as now in Syria
              KABy, X-23, laser target illumination, TV camera, IR, BTsVM Orbit-22

              Su-17M4 was a great car
              Quote: Falcon
              Then you need to wait for Su-30 with Beetle-A for comparison

              By then, the Yankees will put AFAR on everything))
          3. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 5 November 2015 18: 52 New
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Moment = Shoulder Strength
            it is no coincidence that he has such a tail boom between engines

            Not all Su-34 APUs at the end of the tail boom.
            This solution has appeared on the latest modifications.

            I didn’t hear that the Su-34 aircraft would have problems with balancing with either the APU or the other
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 5 November 2015 21: 06 New
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Not all Su-34 APUs at the end of the tail boom.
        3. ancient
          ancient 5 November 2015 17: 01 New
          +6
          Quote: Falcon
          Those. Want to say the Su-27 has no APU?


          Kirill, if by and large, the GTDE and the APU are different things .. in theory la, you can check the equipment and the systems, but .. it is used only as a turbo starter to start engines without an APA (it has a maximum operating time after starting just 40 minutes).
          So yes .. start up and fly away without any problems, but something to comprehensively and fully spend the entire pre-flight .. alas.
          And where did Olge get the weight of 1,5 tons, then ..AHZ request drinks
          1. Aleksandr1959
            Aleksandr1959 5 November 2015 22: 58 New
            +1
            Full-fledged APU on the Tu-22M. By running it (you can use the batteries), you can use all the systems to check. Often we switched to power from the APU when the APA was dull in the heat. But it ate at full load of about 250 kg / hour.
      4. rudolff
        rudolff 5 November 2015 09: 15 New
        +9
        Controversial statement. I have a marine chronometer, which I got from my grandfather. Ticks regularly, accuracy is fantastic. There are ordinary watches that were presented to me in my youth, were never repaired. But household electronics, such as televisions, smartphones, computers, without repairs is almost complete. He himself was a radio amateur. The capacitors dry, the resistors break through, the potentiometers are oxidized, the output transistors burn, the microcircuits cannot withstand static voltage, it is enough to stop the intercooler to disable the processor. Yes, and you can not do without servos. Regarding resistance to mechanical stress, well, yes. In his youth, he made radio-controlled models, then poured rosin on the circuit board. The plane to smithereens, but the whole board. Now there are dielectrics similar to rubber, silicone. In any case, the electronics of Kitolov or Krasnopol can withstand a shot from a gun.
        1. Zavr
          Zavr 5 November 2015 10: 22 New
          -6
          Controversial statement.


          and much can you do with a chronometer or youth watch?

          Do not confuse soft with cold
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 5 November 2015 12: 51 New
            +7
            Zavr, but I do not confuse. Despite the presence of advanced navigation systems, I always had a chronometer and a sextant on my BS. Time cut-offs during active maneuvering with an ordinary stopwatch. Just everything has its place and circumstances. This is the first. And secondly ... With one electronics, without mechanization, you won’t make a plane or ship, but without electronics you can easily. Everything is relative.
      5. Falcon
        Falcon 5 November 2015 09: 17 New
        11
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Having built the “Reptor”, the Yankees created a universal aviation complex for hitting air and ground targets.


        He doesn’t even have an aiming system! What is a universal drummer ??? The plane is purely gaining dominance in the air.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What will happen if the EMDS fails? Despite the inadequate reaction of "Drying" to the movements of the control stick (RUS), an experienced pilot is likely to be able to reach the airfield and land the plane. The static instability of 5% SAX is still bearable.


        EMDS implies the replacement of mechanical wiring with wired (roughly if) And there is no mechanical connection between the handle and the controls. Even if you make it, without amplifiers on such a technique, it does not make sense



        In case of refusal of the electronic control system, the pilot’s qualifications will not matter. It is impossible to manage.
      6. vladimir_krm
        vladimir_krm 5 November 2015 09: 17 New
        +1
        All this is true, but electronic warfare systems have not yet affected deposits in banks, and electromagnetic bombs are already a reality, not fiction, not to mention nuclear weapons :)
      7. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 5 November 2015 13: 27 New
        +6
        .... Interestingly, many combat pilots of the Russian Aerospace Forces will be able to 100% realize the potential of a fighter with an engine with a controlled thrust vector ....

        .... I think everything .... There this potential is realized by an automatic machine .... Or do you think that the pilot frantically manipulates the ore, the control knob and a certain control lever for rotary nozzles ???? ..... hi
        1. cherkas.oe
          cherkas.oe 5 November 2015 22: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: aleks 62 next
          .Or do you think that the pilot frantically manipulates the throttle, the control knob and some lever to control the rotary nozzles ???? .....

          Judging by the question he asked, he probably thought. yes
      8. xtur
        xtur 5 November 2015 13: 37 New
        +7
        my strength is no more angry
        Kaptsov, well, stop reporting from the alternative Vlislennaya ... Electronics is reliable because of the use reservationthat with the sizes of transistors and other components is not a problem at all. Roughly the same thing applies to the reliability reasons for server hardware - they are used reservation principle.

        And from the point of view of the reliability of a piece of equipment ... refer to the regulatory documents of nuclear power plants, where it has long been considered the most reliable technology "passive elements without mechanical moving parts." Offhand, this is a reactor vessel, pipes, heat exchangers ...

        The reliability of everything else must be considered, for this at all nuclear power plants, for example, for a long time there are corresponding departments. And without calculated numbers, all talk about reliability is pulling an owl on a globe
        1. Eduard Egorov
          Eduard Egorov 11 July 2019 22: 43 New
          0
          My 7-year-old computer doesn’t have any problems with microelectronics, but the Windows merged horseradish knows how many times, sometimes applications get buggy, etc. it comes to software, glucan and everything and fell into the sea like f35 Japanese.
      9. insafufa
        insafufa 5 November 2015 13: 57 New
        +3
        The guys don’t recognize our Oleg Kaptsov as a complete seaman and romantic with all his heart rejoicing for the revival of the Dreadnought in the new incarnation of missile dreadnought.

        My jaw dropped when I saw this article, interesting discussions about the eagle and the duckling, but somehow it does not fit into the role
      10. Malkor
        Malkor 5 November 2015 16: 38 New
        +5
        I admit, after two sentences, I realized who the article was raffling on and therefore did not read in order to observe brain hygiene)))
      11. APASUS
        APASUS 5 November 2015 17: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        CALL at least one example of a complex mechanical (electromechanical, hydraulic) system that can compare in reliability with microelectronics

        All technological processes in the production of explosives and rocket fuel components with a special explosion-proof mode are provided by inkjet automation.
        The advantages of such systems are no less than electronic systems:
        1 the absence of moving mechanical parts, which ensures high reliability, stability of characteristics over time, high manufacturability.
        2 ability to withstand significant overloads, without loss of performance
        3 complete lack of electric potential
        4 minimum routine maintenance
        5 relatively low prices and operating costs
        What does not suit you ???
      12. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 5 November 2015 23: 25 New
        0
        Great answer!
      13. Drёma
        Drёma 6 November 2015 01: 47 New
        0
        I did not know such details about Voyager - I was impressed;
        Thank you.
    2. Lapkonium
      Lapkonium 5 November 2015 06: 31 New
      +4
      As already mentioned many times, electronics is most often more reliable mechanics. Plus, it’s an effective thing, therefore inevitable. The Su-27, too, as far as I remember, cannot be controlled without an on-board computer due to static instability.
      1. Santa Fe
        5 November 2015 06: 36 New
        11
        Quote: Lapkonium
        Su-27, too, as far as I remember, cannot be controlled without an on-board computer due to static instability.

        The degree of longitudinal static stability of the Su-27 is negative and amounts to 5% of the average aerodynamic wing chord (SAX).

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

        The stability of a flying airplane is determined by the position of the aerodynamic focus (the point of increase in lift when the angle of attack changes) relative to the center of gravity of the airplane. The Su-27 fighter was designed in such a way that its aerodynamic focus is located in front of the central point. Every second, the aircraft is ready to lift its nose and “somersault” backward, through the tail. Without any involvement from the pilot. It is statically unstable.

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

        What will happen if the EMDS fails? Despite the inadequate reaction of "Drying" to the movements of the control stick (RUS), an experienced pilot is likely to be able to reach the airfield and land the plane. The static instability of 5% SAX is still bearable.

        Another representative of the "twenty-seventh" family, the Su-35, in the event of a failure of the EDSU, will write out a couple of somersaults and will certainly crash. The degree of its static instability is brought to 20% SAX - manual control of the aircraft is excluded. However, the risk of such a situation is negligible - the ESD of the Su-35 aircraft is made with four (!) Redundancy in the longitudinal channel and three times in the lateral channel
        1. Lapkonium
          Lapkonium 5 November 2015 06: 46 New
          0
          Yes, that's right. I wrote this in response to the first commentator. wink
        2. aleks 62 next
          aleks 62 next 5 November 2015 13: 46 New
          +4
          .... Static instability 5% SAH - this is still bearable ....

          .... belay ..... Well, yes-ah !!! ???? ..... For your information, the same "airbases" have static instability .... But these are not aerobatic aircraft .... Due to the use of ACS and smaller, respectively, HE achieves better fuel efficiency (by reducing the frontal air resistance) .... The use of EDSU in aviation is mainly associated not with static instability of the aircraft (although this is also one of the reasons), but avoiding direct mechanical and hydraulic control systems (tens of meters of tubes and rods) .... It is easier and safer to stretch to each RM (steering gear) several harnesses dispersed throughout the fuselage and wing (increased survivability and, accordingly, reliability) ...
      2. tolancop
        tolancop 5 November 2015 13: 43 New
        +2
        The dispute over the comparative inflatedness of mechanical and electronic systems, IMHO, is stupid from the beginning. T.K. the subject of the dispute is missing. Mechanical devices solve their problems, electronic ones. And the area of ​​problems that can be solved by using both mechanical and electronic systems, IMHO, is small. And much depends on the correct formulation of the task, as well as its implementation. Somewhere a mechanical system is preferred, somewhere an electronic one.
        Let us recall the hammering of nails with a microscope ... You can also hammer them, but a simple hammer is better.
    3. Taagad
      Taagad 5 November 2015 06: 50 New
      13
      Who can explain to me why, having ordered the 33 F-35 and having the opportunity to increase this order, the Israeli Air Force decided for some reason to order instead of the additional F-35 the latest modification of the F-15? I can not understand this solution ...
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 5 November 2015 08: 30 New
        +4
        For the same reason why the Mi 24 is flying in Syria, not the Mi-28. Familiar car, no surprises. And then we'll see ... as the F-35 will show in operation.
        1. gjv
          gjv 5 November 2015 10: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          For the same reason why Mi 24 fly in Syria

      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 5 November 2015 10: 13 New
        +8
        Not instead, but in addition. F-35 ordered 34 pieces.
        In two approved orders.
        F-35 will gradually replace the F-16.
        Part of the Israeli F-15 is very old. Since the 70s.
        It was high time to renew the park.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 5 November 2015 13: 26 New
          0
          In theory, the F-35 should And F-16 and F-15 and F-18 replace. But I think the f-16s are still flying.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Taagad
          Taagad 5 November 2015 16: 41 New
          +1
          I do not understand why the old F-15 need to be replaced with the new F-15, and not with additional F-35, since the F-22 is not available to us.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 5 November 2015 17: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Taagad
            I do not understand why the old F-15 need to be replaced with the new F-15, and not with additional F-35, since the F-22 is not available to us.

            If only because the old F-15s need to be replaced, the F-35s have a very tight release schedule, and the new Eagles will be able to enter service much faster. So, due to the delays, the park fell into disrepair.
      3. complete zero
        complete zero 5 November 2015 11: 45 New
        +2
        based on the criterion of Price-Quality (apparently) ... although for the Israeli Air Force (their relative small numbers) they could probably afford 35? ... but still, it’s apparently a matter of price
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 5 November 2015 12: 19 New
          +4
          Quote: complete zero
          . although for the Israeli Air Force (their relative paucity) could you probably afford 35? ... but still, it’s apparently a matter of price

          Well, how do you say small numbers? Exceeds the number of aviation major European countries
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 13: 09 New
          +6
          Quote: complete zero
          . although for the Israeli Air Force (their relative paucity)

          Is the Israeli Air Force small?
          87 F-15, 309 F-16
          For comparison, the British Air Force
          Tornado 117, Typhoons 100
          So at the expense of the small number of Israeli Air Force, you joked.
          1. Catafract
            Catafract 5 November 2015 14: 22 New
            +1
            Well, with respect to the Russian Federation and the United States, yes, but regarding the "Papuans" from the UK, no ... laughing
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 17: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Catafract
              Well, with respect to the Russian Federation and the United States, yes, but regarding the "Papuans" from the UK, no ...

              Regarding the territory and population, they paid both Russia and the United States in aviation.
      4. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 13: 14 New
        +1
        Quote: Taagad
        I can not understand this solution ...

        This is probably due to the fact that the Israeli pilots studied for some time in the USA on the F-35.
      5. mav1971
        mav1971 5 November 2015 15: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Taagad
        Who can explain to me why, having ordered the 33 F-35 and having the opportunity to increase this order, the Israeli Air Force decided for some reason to order instead of the additional F-35 the latest modification of the F-15? I can not understand this solution ...


        The principle of sufficiency.
        In terms of its size and area of ​​"responsibility" and 33 fighters, it is too much to fulfill the goals that are facing Israel.
      6. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
        Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 22 January 2018 02: 01 New
        0
        how is it? didn't order extra?
    4. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 5 November 2015 07: 01 New
      21
      Su-34 vs F-15E. Heaven's wrath
      Lord .. again ...! let's throw off, buy this pair, and compare in full, with addiction! smile
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 5 November 2015 09: 48 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        Lord .. again ...! let's throw off, buy this pair, and compare in full, with addiction!

        The third article is about "who is thicker and longer", excuse my French. They are measuring guns, guidance systems, flight range, etc.
        I think so: if fighters can still be compared somehow, provided there are air fights between the compared machines, then bombers can be compared only by the effectiveness of strikes (and these figures are very subjective).
        And in the concept of using any aircraft, the designers lay personally for a particular machine only its inherent capabilities, while enhancing some parameters that, in their opinion, are the most important, but at the same time "selecting" something else, not so important ( again, according to the designers).
        As for the Raptors and the F-35 ... then several questions arise. First, if the Raptor is such an effective machine in work on the ground, then why is it used as a reconnaissance in Syria? The second question: Kol F-35 is such a successful machine (according to the author ), why has it not yet passed the state tests, has not been officially adopted for service, and the "equity holders" of this program are reducing orders for their purchase?
        Sincerely. hi
      2. papik09
        papik09 5 November 2015 10: 38 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        Su-34 vs F-15E. Heaven's wrath
        Lord .. again ...! let's throw off, buy this pair, and compare in full, with addiction! smile

        And what? The idea is very interesting. fellow but (!) after that all disputes here will end winked
        drinks
      3. Petrol
        Petrol 5 November 2015 11: 58 New
        +4
        what for to buy ???
        somehow in 1995 we calculated a relatively safe passage into the depths of Russia for 30 km and then no less than 8 thousand, it was possible to find a gap but this is only bombing almost at supersonic sound from cabrio (su-24) and it’s not a fact that you will get there.
        according to the modern capabilities of Russian air defense, it is unlikely that something can cross the border, especially since Russian laws allow pushing the threat to the border. The only thing that can be done is only a huge wedge in the forehead with fastening, but the losses will be huge. and the "raptor" is a beautiful advertising toy of a needle ... the pilots of such a strong shaking near the ground simply cannot withstand the tornado for a long time (especially the glider).
    5. qwert
      qwert 5 November 2015 07: 10 New
      11
      Kaptsov in his role - the author of the most controversial articles on the VO. Of course, I do not agree with the conclusion. But I think here so many copies will be broken. Therefore keep silent smile
    6. mvg
      mvg 5 November 2015 07: 18 New
      +6
      Quote: Cyrus1984
      Too complex machine and very computerized. Then, any software can fail, moreover at the most inopportune moment, all the more so complex.


      Rebootnet Windows, and all is well .. How often do you have your computer hang up?

      Quote: Cyrus1984
      Shaking at supersonic on fighters 4 and 4 + ??? I didn’t hear ...


      Ask the Su-24 and Su-34 pilots, who flies like an iron near the ground, and who shakes godlessly ..

      Plus to the author for the correct thought .. They do not look at the passport in the air. If airplanes perform a similar combat mission, then what difference does it belong to which class .. And objectively, it would be necessary to add to the comparison both the F-16XX, and Rafal, Typhoon, Tornado .. which are also drums. For avionics complexes it is in detail written on:
      // http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f15ef.html //
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 5 November 2015 11: 16 New
        +4
        Rebootnet Windows, and all is well ...

        The main thing is that the sophisticated highly intelligent computerized control system at the most inopportune moment (in a battle, for example) does not issue: "ERROR. The system received an impossible command and will be disabled!" together with the management of the entire electronic economy of the aircraft. And that's all - write letters in small handwriting!
        But these are all jokes. wassat
        But in reality, you can certainly compare the "Merkava" with the AK-12. And what - both are made of metal and have a common purpose - to transfer everything that exists on earth from the state of "living" to the state of "inanimate". What's the point?
        You can compare with each other absolutely all attack aircraft that are still in service (at least even formally), but you will not compare the North Korean attack aircraft (as Western media assure for kamikaze pilots) of the MiG-19 with the V-52 strategist although they are both percussion machines. Regarding modern combat aircraft, I believe that their effectiveness and capabilities should be judged by the results of their combat use, in this regard the F-15, which in various versions is already used by the most diverse air forces in the world, out of competition. But the Su-34 has just begun its combat career and it is difficult to talk about its high combat effectiveness.
        I have the honor.
        1. mvg
          mvg 5 November 2015 13: 49 New
          +1
          And why is a Frenchman worse than Strike Eagle? The declared combat load is 9.5 tons, the radius is also not 340 km, as in the early Su-24 .. when refueling in the air, it does not really matter, aiming containers - whatever you want. About the F / A-18 Super Bumblebee, the same. F-16 .. The USA took a long time to choose which 16D or 15D aircraft to make a strike aircraft. As a result, they chose the 15th in finance, they just started thinking about it earlier .. And they asked for R&D in 2 times less money. Now Sniper (LANTIRNs) are betting on F-16s. Likewise, Typhoons .. shaved their capabilities are generally higher than that of the Eagle.
          By F-35: where is Oleg badly wrong? His avionics are the most perfect in the world, the load allows, by maneuverability no worse than the 34th, by security - it is stealth, and as a fighter it is better than armed with 2 Su-34 BB missiles.
          The topic is very large, if it is fully disclosed ...
          PS: About software, Windows, Linux and other Unixes, well, they fly .. and for the entire time of the F-35 flights there were no accidents, but they have the most complicated software, and avionics ... so it’s possible
    7. aviator1913
      aviator1913 5 November 2015 08: 44 New
      +3
      Then, any software can fail, moreover at the most inopportune moment, all the more so complex.


      In the event of a computer failure, even on the most ordinary Su-27, it automatically goes into a peak due to the design features, but as we see from practice, the electronics regularly work out their own.
    8. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 5 November 2015 13: 18 New
      +7
      .... Shaking at supersonic on fighters 4 and 4 + ??? I didn’t hear ...

      .... Kaptsov happens .... Introduced a pilot beating a shot with his teeth .... laughing .... In general, I started reading - I was glad for Oleg (well, somehow I came up thoroughly), I came to "... The answer is that everyone will be torn apart by the Raptor and the F-35 ..." and realized that I was happy early .. ... laughing .... Again it has suffered .... Take at least the conclusions ".... The wing of medium aspect ratio does not have the necessary rigidity. ...." and ".... For bombers, a rigid wing with a high load is necessary, which neutralizes the negative the consequences of turbulence at supersonic flight conditions. helping to reduce drag and fuel consumption.

      The F-111 solved the problem by folding wings behind its back. An effective, but not the most effective way ... "...... The conclusions are not just dubious, but also illiterate in terms of aerodynamics ... In general, Oleg upset (once again) ... request
    9. Juborg
      Juborg 5 November 2015 22: 09 New
      +3
      The author began in health, finished for peace. For Mr. Koptsev, the standard of originality and perfection is the F-35, and he will not be persuaded by any controversial issues. So let's give him a flag, let him carry a torn American flag of the Air Force, if he likes it. The title of the article does not fit with its ending at all. HIKING THE AUTHOR A LARGE RESONER.
    10. Berkut752
      Berkut752 9 March 2017 15: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Cyrus1984
      I have a feeling that pilots who can 100% use the unique potential of the F-22/35 can be counted on the fingers. Too complex machine and very computerized. Then, any software can fail, moreover at the most inopportune moment, all the more so complex.
      Shaking at supersonic on fighters 4 and 4 + ??? I didn’t hear ...

      SPECIAL SPRING ALREADY FEELING. It’s not a car that is fighting, but a pilot, the plane is a tool. Bad or good, it can only be assessed in battle. What about the F-35, it is still a TEST PROTOTYPE, as it is not accepted for service.
      On the quality of RUSSIAN WEAPONS, BEAM, ask opponents who have already experienced it to one degree or another in their own skin. Those who were in the cockpit liked it, but those who were on the ground didn’t "for some reason." The same American pilots who flew in our cars, I apologized WRITTEN FROM PLEASURE, both from the car and from the piloting of our pilots. I say this as a professional. Sample text of an American pilot, after flying on the MiGs and Sushki: "Yes, we are not yet ready to fight with Russia and the Russians."
  2. Lapkonium
    Lapkonium 5 November 2015 06: 42 New
    +1
    A great addition to the previous articles. You can also add that the Chinese J-20, apparently, also belongs to those aircraft that should "drag" like front-line bombers - breaking through at high speeds and in air defense stealth, and then quickly fleeing. However, with air combat, this aircraft will have problems due to its low maneuverability.
  3. NIKNN
    NIKNN 5 November 2015 06: 44 New
    +6
    Quote: Cyrus1984
    I have a feeling that pilots who can 100% use the unique potential of the F-22/35 can be counted on the fingers. Too complex machine and very computerized. Then, any software can fail, moreover at the most inopportune moment, all the more so complex.
    Shaking at supersonic on fighters 4 and 4 + ??? I didn’t hear ...

    The days of PRNA23 have passed, when the specialists of REO who took offsets with us could not answer questions of interest. Today's computerization is aimed at improving the interaction of the pilot-airplane connection and increasing efficiency and simplifying management. Aerodynamics and computer control, UVT allowed to deliver critical modes further than without them. So a less trained pilot can fly a complex aircraft.
    The author is undoubtedly "+". I will analyze the work later. wink I felt that the topic was not exhausted, but whoever took the liberty to go deeper further, a man was found.
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 5 November 2015 06: 58 New
    17
    I started to read. I immediately liked it, it seems, in the topic of reasoning in previous articles. Well, I think a normal person adequately reasoned good
    But as soon as I read that the Raptor and the F-35 would tear everyone apart, I immediately understood who the author was !! negative negative negative
    Blind worship of American technology lol
    MINUS!!! Half a hundred normal reasoning, at the end, imposing on readers the point of view of America’s superiority over all ... They are fighting, Kaptsov, not planes, but people winked And if we have submarines for your favorite "Zamvolts", then there will be missiles for flying "super-dupers"!
    hi
    PS. In America, you still need to look for a "patriot" who blindly adores foreign technology, we have a lot of them ... request
    1. Lapkonium
      Lapkonium 5 November 2015 07: 42 New
      +1
      How did these hat-inspiring Moods get me in the comments?

      Quote: Rurikovich
      Half a hundred normal reasoning, at the end, imposing on readers the point of view about America's superiority over all ...


      So maybe if the conclusion is based on "normal reasoning" then it is logical? Or do you want to say that someone can compete with the Americans on an equal footing in military terms? It is not just that they have a military budget that is larger than the radically closest followers.

      Quote: Rurikovich
      Fighting, Kaptsov, not planes, but people


      A article on airplanes. Not to mention the obvious superiority of staff in the number of experienced pilots.

      Quote: Rurikovich
      In America, you still need to look for a "patriot" who blindly adores foreign technology


      In this case, you have never been to an American site dedicated to small arms. There, mosquitoes and kalashas and not such praises are sung. fellow
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 5 November 2015 18: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: Lapkonium
        So maybe if the conclusion is based on "normal reasoning" then it is logical? Or do you want to say that someone can compete with the Americans on an equal footing in military terms? It is not just that they have a military budget that is larger than the radically closest followers.

        Normal reasoning ends with the words "This is my personal opinion" or "I may be wrong, but the conclusions seem to me as follows," and not "F-22 and F-35 good and everyone else negative "This is the level of the sandbox, and not of the one who tries to write objectively. Moreover, such arguments are unsubstantiated. And it would be foolish to believe Kaptsov's emotions, because many other authors, experts and other" analysts "are not so categorical in this comparison
        Quote: Lapkonium
        A article on airplanes. Not to mention the obvious superiority of staff in the number of experienced pilots.

        So this is the same thing that is measured by members, who have more, who are REALLY better without testing at the "test site". There is no sense. Only the same Indians drove the vaunted Anglo-Saxons on the vaunted "Eurofighter" on dryers. And it is impossible to compare the flight data of sushgek and American 5th generation PRINTSAU, because the Americans forbade such comparisons in practice. Although they were offered. So maybe the level of pilots is lower there ??? wink or they know that their 5th generation is bullshit, a publicity stunt to make everyone believe that America is super ...
        Quote: Lapkonium
        In this case, you have never been to an American site dedicated to small arms. There to mosquitoes and kalashas and not such praises

        That's when there will be an article on small arms here, then we will discuss. That's just small arms you need to be able to use and use it correctly wink
        hi
      2. tag
        tag 6 November 2015 09: 37 New
        0
        And who counted the number of "experienced" pilots of the US Air Force and the Russian Air Force?
    2. Taagad
      Taagad 5 November 2015 09: 03 New
      -2
      Both planes and people are at war. A good pilot on an F-15 or SU-35 will lose to a good pilot on an F-22 or F-35.
      1. tomket
        tomket 5 November 2015 16: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: Taagad
        a good pilot on the F-22 or F-35.

        Do you cheer yourself in the light of procurement f-35?)))
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 5 November 2015 17: 03 New
          0
          Quote: tomket
          Do you cheer yourself in the light of procurement f-35?)))

          Why cheer. With all the problems of initial R&D, we got a great 21 car of the 20th century. You can scramble as much as you like, but there are so many parameters that you still have to chase and chase ...
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 5 November 2015 17: 12 New
            +4
            Quote: Pimply
            Why cheer. With all the problems of initial R&D, we got a great 21 car of the 20th century. You can scramble as much as you like, but there are so many parameters that you still have to chase and chase ...

            Well, for now, the deadlines have been postponed to the 19th year, and it’s too early to talk about some super-duper miracle of fighter aircraft. I think the Mikoyanites raised the documentation for MIG-1.44. In the metal that flew into the air, there was a machine under the index 1.46. Now MIG KB, on its own initiative, designs LFI based on the developments of 1.44 (1.42, and 1,46) of the 5th generation. Taking into account the work completed on MIG 1.44 (and according to PAK FA ), the time for the emergence of 5th generation LFIs is significantly reduced. Therefore, early on you enrolled us as outsiders, so that on the contrary it didn’t work, and the Americans didn’t rush to catch up with us.
            Best regards hi
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 5 November 2015 17: 45 New
              -1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Well, for now, the deadlines have been postponed to the 19 year, and to say the least about the super-duper miracle of fighter aircraft is too early.

              Actually, in the end, no.
              Quote: NEXUS
              I’m thinking that the Mikoyanites raised documentation on the MIG-1.44. In the metal that flew into the air, there was a machine under the 1.46 index. Now MIG KB, on its own initiative, designs LFI based on the experience of 1.44 (1.42, and 1,46) 5 generations. Taking into account the work done on MIG 1.44 (and PAK FA), the time for the emergence of 5 LFIs is significantly reduced for us. Therefore, early on you enrolled us as outsiders. So that it didn’t work on the contrary, and the Americans did not hurry to catch up with us.

              A) I did not write to outsiders. Find something to indicate this. I just can’t stand the nonsense. And around American aviation it’s too much on the site
              b) MIGs can announce anything. What will happen in reality is a big question.
              1. tag
                tag 6 November 2015 09: 53 New
                0
                Do you want to know what will happen in reality? I can tell you how history shows, but it has a pattern of repeating itself, the result will be similar to the result of hostilities in the skies of Korea and Vietnam! ... and now you can start accusing me of being "shabby" sentiments ...
            2. tag
              tag 6 November 2015 09: 50 New
              +1
              Well, it's them, as they say - to the light bulb! The main thing is to sing the "American miracle of engineering thought" under the letter F-35 ...
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 17: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            . You can scramble as much as you like, but there are so many parameters that you still have to chase and chase ...

            Could you list at least the first 10?
            1. tag
              tag 6 November 2015 09: 55 New
              +1
              No, no ... What are you, this is a "military secret" !!! ... even for the Americans themselves! wassat
          3. Good me
            Good me 7 November 2015 11: 21 New
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            You can scramble as much as you like, but there are so many parameters that you still have to chase and chase ...

            Basic:

            - Unit cost, and service price ...
      2. tag
        tag 6 November 2015 09: 47 New
        +2
        You would all read the conclusions of the Americans themselves about their advertised F-22 and F-35 for a start !!! I wonder why it is not recommended for Raptors to fly supersonic in extremely dusty conditions, eh ?! And the flying "mountain of gold" under the designation F-35, which can fly for the most part only in a straight line, is sung so many diferambs that involuntarily a comparison comes with their current president, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in advance, in response to which the latter smashed several countries into dust and at the end of his "career" sat down in such a puddle that the only thing left is to "keep a good face, in a bad game" and chew on his presidential rations in the silence of the "oval office" in the White House.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 5 November 2015 10: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      .Fight, Kaptsov, not planes, but people

      The machine may be wonderful in its performance characteristics, but the question is what level of pilots it is tailored to. If we recall the MIG-15 and Sabrn, our fighter realized more than himself, although he was calculated more on a regular pilot, rather than on a super ace, that you can’t say about the American.
      A machine can be very maneuverable and effective, but if it is impossible to the most difficult, and all its capabilities can be realized only by an extra-class pilot, then its efficiency will be generally extremely low, since extra-class pilots in any country can be counted on fingers.
      Best regards hi
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 5 November 2015 16: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: Rurikovich
        .Fight, Kaptsov, not planes, but people

        The machine may be wonderful in its performance characteristics, but the question is what level of pilots it is tailored to. If we recall the MIG-15 and Sabrn, our fighter realized more than himself, although he was calculated more on a regular pilot, rather than on a super ace, that you can’t say about the American.
        A machine can be very maneuverable and effective, but if it is impossible to the most difficult, and all its capabilities can be realized only by an extra-class pilot, then its efficiency will be generally extremely low, since extra-class pilots in any country can be counted on fingers.
        Best regards hi


        Times have changed.
        If over the years of production of the MIG-15, 15 of thousands of units were stamped and they stood in the troops for almost thousands, then here (in the 5 generation) there will be no more than 2 thousand, or even 50-100 pcs.
        On 100 pieces I think high-class pilots will be typed in many countries around the world.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 5 November 2015 16: 46 New
          +4
          Quote: mav1971

          Times have changed.
          If over the years of production of the MIG-15, 15 of thousands of units were stamped and they stood in the troops for almost thousands, then here (in the 5 generation) there will be no more than 2 thousand, or even 50-100 pcs.
          On 100 pieces I think high-class pilots will be typed in many countries around the world.

          What do you mean. That is, 100 cars per country and "dry paddles"? Hmm, an interesting approach. This means the subsequent CHEAPERING of production of machines of the 5th generation as the series is produced, EXPORT, replacement of the obsolete fleet of machines (or, according to your opinion, 5 cars of the 4th generation will they write off, and one of the 5th generation will replace them? In this case, 4 pilots will be sent to retire). So you see all this?
          In addition to the needs of the army itself, there is also such a component in this equation as adversary, with its ambitions and trade in the arms markets (I am talking about competitiveness). Providing allies with new types of weapons is also visible, by your side, even until the end of the century on the MiG- 29 and Su-27 are flying.
          The faster the machine is to learn, it is not very demanding on the class of the pilot (there is enough regular training and raids), the more it A) will "take root" in the troops B) will be more competitive in the world market.
          And therefore, the number of cars of the next generation, of course, will not be the same as the MIG-15, but there will not be 100 "in one hand" either. The same PAK FA is built, taking into account further modernization, rearmament, etc. for 50 years. The question is, for half a century the price will not decrease for these machines? And the second question, are you sure that over the next 50 years we will not fight with anyone where these fighter platforms will be in demand?
          The United States said that they will stamp F-35s (in various versions) about 1500 units only for themselves, and there are still customers of this kind (allies). They will not make this a rhetorical question. They already have 189 raptors, plus the F-35 and it’s not a fact that in the future the Americans won’t make another 5-generation child prodigy to replace the F-35, F-22. And to believe that the USA will become white and fluffy overnight, and they’ll forget about their ambitions stupidly. And therefore, whether we want it or not, but the FORCE will force us to build such cars in completely small series.
          Best regards hi
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 5 November 2015 23: 16 New
            +1
            Americans buy 1600 Penguins to replace the remaining 2400 aircraft.
            The raptors first wanted 600, then 390, settled on less than 200.
            in 90, the aircraft carrier had 16 mattress, now 11.
            This is a global trend.
            Worldwide.

            In the end, face the truth.
            The army of the USSR / RF and the USA decreased by 2-3 times over 25 years.
            In everything there is a quantitative reduction.
            On the topic of T-50. Plans are shrinking. There have been articles about this everywhere. God forbid if at least 100pcs are built by the 2025 year.

            Fighter pilot training during the MIG-15 - 50 thousand dollars, F-22 - 3-3,5 million dollars. there is a difference?
            Is our education cheaper?
            Not sure.
            Fuel is significantly more expensive with us.
            Everything is more expensive with us, except for salaries.

            The decline in quantity is a trend that we can only observe.
            And she must be seen.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 5 November 2015 18: 02 New
        -1
        Quote: NEXUS
        The machine may be wonderful in its performance characteristics, but the question is what level of pilots it is tailored to. If we recall the MIG-15 and Sabrn, our fighter realized more than himself, although he was calculated more on a regular pilot, rather than on a super ace, that you can’t say about the American.
        A machine can be very maneuverable and effective, but if it is impossible to the most difficult, and all its capabilities can be realized only by an extra-class pilot, then its efficiency will be generally extremely low, since extra-class pilots in any country can be counted on fingers.
        Best regards

        So you can do it all without the "very-very" say. But I doubt the objectivity of such judgments when the winner has already been named wink
    4. Hell's Angel
      Hell's Angel 5 November 2015 10: 53 New
      +1
      In America, you still need to look for a "patriot" who blindly adores foreign technology, we have a lot of them ...

      UAZ Patriot and Cadillac Escalade. Yeah! Much sadder!
      1. tag
        tag 6 November 2015 09: 59 New
        +2
        "Challenger", "Columbia" and the orbital station "Mir" !!! Rocket engines RD-18 and zero for Americans ... Much sadder !!!!!
    5. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 11: 49 New
      +6
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But as soon as I read that the Raptor and the F-35 would tear everyone apart, I immediately realized who the author was !!

      Who is the author, I understood after the line
      C. Linnik and K. Sokolov I express gratitude for the initiation of interest in this topic.

      The article has a mixed impression, the article is easy to read, Oleg has literary talent, in fact, I don’t know what to discuss, maybe it was better to name the article the best strike aircraft of our time?

      For which the author omitted the Su-30SM

      Sioux 30SM
      Empty 18 t, max. takeoff ~ 29 tons.
    6. mav1971
      mav1971 5 November 2015 15: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich

      Blind worship of American technology lol


      And you do not think that worship is not before American technology.
      And awareness of the real potential of fifth-generation aircraft!
      Not?

      That's just the trouble that only the United States has fifth-generation aircraft.

      And because of this, all of you who are confident in the superiority of the fifth generation over the rest, have written down as sailors and are accusing you of imposing the alleged superiority of the United States.

      if there were already Japanese and Chinese and Russian 5 Gen - Oleg would have mentioned them as well.
      Again.
      5 generation is only Raptor and Penguin.
      There are no others yet!
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 5 November 2015 17: 59 New
        +6
        Quote: mav1971
        And you do not think that worship is not before American technology.
        And awareness of the real potential of fifth-generation aircraft!
        Not?

        That's just the trouble that only the United States has fifth-generation aircraft.

        And because of this, all of you who are confident in the superiority of the fifth generation over the rest, have written down as sailors and are accusing you of imposing the alleged superiority of the United States.

        if there were already Japanese and Chinese and Russian 5 Gen - Oleg would have mentioned them as well.
        Again.
        5 generation is only Raptor and Penguin.
        There are no others yet!

        What is the fifth generation ??? !!! F-35 ??? Everything complicated comes down to simple. Simply put, there are objective and subjective circumstances even when comparing certain aircraft. And when, according to objective indicators, the sample that should be the best loses, subjective ones are included. Information warfare is used in the common people. Likewise, Kaptsov has the best Americans, because the Americans said so and they must be believed. Here are Kaptsov's conclusions. The rest is secondary. Even if we take into account the fact that they are less noticeable than ours, then they are more objectively stronger. So what? Who checked it to assert this. Or maybe ours use a different type of radar and see the vaunted Raptors at a glance? Only they are silent about it. You don't know that! And all these fifth generations boil down to seeing and destroying earlier. ALL! But if you remove the loud epithets and childish naivety, then all these American tin cans are no better than ours!
        They say, "Raptors appeared first. Yes, because such American worshipers as Kaptsov destroyed a huge country and almost reduced it to a raw material appendage, that's why they were late. How many institutions have been lost, how many factories have been closed !!! that we are lagging behind ... Ugh ...
        But for some reason, the thirty-fifth so beloved by the author, almost ALL LOSES to our planes, but no, he is the "fifth generation" means better. And the Rapota? Where did they fight to prove that they are better ?! On the paper??? Only for some reason in Syria they are engaged in reconnaissance and do not risk flying when ours appear ...
        Already these nonsense about "everything is super there" got it!
        Write a normal article without pathos and will read normally ... hi
        PS. I wonder if the author will be male virtues with a sidekick to be measured in the gateway, will Obama have more? wink
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 5 November 2015 22: 08 New
          -2
          Quote: Rurikovich

          What is the fifth generation ??? !!! F-35 ???

          Yes. it is 5.
          Quote: Rurikovich

          .... So Kaptsov is the best Americans, because the Americans said so and they need to be believed. Here are the conclusions of Kaptsov .... Or maybe ours use a different type of radar and see the praised Raptor at a glance? Just keep quiet about it. You don’t know this!


          Read Kaptsov's articles.
          About MiG-21, about 65-76, about DF-21D - he "praises" a lot of what really can be or could be in due time - an excellent weapon.
          And most importantly, not American.
          He has no admiration for mattresses.
          stop already.
          if you carefully read his articles - preferably everything, take time, score in the search on the Kaptsov website - you will see. that he doesn't mattress.

          And again I remind you that for 70 years, no aces in the sleeves and ambush regiments - they do not hold in principle.
          I repeat.
          First.
          No one hides anything if it is armed with combat units and on combat duty.
          Because it is dangerous primarily for the owner of the secret.
          They can underestimate him, consider him weak and go to war.
          In the end, both will lose.
          The attacker will receive in the face, and the defender will also not care, but will receive strong damage.
          This is not a fight club or films about Hongildon.
          Second.
          A vivid demonstration of capabilities not only to uncover the capabilities of the enemy, but also to discredit him, is very expensive.
          First, all his expenses are leveled and recognized by everyone. like thrown into the trash.
          The combat potential is zeroed, export tends to zero.
          Subsequently, your "defamatory" means (radar, electronic warfare or any other weapon) are bought all over the world like hot cakes.
          Until the next race in the confrontation.
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 5 November 2015 22: 09 New
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich

          They say, "Raptors appeared first. Yes, because such American worshipers as Kaptsov destroyed a huge country and almost reduced it to a raw material appendage, that's why they were late. How many institutions have been lost, how many factories have been closed !!! that we are lagging behind ... Ugh ...


          And let me teach you to be honest.
          In relation to yourself.
          The country was destroyed precisely by the Soviet people. No Mattress was involved.
          It was the people who stole the full potential.
          Examples? million.
          Agriculture in 70-80 years.
          The village of 3,5 thousand people.
          In each yard, 2-3 cows, pigs. sheeps.
          only now all this was fed almost always by grain stolen from the same collective farm / state farm.
          Yes. It was that they also mowed hay, but more often for a bubble, they brought you a collective farm.
          The same grain brought from Canada was often not sown at all. Buried.
          Why? Yes, because he was brought in with processed chemicals.
          And ours had to steal right away and the cattle felt bad.
          How many posts were in the same agriculture? and all allocated funds, materials. Which then just plundered.
          They should not have remained during inspections and inventories.

          They stole gasoline and diesel fuel in huge quantities.
          It was even such that gasoline was poured onto the ground, if there was no way to sell it. Otherwise, you will not report for the mileage.

          All summer cottages were built and equipped from materials stolen from enterprises.
          Aluminum stairs. titanium shovels and nail pullers, stainless steel tanks, thorium electrodes for devils.
          The practice took place at the 18-th aircraft factory.
          in the 22 workshop.
          All the time welders cooked. That's just 90% - there were left orders, not production.
          Those. a lot of people during the working hours were engaged in the extraction of materials, then they brought us, we cooked, they took and left. Others came.
          We spent a lot of time, a bunch of state oxygen and propane, electrodes, emery wheels, paint on what did not bring any benefit to the state.
          and so it was almost everywhere.
          These are our people. Soviet.

          Is it necessary to talk about theft in the spheres of trade, or do you remember?

          They stole almost everything.
          Directly or indirectly.

          And it turned out like that. that our economy itself could not feed itself. That rotted.
          I remember perfectly, queues for oil - a rarity was indescribable. For sausage, for condensed milk even. I remember everything perfectly.
          Samara city. he is Kuibyshev.

          No need to idealize the old days.
          Just remember. More closely and more honorably.
          1. Hell's Angel
            Hell's Angel 6 November 2015 08: 46 New
            +1
            What we do not pay extra - we finish! Do you remember? And now it’s all over the place!
          2. tag
            tag 6 November 2015 10: 23 New
            +3
            He promised to teach me to be honest, but you fill your ears with such a "badag" that it's just terrible to become !!! Everything that is written about, everything, down to the smallest details, can be found today and even boldly multiplied by 100 !!! I only agree that the queues are gone .... Was it worth it ?! And by the way, there is no need to drive the entire Soviet people, for a second, this very people pulled out a huge country in the number of the advanced industrial countries of the world in 23 years, this very people pulled on their shoulders, at the cost of monstrous sacrifices, the most terrible war and won the right to live, and not be slaves, in their own country, this very people was the first to send a man into space !!! And it is not the fault of this people that as a result of the seizure of power by corrupt "thieves and reformers" a huge country has collapsed, and Russia has been unraveling the results of the "wind of change" Humpback for twenty-five years !!! If you want to be honest - be them, but whistle into your ears, especially those who remember all this (and there are still a lot of them) do not need to, you can run into rudeness !!!
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 6 November 2015 12: 41 New
              0
              Quote: ferret
              If you want to be honest - be them, but whistle into your ears, especially those who remember all this (and there are still a lot of them) do not need to, you can run into rudeness !!!


              I am honest.
              Grandfathers and great-grandfathers restored this country after the war, and their children and grandchildren - plundered!
              That is the truth.
              Or has the term "thugs" not since then?
              And rude to me - it's just to spit in the mirror! :)
              If you have internet, find Crocodile magazine binder. Look at them with a sober look. It is very informative to throw early enthusiastic memories. Maybe remember, if you want of course ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. tag
          tag 6 November 2015 10: 09 New
          0
          Obama, of course, and Merkel has the second dimension .... this is for "pro-Westerners" - an axiom!
      2. tag
        tag 6 November 2015 10: 07 New
        +1
        How disgusting to become from this type of "storytellers" !!! A fifth-generation aircraft actually operating in combat units is only the F-22 ... where and for what merits do you attribute the F-35 here ?! In this case, the Russian Air Force also has a PAK FA T-50, and the Chinese have J-20 and J-31 (which, by the way, is surprisingly similar to the T-50) ..... There is more objectivity, objectivity ... ..
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 6 November 2015 12: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: ferret
          How disgusting to become from this type of "storytellers" !!! A fifth-generation aircraft actually operating in combat units is only the F-22 ... where and for what merits do you attribute the F-35 here ?! In this case, the Russian Air Force also has a PAK FA T-50, and the Chinese have J-20 and J-31 (which, by the way, is surprisingly similar to the T-50) ..... There is more objectivity, objectivity ... ..


          184 Raptor
          At least 150 already produced Penguins. 130 of them are combat versions and fly already in combat squadrons.
          learn materiel.
          Not a single combat T-50, Chinese and Japanese yet.
          You are more objective.
          To the mirror, man, to the mirror !!!
  5. Windy
    Windy 5 November 2015 07: 13 New
    +2
    Tired of it! This is the third article on this topic! Reminds conversations of my friends in a bathhouse for beer (they are far from military realities).
  6. Alex_59
    Alex_59 5 November 2015 07: 37 New
    12
    Oleg is a professional of the highest class. Not only the sea, but also the aviator.
    Medium extension wing does not have the necessary rigidity
    He participated in the calculations.
    When performing supersonic throws, shaking begins, exhausting the crew and leading to structural damage.
    he flew a lot.
  7. user1212
    user1212 5 November 2015 08: 09 New
    11
    Well, that Oleg hi a longtime and loyal fan of F22 no one doubted. This belief is not the invincibility of the efki akin to religion.
    Even when comparing F15 and Su34, he chooses F22. laughing
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 5 November 2015 11: 49 New
      +4
      Quote: user1212
      Even when comparing F15 and Su34, he chooses F22.

      What's cooler, Raptor or PAK FA? Of course Armata laughing
      1. user1212
        user1212 5 November 2015 18: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        What's cooler, Raptor or PAK FA? Of course Armata

        At the enemy’s airfield good
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 5 November 2015 19: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: user1212
          At the enemy’s airfield

          Swimming fine ... hi In the Capitol Round Office wink
      2. Awp
        Awp 5 November 2015 23: 25 New
        -1
        Armata has armor!)
  8. Bongo
    Bongo 5 November 2015 08: 12 New
    15
    Oleg has once again mingled "people and horses". Criticizing the authors of previous publications for mistakes, Oleg manages to demonstrate absolute ignorance of the subject of discussion. wassat It turns out that's why the Su-34 auxiliary power plant:
    The story of the gas turbine generator has a simple explanation. The 105 kW generator is located in the Su-34 tail boom and, in addition to its main function, is a counterweight ballast for the 1,5-ton armored cab. Without it, “Duckling” would have buried its nose in the ground.
    How could the Su-34 fly without it before?
    Initially, it was planned to set up a radar for viewing the rear hemisphere at this place, but, due to its dubious combat value and high price, the designers opted for an auxiliary gas-tube installation
    Doubtful combat effectiveness, really? The radar station on the Su-34 did not appear not because of its "dubious effectiveness"; after the collapse of the USSR, they simply could not "bring to mind."
    APG-70 is the last century. Since 2007, the Eagles have equipped the APG-82 radar with AFAR
    Everything? No.
    And if the lighter and more maneuverable Eagle still has a chance to use cannon armament at ground targets and in the air (the only time he had to shoot at the attacking al-Qaeda fighters in 2002 year), then the 45-ton Su-34 has no such possibility .
    What can I say? Apparently our aircraft designers do not know what Oleg knows. request
    Su-34
    Empty - about 20 tons, max. Take-off weight - 45 tons. Specialized strike aircraft, like its ancestor F-111
    This is generally inimitable good There’s nothing to say ...
    In general, reading Oleg’s creation, in places I simply laughed ... Thank you, I received great pleasure!
    1. Santa Fe
      5 November 2015 08: 38 New
      -4
      Quote: Bongo
      How could the Su-34 fly without it before?

      used a different ballast
      Quote: Bongo
      Doubtful combat effectiveness, really? The radar station on the Su-34 did not appear not because of its "dubious effectiveness"; after the collapse of the USSR, they simply could not "bring to mind"

      Most really useful projects brought to mind
      the same "Irbis" for the Su-35

      The idea of ​​a miniature rear-view radar initially had a low priority: by and large, why is it needed? How can she help the pilots. significantly increase the cost of the aircraft, and the complexity of its maintenance

      To detect an enemy creeping up behind, on all combat aircraft there is a radar detector — a radiation warning station — used to be a SPO-15LM “BEREZA”. And that’s enough
      Quote: Bongo
      APG-70 is the last century. Since 2007, the Eagles have equipped the APG-82 radar with AFAR
      Everything?

      What else do you need? Scrupulously paint her TTX?
      who is interested in reading

      Quote: Bongo
      Su-34
      Empty - about 20 tons, max. Take-off weight - 45 tons. A specialized attack aircraft, like its ancestor F-111. This is generally inimitable.

      The concept of “Drying” (here we are talking about Su-24) with a variable geometry wing, high-tech aiming and navigation equipment and in-line pilots in a two-seat cockpit, there is a reflection of the ideas embodied in the F-111.

      Su-34 follows the same ideas. Heavy "semi-strategic" fighter-based
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 5 November 2015 08: 52 New
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        used a different ballast

        Oleg, you have a somewhat simplified approach to the process of centering aircraft.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Most really useful projects brought to mind

        Not everyone... No. A list of what they did not finish or bring much more ... crying
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What else do you need? Scrupulously paint her TTX?
        who is interested in reading

        Oleg, maybe you didn't read F-15E against Su-34 very carefully. Who is better? It literally says the following:
        it is expected that on the F-15E part this station will be replaced by the AFAR AN / APG-82 radar.
        Why this passage:
        APG-70 is the last century. Since 2007, the Eagles have equipped the APG-82 radar with AFAR
        negative Do you have information on how many F-15E new radars are installed?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The concept of “Drying” (here we are talking about the Su-24) with a variable geometry wing, high-tech sighting and navigation equipment and in-line pilots in a two-seat cockpit is a reflection of the ideas embodied in the F-111.

        The design of the Su-24 began independently of the F-111, although the American vehicle certainly had some influence. In any case, calling the American F-34 the ancestor of the Su-111 is extremely incorrect. These are machines that are completely different in their capabilities and concept. As you put it, the "half-strategy" was the FB-111, which differed from the tactical F-111 with an increased wing span, a reinforced airframe and chassis, modified engines and avionics, and was sharpened to carry out nuclear strikes. In our Air Force, such a machine is the Tu-22M3, but not the front-line Su-34.
        1. Santa Fe
          5 November 2015 09: 13 New
          -3
          Quote: Bongo
          As you put it, the "half-strategy" was FB-11

          In the intercontinental raids, the usual F-111 participated, which was repeatedly demonstrated in practice (Libya-86, desert storm)
          Quote: Bongo
          although the American machine certainly had some influence.

          The Su-24 was a direct response to the F-111, using all the major design solutions from Murvied
          Quote: Bongo
          Do you have information on how many F-15E new radars are installed?

          The F-15 E also has an ongoing radar modernization program which is installing an APG-82 (V) 1 AESA radar on board the aircraft. Thus far, eight of these new radars have been installed since 2010 and the service plans to outfit 217 F-15Es with them.
          - March 2014
          Quote: Bongo
          Not everyone...

          the one that is really important is that the radar in the tail obviously does not fit into the priorities
          Quote: Bongo
          you have a somewhat simplified approach to the process of centering aircraft.

          1,5 tons of armor
          and 5 meter tail boom
          much easier
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 5 November 2015 09: 21 New
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In the intercontinental raids, the usual F-111 participated, which was repeatedly demonstrated in practice (Libya-86, desert storm)

            Only you forgot to say that the planes were often lost and what was the effectiveness of these raids. "Shock Eagles" if it comes to that, they also participated in such raids, will you refer them to "strategists" too? what
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The Su-24 was a direct response to the F-111, using all the major design solutions from Murvied

            The basic aerodynamic design of a strike aircraft with variable wing geometry was developed in the USSR at the beginning of the 60.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The F-15 E also has an ongoing radar modernization program which is installing an APG-82 (V) 1 AESA radar on board the aircraft. Thus far, eight of these new radars have been installed since 2010 and the service plans to outfit 217 F-15Es with them.
            - March 2014

            But Oleg is already just not polite negative Not everyone has the opportunity to read it.
            The key phrase in this text is "The APG-82 radar is set to 8, and the rest are only planning request So what's the conversation? It turns out that most of them fly with the "last century"?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            1,5 tons of armor
            and 5 meter tail boom
            much easier

            Only for you...
            1. Santa Fe
              5 November 2015 09: 43 New
              -1
              Quote: Bongo
              Only you forgot to say that the planes were often lost and what was the effectiveness of these raids.

              Lost))

              and performance has always been the highest
              they made a rustle

              ... In the thickened twilight of the Lakenhit airbase is filled with the roar of airplanes taking off. Six links, one after another, take to the air and head for the south, to the Bay of Biscay. Night sky snipers silently glide over the Atlantic. Somewhere in the distance the line of the Portuguese coast flickers. The turn at the control point of the route, from the darkness, the call sign of the tankers, departing from Gibraltar, is heard. Refueling - and again under the wing only splashing of heavy waves. Flying along the northern coast of Africa, the course of East. New refueling. In the night the lights fly off the seaside resorts of Tunisia. The next control point of the route, turn on 90 °. At one forty-five, CET, the death line was crossed in the Gulf of Sidra. Fighting vehicles fold their wings and rapidly leave for WWI. Endless waves of sand rush under the wing. Ahead - the lights of sleeping Tripoli. Describing a circle over the desert, the bombers fall on the combat course ...

              The main purpose of the raid was the international airport of the Libyan capital, where, as a result of the attack, 10 military transport Il-76 burned down. The barracks of the Bab al-Aziziya military base, the training center for combat swimmers at the Libyan Navy Academy, and the residence of Muammar Gaddafi were also bombed.

              Quote: Bongo
              "Shock Eagles" if it comes to that, they also participated in such raids, will you refer them to "strategists" too?

              they are capable of hammering targets on another continent
              the comic name "pocket strategist" perfectly reflects the truth about these machines
              Quote: Bongo
              The basic aerodynamic design of a strike aircraft with variable wing geometry was developed in the USSR at the beginning of the 60.

              According to OS Samoilovich, cited in his memoirs “Near Sukhoi,” was very helpful in creating the Su-24 with numerous detailed photographs of F-111 that he personally made at the air show in Le Bourget in 1967

              This was precisely the response of the F-111, created according to its concept, with similar characteristics, in appearance and likeness - a highly maneuverable tactical bomber, with emphasis on precision weapons. with variable geometry wing.
              Quote: Bongo
              APG-82 is installed on 8 So what is the talk about?

              Speaking of garlic, we have less Su-34 in Syria
              and the Yankees build radars quickly. Already 60 F-15C / D received radar with AFAR
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 5 November 2015 09: 51 New
                +4
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                and performance has always been the highest
                they made a rustle

                What's the point? Did that change something then? No.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                they are capable of hammering targets on another continent

                Only with refueling in the air ...
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                According to OS Samoilovich, cited in his memoirs “Near Sukhoi,” was very helpful in creating the Su-24 with numerous detailed photographs of F-111 that he personally made at the air show in Le Bourget in 1967

                How is the aerodynamic design of the Su-24 fundamentally different from the MiG-23?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Speaking of garlic, we have less Su-34 in Syria

                And what is the relationship between the APG-82 radar on the F-15E and the number of Su-34 in Syria?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Yankees build radars fast. Already 60 F-15C / D received radar with AFAR

                It seems that we are discussing what is available at the moment. Oleg, or do you disagree that most of the F-15E flies, as you put it with the "last century"?
                1. Santa Fe
                  5 November 2015 10: 06 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Did that change something then?

                  I'm out of politics
                  Tripoli raid - a practical confirmation of the capabilities of the F-111
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Only with refueling in the air ...

                  Tanker 80 tons, enough for everyone
                  Quote: Bongo
                  or do you disagree that most of the F-15E flies as you put it with the "last century"?

                  They are in full swing with a radar replacement program
                  and in a previous article compared with the last century
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 5 November 2015 16: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Bongo

              The key phrase in this text is "The APG-82 radar is set to 8, and the rest are only planning request So what's the conversation? It turns out that most of them fly with the "last century"?


              Stands on 224. 29 upgraded to 3 version, another 17 will be updated before the end of 2018 year.
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. NIKNN
            NIKNN 5 November 2015 20: 06 New
            +4
            SWEET_SIXTEEN (3) RU Today, 09:13
            The Su-24 was a direct response to the F-111, using all the major design solutions from Murvied

            I can not agree with you.
            Once entered into service Su-7B, it was drafted on the creation on its base of aircraft capable of hitting small targets in any weather conditions. Unfortunately, the Su-7 not answer the tactical and technical requirements, so designers Sukhoi had to develop a completely new car. The new aircraft was given the code number C-6. The design he had a delta wing, engines R21F-300 and tandem arrangement of the crew.
            The first life-size sample was built in 1963. This instance received the T-58M code and, in fact, was a modification of the Su-15.
            Read more at: http://avia.pro/blog/su-24

            As you can see, there was no talk of any copying. The variable sweep in Sukhoi KB was considered for the Su17 at that time, and there were still trying to install lifting motors to speed up the run. Two engines are a must. Location of the pilots? And why not adopt, although it may be in feng shui wink
            Since then hi
          3. Alex_59
            Alex_59 5 November 2015 21: 31 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            1,5 tons of armor
            and 5 meter tail boom
            much easier

            And you can bring specific calculations. And then we do not understand without calculations. Or merge again?
        2. gjv
          gjv 5 November 2015 09: 20 New
          -1
          Quote: Bongo
          Do you have information on how many F-15E new radars are installed?

          224 out of 470 (according to experts from deagel.com). hi
          1. user1212
            user1212 5 November 2015 18: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: gjv
            224 out of 470 (according to experts from deagel.com)

            An article on deagel.com states:

            Under the terms of the contract Raytheon might upgrade up to 224 F-15Es with this new radar system

            Where is it written that 224 have already been updated?
  9. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 5 November 2015 08: 14 New
    +8
    Su-34 is a wonderful aircraft, created to replace the Su-24 back in the USSR, took off from the LII airfield on April 13, 1990. The concept of application based on that time. Delayed in time for bringing to mind, the start of production in 2006, adoption in 2014 - all this is a consequence of the situation in the country, so we have what we have, we are behind the Americans in electronics, so it’s clear to everyone, just go to the store . But the fact that there are still designers who are able to eliminate this gap is rather yes. In short, we need full-fledged industrialization and an industrial breakthrough; we need a mobilization economy. The enemy will not give a descent.
  10. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 5 November 2015 08: 22 New
    +6
    Guys, you are like children to God ... It’s not the technology itself that matters, but the person who controls it. For the slow-witted, I quote the corporal Hitler: Either we educate young people who will win, or I consider the rearmament of the army pointless. For a coward in the most modern tank, remains a coward ... clever enough I think ...
    1. Santa Fe
      5 November 2015 08: 41 New
      +5
      Quote: Shiva83483
      What matters is not the technology itself, but the person who controls it.

      Take the risk of getting into the cockpit of the MiG-19 and intercepting the Eurofighter if the technical side of the issue does not matter to you

      or attack a destroyer on a sailing schooner
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 5 November 2015 11: 13 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        or attack a destroyer on a sailing schooner

        the funny thing was that the precedents were attacked on rubber boats.
        1. mvg
          mvg 5 November 2015 14: 19 New
          +1
          Yes, I didn’t attack there lol , the guys just sailed at night, bargain with vodka ... (the counter-gang is called) stuck in a bag for goods .. and there BABAH .. In general, they just did not understand each other.
  11. Radar11
    Radar11 5 November 2015 09: 05 New
    +2
    The article is biased and far from the truth.
    That's what the Americans themselves write about their super plane.

    A serious blow to the reputation of the new fighter caused a disaster that occurred in June 2014 year: due to engine failure model F-35A collapsed in the state of Florida. In January 2015, it was reported that the creators of the F-35 faced another technical problem and moved the launch of the aircraft from 2015 to 2019 year.

    In June, 2015, the media published a test pilot report, which outlined the fundamental problems of the fifth-generation American fighter F-35. In particular, according to him, the expensive new aircraft cannot turn around or rise quickly enough to hit an enemy plane during a maneuverable aerial battle or evade enemy shooting.

    A number of experts have identified deficiencies in the F-35, due to which the plane, in their opinion, is more in tune with the fourth-generation fighter with a plus sign. In addition, according to the deputy chairman of the Russian government, Dmitry Rogozin, the F-35 is inferior to the fifth-generation Russian fighter, the PAK FA.

    In mid-October, it was reported that helmets in the newest US F-35 fighters could threaten pilots with neck injuries. And later it became known that almost every third pilot of the American F-35 advanced fighter will face an increased risk of getting a lethal neck injury (whiplash) during the ejection.

    As a result, the US Air Force had to issue instructions for pilots, which prescribes how to respond to the criticism of the aircraft.
    http://vz.ru/world/2015/10/22/773751.html
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. gjv
      gjv 5 November 2015 09: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: RLS11
      how to react to criticism of the aircraft.

      Su-34 ... The only modern combat aircraft that has armored cockpit protection.

      But what about the booking of the Su-25 and A-10? bully
      1. Santa Fe
        5 November 2015 09: 46 New
        -3
        Quote: gjv
        booking Su-25 and A-10?

        Take a look at the date of their first flight
        modern
        1. gjv
          gjv 5 November 2015 09: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Take a look at the date

          their extreme flight. Modern - Standing at the level of its century, not retarded, meeting material needs, social, cultural needs of the present.
      2. tag
        tag 6 November 2015 10: 43 New
        -2
        But things are such that both the Su-25 and A-10 can’t be classified as modern combat aircraft! To modernized and battle-tested - yes, to modern combat systems - no ....
    3. Santa Fe
      5 November 2015 09: 32 New
      -3
      Quote: RLS11
      a, which occurred in June 2014: due to engine failure, the F-35A model crashed in Florida

      Directly collapsed in Florida? belay

      pilot burned out or catapulted?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. gjv
        gjv 5 November 2015 09: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Directly collapsed in Florida? pilot burned out or catapulted?

        The pilot catapulted, the plane crashed in Maryland.
        Cinema - Die Hard-4. bully
  12. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 09: 33 New
    +5
    The discussion, as always, quickly degraded to the level of the sandbox.

    I thought that the professional pilot decided to write an article.
    Who will win this correspondence battle? Who is the most advanced tactical bomber?

    The answer - all tear “Raptor” and F-35.

    After that, the image of the final part of one masterpiece of the USSR animation classics immediately appeared.
  13. Radar11
    Radar11 5 November 2015 09: 34 New
    0
    there are links to the yacht that he catapulted, if you rummage around, you can find it.
  14. Bongo
    Bongo 5 November 2015 09: 38 New
    +5
    4 December 1982, combat loss of aircraft Su-17m3, 136 apib (Chirchik), departure from the airport of Kandahar, deputy. com AE Major Gavrikov - senior pilot l-nt Khlebnikov. The line from the DShK passed through the cockpit. In all likelihood, the pilots died in the air, so no one ejected.

    Oleg, something I did not understand what In the single Su-17M3 there were two pilots?
    1. Santa Fe
      5 November 2015 09: 52 New
      0
      Quote: Bongo
      In the single Su-17M3 there were two pilots?

      Sparka, conducted additional exploration after the first strike
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 5 November 2015 09: 54 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Sparka, conducted additional exploration after the first strike

        Well then, this plane was called Su-17UM3 hi
        1. Santa Fe
          5 November 2015 10: 08 New
          -10
          Quote: Bongo
          Well then, this plane was called Su-17UM3

          This is for Victor Markovsky
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 5 November 2015 10: 12 New
            +9
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is for Victor Markovsky

            Well, yes, but how did you prepare the material? Oleg, blaming others for mistakes and inaccuracies yourself "stumble on level ground." Then maybe it is worth diminishing the categoricality and aplomb?
  15. Belousov
    Belousov 5 November 2015 10: 01 New
    0
    A Professor is such a Professor, he still cannot calm down with his idolatry. All the same crude technical and logical bloopers. Does the person really not react at all to constructive criticism in past articles? Or does he act on the principle "Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer"? fool
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 5 November 2015 11: 11 New
      +7
      Quote: Belousov
      A Professor is such a Professor, he still cannot calm down with his idolatry. All the same crude technical and logical bloopers. Does the person really not react at all to constructive criticism in past articles? Or does he act on the principle "Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer"?

      And what does the Professor have to do with it?
  16. Forest
    Forest 5 November 2015 10: 17 New
    +1
    In general, it is painted normally, except for one thing - F-22 and F-35 are now inferior in terms of attack capabilities to ground targets F-16, not to mention the Strike Needle. In the internal compartments, the set of weapons is small, and on the external sling the entire joke with invisibility begins to be lost, equating to Hornet and Silent Needle. The raptor’s fight against ground targets is generally added as a useful addition to the main goal - gaining dominance in the air, where he is good.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 17: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Forest
      The raptor’s fight against ground targets is generally added as a useful addition to the main goal - gaining air supremacy, where he is good.

      All Raptors will undergo modernization of avionics to the F-35 level, it is already undergoing and upgraded ones were tested in Iraq by ISIS.
      1. Forest
        Forest 6 November 2015 09: 45 New
        0
        Still, the Strike Eagle will be preferable for such purposes - after all, more load and cheaper operation.
  17. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 5 November 2015 10: 22 New
    0
    Definitely - Our cooler! soldier
  18. Pimply
    Pimply 5 November 2015 10: 29 New
    +3
    And everyone forgot where it all began. And initially a hypothetical collision of these machines in the air was discussed, and their effectiveness in this theater of operations.
    Do not forget that cars in a potential collision do not act alone and in combination (which means support from the ground, advances, the range of weapons, etc.)
  19. sevtrash
    sevtrash 5 November 2015 10: 46 New
    +3
    It is rather difficult to argue with the generally accepted position: the first noticed - the first shot - the first shot down. For air and ground targets, the principle is the same. The aircraft, which has the most advanced target detection (and network-centric interaction) complex, combined with "stealth", is an absolute favorite. Guns and maneuverability are secondary.
    From this point of view, the argument is who is cooler - f15se or Su34, this is a debate only about who is the second. After f35.
    Maybe I’m exaggerating a little, the complete combat readiness of the f35 is either there or not. But under 200 pieces already flies.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 5 November 2015 17: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      But under 200 pieces already flies.

      The fact of the matter is that it flies and is not in service.
      1. Catafract
        Catafract 6 November 2015 19: 39 New
        0
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        The fact of the matter is that it flies and is not in service.

        The Su-27 was adopted closer to the 90th, but this did not prevent him from even conducting combat sorties before.
  20. Diviz
    Diviz 5 November 2015 10: 57 New
    -13
    1. Su 34 was created to replace su 24.
    2. In close combat, I will give preference to su.
    3. Where is the comparison of the characteristics of f with su 35s.
    4. Su 24 scared Donald Cook and changed the world of Americans. The striped stars are still in shock.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 5 November 2015 11: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: DiViZ
      Su 24 scared Donald Kook and changed the worldview of the Americans. Still striped stars in shock

      Sorry, but what exactly scared you?
      1. mvg
        mvg 5 November 2015 14: 43 New
        +1
        And HE kaaaak ... FLYED ... that's all ... And he was frightened and brought others into shock.
        Also, paragraphs 1., 2., and 3. this is just an opinion expressed ..
  21. Ruslan
    Ruslan 5 November 2015 11: 27 New
    0
    here I was sure of Kaptsov’s answer, after the first article on this topic. and here it is :)
    But I don’t know why for stealth bombing? they were supposed to be covered by just stealth fighters. after the suppression of air defense and aviation, they will no longer have to hide. no really?
  22. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 5 November 2015 11: 36 New
    0
    Some in the forest, some for firewood. Some are compared according to some parameters, others according to others. All agree only that "ours" have +100 to all parameters, because they are ours. It is clear that such disputes have no real value.
  23. Radar11
    Radar11 5 November 2015 11: 44 New
    +4
    Quote: DiViZ

    4. Su 24 scared Donald Cook and changed the world of Americans. The striped stars are still in shock.

    All information that he frightened and blinded them there is given only in RuNet. There are no reports that anyone quit after this flyby. There is no such information on foreign sites. Only discussion in specialized forums, about flying around and about firing with links to our sites! Here is such arithmetic.
    And remember that as recently as a month and a half ago he again came to the Black Sea, the same destroyer, as in the joke "like it, come again."
  24. Operator
    Operator 5 November 2015 12: 15 New
    -5
    Comparison between double bomber aircraft (aircraft designed to attack ground targets) F-15E and Su-34 is correct, comparing them with single-seat fighter aircraft (aircraft designed to destroy air targets) F-22 and F-35 is not.

    F-15E clearly outperforms the Su-34 in the main parameter of the bomber - the ratio of combat load to take-off weight: respectively 11 / 36 tons against 8 / 45 tons.

    The use of bulletproof armor weighing 1,4 tons on an aircraft equipped with an aiming system for bombing from high altitudes and missile attacks outside the air defense coverage area is a historical joke. It must be recognized that the decision of the Sukhoi Design Bureau to make the Su-34 bomber based on the super-maneuverable Su-27 fighter was erroneous.

    High-precision long-range weapons (including gliding bombs) and target designation using UAVs (which are part of aviation reconnaissance and strike systems) make it possible to use planes with subsonic flight speed and high wing loading like Tu-22 as modern bombers performance.
    1. mvg
      mvg 5 November 2015 15: 00 New
      0
      I did not know that the f-35 fighter. Just the drummer, as well as the f-16 bl. 40, 52, 60 are now mostly used .. With whom else do they have to fight in the air?
      I think it’s more honest where these 11 or 8 tons of bombs will fall, with what accuracy .. than the mass .. Why 1500 kg anti-bunker or 2300 (for Americans) bomb a kilometer from the bunker .. more than a million bucksoff buried in the sand ..
      About the Tu-22M3 ... it’s just what it is supersonic .. was created to fight against the AUG, it’s now they started trying to load it with free-falling cast iron .. FAB-250 62 onwards, like carpet bombing .. Only now in Syria he is not an assistant.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2015 17: 45 New
        0
        Clarification - Tu-16.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 8 November 2015 01: 56 New
      0
      But you (and others) have already been told several times - not 8.a 12.5 tons. Recently, the Ancient One confirmed - maybe, although with an incomplete filling.
      They also wrote about armored vehicles, not only from riflemen. But also from fragments and GGE missiles and VV rockets. Of course, this is a lottery - if a rocket exploded at the border of the radius or sector of destruction - armor will help if a direct hit is, of course, not. But not a single pilot will refuse an extra chance to stay alive.
      As for the PMV flights, it is quite possible that they will still be needed. Of course, it is better to hammer the bearded from medium heights, but if the enemy is serious enough and has aviation and air defense? That is, a situation where air superiority has not yet been won, and the bridge must be bombed yesterday.
      By the way, NYA, a dry design bureau had to tinker a lot so that the platypus would fly more or less normally on PMV
      1. Operator
        Operator 9 November 2015 00: 50 New
        0
        12,5 from 45 tons is still less than 11 from 36 tons.

        With an aircraft cost of 100 million $ and unsupported air defense, it is not necessary to protect the crew with armor (with a probability of less than 100%), but the aircraft itself (with a probability of 100%) by targeting from an advanced UAV and dropping bombs / launching missiles outside the air defense zone.
        1. Operator
          Operator 9 November 2015 01: 18 New
          -1
          Su-Xnumx: the best aircraft of a failed war
          http://army-news.ru/2013/11/su-34-luchshij-samolet-nesostoyavshejsya-vojny/
  25. Aslan88
    Aslan88 5 November 2015 12: 15 New
    -1
    Great article. I really liked it. I am not a fan of aviation. But a very informative article. To the author plus.
  26. Diviz
    Diviz 5 November 2015 12: 36 New
    0
    1. In 1988, the Americans were already invading the coast of Crimea; they had to take them for ramming. For impudence, they will not climb into their pockets. What other nasty things have they prepared. Su 24 lowered them to the ground. Set before them new military-technical problems.
    2. The author of the article may himself set the vector for the development of Su aircraft if he delves into controversy.
    3. Aircraft are becoming more comfortable. Smarter is safer than, in principle, our cars.
    4. They got a black bird, we ended up with a moment of 31m. But we decided to use a moment of 31 bm. The big giraffe knows better.
  27. abc_alex
    abc_alex 5 November 2015 12: 52 New
    +3
    Sioux 30SM
    Empty 18 t, max. takeoff ~ 29 tons. Close to the ideology of the Eagle. Due to the lack of sighting equipment for work "on the ground", in domestic VKS performs the functions of a fighter.


    Amendment.
    It is not used due to absence, but was INITIALLY CREATED as a fighter. It was never planned for percussion functions. In the Su-27 family, the Su-34 was just the strike, so it is, it was originally sharpened by strikes on the ground. Therefore, putting them in a row for comparison is incompetent.

    Who will win this correspondence battle? Who is the most advanced tactical bomber?

    This is a stupid question. The answer to him was just as stupid.
    It's like thinking about who will win the Il-2 or Stuck and with a clever look to conclude that "Emil will break everyone." Tactical bombers were not created to rip each other, but to tear tanks and infantry. And they need to be compared not by themselves, but as carriers of the ammunition nomenclature.
    And not only the Raptor can "break" them, but ANY modern fighter, if only due to the fact that it is equipped with long-range aircraft destruction systems, and the "tactics" carry a maximum of V-V close combat.
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 5 November 2015 13: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: abc_alex
      It is not used due to absence, but was INITIALLY CREATED as a fighter.


      It was never created as a fighter. A fighter does not need an arms operator.

      This is the third article on this topic. Read.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 5 November 2015 14: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Falcon
        Fighter does not need weapons operator

        MiG-31, F-14, Tu-128
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 5 November 2015 14: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          MiG-31, F-14, Tu-128


          Tu-128 grandfather is still one. Navigator - so no glass cockpit no navigation.

          Mig-31 is too fast - hence the problem. Many parameters need to be controlled and work with a screen. For the development of technology - too complex a plane for one person.

          F-14 classic drummer. The U.S. Navy is all like that.

          Fighters are Su-27, Su-35, MiG-29, F-15C, F-22. 2-th pilot - less maneuverability and no sense. TsU has been giving a helmet for a long time, and the cabin is glass.

          Drummers Su-30, Mig-35, F / A-18, F-15E
          1. tomket
            tomket 5 November 2015 16: 16 New
            +2
            Quote: Falcon
            F-14 classic drummer. The U.S. Navy is all like that.

            Why all of a sudden? it was originally made as a long-range air defense aircraft carrier. drummer, he lived out the last days.
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 5 November 2015 21: 15 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon
            Mig-31 is too fast - hence the problem.

            Earnestly. Indeed, the wrong MiG-31 aircraft.
            Quote: Falcon
            F-14 classic drummer.
            Suddenly!
          3. sivuch
            sivuch 8 November 2015 02: 00 New
            0
            F-14 classic drummer. The U.S. Navy is all like that.
            ----------------------
            Is that what you joked about?
            In what year was the bomb added to the tomquette for the first time?
            Just half a century ago, when it was created, the level of automation was a bit lower. The pilot simply couldn’t physically pilot the plane and tinker with the radar
  28. Garris199
    Garris199 5 November 2015 12: 54 New
    +6
    SU-30SM Empty 18 t, max. takeoff ~ 29 tons.

    Dear author, where do the "fireballs" come from? http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su30mk/lth/ this link speaks of very different numbers. Namely, the maximum takeoff 34500 and the maximum 38800.
    Instead of discussing, avionics spent half the time evaluating aircraft guns.

    And further
    How good they are in comparison with LANTIRN - we will leave this question for discussion to ISIS fighters.

    Is it called the author discussed avionics? Article minus. Very superficial.
  29. sergio3004
    sergio3004 5 November 2015 13: 52 New
    0
    Yes, bombers will not tear each other, nonsense and not an article.
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. sergio3004
    sergio3004 5 November 2015 14: 22 New
    +1
    What, the author was hurt for a living just minus me? Confirmation that the article is sucked out of the finger. Compare some planes, and cite others as an example.
  32. Engineer
    Engineer 5 November 2015 14: 52 New
    +1
    They stuck to the Su-34! All 90s spread rot of our aviation, flying rubbish, antediluvian junk, and here bang - it flies well, it bombes, and for sure. Any of our aircraft is better than the west for at least one simple reason - it’s наш, there is no other and he copes with the obligation to protect the interests of our country.
  33. Sagaidark
    Sagaidark 5 November 2015 15: 52 New
    +1
    The rear hemisphere radar is generally installed. The generator does not weigh 1,5 tons)) and lead up to 100 kg, well, there is still something to complain about - just too lazy to waste time on this nonsense.
  34. Leks69Rus
    Leks69Rus 5 November 2015 16: 04 New
    +5
    Damn this author even more confusion and turmoil! What is the dispute? in what? F-15 and SU-27 aircraft of the same class? the answer is yes, these are heavy fighters for gaining air supremacy. F-15 could not work effectively on the ground and the Americans decided to create a special attack aircraft bomber on its basis, it turned out F-15SE. In the USSR, the main bomber in the 80s was a Su-24, a 3rd generation aircraft, an analogue of the F-111! When creating the 4th generation bomber, they decided to follow the path similar to that of the Americans, took the Su-27 as a basis, and began to make the Su-34. We didn’t have time, the union broke up, we finished it later in the new country. Is su-34 needed in modern realities as a bomber aircraft? Definitely needed, but here I think their number should not be so great. I think 100 aircraft is enough for needs. At the same time, it is necessary that the latest fighters (su-30cm, t-50, su-35) have the ability to work effectively on the ground with precision weapons. It is universal machines capable of working both in the air and on the ground that should form the basis of the fleet, to which the Americans have long come and we have not.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 5 November 2015 17: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Leks69Rus
      F-15 could not work effectively on the ground, and the Americans decided to create a special strike aircraft bomber on its basis, it turned out F-15SE.

      F-15SE Silent Eagle is something else
      1. Leks69Rus
        Leks69Rus 6 November 2015 10: 33 New
        0
        yes well https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle
  35. Evil Bobblehead
    Evil Bobblehead 5 November 2015 17: 33 New
    +4
    Some very superficial review with a strange conclusion. How can I analyze an airplane by 2-3 parameters and conclude its effectiveness? Strange article.
  36. Selevc
    Selevc 5 November 2015 19: 30 New
    +4
    Yes - really the article is some kind of funny dispute at the level of kindergarten "who is stronger than a lion or a whale" ??? ... It's funny to read how people furiously prove to each other something without having full info about what they are arguing about !!! People you forget - that you do not know everything about the F-15 and even more so about the Su-34 - since much is hidden under the heading "TOP SECRET" !!!
    I personally trust the designers - and they say that the weapons of Russia (USSR) and the USA are developing at about the same level ... After all, they, like no one else, know their offspring as they say from head to toe !!! So - the leading designers of the 50-60s, having read the history of the creation of modern fighters (especially American), would probably have laughed for a long time and if they knew that it was true they would have grabbed their heads !!! Because in the era of rapid growth of aircraft industry, new aircraft models (both military and civilian) appeared almost every two to three years, but what about now?
    For example, the Yankees have been developing and bringing to mind their F-35 for 15 years !!! From an engineering point of view, this is a disaster project !!! Someone may argue that in the 50s aircraft was much simpler than it is now, but how to look ... Now computers are millions of times more powerful, now machines are much more advanced than then, now communications (computer networks) are much better developed, money for air projects stand out much more ... And what is the result? - The F-35 project turned out literally golden among the Americans ... Without any hyperbole ...

    Quote: The full cost of creating and maintaining the F-35 before disposal will be estimated at $ 670 million, which is much more expensive than an equal mass of gold. Even for the most loyal allies of the United States, these planes are too expensive and, despite the pressure from the Master, they are reducing their purchases of F-35s !!! Because nobody needs a "golden slingshot" !!! ))) And the most important thing during the creation of the F-35 in countries that are likely opponents (against which the aircraft was created) appeared hundreds and thousands of times cheaper weapons that can effectively counter the F-35 (relatively cheap air defense missiles) ...

    What can be said about the F-15? There are unsuccessful and successful and super-successful projects in the history of aircraft building ... Unsuccessful ones have a short lifespan, super-successful ones live for decades ... The latter include the Soviet MIG-21, the American B-52, the British Harrier and the F-15 . It is too early to talk about the Su-34 project since it is only at the beginning of the operational path ... As they say, time will tell - but the Su-34 has every chance of a legendary career in the world of aviation ...
    A super-designed aircraft is not the one that is the most powerful, the most armed, which is the most stuffed with electronics - the best is the most reliable aircraft and the plane with the greatest potential for modernization ...
  37. KnightRider
    KnightRider 5 November 2015 19: 37 New
    +2
    F-15E versus Su-34 ... or F-15E versus Su-30SM ... Sofa experts argue who to compare with whom ... They are confused and confused others. But isn’t it easier to compare the Su-30SM with the Su-34 to understand which of them is a greater competitor to the American?
  38. artura0911
    artura0911 5 November 2015 22: 21 New
    0
    How many couch experts wound up, damn you at least read what you write)) ????? damn Wiki read and experts already consider themselves)))))) The author of you supersonic big Minusssssss !!!!!
  39. redthreat
    redthreat 5 November 2015 22: 35 New
    +2
    > Su-34 versus F-15E. Fury of heaven

    In the first photo: Indian Su-30MKI. And he, if the article is about the Su-34? What is the secret meaning? :-)
  40. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 5 November 2015 22: 56 New
    +6
    The author was so excited about the front-line bombers that he could not resist and went to the fighters finished the article.
    Well, you can’t do that in the end ...
  41. Operator
    Operator 6 November 2015 20: 41 New
    0
    Quote: mvg
    I did not know that f-35 fighter. Just a drummer

    To be a full-fledged drummer, the F-35 must take on board the maximum combat load of 9 tons, most of which is located on the external suspension units. After which the F-35 will lose its main quality - stealth.
    In addition, the only member of the F-35 crew will have to combine piloting with the search for ground targets and pointing bombs and missiles at them.

    F-15E with 11 tons of combat load and an operator of weapons on board, and in this case remains unrivaled.

    PS A large combat load allows you to hit more targets in one launch or destroy a larger / protected target. At the same time, the minimum caliber of aviation ammunition is determined not by the total combat load of the aircraft, but by the number of suspension points. F-15E has 9, each can have a pair of ammunition attached, in total the combat load can consist of 18 ammunition with an average weight of 600 kg.
  42. iouris
    iouris 12 November 2015 12: 45 New
    0
    Not having solved the fundamental issues, it makes no sense to solve the secondary ones. All authors of articles about Su-34 vs F-15E are rated "not credited". Some commentators write funny things (like "F-14 is a classic drummer"), others refute them.
    The only possible criterion for evaluating the complex is combat effectiveness. The task that the developer solves is formulated as follows: it is required to obtain maximum combat effectiveness in the given standard conditions. Required: to assess the level of solution to the problem. Since the US is waging specific wars, the F-15E is designed to solve specific problems and build them in the required quantity. Su-34 was conceived back in the USSR. The USSR was preparing to wage different wars than the Russian Federation. The question is: Does the SU-34 LHC correspond to the tasks that the aerospace defense solves?
    Instead, the authors talk about "roasting potatoes for firewood."
    According to the results of the discussion, the sheep are full and the wolves are intact.
  43. Evil Elf
    Evil Elf 21 February 2017 22: 17 New
    0
    Actually, the Su-34 was baptized in Georgia in 2008. It was he who suppressed the Georgian air defense, destroying the radar, and then the Georgians fled without looking back. EW was already on top then. And about F-22/35, not everything is so simple. For a number of reasons, they were operated only over US territory. Read the experience of air battles in Vietnam about a cannon on a fighter bomber when in a cramped junkyard of air combat, even short-range missiles are useless. Only the gun remains
  44. Every
    Every 10 March 2017 20: 41 New
    0
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: Catafract
    Well, with respect to the Russian Federation and the United States, yes, but regarding the "Papuans" from the UK, no ...

    Regarding the territory and population, they paid both Russia and the United States in aviation.


    What is it like? Per capita? Or on the square. kilometer?
  45. Dartiys
    Dartiys 6 December 2017 19: 23 New
    0
    Hello, I read the article, I consider it interesting, but not fully developed .. For example, comparing the combat masses of aircraft, you bypassed the total payload ... For drying it is 9000 kg., For f-15 11000 kg.
    However, it should be understood that a large bomb load on the "Strike Eagle" compared to the "thirty-four" is largely a fiction. Eleven tons is the total payload taking into account PTB and conformal tanks. In the case of a full refueling for bombs and missiles, about 5000 kg remains. According to this indicator, the F-15E is slightly inferior to the Su-34. Oh yeah ... Plus, hanging tanks are located on the weapon attachment points .. That is, minus the 2nd attachment point, for the F-15e .. Quite an interesting fact, one could mention ..
    What is the difference in the tactics of using aircraft, based on the pros and cons of these aircraft, which is most effective for both, conduct a little analysis ... What is your personal opinion on this issue? When you write articles about the Navy, Oleg, you’re not afraid to address these issues ... but you were afraid here .. Sorry.
    P.S. About booking the ships, which we have completely forgotten about today, I agree with all your thoughts.