Military Review

Stern: Su-35 - the most powerful and most dangerous fighters in the world

298
The counterterrorist operation in Syria has attracted world attention to the Russian technology involved in it, writes Stern magazine.




Earlier it was reported that the Russian air group in Syria was replenished with super-maneuverable Su-35 fighters.

“The Russian Su-35С is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world. Its design is based on technologies that go back to the combat power of the USSR. The predecessor of the aircraft was the Soviet Su-27, whose mass production began in the 1982 year. Su-35S enters the arms market, incorporating the best characteristics of fourth-generation fighters and the basic properties of the fifth, "the article cites RIA News.

“The Su-35С outperforms its competitors considerably, including the American F-22 Raptor. Not the last role in this was played by the long-range radar H035 "Irbis" and improved engines, providing the fighter with a resource in 30 years, "- said the magazine.

It’s possible, the author writes, “due to the combination of outstanding combat qualities and relatively low compared with Western competitors, the price of Su-35С will be in considerable demand on the world market”.

According to him, “sending Su-35С to Syria will make Turkey worry, which is in tense relations with the Kremlin after the incident with downed Su-24”. It doesn't matter that Moscow transferred only 4 aircraft to Syria - “these powerful fighters will become an important addition to the Russian armaments already deployed in the region”.

Among other military equipment in Syria, the magazine notes the air defense system, "which is almost impossible to overcome." “Very few Western weapons will be able to withstand the C-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile system,” emphasizes Stern.
Photos used:
OZOLS SCALEMODELS.RU
298 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. From Samara
    From Samara 2 February 2016 18: 17
    35
    The main thing is not to get stuck at this level! And most importantly, Avionics!
    1. SRC P-15
      SRC P-15 2 February 2016 18: 27
      145
      Quote: From Samara
      The main thing is not to get stuck at this level!

      The main thing is not to be arrogant from the praise of the West! And continue to modernize the fleet at an accelerated pace.
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 2 February 2016 18: 47
        60
        Quote: СРЦ П-15
        ! And continue to modernize the fleet at an accelerated pace.

        And carry out frontal running-in and testing! At the training ground, this is one thing, but in combat conditions it’s completely different. And getting high-quality combat data is worth a lot!
        1. Roman 25
          Roman 25 2 February 2016 19: 51
          +6
          The main thing is not to put these quality data on the shelf and in the archive, but to improve on their basis!
          1. cniza
            cniza 2 February 2016 20: 35
            +9
            There is one more thing - the human factor, our asss are the best, even worse on technology.
            1. NIKNN
              NIKNN 2 February 2016 21: 49
              +2
              On the Su-35 there is also a formidable electronic warfare weapon complex "Khibiny", with which in 2014, the Russian Su-24 blinded the American destroyer "Donald Cook", disabling the combat control system of the ship. wink
              1. zyablik.olga
                zyablik.olga 3 February 2016 03: 44
                +6
                Quote: NIKNN
                On the Su-35 there is also a formidable electronic warfare weapon complex "Khibiny", with which in 2014, the Russian Su-24 blinded the American destroyer "Donald Cook", disabling the combat control system of the ship.

                Read: Service and combat use of the front-line bomber Su-24. Part 2
                http://topwar.ru/84921-sluzhba-i-boevoe-primenenie-frontovogo-bombardirovschika-
                su-24-chast-2-ya.html
                Previously, in "urya-patriotism" and the spread of myths, you were not noticed request
                1. NIKNN
                  NIKNN 3 February 2016 20: 16
                  11
                  zyablik.olga RU
                  Read: Service and combat use of the front-line bomber Su-24. Part 2
                  http://topwar.ru/84921-sluzhba-i-boevoe-primenenie-frontovogo-bombardirovschika-

                  su-24-chast-2-ya.html
                  Previously, in "urya-patriotism" and the spread of myths, you were not noticed

                  Bongo RU
                  Here's how it turns out? wassat Nikolay, frankly I did not expect this from you ... request

                  NEXUS (2) MD
                  Well, let's start with the fact that the Khibiny complex does not know how to "blind" the enemy's radars, and even more so such a system as Aegis. "Khibiny", to put it simply, create aircraft phantoms in order to confuse the enemy's missile.
                  With regards to Cook and this story with the SU-24 ....


                  I apologize. repeat
                  I came home from work tired of laziness and thought to turn it on, just in the news feed this rubbish caught my eye, I thoughtlessly quoted (this is not an excuse, but a guilty plea) ... request
                  Will not happen again... hi
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 4 February 2016 02: 03
                    +3
                    Quote: NIKNN
                    I apologize.
                    I came home from work tired of laziness and thought to turn it on, just in the news feed this rubbish caught my eye, I thoughtlessly quoted (this is not an excuse, but a guilty plea) ...
                    Will not happen again...

                    drinks
              2. Bongo
                Bongo 3 February 2016 08: 46
                +3
                Quote: NIKNN
                On the Su-35S is also a formidable weapon of electronic warfare complex "Khibiny", with which in 2014 Russian Su-24 blinded the American destroyer "Donald Cook", disabling the combat control system of the ship.

                Here's how it turns out? wassat Nikolay, to be honest, I didn’t expect this from you ... request
                Widely publicized in a number of domestic media outlets and causing a surge of “hurray-patriotic” sentiments, the case of the alleged “blinding” of the radar equipment of the destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) unfortunately does not correspond to reality. Since, due to financial constraints, the Khibiny E-175V complex was never installed on Su-24M aircraft.


                The 1990-2000-e worked out the container case version of the KS-418E with the Khibiny REP model for export Su-24MK, but the matter did not move further than the construction of the models.
              3. NEXUS
                NEXUS 3 February 2016 09: 55
                19
                Quote: NIKNN
                On the Su-35 there is also a formidable electronic warfare weapon complex "Khibiny", with which in 2014, the Russian Su-24 blinded the American destroyer "Donald Cook", disabling the combat control system of the ship. wink

                Well, let's start with the fact that the Khibiny complex does not know how to "blind" the enemy's radars, and even more so such a system as Aegis. "Khibiny", to put it simply, create aircraft phantoms in order to confuse the enemy's missile.
                As for Cook and this story with the SU-24. The point is that the destroyer "led" at least a dozen coastal surveillance systems, from which all of Cook's equipment roared. And the coastal electronic warfare complex put out Cook's radars, although from the impact of our radars , she didn’t work very well anyway. hi
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 3 February 2016 09: 57
                  +8
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Well, let's start with the fact that the Khibiny complex does not know how to "blind" the enemy's radars, and even more so such a system as Aegis. "Khibiny", to put it simply, create aircraft phantoms in order to confuse the enemy's missile.
                  As for Cook and this story with the SU-24. The point is that the destroyer "led" at least a dozen coastal surveillance systems, from which all of Cook's equipment roared. And the coastal electronic warfare complex put out Cook's radars, although from the impact of our radars , she didn’t work very well anyway.

                  Andrey, there’s nothing to add! good
            2. oxotnuk86
              oxotnuk86 2 February 2016 22: 44
              +3
              I agree with you. Saturation with electronics is already becoming an end in itself, but if the enemy can jam it? Here the pilot who needs enough compass and the sun (starry sky) will be able to complete the task and there will be no price to return home.
          2. Luga
            Luga 2 February 2016 23: 17
            +3
            Quote: Roman 25
            And getting high-quality combat data is worth a lot!

            Quote: Roman 25
            The main thing is not to put these quality data on the shelf and in the archive, but to improve on their basis!


            So let’s drink to ensure that our quality data fall on our airfields only on their own, and hunt would only have to take on someone else's quality data!
            smile drinks
            1. PHANTOM-AS
              PHANTOM-AS 2 February 2016 23: 35
              12
              Friends, here’s what a foolish thing is going on with Monino!
              ATTENTION! There is a great threat of moving the exhibits of the Monino Museum to the Patriot Park.
              We resist as best we can, connect!
              The museum may be closed before July 1, 2016.


              MO order has already been given.

              Do reposts!
              1. cap
                cap 3 February 2016 01: 12
                +5
                The development project dates back to the time of Mr. Luzhkov.
                For me, it’s not news. There are no garages around. Where all the motorists get away it’s not clear. They built it for centuries.
                Another grandiose project. There will be a lot of noise, the result is only in the hands of sooooo big bosses.
              2. Yak-3P
                Yak-3P 3 February 2016 14: 08
                0
                Well, show me the order ... ?? but we’ll start bugging .. and we’ll mess up ..
        2. Starley from the south
          Starley from the south 3 February 2016 23: 03
          0
          Quote: Tol100v
          getting high-quality combat data is worth a lot!

          If only the pilots were as cool as this plane!
      2. Kostyar
        Kostyar 2 February 2016 19: 10
        21
        "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.

        Well, of course you praised yourself ...
        There is no such weapon among your rubbish !!!
        1. poquello
          poquello 2 February 2016 19: 34
          +7
          Quote: Bone
          "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.

          Well, of course you praised yourself ...
          There is no such weapon among your rubbish !!!

          There is! Tank "Abrams"!
          1. meriem1
            meriem1 2 February 2016 20: 18
            +8
            Quote: poquello
            Quote: Bone
            "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.

            Well, of course you praised yourself ...
            There is no such weapon among your rubbish !!!

            There is! Tank "Abrams"!


            WHICH makes its way through the board through the ancient RPG-7. Aw !!! It's time to wake up !!!!
            1. Forest
              Forest 2 February 2016 20: 32
              +6
              Now there is no such tank in the world that does not break through the RPG-7 in any of the projections. In the stern, you can generally shoot from a heavy machine gun.
              1. cergey51046
                cergey51046 2 February 2016 22: 26
                +2
                The crew is in the capsule, it does not break through.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 3 February 2016 10: 34
                  +2
                  While there are no tanks with such a capsule that it has protection against a tandem with penetration 600 mm.
              2. Yak-3P
                Yak-3P 3 February 2016 14: 15
                0
                Are you kidding ?? if not ... it’s hard ..
            2. poquello
              poquello 2 February 2016 21: 01
              +3
              Quote: meriem1
              Quote: poquello
              Quote: Bone
              "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.

              Well, of course you praised yourself ...
              There is no such weapon among your rubbish !!!

              There is! Tank "Abrams"!


              WHICH makes its way through the board through the ancient RPG-7. Aw !!! It's time to wake up !!!!

              Well, he can resist the shell! PM bourgeois did not praise themselves, well, the truth does not fly
              1. Poppy
                Poppy 3 February 2016 10: 01
                +2
                flies, but nizenko-nizenko
            3. Yak-3P
              Yak-3P 3 February 2016 14: 13
              +1
              shot from what he wrote ?? I saw in the City in the 95th BTR-80 with 8 hits .. and not only RPGs .. came under its own power !!! burned but rode.
              1. complete zero
                complete zero 3 February 2016 19: 00
                +1
                so apparently where did they go? (maybe they asked?), although 8 hits are serious ...
        2. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell 2 February 2016 20: 53
          18
          I do not agree with you Dear. You can destroy any air defense system - the question is what it will cost, but it will be very expensive. An outfit of strength will be needed so that not everyone can swipe at such a task. 400ka covered by 300th marine and Pantsyr - all work with a probability of defeat cr over 0,8 - in the Middle East there are no such forces and the bourgeois understand this. Along with the fighter component of the Khmeimim base ... it is not for nothing that the Turks are trying to drag the allies into conflict
        3. nemar7106
          nemar7106 2 February 2016 23: 13
          +2
          I can't say about 400, but I had to deal with 300, I performed the duties of an operational duty 27 to the air defense of Riga. In order for the 300 to "choke" and not be able to shoot down the plane, KR, the entrance to the affected area should be less than 1.5 seconds. And if we consider that they (C 300) can shoot in a machine gun, then our pilots were not recommended to enter the zone of destruction of the complex (C300), and this is already from 400 and on the way from 500
          1. Arikkhab
            Arikkhab 3 February 2016 19: 26
            +1
            "Our pilots were not advised to enter the affected area of ​​the complex (C300)" ???
            and the system "friend or foe" was not used then?
        4. Platonich
          Platonich 3 February 2016 05: 21
          +1
          They boasted so much that the states are now increasing the military budget in connection with the growing military superiority of Russia!
          1. Shuttle
            Shuttle 3 February 2016 12: 09
            +3
            Quote: Platonitch
            They boasted so much that the states are now increasing the military budget in connection with the growing military superiority of Russia!

            The states will increase their military budget even if all of Russia falls into tartarars or flies out of Pluto's orbit, leaving its territory as it is.
            States - this is such a chimera that it will bite itself if only not to lose its teeth. The teeth of the US economy are needed for at least two reasons:
            1. This is a good driver of the economic, technical and scientific development of their own economy.
            2. This is an effective tool for creating disasters or the threat of disasters in other states. Including and in Russia. In order to squeeze investments into their economy from these economies of all countries of the world. Including and from Russia.

            I hope that no one already believes that if at one time they would continue to trust the American partners, now for a trip from some Rostov-on-Don to some Yekaterinburg, it would probably be necessary to go through more than one customs. If at all then we could dream of such a trip ...

            In general, it is naive to believe that America wants Russia's economic collapse. Not. Russia is here, if not the tenth, then at least the fourth or fifth. America intuitively, but rather consciously tries to break the economic stoves in every hut. So that residents of other cottage countries come to them in the hallway to warm up and generally work. And at the same time, the remaining property should be laid by pests.
        5. serkhan
          serkhan 3 February 2016 07: 54
          +1
          The newspaper writes not to our readers, but to its own. Thus, trying not to praise our technology, but to open the eyes of their "hurray-patriots" to an urgent problem, so the remark: "... a few Western weapons" is a throw-in for discussion among them.
      3. NordUral
        NordUral 2 February 2016 19: 14
        16
        Already repeated the old truth: fear and do not trust the praise of the enemy.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 2 February 2016 19: 22
          +4
          Quote: NordUral
          Already repeated the old truth: fear and do not trust the praise of the enemy.

          Europe is not our enemy. Europe is an "instrument" in the hands of our enemy. Moreover, the "tool" is not very malleable and serviceable. Therefore, he sometimes gives out the correct information about our aircraft to the mountain. Mostly when it is no longer possible to ignore and conceal it.
      4. ALX
        ALX 2 February 2016 20: 09
        +4
        They threw a bone to us, and they are glad. No, I'm certainly a patriot, but you need to look sensibly. They are splurgeing, and in the meantime they are trying to kill the European aviation industry, and at the time of the conflict with Russia they will slip their F-35s, thereby correcting their income.
      5. ALX
        ALX 2 February 2016 20: 19
        -22 qualifying.
        Forever our Ivanushki fly in the fools ... Early rejoice!
        1. cap
          cap 3 February 2016 01: 56
          +8
          Quote: ALX
          Forever our Ivanushki fly in the fools ... Early rejoice!

          Well, if you don’t like it, it’s your business. And as for me, it’s beautiful. It’s hardly indifferent
          su xnumxsu xnumx
          who will stay. In reality, everything will be shown in battle.
      6. Lepila
        Lepila 2 February 2016 20: 22
        -25 qualifying.
        And I thought that the coolest F-22, combining invisibility with super-maneuverability and cruising supersonic speed ... thanks to Stern magazine, we will cancel the contract for F-35 and order Dryers
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 February 2016 20: 24
          21
          Quote: Lepila
          thanks to Stern magazine, we will cancel the F-35 and order Dryers

          Who will sell them to you? ... hi
          1. Just BB
            Just BB 3 February 2016 05: 34
            +3
            So in "VoenTorg" all their brothers are sitting am
          2. figwam
            figwam 3 February 2016 16: 07
            +6
            Quote: NEXUS
            Quote: Lepila
            thanks to Stern magazine, we will cancel the F-35 and order Dryers

            Who will sell them to you? ... hi

            That's it...
        2. shans2
          shans2 2 February 2016 21: 03
          +2
          f 35 threshing floor, raptor moget, and f 35 dull g, with him the same story will be like with f-117 ... dull brick
        3. clidon
          clidon 2 February 2016 22: 24
          0
          So "Stern" also mentioned that the F-22 supposedly "except for the raptor, the Su-35 is the coolest. But this" dropped out "from the translation.)
        4. Wheel
          Wheel 2 February 2016 23: 25
          +8
          Quote: Lepila
          And I thought that the coolest F-22, combining invisibility with super-maneuverability and cruising supersonic speed ... thanks to Stern magazine, we will cancel the contract for F-35 and order Dryers

          No-no-no-no !!!!
          Take the F-35, and as much as possible !!!!!
          1. Lepila
            Lepila 3 February 2016 00: 31
            -18 qualifying.
            I think so too . And see who will laugh last.
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 3 February 2016 09: 06
              +2
              Quote: Lepila
              I think so too . And see who will laugh last.

              Well, if you’re not going to fight with us, you’ll have to watch for a long time. Although by the time he (the 35th) has eliminated childhood illnesses, it’s time to update park f-16
        5. ordinary
          ordinary 3 February 2016 05: 40
          +5
          this is what a creep of terrible super-maneuverability of the f-22 ... which of the cubes is made contrary to the laws of aerodynamics ... ??? laughing
        6. Muvka
          Muvka 3 February 2016 10: 10
          +4
          Quote: Lepila
          And I thought that the coolest F-22, combining invisibility with super-maneuverability and cruising supersonic speed ... thanks to Stern magazine, we will cancel the contract for F-35 and order Dryers

          How long has the F-22 become over-maneuverable? And yes, the Su-35S also has a cruising speed of 1,1M, which is more than the speed of sound.
        7. Garris199
          Garris199 4 February 2016 18: 39
          0
          Quote: Lepila
          we will cancel the contract for F-35

          No, wait for the F-35. 10 years later, maybe it will be finished.
        8. polkovnik manuch
          polkovnik manuch 5 February 2016 08: 32
          -1
          Dear colleague, so as not to offend you (my own aunt is married to your compatriot!), I bring to your attention that the SU-35 is currently the "coolest" and the F-22 and F-35 in comparison with it the day before yesterday, like this it is not offensive for you!
      7. Kent0001
        Kent0001 2 February 2016 21: 29
        +1
        And in my opinion this is not expected. Work work and work and then yes do not care at all.
      8. Platonich
        Platonich 3 February 2016 05: 18
        +3
        Nothing reminds you - the praise of the enemy! Naibulina even gave the order! And we are rolling in full ..pu!
      9. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 3 February 2016 10: 45
        0
        With the release of the T-50 series, much will change in the sky .....
        1. complete zero
          complete zero 4 February 2016 18: 03
          +1
          it would be nice ... but only if the T 50 is not a "mulka", as it were, that "the engine is from a Mercedes and the steering wheel is from a Zaporozhets"
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 February 2016 18: 30
      20
      “The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world.

      Amepikos with their F-35s nervously smoke on the sidelines lol
      This year, the first even T-50s (PAKFA) will go into military operation. I wonder what they say to that? After all, the T-50 surpasses in many respects the performance characteristics of 5th-generation American vehicles! good
      1. Simon
        Simon 2 February 2016 18: 45
        +9
        They won’t say anything, their speechlessness will be lost and their jaws will drop open. They just can’t say something. belay request good
        1. veksha50
          veksha50 2 February 2016 19: 18
          +8
          Quote: Simon
          They just won’t be able to say something.



          Hmm ... There is, there is ... They say that Russia has not only a corrupt president, but also planes that are bad and ineffective ... They say now that the actions of our aerospace forces in Syria cause little damage to the IS, but their coalition has reached huge successes ... Only here is the successes - they themselves, probably, do not understand ...
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 February 2016 19: 37
            +5
            Quote: veksha50
            They say now that the actions of our videoconferencing in Syria cause minor damage to the IG, but their coalition has achieved tremendous success... But that’s the success, they themselves, probably, do not understand ...

            People already do not grab this noodle in America itself.
          2. pofigisst74
            pofigisst74 2 February 2016 19: 38
            +4
            They say that the Russians immediately make their planes rusty? lol
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. dauria
          dauria 2 February 2016 23: 33
          +7
          They won’t say anything, their speechlessness will be lost and their jaw will drop


          Yes, stop it already. Why all of a sudden such delight? What is our aircraft able to do that they don’t have? Go into space, or what? Or dive into the water? Maybe they came up with a gravitsap? According to EPR, not a damn thing has been done yet, but they have already begun to chirp. Well, there is a good aircraft for the 4th generation, it may be in demand among poor countries. And that's it, no more, no less.
          1. Yak-3P
            Yak-3P 3 February 2016 14: 20
            +2
            radar range is permissible .. missile range .. and don’t bring a wiki on ameripids - there are no proven launches at the international level and we have - India - China - etc.
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 4 February 2016 05: 33
            -1
            Quote: dauria
            Yes, stop it already. Why all of a sudden such delight? What is our aircraft able to do that they don’t have? Go into space, or what? Or dive into the water? Maybe they came up with a gravitsap?

            Quote: dauria
            cars a long time ago they stopped making aerodynamically stable.

            in one paragraph on both of your comments, there are only two of them, it was a long time ago the Su-27 and most recently the Swedish JAS-39, the experienced X-29, in spite of the advertisement it is creating now, hasn’t flown in such a normal way. And for example, the old Su-27 without PTB has a larger combat radius than the new F-15 with PTB. Well, something like this...
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 4 February 2016 09: 28
              -2
              a statically aerodynamically unstable machine can, for example, be turned tail-forward, which, along with other similar indicators of super-maneuverability, gives a huge advantage in battle.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 4 February 2016 10: 56
                0
                and which ... minus? wassat laughing
      2. wizarden
        wizarden 2 February 2016 18: 52
        13
        There is something for them to say, do not hesitate ... Drones will fill up soon. And it’s not necessary to say that we will drown them out, take them away, etc. These are all childhood diseases of drones that are being resolved. But we, unfortunately, are behind in this direction.

        1. jjj
          jjj 2 February 2016 18: 58
          39
          With the increase in size, any unmanned vehicle turns into a regular maneuvering target
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 3 February 2016 16: 24
            +1
            Quote: jjj
            into a conventional maneuvering target

            Only now she has much more room for maneuver, she is not limited by the human body in overloads, which gives her the additional possibility of avoiding missiles
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 5 February 2016 09: 57
              0
              You won’t run away from EW
            2. Check
              Check 5 February 2016 15: 39
              0
              Well, that’s what you’re carrying, it’s not limited by the human body, the drone is controlled by a person, the drone has a ping, operator visibility restriction. It’s one thing to bomb houses with a cross on the screen, and another air battle. Drones, as I understand it, are not intended for air combat.
        2. Red_Hamer
          Red_Hamer 2 February 2016 18: 59
          14
          Do not despair, our defense industry likes to make surprises. Work is underway in this direction, do not even hesitate. Moreover, we are talking about creating a supersonic strategic drone.
          1. cergey51046
            cergey51046 2 February 2016 22: 33
            +7
            A drone strategist is already there, it's a cruise missile.
        3. Asadullah
          Asadullah 2 February 2016 19: 32
          19
          There is something for them to say, do not hesitate ... Drones will fill up soon. And it’s not necessary to say that we will drown them out, take them away, etc. These are all childhood diseases of drones that are being resolved. But we, unfortunately, are behind in this direction.


          In general, I agree with you. Only drones, this is not the most important answer, and not even the answer though. Drones, one of the elements of a local conflict war, is an intermediate link between the satellite constellation and the command. As a combat unit, weak against an advanced adversary. It is more a reconnaissance and target designation system. That would not fly empty, designed a platform for the damaging elements. A combat UAV cannot be considered as a fire element alone, drones will become a strong weapon only when there are thousands of them, when there will be a fully automated take-off and landing system, upgrading ammunition, refueling and even eliminating minor malfunctions. Then it will be an irreparable headache for air defense and defense. So far it is very expensive.
        4. GSH-18
          GSH-18 2 February 2016 20: 02
          +6
          Quote: wizarden
          Drones will fill up soon. And do not say that we will drown them, take them away, etc.

          Don't whistle. The drone at this stage versus a modern combat fighter is a goose in front of a hunter. How to jam the most advanced encrypted radio communications, and for one and ALL of its radars, computers and other weapons systems of the ship with just one plane, we have shown on the example of the American destroyer "Donald Cook" in our Black Sea. So far, the FIGHTER dominates the sky. The time of drones has not come yet, and I doubt that it will come in THIS quality. A real combat pilot is extremely difficult to fully replace with a computer, as it turned out.
          1. jPilot
            jPilot 2 February 2016 20: 33
            11
            I completely agree, no matter how sophisticated the drone is, it is impossible to simulate non-standard decisions made by man, suddenly, for no reason and often save lives. No matter how hard you try, and intuition it is impossible to teach electronics, no logical chain can compete with this.
            And the drone’s operator will never be careful enough and just feel for making some extraordinary decisions. And by this I think when meeting the drone and the manned fighter, the first one definitely has NO chance!
            And drones are being developed in our country, and even very actively, believe me as an operating pilot, I know quite a few forbidden zones where flights, planes and helicopters are prohibited, because of the flights of drones there.
            1. Petrix
              Petrix 2 February 2016 22: 43
              +6
              Quote: jPilot
              No matter how hard you try, and intuition it is impossible to teach electronics, no logical chain can compete with this.

              The power of electronics is not in intuition. Its strength is in handling large amounts of data, in the cheapness of reproduction, in the absence of fatigue, in speed, in the absence of emotions.
              Those who bet on unmanned systems are trying to "undermine" the possible battlefield for themselves. This is the cheapness and massiveness of robots and a large information load on the enemy's defenses (network, swarm), the use of non-threatening equipment against manpower (sound, light, bacteria, chemistry, ...), operating in areas with difficult environmental conditions for man (underwater, alpine, north, desert ..., space!), blocking the supply and siege of the population with vigilant sentries, ...

              The pilot on the Su-27 can not cope without control. This is a retribution for over-maneuverability. Those. intuition alone is not enough. Need a robot assistant. You can defeat the swarm either symmetrically or by depriving the enemy of replenishment resources or by destroying the basic foundations of the functioning of equipment (electronic warfare, electromagnetic radiation, ...). But EMR is dangerous for its own. But the most effective method is when the weapon destroys itself. Here is the field of activity of special services and hacker craftsmen. If it turns out to set people against people, then why strike drones cannot open fire on their own?
              1. jPilot
                jPilot 3 February 2016 06: 46
                +4
                If you read carefully, then my statement is that no electronics, with all of its logical chains, will be able to calculate the non-logical actions of a person who suddenly suddenly "shrunken testicles" felt "now, now we need to" throw "the plane to the right, and miraculously got away from the rocket ", although it was logical to fly straight.
                A computer on the Su-27 does not control an airplane without a pilot, but coordinates the operation of systems i.e. helps. PILOTS and makes a decision THE PILOT, and he decides at what next second where the aircraft will fly and what maneuver will perform
                1. Petrix
                  Petrix 4 February 2016 12: 20
                  0
                  I agree. The computer has no intuition. That is why the reform of education introduces overwhelming intuition in Russian schools. To make it easier for Western robots to defeat a stereotypically thinking pilot.
                  The question is, is there enough human intuition to beat a robot? If one on one, in gentle environmental conditions, then perhaps intuition will win. But if the robot spins around you with an overwhelming overload for the human body? Or are there 100 against one? Here intuition will not work. This is already outside its field of influence. Therefore, the robot will always impose that battlefield, reducing the effect of intuition on nothing.
                  Well, to invent a new technique in battle, yes, the robot can not do it. But he can adapt quickly.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 5 February 2016 09: 59
                    0
                    Quote: Petrix
                    intuition will not work.

                    it just needs to be developed, just like the eye, speed and onslaught
          2. dauria
            dauria 2 February 2016 23: 51
            -4
            It is extremely difficult to fully replace a real combat pilot with a computer, as it turned out.


            In reality, the pilot has already been replaced with a computer, the cars have long ago ceased to be aerodynamically stable. Now he looks like a rider of a horse who knows better than him how and where to move his legs and where to jump, and where not. The rest is a question of ten years, no more. A person is already becoming the most "inhibiting" element of an aircraft's characteristics.
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 3 February 2016 02: 03
              +2
              Quote: dauria
              A person is already becoming the most "inhibiting" element of an aircraft's characteristics.

              Stupidity is utter.
            2. Pissarro
              Pissarro 3 February 2016 02: 05
              +1
              Nowhere else have you hijacked a plane remotely with this very braking element, and hijacking by drones by intercepting drones is a common thing. Never will a computer be able to think like a person, since the computer is absolutely logical, and therefore potentially predictable
              1. woron333444
                woron333444 3 February 2016 04: 56
                +1
                Iran have amers, have already broken and make their
            3. complete zero
              complete zero 4 February 2016 18: 22
              0
              nothing of the kind dear ... the car has a clear ALGORITHM of actions for which it does not go by definition ... as an example (reaching extreme angles of attack), the car will simply turn you off, there was a plane crash with a French board - when the computer (due to an incorrect approach) turned off the pilot who was trying to gain altitude ... that guy "with a stick between his legs" is unlikely to replace what and when
          3. complete zero
            complete zero 4 February 2016 18: 11
            0
            yes Putin does not know that "Cook" was planted by a bomber ... Putin hinted about the "Bastion" complex
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 4 February 2016 19: 51
              -1
              Even he knows that they sat down by two
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 5 February 2016 10: 00
                -1
                two bombers, because if one were shot down from MANPADS, then the second would stop jamming ...
        5. Saburov
          Saburov 2 February 2016 21: 04
          10
          There is such a technical law, any engineer will tell you about it, that - complicating the product leads to imperfection ... the more complicated the technique and electronics, the more ways there are to influence it ... It would seem like a simple bullet, an ancient weapon, and there are many ways of influencing this bullet except armor ... no respected and will not, the same with RPGs is simple and unpretentious, and in terms of frequency of use it will give odds to any of all combined anti-tank systems, including high-tech ones.
          PS Do not forget about the words of Lomonosov ... If somewhere has disappeared, then somewhere has arrived ...
          1. Petrix
            Petrix 2 February 2016 23: 06
            +1
            Quote: Saburov
            RPG is simple and unpretentious, and the frequency of use will give odds to anyone

            It is understandable. But a bullet or even a rock is easier than an RPG. However, stones cannot frighten a tank. A more complex technique, in addition to reducing combat stability, also gives an advantage in the probability of defeat. But here the line is floating and real improvement by complication is not always justified. This assessment can only be obtained by real operation, and then "the pilot will not be overjoyed, and the technician will not suffer" (or vice versa), in different conditions his opinion.
            1. Saburov
              Saburov 3 February 2016 00: 09
              +5
              Quote: Petrix
              A more complex technique, in addition to reducing combat stability, also gives an advantage in the probability of defeat. But here the line is floating and real improvement by complication is not always justified. This assessment can only be obtained by real exploitation, and then "the pilot will not be overjoyed, and the technician will not suffer" (or vice versa), in different conditions his opinion.


              Well, let's compare, complex guided weapons, for example, with the BM-21 old Soviet system and the advantages in the likelihood of defeat for this old man will be many times better than for example the UR or UAB, although it spanks the OFS squares and plus the percentage of system failure he has a terribly low compared to all modern HC models, the same analogy can be drawn with attack aircraft, for example, SU-25, how many spirits they failed to count in Afghanistan, and how many drones destroyed them? You can’t answer ... the list is not impressive, for all the years of the US presence in Afghanistan and even in Iraq taken together this is the annual indicator of Soviet attack aircraft in Afghanistan ... Or one more example for you, in the Second World War the Germans were better at sighting systems and some technical solutions, but they went along the path of complicating the technology, which ultimately came to their side, in the form of a failure of a number of machine systems on the battlefield and on the march, which, for example, cannot be said about the T-34, which is simple and maintainable in operation and going on any tractor and the result was as long as the Germans glue one tank fell, ours collected ten, and even today, the 10 T-34 at a distance of 1.5-2.0 kilometers will be hit by one, any modern MBT (at least the tracks will be removed from it and the fire engines will be set on fire for sure). So perfection is not in complexity, but rather in the simplicity and reliability of weapons, and this of course does not mean that an air defense is not necessary, but you should not forget that people are fighting, and the outcome of the battle depends on a huge variety of factors, in particular, on the use of aviation, artillery and other types of troops, the coherence of their actions and the degree of headaches of the command.
              1. Petrix
                Petrix 4 February 2016 13: 04
                0
                Comparison of BM-21 with aviation is completely incorrect. You need to compare with the "Katyusha". "Katyusha" BM-13 is simpler, more pretentious. But what will the army choose, all other things being equal?
                How many pilots are lost on the Su-25 and on drones per killed spirit? You always have to choose and figure out a win-lose.
                Quote: Saburov
                even today 10 T-34s at a distance of 1.5-2.0 kilometers

                And at a distance of 5 km? And at night? And right away? And shoot in a jump? And communication and automatic target tracking? Is it worth the complication of operation? Well, probably, if after one hour of driving you need to set up a month, then you should not. But the designers and the military understand this.

                It happens that people make mistakes, but war, as an objective criterion, quickly writes off a system that is too complex or too backward.
                1. Saburov
                  Saburov 4 February 2016 15: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Petrix
                  Comparison of BM-21 with aviation is completely incorrect. You need to compare with the "Katyusha". "Katyusha" BM-13 is simpler, more pretentious. But what will the army choose, all other things being equal?


                  In war, a respected one does not happen correctly, incorrectly ... I gave you an assessment of combat effectiveness and it is appropriate for any kind of troops if the priority on the target is the same.

                  Quote: Petrix
                  How many pilots are lost on the Su-25 and on drones per killed spirit? You always have to choose and figure out a win-lose.


                  Yes, a lot of pilots died, but there is such a thing (I hope you served in the army) as the fulfillment of a combat mission, at least you die, and you must fulfill the assigned task and the pilots did it, even at the cost of their life. Now imagine that the spirits took possession of, a dirty bomb, for example, can a drone with all the tricks of its algorithms fulfill the task of destroying a target in an emergency?

                  Quote: Petrix
                  And at a distance of 5 km? And at night? And right away? And shoot in a jump? And communication and automatic target tracking? Is it worth the complication of operation? Well, probably, if after one hour of driving you need to set up a month, then you should not. But the designers and the military understand this.


                  Here you don’t have any trump cards, I’m still a graduate of the ChVTKU and I’ll tell you a secret tank battles even on the most modern MBTs at a distance of more than 2,0x km were unsuccessful and will not be (except for guided ATGM and UAE weapons) as to hit the target for long range there should be good weather conditions, a fixed target and an ideal landscape, even with all modern sighting systems and OMS.

                  Quote: Petrix
                  It happens that people make mistakes, but war, as an objective criterion, quickly writes off a system that is too complex or too backward.


                  It happens ... but during the war there are no backward or complex systems, any weapon capable of destroying the enemy is a combat weapon. Even if it's a cannon with cores.
        6. Yuyuka
          Yuyuka 3 February 2016 00: 36
          +3
          There is something for them to say, do not hesitate ... Drones will fill up soon.

          Every drone has its own "Base" repeat it is necessary to answer asymmetrically - to build sites and warehouses where thousands of drones will land laughing
        7. Platonich
          Platonich 3 February 2016 05: 29
          0
          These are beauties !!! You will not say anything!
        8. polkovnik manuch
          polkovnik manuch 5 February 2016 08: 37
          0
          Yes, indeed, drones are a dangerous thing, but I hope that "there will be a friend with a propeller for a cunning ass" - it seems so! VVP, SKSH and the same Ragozin understand that now we are perceived and feared only because of our growing power (mind you, we were not the first to start!), So that there are "more" goods "- good and different!"
      3. ALX
        ALX 2 February 2016 20: 13
        -2
        Maybe superior, but how many are there? And the United States rivets in batches! So stop torturing with illusions!
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 2 February 2016 20: 23
          -2
          Quote: ALX
          Maybe superior, but how many are there?

          Do not hesitate, enough for everyone.
          1. woron333444
            woron333444 3 February 2016 04: 58
            +1
            What are the drones used against air defense and air force of which country?
        2. Forest
          Forest 2 February 2016 20: 35
          +1
          There are a thousand of them barely recruited by the US troops, a trifle reconnaissance in the interests of a platoon company is not considered. For any means of fighting air, UAVs can hardly oppose something.
      4. mav1971
        mav1971 2 February 2016 20: 40
        0
        Quote: GSH-18

        This year, the first even T-50 (PAKFA) will go into military operation.


        Why did you get that?

        I have a completely different opinion.

        When the "five" flashed before the Indians, the test program was stopped for a year completely.
        The five was "restored" by using the entire glider accumulated for the "six".

        Since 13, not a single T-50 has been assembled.
        Although according to the plans it was supposed to be "for now" 8 pieces.
        And there are only 5 of them ...

        The squirrel is not ready. A semi-working (let's call it honestly) working layout is only on the "three".
        The engines of the second stage only in the 20 year.
        But okay, and on the 117 fly first. These will go. Not bad.

        Yes. There are plans to collect 3 samol this year and the fourth in the next January.
        But while hard to believe.
        1. shans2
          shans2 2 February 2016 21: 08
          +1
          Hello, Estonian, already the 11 prototype is being assembled, 10 is operating, look and find out ...
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 2 February 2016 23: 04
            +2
            Quote: shans2
            Hello, Estonian, already the 11 prototype is being assembled, 10 is operating, look and find out ...


            Learn the materiel. Ignorant race racing!

            Here is the schedule. Did you see him at all?
            T-50-6-2 - transfer to LIS after assembly of the aircraft after applying the RPP - 01.02.2016, chi (including with weapons) - 26.02.-12.03., The first flight - 26.03., Delivery - 04.04.2016.

            T-50-8 - transfer to LIS 30.01.2016, application of RPP - 26.02.-15.03, rearrangement of the cabin - 14.04.-04.05, CHI - 15-23.05., First flight - 29.05., Change - 05.06.2016.

            T-50-9 - Docking to the 15.03.2016 GLASS, transfer to 30.04 LIS, delivery - 31.08.2016.

            T-50-10 - docking of the fuselage 01.03., Docking GLASSES 20.04. transfer to LIS 30.06., change - 30.10.2016.

            T-50-11 - docking of the fuselage 30.05., Docking GLASSES 30.07., Transfer to LIS 30.09., Delivery - 30.01.2017.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 2 February 2016 23: 37
              +2
              So where does the 10 prototype operate? :)
              And 9, too? Where is he acting? :)

              what are you self-confident ...
              But the minusers from you are just a sight to see ...
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 2 February 2016 21: 09
          0
          Quote: mav1971
          Quote: GSH-18

          This year, the first even T-50 (PAKFA) will go into military operation.


          Why did you get that?

          Read the state program of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for the rearmament of the Air Force. Everything is going according to plan.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 2 February 2016 23: 05
            -2
            Quote: GSH-18

            Read the state program of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for the rearmament of the Air Force. Everything is going according to plan.


            And give you a program too? Will you take binoculars? :)

            Here is the schedule.
            T-50-6-2 - transfer to LIS after assembly of the aircraft after applying the RPP - 01.02.2016, chi (including with weapons) - 26.02.-12.03., The first flight - 26.03., Delivery - 04.04.2016.

            T-50-8 - transfer to LIS 30.01.2016, application of RPP - 26.02.-15.03, rearrangement of the cabin - 14.04.-04.05, CHI - 15-23.05., First flight - 29.05., Change - 05.06.2016.

            T-50-9 - Docking to the 15.03.2016 GLASS, transfer to 30.04 LIS, delivery - 31.08.2016.

            T-50-10 - docking of the fuselage 01.03., Docking GLASSES 20.04. transfer to LIS 30.06., change - 30.10.2016.

            T-50-11 - docking of the fuselage 30.05., Docking GLASSES 30.07., Transfer to LIS 30.09., Delivery - 30.01.2017.
    3. veksha50
      veksha50 2 February 2016 19: 15
      +4
      Quote: From Samara
      The main thing is not to get stuck at this level! And most importantly, Avionics!



      The main thing now is people ... Pilots and technicians who will now test equipment in combat conditions will become the gold fund of Russian fighter aircraft, others will learn from their experience ...

      It is cynical, but true: trouble, that is, war, allows us to test our new weapon in combat conditions ... Well, and, accordingly, show the "partners" that we do not need to meddle with us ...
      1. Vitaly72
        Vitaly72 2 February 2016 23: 50
        +1
        Correctly! Back in the Soviet Union, one military man said; the state always needs war, it needs a training ground
    4. Sly
      Sly 2 February 2016 19: 26
      +2
      Quote: From Samara
      The main thing is not to get stuck at this level! And most importantly, Avionics!

      The main thing is not to do your F-35)
    5. papas-57
      papas-57 2 February 2016 19: 43
      11
      It is terrible to think, if the USSR had not collapsed, if it had not been lost in the normal financing with the length of 15-20 years, which devices would now fly under the red stars.
      1. gorez
        gorez 2 February 2016 20: 35
        +6
        You're right papas-57, oh you're right. Well, if not only the two of us understand this.
      2. poquello
        poquello 2 February 2016 21: 30
        +1
        Quote: papas-57
        It is terrible to think, if the USSR had not collapsed, if it had not been lost in the normal financing with the length of 15-20 years, which devices would now fly under the red stars.

        But the fact that by the decision of party bonzes we were deprived of mobile phones since 1957 and the Internet since 1967 is not scary?
        1. Wheel
          Wheel 2 February 2016 23: 47
          +1
          Quote: poquello
          But the fact that by the decision of party bonzes we were deprived of mobile phones since 1957 and the Internet since 1967 is not scary?

          Are you sure that mobile phones, and especially the Internet in their current form, are an absolute good?
          1. poquello
            poquello 3 February 2016 01: 10
            0
            Quote: Wheel
            Quote: poquello
            But the fact that by the decision of party bonzes we were deprived of mobile phones since 1957 and the Internet since 1967 is not scary?

            Are you sure that mobile phones, and especially the Internet in their current form, are an absolute good?

            I am sure it’s good that it is up to me to decide, and not to statesmen. Well, the H1 rocket can be remembered, not necessarily the Internet.
        2. flay
          flay 3 February 2016 01: 22
          +1
          Quote: poquello
          Quote: papas-57
          It is terrible to think, if the USSR had not collapsed, if it had not been lost in the normal financing with the length of 15-20 years, which devices would now fly under the red stars.

          But the fact that by the decision of party bonzes we were deprived of mobile phones since 1957 and the Internet since 1967 is not scary?


          You can reference or .... as a topic in the search engine is searched?
          1. poquello
            poquello 3 February 2016 01: 37
            0
            Quote: flay
            Quote: poquello
            Quote: papas-57
            It is terrible to think, if the USSR had not collapsed, if it had not been lost in the normal financing with the length of 15-20 years, which devices would now fly under the red stars.

            But the fact that by the decision of party bonzes we were deprived of mobile phones since 1957 and the Internet since 1967 is not scary?


            You can reference or .... as a topic in the search engine is searched?

            In DucDyuk I requested a "Soviet mobile phone" "Soviet Internet"
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. ZKB
      ZKB 3 February 2016 03: 52
      0
      The main thing- NOW ANY TURK 5 TIMES THINKS BEFORE PRESSING THE ROCKET START BUTTON.
      The goal of Russian weapons is always the same - to preserve peace and to prevent even the desire of a more or less intelligent being to oppose this weapon. Well, if the creature does not have enough brains, let the earth rest in peace ... and the qualities and advantages of this apparatus have been known to the West for a long time, so the sowing laudatory ode is just an additional signal.
    9. demchuk.ig
      demchuk.ig 3 February 2016 16: 10
      0
      [quote = From Samara] The main thing is not to get stuck at this level!
      I think we’ll not be stuck at this level when the second stage engine for the T-50 is suitable, it will also be stuck at 35ku. ​​I hope that everything will be fine with avionics
  2. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 2 February 2016 18: 17
    10
    "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

    But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?
    1. cniza
      cniza 2 February 2016 18: 22
      25
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

      But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?



      At 10 not in combat qualities, but in bucks. wink
    2. poquello
      poquello 2 February 2016 18: 24
      13
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

      But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?

      Duc f22 probably have a chance to hide from 10 su-35s, but if you don’t attack, you might not notice
      1. Lissyara
        Lissyara 2 February 2016 18: 33
        11
        People! View air combat really! Su-35, F-22, MiG-29 - THIS IS AN AIR BATTLE! DUEL PILOTS!
        Do not forget that E-3 is plowed for this (I will not list the letters), A-50 (I will not list the letters), and a bunch of ground-based RTV systems (from 55Ж6 Sky to the new "Frontiers" or I will not say the name. "Secret") ...
    3. 3315061
      3315061 2 February 2016 18: 25
      +3
      Our "Drying" is much more elegant than the F-22 or F-35, the Americans sacrificed maneuverability and flight characteristics in pursuit of the invisibility of combat aircraft. No wonder they say an ugly plane will not fly. The variable thrust vector allows the Su-35 to perform maneuvers inaccessible to competitors, for example, the famous "Cobra".
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 2 February 2016 20: 59
        0
        Quote: 3315061
        The variable thrust vector allows the Su-35 to perform maneuvers inaccessible to competitors, for example, the famous "Cobra".


        Learn to turn on your head.
        Cobra make planes and without UVT.

        Our Su-27, 30, 33K, 35, T-50
        Americans F-18, 22, 35
        Europeans rafal, typhoon. Grippen.
        And even the old Swedish Dragon in the training version from the beginning of the 60's was able to make Cobra.

        What incidentally there is a bunch of videos on the Internet.
        1. shans2
          shans2 2 February 2016 21: 13
          +2
          8 seconds in the air hangs soo 35, no one is able to do it close ...
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 2 February 2016 22: 58
            +2
            Quote: shans2
            8 seconds in the air hangs soo 35, no one is able to do it close ...


            There is one but. A cobra needs a speed of no more than 600 km \ h.
            Most beautifully this maneuver looks at speeds 450-550 km \ h.
            Any air battle begins with significantly higher speeds.
            Cobra. after its execution for a sufficiently long time, it takes the car out of battle due to a very strong drop in speed (up to 200km \ h) and weak maneuverability, until a higher speed is reached.
            According to many experts - the effectiveness is zero.

            with the exception of the case when software will be introduced in Su-35С, which will automatically launch a rocket in this position without capturing the target by the pilot. Only on the basis of avionics.
            As far as I heard, such work was carried out.
            1. nemar7106
              nemar7106 2 February 2016 23: 25
              0
              I beg your pardon. Are you a pilot? or you read experts, "cobra" is a reset of visibility on the enemy radar, as well as the "bell"
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 3 February 2016 00: 11
                +1
                Quote: nemar7106
                I beg your pardon. Are you a pilot? or you read experts, "cobra" is a reset of visibility on the enemy radar, as well as the "bell"


                Not a pilot or expert.
                Although he studied a little.
                Reset visibility - only virtual for the bell.
                Exit to the bell - 10-15 seconds.
                Time at zero is 2 seconds.
                And that means all your nails.
                For air combat, respectively, not applicable.
                The maneuver was initially developed for the front-line Su-24. yeah. :)
                For a breakthrough to the target on a small and subsequent (after the bell) attack with a dive.
                But did not go through the engines.

                For a cobra - even more so. All the same, the speed does not decrease to zero (minimum 200-250) and for Doppler stations it’s not a problem.
                The only possible use for the cobra at the moment is to disrupt the enemy’s attack. In a maneuverable battle. Namely, the attacks of the enemy that came into the tail from the airborne gun.
                But, I already wrote. that for Su-35 they tried to write code that allows the launch of rockets during a figure without the participation of a pilot. Only avionics.
                Pugachev with Kvochur and Wolf at one time tried to develop this.

                And further. Even Pugachev says that. that these are abnormal figures.
                And that there is no way for combat pilots to carry out these maneuvers.
                For they are not registered by the code in combat machines.
                Special modes included by special buttons, toggle switches, corrective restrictions of the limit modes of the EMDS. Something like that...:)))
                1. poquello
                  poquello 3 February 2016 01: 24
                  0
                  Quote: mav1971
                  .
                  For a cobra - even more so. All the same, the speed does not decrease to zero (minimum 200-250) and for Doppler stations it’s not a problem.
                  .

                  Have you read this at Pugachev? and then you refer to it.
                2. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 4 February 2016 23: 00
                  -1
                  The bell for disrupting the guidance of the GSN radar as well as the VIFF (similar to Cobra) was used by Harriers to shake off the tail, they therefore defeated the Argentines in air battles without losses.
                  After VIFF and Cobra, the aircraft itself takes a position for firing, so all the bullets will be the one who before that hung on the tail and can not do the same maneuver ...
                  And the restriction - yes, the Gorbachevites introduced, otherwise the Air Force would go against the democracies.
                  They also provided the aircraft with a non-stamped cannon to be shot down well and the pilots, on the contrary, were tormented as in Korea, especially in contrast to the Su-27, the non-maneuverable MiG-29.
                  The Su-27 can launch missiles without a code, it can fly its tail forward as much as desired (slowing down) until the speed goes out ... When the EMF is turned off, any statically unstable aircraft will simply turn its tail forward. laughing
        2. avia1991
          avia1991 3 February 2016 19: 02
          +1
          Quote: mav1971
          even the old swedish dragon

          All over the world, this figure is called "Pugachev's Cobra", after the name of the first test pilot who performed it on the Su-27. With what side did you grind the ancient "Dragon" here - I do not understand at close range.
          The main condition, from a technical point of view, is the presence of engines with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1.0, plus a certain aerodynamic layout, and these are F-15, Rafale, F-18, etc. - all younger than 80 years old.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 4 February 2016 22: 45
            +1
            Quote: avia1991
            Quote: mav1971
            even the old swedish dragon

            All over the world, this figure is called "Pugachev's Cobra", after the name of the first test pilot who performed it on the Su-27. With what side did you grind the ancient "Dragon" here - I do not understand at close range.
            The main condition, from a technical point of view, is the presence of engines with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1.0, plus a certain aerodynamic layout, and these are F-15, Rafale, F-18, etc. - all younger than 80 years old.


            The world "screwed up" thanks to the scribblers from the media.
            And after him people "screw up" too. who are not interested in looking for information, give them something ready.
            The first to perform this maneuver was Igor Volk, an undeservedly forgotten astronaut and test pilot. He worked out the exit from the corkscrew and brought in the cobra.
            And only then he taught Pugachev this maneuver.
            http://www.zhukgsn.ru/igor-volk-vsya-moya-zhizn-eto-sploshnaya-sluchaynost/


            Take a look. and say it
            https://youtu.be/jqiDEcfSnXs - самолет 1963 года. Saab J35 Draken в версии Sk35C. Угол вполне себе в некоторых пробах и 110 градусов...
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 4 February 2016 22: 55
              0
              Eo "dynamic casting", the cobra for the Su-27 learned how to repeat only Gripen.
            2. avia1991
              avia1991 4 February 2016 23: 06
              +1
              Quote: mav1971
              The world "screwed up" thanks to the scribblers from the media.
              And after him people "screw up" too.

              Excuse me, are you a fighter pilot?
              Me not. And I bring the generally recognized data. Remember, by the way, at what speed did Pugachev perform this figure?
              In general, if there are fighters here, it would be interesting to hear an authoritative opinion ..? Oh, the falcons? Respond! wink
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 4 February 2016 23: 20
                -2
                Yes, now they will go to the site where the "Israelis" are rubbing and from the same kennel that almost planted their comrade and threw him out of the BBC show group onto the street for fake 5000r laughing and when in peacetime, she brought half-squadrons to a mountain in SEA.
              2. Falcon
                Falcon 5 February 2016 09: 42
                +1
                Quote: avia1991
                Excuse me, are you a fighter pilot?
                Me not. And I bring the generally recognized data. Remember, by the way, at what speed did Pugachev perform this figure?
                In general, if there are fighters here, it would be interesting to hear an authoritative opinion ..? Oh, the falcons? Respond!


                Look for any Soviet aerial combat textbook. Everything will be prosaically written there.

                Cobra is a figure for the layman at an air show. At the entrance to the cobra, the speed of the aircraft is small - and the BVBs are seen at speeds optimal for a steady turn.
                if you are in bvb at lower speeds - consider shooting, well, or maybe you're lucky if the thrust ratio is greater. True, this does not work with a raptor.

                After the cobra, the plane needs to be dumped - otherwise there will be an uncontrollable corkscrew. Conclusion - again, shooting at low speed is also in a dive - there even an 3 generation fighter gets an advantage.

                With the cobra itself - no one bothers to flash the plane in line - all the more, it aims at times easier. And as at an air show (for the cobra effect), each other’s friend doesn’t hang on the tail laughing it’s already late - it’s necessary to pull the catapult
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 5 February 2016 09: 46
                  -1
                  it was a mark for everything ... fool

                  Well, did you see a lot of dives after the cobra at the air show?
                  1. Falcon
                    Falcon 5 February 2016 11: 10
                    +1
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Well, did you see a lot of dives after the cobra at the air show?


                    Is always ******. See the RLE of the Su-27.
                    Oh, I forgot they’re not on Wikipedia and on ren-tv lol

                    Quote: Scraptor
                    static instability of the aircraft on the sound, there are only two of them now, these are Su-27 and JAS-39


                    lol
                    In your case, you need to start with the primer, it looks like you don’t know how to read to the end

                    To be honest, I’m not in the mood to go down to your level, to teach the mind again. Someone else's troll

                    PS how's Kassandr underground underground Not yet banned again lol
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 5 February 2016 12: 39
                      -1
                      It’s strange, but for some reason others usually never saw, because if this were so, then the plane simply would not be aligned laughing ... did you read the RLE on the Su-27 when you sweep a broom around the MiG-29 while sitting in the BAO?
                      I recommend changing the post - you had to read dropped books on it, then you would know who Su or MiG is more maneuverable and why he needs "gills" fool

                      And what do you think, blue-eyed, rude chicken (1) thieves laughing if Taiwan cannons rolled out of the cliffs are possible, then in the case of small Britain are the same air defense systems - no? Especially if you have nowhere else to put them?

                      Go with the flow ... By the way, how do you know her? Or caught?
                    2. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 5 February 2016 13: 00
                      0
                      Answer here once in another thread on this topic, it stalled twice - "statically unstable" Watermelons in front of which you are sweeping now, will they turn their tail forward if their EDSU fails or is turned off or not? bully
                      Well no? Well come on, it's easier than on the exam, or ask for support from the hall from the demotivator.

                      Nobody pulled you by the tongue.
                      1. Falcon
                        Falcon 5 February 2016 13: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Answer here once in another thread on this topic, it stalled twice - "statically unstable" Watermelons in front of which you are sweeping now, will they turn their tail forward if their EDSU fails or is turned off or not?


                        http://www.twirpx.com/file/1093439/

                        but in your case you need to start from another:




                        Quote: Falcon
                        To be honest, there is no mood to go down to your level, again, to teach the mind to the mind. Troll somebody another


                        Anyway:
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        static instability of the aircraft on the sound, there are only two of them now, these are Su-27 and JAS-39


                        what else can you talk about lol
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 5 February 2016 13: 54
                        0
                        This is what was again for folk art as then with arithmetic which ...?

                        Your link at what? Specifically, the question answered!
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 4 February 2016 23: 16
          -1
          The main condition is the static instability of the aircraft on the sound, there are only two of them now, these are the Su-27 and JAS-39
    4. Falcon
      Falcon 5 February 2016 09: 34
      +2
      Quote: 3315061
      Our "Drying" is much more elegant than the F-22 or F-35, the Americans sacrificed maneuverability and flight characteristics in pursuit of the invisibility of combat aircraft. No wonder they say an ugly plane will not fly. The variable thrust vector allows the Su-35 to perform maneuvers inaccessible to competitors, for example, the famous "Cobra".


      Many can do cobra. Even all beaten F-35. Just why? In BVB it is not needed!
      1. rotparcS
        rotparcS 5 February 2016 17: 48
        0
        And what you need? bully This is not a cobra but a penguin, and the "maneuver" is called in American flying circles "controlled fall" which does not even pull a bell. For this reason, the horizon was not shown, and the plane lost at least 2000 feet (600 meters) instead of gaining altitude. In addition to the Su-27, not so long ago, only Gripen learned how to make a cobra.
  3. Nick
    Nick 2 February 2016 18: 26
    +2
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

    But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?

    In addition to the opinions of experts, it is possible to conduct the analysis yourself, comparing the characteristics and making your own conclusion.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 18: 59
      +5
      Quote: Nick
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

      But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?

      In addition to the opinions of experts, it is possible to conduct the analysis yourself, comparing the characteristics and making your own conclusion.

      This will be a theoretical comparative analysis. Only the fights between these planes can show real possibilities.
      1. Lissyara
        Lissyara 2 February 2016 19: 19
        +4
        In aviation, the word LAST is absent!
    2. kapitan92
      kapitan92 2 February 2016 19: 01
      +4
      You can conduct analyzes, compare characteristics, draw conclusions. BUT only combat use will show the WINNER!
      I would not want to, but it is a fact!
  4. DarkMatter
    DarkMatter 2 February 2016 18: 28
    +1
    Well, let's start with the fact that the F-22 has so many missiles then there =)))
    And of course, if we take a spherical situation in a vacuum that flies 1 on 1 towards each other, then the American will see and launch his missiles first ... But there are different situations, not head-to-head, again over whose territory happens, etc. tp

    In general, who is in the subject, explain why they did the flight without missiles?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 20: 18
      +1
      Quote: DarkMatter
      In general, who is in the subject, explain why they did the flight without missiles?

      And who can threaten the Americans? Who will attack them just like that? That's why they do not need rockets when flying. And this means less weight and longer range. And the second, it happens, but very rarely, a full-armed landing always contains danger. Suddenly, a missile launch control system will fail and missiles will start when they touch the runway. What will happen next is hard to imagine.
      1. kapitan92
        kapitan92 2 February 2016 21: 01
        +4
        Why do you think that they do not need missiles during flights?
        "...... An important, characteristic of 5th generation fighters, a design solution that reduces the visibility of the aircraft, is the placement of standard weapons in the internal compartments. The F-22 also has external suspensions, but the installation of ammunition on them worsens stealth. the solution was to increase the versatility of the aircraft ".......
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 22: 31
          +2
          Quote: kapitan92
          Why do you think that they do not need missiles during flights?
          "...... An important, characteristic of 5th generation fighters, a design solution that reduces the visibility of the aircraft, is the placement of standard weapons in the internal compartments. The F-22 also has external suspensions, but the installation of ammunition on them worsens stealth. the solution was to increase the versatility of the aircraft ".......

          We are talking about a specific flight of US warplanes, made quite recently. We are not talking about further flights, when it is necessary to bomb out on the move or repel the attack of enemy aircraft, without prior landing.
          Why do you transfer the question from one "plane" to another? Was there something you didn't understand?
        2. Lissyara
          Lissyara 4 February 2016 10: 48
          0
          We look really!
          There is a set of our Su-35, Su-30.
          And there is a separate IL-76, which will carry 40 tons of consumables.
  5. Vasya_Piterskiy
    Vasya_Piterskiy 2 February 2016 18: 30
    +3
    There was an article where the Americans simulated the attack and defense of the raptors and our DRYS, in 5 of the 5 models, our planes made their raptors in almost all respects. But piloting also plays a big role, and in our country it is at a high level - this is recognized by everyone, even America.
  6. Stas157
    Stas157 2 February 2016 18: 32
    +3
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?

    Let the experts tweak, but I think that the Raptor’s advantage is only in the invisibility, which ends if the Raptor flies on supersonic, or carries weapons on an external sling, or is illuminated from below by the S-400 complex, in any of these cases our Su-35 can fight on equal terms or even with an advantage over the Raptor. So in the sky of Syria, against our Su-35, the Raptor has no advantages!
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 February 2016 18: 58
      +6
      Quote: Stas157
      Let the experts tweak, but I think the Raptor’s advantage is only in invisibility,

      The Raptor’s EPR of 0,001 meters, which the Americans voiced, is the smallest value from a certain angle. (And not the fact that even this figure is real). But in flight, and even more so in battle, the fighter is not in a static state in this perspective and this It is necessary to understand. The EPR of our fighters was always determined by the average, in contrast to the Americans, who publish the most profitable and lowest indicators.
      Quote: Stas157
      The Raptor flies with supersonic sound, or carries weapons on an external sling, or is highlighted from below by the S-400 complex, in any of these cases our Su-35 can fight on equal terms or even with an advantage over the Raptor

      The 35th looks more advantageous against the background of the lizard, if only because our vehicle has longer-range missiles. And when approaching, super-maneuverability, which our “drying” has better, acts as a decisive advantage.
      Quote: Stas157
      So in the sky of Syria, against our Su-35, the Raptor has no advantages!

      Raptors, as far as I know, are not in the Syrian sky.
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 2 February 2016 19: 19
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS

        Raptors, as far as I know, are not in the Syrian sky.

        Wow! But, the fact is that the article about the Su-35 flew to Syria, and then suddenly they began to compare them, of course with the Raptor! Well, I hypothetically suggested, and what would happen if F-22 appeared in Syria.
        1. Throw
          Throw 2 February 2016 19: 57
          +4
          EPR Raptor


          Yes, according to the EPR of stealth, these are advertising figures that have not been confirmed in any way, how much can they be sucked up?
          In addition, when repeating the stealth mantra "I am not visible yet, but I have already seen and launched a rocket" do not forget three things:
          - missile guidance at medium and long ranges - the process is active in radiation
          - rocket - not stealth
          -on aircraft is electronic warfare equipment.
          And if there is suspicion, or only probability, attacks include it. And the attack process becomes very "muddy", both from the "point of view" of stealth and missile ...
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 2 February 2016 20: 02
            +1
            Quote: Lance
            And the attack process becomes very muddy, both from the "point of view" of stealth and missile ...

            And the "diversity" of missiles does not bother you? There are missiles that deeply do not care about electronic warfare countermeasures. And when opponents approach, the result of a duel, stealth and electronic countermeasures becomes an insignificant factor.
            1. Throw
              Throw 2 February 2016 21: 25
              0
              "Don't give a damn" - missiles with TGSN, this is the near launch zone, stealth is visible there as alive, against such missiles they work with a LTC or an IR jammer.

              "When approaching" - which one? REP works for all means with RE guidance. And do not forget that they can plant not from a near target, but from a distant one, which covers the first wink

              As for the "diversity", then it's not about the number of models of B-B missiles, but about the principles of detection and targeting, which can be counted on the fingers of the hand - not enough for wool ..))
      2. poquello
        poquello 2 February 2016 20: 00
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS

        Raptors, as far as I know, are not in the Syrian sky.

        This Raptor, a very strange animal, is nowhere to be seen and heard, and the bourgeois write that there is again a problem with them.
      3. xtur
        xtur 2 February 2016 20: 17
        0
        But Levitsky believes that even Rafal has better missiles than Su-35s:
        http://ak-12.livejournal.com/40747.html

        PS. in general, it would be interesting to read the comments of those in the subject
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 February 2016 20: 21
          +2
          Quote: xtur
          But Levitsky believes that even Rafal has better missiles than Su-35s:

          And what in the arsenal does Rafal or Raptor have similar to the KS-172 missile, which is placed on the 35th, 30th and, in the future, on the T-50?
          1. xtur
            xtur 2 February 2016 20: 40
            -1
            > The Raptor is similar to the KS-172 rocket, which is installed on the 35th

            read the article and discussion first :-)
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 February 2016 21: 09
              +2
              Quote: xtur
              read the article and discussion first :-)

              Forgive me, but I don’t read what they write on the “fences”. Good luck in digesting such a “truth” hi
              1. xtur
                xtur 3 February 2016 00: 47
                0
                > Forgive me, but what they write on "zaborah" I do not read. And good luck to you in digesting such "pravdy"

                Generally speaking, this is not a fence, and the author is a rather famous specialist - I went to this article from well-known experts through the bmpd blog. In addition, I was not interested in your opinion.

                In the discussion itself, there were numerous links to foreign forums where the Su-35 and Rafal rockets were discussed.

                It all came down to the difference in rocket engines - and it became interesting for me to hear the opinions of people from our forum who could say something - but not fate
            2. shans2
              shans2 2 February 2016 21: 19
              0
              R-33, and especially R-37, see missiles; the states still do not have similar missiles that operate beyond 200 km.
              1. xtur
                xtur 3 February 2016 00: 49
                0
                > states still do not have such missiles that operate beyond 200 km.

                firstly, it was about the effective range of defeat; secondly, it was about Rafal
            3. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt 2 February 2016 22: 10
              0
              Quote: NEXUS
              And what in the arsenal does Rafal or Raptor have similar to the KS-172 missile, which is placed on the 35th, 30th and, in the future, on the T-50?
              They do not put it on the 35th, 30th and in service it is not.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 2 February 2016 22: 16
                +1
                Quote: Thunderbolt
                They do not put it on the 35th, 30th and in service it is not.

                It is for now ... but it is in the gland ... and what is even promising for Rafal then?
        2. poquello
          poquello 2 February 2016 21: 04
          0
          Quote: xtur
          But Levitsky believes that even Rafal has better missiles than Su-35s:
          http://ak-12.livejournal.com/40747.html

          PS. in general, it would be interesting to read the comments of those in the subject

          maybe better about the shovel handle?
      4. Wheel
        Wheel 2 February 2016 23: 52
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        Raptor's EPR of 0,001 meters, voiced by the Americans

        True, they did not announce in what wavelength range this EPR was measured. laughing
      5. Falcon
        Falcon 3 February 2016 10: 07
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS
        The ERP of our fighters has always been determined by the average, in contrast to the Americans, who publish the most profitable and the lowest figures.


        Hm No. Where does the data come from?

        Tov. Pogosyan wrote in his article, in the bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, that the EPR F-15 and Su-27 are approximately at the same level. And he took exactly the most profitable courses:

        Quote: NEXUS
        The 35th looks more advantageous against the background of the lizard, if only because our car has a long-range missile.


        They are not particularly needed against the Raptor. Even taking into account the super power of the Irbis, the potential of using RVV-DB against F-22 is zero (this is even with theoretical calculations, not to mention the practice). At the same time, the ESR Su-35 with it will be inexorably growing.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 3 February 2016 10: 21
          +2
          Quote: Falcon
          They are not particularly needed against the Raptor. Even taking into account the super power of Irbis, the potential for using the RVV-DB against the F-22 is zero (this is even with theoretical calculations, not to mention practice).

          Again, the fighter does not hang statically and "favorably" in the air in relation to the radar and EPR is a conditional thing. And in an air battle, the fighter maneuvers and, accordingly, the EPR indicators change every second. And let's not forget about rockets on external sling , which do not reduce the stealth of the lizard by far.
          And to talk about the uselessness of the rocket is at least ridiculous, if only because it maneuvers too and, if a target is captured, no EPR data will help Raptor escape from it. hi
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 3 February 2016 11: 29
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            Again, the fighter does not hang statically and "favorably" in the air in relation to the radar and EPR is a conditional thing. And in an air combat situation, the fighter maneuvers and, accordingly, the EPR indicators change every second


            No frights smile
            Essentially, yes, just why would he have to maneuver strongly at distances in 200 km from each other and until he was seized by someone else's radar, just to find himself.

            I have already given the calculations more than once - with a successful scenario, Irbis will see F-22 at distances in 170 km + signal accumulation time - capture will be at distances approximately in 120 km. Nah there RVV-DB?

            At the same time - it is based on data from advertising booklets, GSI showed somewhat less optimistic data.

            Quote: NEXUS
            And to talk about the uselessness of the rocket is at least ridiculous, if only because it maneuvers too and, if a target is captured, no EPR data will help Raptor escape from it.


            She maneuvers worse than RVV-SD. The radar at such a distance does not capture the Raptor - no pros.

            It is more suitable for the fight with Avak or F-15 with a large body kit, but not against the raptor.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 3 February 2016 13: 52
              +2
              Quote: Falcon
              Essentially, yes, just why would he have to maneuver strongly at distances in 200 km from each other and until he was seized by someone else's radar, just to find himself.

              And the conversation is about two or more fighters. This time. Secondly, the lizard can hang and pretend to be invisible, singing, "I am a cloud, a cloud, a cloud, and not at all a bear ...", but they will "see" it long before 170 km, Because fighters do not fly alone, the A-50 hangs in the sky and the "dryers" can change their position in order to look at the NATO miracle Yuda with a "serious look of a bee" and, most importantly, see it.
              Quote: Falcon
              Moreover, it is based on data on brochuresGSI showed slightly less optimistic data.

              I highlighted the main thing in this proposal, and therefore, we can say that this is the grandmother at the entrance said that the essence and information content will be no less.
              Quote: Falcon
              She maneuvers WORSE than RVV-SD.

              Controversial thesis.
              Quote: Falcon
              A radar at such a range will not capture the Raptor - no pluses.

              And I’m just convinced that it will capture and this is a fat plus.
              Quote: Falcon
              It is more suitable for the fight with Avak or F-15 with a large body kit, but not against the raptor.

              It is suitable for anything that flies.
              Sincerely. hi
              1. Falcon
                Falcon 3 February 2016 14: 51
                +2
                Quote: NEXUS
                And the conversation is about two or more fighters. This time. Secondly, the lizard can hang and pretend to be invisible, singing, "I am a cloud, a cloud, a cloud, and not at all a bear ...", but they will "see" it long before 170 km, Because fighters do not fly alone, the A-50 hangs in the sky and the "dryers" can change their position in order to look at the NATO miracle Yuda with a "serious look of a bee" and, most importantly, see it.


                This is not true at all. If the conversation is about the group, then Avax will fly from the opposite side. In this case, the raptor's awareness of the full picture will be much higher. Since the EPR Sushek will give himself out long before the meeting.
                So the main trump card of sushkas is leveled - an exit to the BVB. Nobody will let them go there.

                And by the way, do not forget about AGSN, they will have a decent problem with the raptor, and there is no feedback like on aim-120.

                Quote: NEXUS
                Controversial thesis.

                Well, this is a juggle, I think. RVV-AE attacks targets with 12g overload; RVV-DB with 8g.

                Quote: NEXUS
                And I’m just convinced that it will capture and this is a fat plus.


                Well, mathematics and the basic equation of radar suggests otherwise ... Talking about faith is not my part.
  7. dyksi
    dyksi 2 February 2016 18: 37
    22
    We must look specifically. The most dangerous complex of interception, including weapons, is the MiG-31, it is not sent to Syria due to its global nature, the only one who can get hold of any western fighter, at long distances, and also make the main thing in interception, quickly reach the point of interception, quickly commit and leave just as quickly. Its combat radius reaches 3000 km. In all this, he has no equal in the world, in no generation, the recreation of a high-speed interceptor, confirms that heavy machines, with all the funding, have not reached his level. Incidentally, the MiG-31M, the Soviet modernization of the MiG-31P, is superior to the current modernization of the MiG-31BM. By the way, China on the sly bought a certain amount of MiG-31s ​​from us and this is not a good idea, weapons and everything else comes with it. There is no doubt that in ten years, with their perseverance, they will put it on stream, and this is very bad, their industrial potential is huge, there is no doubt that they will continue its development, and this is dominance in the region. In general, the title is not correct. As a heavy air supremacy fighter, Seabiscuit is one of the best, but the Raptor is superior in armament. Let's say "Rafale" surpasses it in combat radius, in the cost of combat mission, it will not yield to the BVB (therefore, for all its high cost, and they buy it), in terms of combat effectiveness due to the use of aiming containers, it also surpasses in shock weapons, they have long bypassed us ... The question, at least, is very controversial, take the very cheap MiG-29OVT, in the BVB it will win against Seabiscuit. The author, you write more specifics. The topic is military, here neither alarmism, nor hat-making is acceptable, the enemy must be realistically assessed, and not waving his swords, it comes out sideways during the DB.
    1. avia1991
      avia1991 2 February 2016 19: 37
      +1
      Quote: dyksi
      Let's say "Rafale" surpasses it in combat radius, in the cost of combat mission, in BVB will not yield

      Let's say ..
      But something is not visible and not heard of either the Rafale or the results of their combat use.
      The Indians, at one time, speaking on the Su-30SM, in a training battle "made" Americans on the F-14 in 10 cases out of 10! And our flyers, thank God, know how to fly, at least not worse! So - I agree that it is not necessary to engage in hating, but do not forget about the human factor soldier
      Speaking of specifics:
      take the same very cheap MiG-29OVT, in the BVB he will win against Sukhar.
      Based on what statement? Give an example? This is interest, not a claim: I myself am more on transport, and a little helicopters ..
      1. xtur
        xtur 2 February 2016 20: 28
        +1
        > The most dangerous interception complex, including weapons, is the MiG-31

        Based on the data in the wiki, the MiG "Zaslon *" seriously blows the Su-mu "Ibris", despite the fact that it is larger.
        So the MiG could be much more effective even now - those good modern A (P) FAR in the size of the MiG-31 would probably see the Raptor for 300-400 km, but somehow the UAC is trying to prevent the extra ruble of the MiG from falling
      2. avia1991
        avia1991 2 February 2016 20: 40
        +1
        It’s quite reported .. It’s bad when you get scraps to the comments repeat I fix the errors:
        Quote: avia1991
        speaking on the Su-30SM, in a training battle "made" amerikosov on the F-14
        On the Sioux 30MKI opposed F-15.. blin-in .. skidded into me! laughing What did you think when you wrote ?!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 2 February 2016 20: 20
      0
      How can a fighter (Rafal) without OVT win in the BVB with an aircraft with OVT?
      1. xtur
        xtur 2 February 2016 20: 31
        0
        > How can a fighter (Rafal) without an OVT beat an aircraft with an OVT in the BVB?

        I threw a link there above to discuss a simulation, read it, if interested.
        Oddly enough, as far as I understand, it all comes down to the quality of medium-range missiles - like the Su-35 has a solid-fuel rocket, and it is several times inferior in efficiency to the Meteor air-cooled missile
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 February 2016 20: 32
      +2
      Quote: dyksi
      The most dangerous interception system, including weapons, is the MiG-31

      MIG-31 is a long-range intercept fighter, sharpened primarily for the fight against CD and high-altitude bombers, in contrast to the dryers, which are able to more effectively fight fighters and other "animals" like them.
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 February 2016 20: 32
      0
      Quote: dyksi
      It is necessary to look specifically. The most dangerous interception system, including weapons, is the MiG-31

      That is yes. But you need to UNDERSTAND that the MIG-31 is a long arm of air defense, a highly specialized aircraft. This means its use is possible only in domestic air defense. Which is only in our territory. Therefore, in Latakia, multifunctional Dryers are used. Which perfectly cope with the task. What I wish them with all my heart in the future.
    6. Wheel
      Wheel 2 February 2016 23: 58
      +1
      Quote: dyksi
      By the way, China quietly bought a certain amount of MiG-31 from us and this is not a good idea, it comes with weapons and everything else. There is no doubt that in ten years, with their perseverance, they will put it on stream, and this is very bad, their industrial potential is huge, there is no doubt that they will continue its development, and this is dominance in the region.

      I seriously doubt that they will be able to copy the engine even after 10 years.
      No engine - no plane.
    7. yehat
      yehat 4 February 2016 22: 05
      0
      Why is the raptor superior in armament? he has noticeably limited suspensions and the armament range is rather narrow
  8. arane
    arane 2 February 2016 18: 45
    +2
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

    But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?


    Yes, fuck, if that, we will beat on what is.
    The main thing is to believe in victory and study, study and study again
  9. GSH-18
    GSH-18 2 February 2016 18: 47
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    "The Russian Su-35S is considered the most dangerous fighter in the world."

    But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?

    You don't have to trust anyone. You just need to compare performance characteristics. And one more important point: where and how will the 5th generation machines be used ?! It is clear that those who will have echeloned air defense will have superiority, because the "five" are flying computers - the more data they receive, the more dangerous they are for the enemy. Our people understand this, and for this there is our echeloned air defense system in Syria: Treumph and Pantsyr-S1.
    And the Su-35S is practically the 5th generation. Only a small radio signature is missing. Although who knows what paints for the Su-35 ours invented! It may well be that there such technologies will be tested in combat conditions!
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 2 February 2016 19: 34
      +2
      Here the question is in target designation and guidance. If this issue is resolved, then whether you are even a hundred times invisible, it will help you to a small extent. In almost all of their recent "operations" the Americans acted in a comprehensive manner against a weak enemy, using detection and guidance systems, using tactical traps and ambushes. As soon as an organized air defense and anti-detection systems appeared, they started having problems, flights were curtailed.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 2 February 2016 21: 15
        -2
        Quote: Andrew NM
        As soon as organized air defense and anti-detection systems appeared, they began to have problems, flights collapsed.


        And where did she appear then? Where did they fold that? What is the name of the place?
        Do not invent already, dreamers.

        where there was at least some hint of air defense - hundreds of Tomahawks marched on and there was no air defense left.
        Right away. first step. Without thinking.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 2 February 2016 22: 37
          -4
          Oh .. dumbhead minusers pulled themselves up.
          not a single concrete example refuting my words!
          D, B!
        2. Just BB
          Just BB 3 February 2016 06: 38
          0
          sad S AND R AND I !!! hi
          no better example
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 3 February 2016 21: 11
            -1
            Quote: Just VV
            sad S AND R AND I !!! hi
            no better example


            what a Syria! What planet are you from?
            The Americans in Syria did not even try.
            And they didn’t start flights and didn’t have to turn off either - because there wasn’t even a deployment ..
            And air defense in Syria is not at all.
            how would you not like.
            This air defense does not prevent the Israelis from passing over Syria regularly and destroying those convoys of weapons in different places.
            That warehouses with the Yakhonts.

            Do not find that. why not.
            And don't come up with that. why not.
            Be an adult and answer based on arguments and facts.
            Kindergarten!
      2. Just BB
        Just BB 3 February 2016 06: 36
        0
        Here completely "102%"
        A recent example with the Su-24.
        How clearly it was organized from the "other" side!
        And how "in Russian" it was "bad _.._ but" with ours.
        Only at a briefing we can show beautiful pictures, but in order to warn pilots about the approach of another plane .... "like, well, these are their own"
  10. brick
    brick 2 February 2016 18: 48
    +4
    Yes, but only Indians, in the su-30MKI, won 70% of the battles against f-22, and the Indian su-30MKI is weaker than our su-30C, what can we say about the su-35C?
  11. Simon
    Simon 2 February 2016 18: 58
    +5
    Yes, "every crane praises its own swamp," but our SU-35S are being tested in combat conditions, and American F-22s are not visible in Syria.
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 2 February 2016 19: 04
      +5
      Thank you, comrades, for your attention to my mental torment. Outwardly, I also like the SU-35 more, the performance characteristics of modern aircraft are plus or minus. So I will believe in ours, because they are ours! :)
    2. poquello
      poquello 2 February 2016 20: 04
      +2
      Quote: Simon
      Yes, "every crane praises its own swamp," but our SU-35S are being tested in combat conditions, and American F-22s are not visible in Syria.

      They are invisible, dill still had such special forces.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 February 2016 20: 47
        +2
        Quote: poquello
        They are invisible, dill still had such special forces.

        Well, it’s amerikos who still think that their F-22 and F-35 are invisible to Russian air defense systems and radars of modern Dryers. Let them think so further. bully
        1. Wolverine
          Wolverine 2 February 2016 22: 06
          0
          Yeah, how do you see a marmot?
          -No
          -And he is ... wassat
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 February 2016 20: 10
      0
      Quote: Simon
      Yes, "every crane praises its swamp"

      So in this article, as they say, international recognition has come! That is, not only our aircraft are praised.
  12. Altona
    Altona 2 February 2016 19: 03
    +4
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    But the Americans do not think so and rate one of their F-22 in a battle at ten of our SU-35. And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?

    -------------------
    The paper will endure everything, they bluff in cards and throw bluffs. They are hard to understand, bad weapons — they ask for money, good ones — they try to convince the voter that everything is hurt. But in a real battle, everything comes to light ... In general, the Pentagon has stolen $ 25 trillion over half of the past 8,5 years, half of the US government debt ...
  13. veksha50
    veksha50 2 February 2016 19: 21
    +5
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    And who should we believe, the one who praises, or the one who scolds?



    Well, try to believe the Indians who beat American pilots in training vehicles in training battles ...
  14. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 2 February 2016 19: 38
    +3
    Read about the results of the uch. Fights between the Su-27 and F-15 ... There were also many ratings, and then they fell silent somehow at once ... This is advertising, advertising.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 February 2016 20: 21
      +9
      Quote: Observer 33
      Read about the results of the uch. Fights between the Su-27 and F-15 ... There were also many ratings, and then they fell silent somehow at once ... This is advertising, advertising.

      Yeah, I read this propaganda nonsense that on the Su-30mki supplied to the Indians, xpen engines that do not withstand the rate of rotation of the wing, overheat, fail due to a very small margin of safety, cannot withstand afterburner, and other American propaganda nonsense ... I would like to ask: But how do our people manage to achieve such a daily rotation (to which the forces of the "coalition" are like the moon!) At the base in Khmeimim? And even on the Su-24, 25 nothing overheats and does not break ??? hi
  • Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 2 February 2016 18: 19
    +9
    Now the raptoroids will begin to "dry" trample into the mud !!! and the zhurnalyugi, even though they did not pour filth on our aviation.
    1. Pravdarm
      Pravdarm 2 February 2016 18: 28
      +3
      So because the whole world saw HU on the very IS HU! And already a lot of people began to drool on our equipment and regret agreements with these cunning bastards! And slowly jump away from the states on armament issues in our direction!
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 February 2016 18: 49
      0
      Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
      and the zhurnalyugi didn’t even begin to irrigate our aviation with ficels.

      By the fact that this is too obvious a lie. But I don’t really want to be known as a whistle for those zhurnihlyulyah.
    3. Altona
      Altona 2 February 2016 21: 16
      +5
      Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
      Now the raptoroids will begin to "dry" trample into the mud !!!

      --------------------
      Now I’m pushing the F-35 into the mud a little with such a fact ... At the time, they asked everything (attention!) To develop the ALL Space Shuttle program Space Shuttle $ 10 Billiongave 5. At the finalization of the F-35 fighter they ask how much? And how much did you spend? $ 382 Billion. Applause, curtain ...
    4. clidon
      clidon 2 February 2016 22: 22
      +1
      In the original text, "Su-35 is the most powerful fighter in the world, except for the F-22."
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 2 February 2016 18: 19
    +4
    Enough is enough. Europe is delighted with our weapons. Europe was described from our old weapons. The United States is tearing up its old weapons programs. F-35 dr-mo crude and indigestible.
    Attack, what are you? So what. Then I'll stand still.
    1. Nick
      Nick 2 February 2016 18: 32
      +4
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Attack, what are you? So what. Then I'll stand still.

      Or something like that. Wait a moment.
    2. avia1991
      avia1991 2 February 2016 20: 52
      +2
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Attack, what are you? So what

      Not so if I understood you correctly. We are not going to attack anyone. But if they rock us ... however, the demonstration of combat capabilities, in particular, is done in order to discourage various "Erdiks" from any desire to attack us! soldier
  • triglav
    triglav 2 February 2016 18: 20
    +3
    Know ours!
  • LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 2 February 2016 18: 21
    +6
    "Sending Su-35S to Syria will make Turkey worry, which is in tense relations with the Kremlin after the incident with the downed Su-24."
    Did you think that we flew to Syria on "Zarnitsa"? We know for our Su-35S and S-400. Now would you like to know?
    1. VALERIK_097
      VALERIK_097 2 February 2016 21: 45
      +1
      If anyone has forgotten, let me remind you that on "Zarnitsa" we smashed their faces into the blood)))) Usually they flew in "blue")))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • ded100
    ded100 2 February 2016 18: 23
    +2
    And who would doubt it !!! good
  • 1774
    1774 2 February 2016 18: 25
    11
    And why is it only ten, like in a joke, when a man brought a rooster to the bazaar and calls the price five thousand rubles, that the man is a rooster of some kind, there is no need for any money. So, let them evaluate it, but we think we need to keep quiet, put them into service and actively retrain the personnel for new aircraft.
  • Grif
    Grif 2 February 2016 18: 27
    +3
    One of the advantages of advertising American planes was that they actually fought a lot. Ours practically did not fight, I mean the generation from "4." And the answer is simple: there were no people willing to fight. There are no bad ones in Syria either. And this is the best advertisement.
  • Aleksandr2012
    Aleksandr2012 2 February 2016 18: 27
    +4
    And most importantly flies like no one else can!
    1. theadenter
      theadenter 2 February 2016 20: 29
      0
      It is a pity this fighter is only in a single copy.
      1. clidon
        clidon 2 February 2016 22: 18
        0
        It is already not in a single copy. He crashed long ago.
        1. Voyager
          Voyager 3 February 2016 11: 41
          0
          Even when it crashed, it was no longer the 37th as such - these trump engines that distinguished the 37th from the 35th of the old model with PGO were removed at that time.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 February 2016 21: 34
      0
      Quote: Aleksandr2012
      And most importantly flies like no one else can!

      Now here, take a look who is interested about the T-50 (PAK FA)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib3MiSoqcmA
      Or just fresher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoohedUWfPg
  • staryivoin
    staryivoin 2 February 2016 18: 30
    +2
    We urgently need to invite Turks to the Russian Aviadarts. And show "35" in work. Maybe the pride of the Basurmanskoy will diminish !!!
  • GRAY
    GRAY 2 February 2016 18: 32
    +4
    Wang, if in Syria KV-2, for the sake of fun, bring it to the bourgeois immediately write about him:
    “The Russian KV-2 is considered the most powerful tank in the world. Its design is based on technologies dating back to the military power of the USSR. The predecessor of the tank was the Soviet KV-1, mass production of which began in 1940.
    KV-2 is designed to break through heavily fortified defensive lines (destruction by direct fire of pillboxes and bunkers), to strengthen units armed with light and medium tanks.
    By its characteristics, the KV-2 is significantly superior to competitors, including the American Abrams. Not the last role in this was played by 152 mm. howitzer M-10 arr. 1938/40 years.
    Due to the combination of outstanding combat qualities and relatively low, compared with Western competitors, the KV-2 prices will be in significant demand in the world market
  • Aleksandr2012
    Aleksandr2012 2 February 2016 18: 32
    +5
    And of course this video!
    1. From Samara
      From Samara 2 February 2016 18: 38
      +2
      Yes, that’s understandable! In Geometry, we will always be the First! But how are things going with Avionics?
    2. rom8726
      rom8726 2 February 2016 19: 40
      0
      I saw him with my own eyes))
      https://youtu.be/4bMgrz3gfbw?t=206
      (time referenced video)
      1. K-36
        K-36 3 February 2016 01: 22
        0
        What you posted in the link - it's a su-30 yes
        Externally, it is easy to distinguish from the Su-35 by the presence of PGO (front horizontal tail) and a double tandem cabin (in the Su-30).
        Best regards hi
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 February 2016 18: 33
    -13 qualifying.
    Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.
    From 1 m2 (without any hanging pylons and weapons) to 4 m2 - with pendants.
    This is much better than the Su-27 - 10 m2, but too much to fight with
    5th generation airplanes.

    For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2, F-35 - 0.005 m2
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 2 February 2016 18: 53
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.
      From 1 m2 (without any hanging pylons and weapons) to 4 m2 - with pendants.
      This is much better than the Su-27 - 10 m2, but too much to fight with
      5th generation airplanes.

      In Syria, the F-22 will be highlighted with the C-400 and from it the cy-35 can receive targeting.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 February 2016 19: 58
        +3
        Quote: Stas157
        In Syria, the F-22 will be highlighted with the C-400 and from it the cy-35 can receive targeting.

        Raptors will not be in Syria, if only because the Americans are unlikely to want our tracking systems to irradiate it and then announce the real parameters of this "invisibility." Although, I am sure, the real parameters of the EPR of the lizard have long been known to our specialists.
        But if we assume such a meeting, then I think that our 35th and without anyone else help finding directional Raptor with Irbis.
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 3 February 2016 10: 27
        0
        Quote: Stas157
        In Syria, the F-22 will be highlighted with the C-400 and from it the cy-35 can receive targeting.


        Do you know the concept of radio horizon? Well, I think of course familiar.

        That is why C-400 does not give tsu, and this makes AWACS. If the C-400 sees the plane, then it is easier to shoot down the aircraft itself than to give the control center - for there is no time, and there is no sense.
    2. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 2 February 2016 19: 14
      +5
      This only applies to the radio frequency range. An optical-electronic station with a thermal imaging channel on EPR, even such a fantastic one does not pay attention. I will not argue about true EPRs and "drawn" ones, since a physicist by education, and I know that long-wave radars with a wavelength of the order of the size of the apparatus cannot be fooled by all these tricks (meter range).
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 3 February 2016 10: 37
        0
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        that long-wave radars with a wavelength of the order of the size of the apparatus cannot be deceived by all these tricks (meter range).


        Why is it that then? The effect of Yauman and absorbing the coating - may not work.
        But the rest of the principles are quite, plus, with the increase in the ESR wavelength of complex objects, it itself falls:


        The same "eggs" will turn out, even worse. Therefore, everyone refuses meter radars ...
    3. Corsair
      Corsair 2 February 2016 19: 33
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.
      From 1 m2 (without any hanging pylons and weapons) to 4 m2 - with pendants.
      This is much better than the Su-27 - 10 m2, but too much to fight with
      5th generation airplanes.

      For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2, F-35 - 0.005 m2

      belay Tricky question -
      1. Who and when and most importantly how did they measure these parameters, did the Americans measure both aircraft or ours with their instrument?
      2. Was the program (hardware) "prepared" that collects and analyzes data from the tested hardware?
      I remember earlier (and now most likely) many manufacturers of different graphic systems on a PC cheating, agreeing with manufacturers of various testing software. Small adaptations - program changes gave more parrots in the tests and the strangler was much longer ... people bought on longpenises and took it with pleasure laughing
      3. let's calculate for fun, how much is 0,0001m2 = 1cm2 = 100 mm2, that is, a square of 1 cm by 1 cm. - Do you believe in this result - the plane is almost all made of non-metal or is the paint so absorbing?

      Maybe I don’t know physics well, but as an engineer I suppose that the results are underestimated hundreds or thousands of times to justify the development, or it would have a deplorable effect on the aircraft structure (weight, strength, work under loads)
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 February 2016 19: 42
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2, F-35 - 0.005 m2

      There is no need to become like the Americans, firstly, taking these numbers on faith, and secondly, these values ​​with the most "convenient irradiation" ... but a fighter is not always in a favorable position in flight. And let's not forget about rockets on a suspension. which do not add invisibility to any Lightning or Raptor.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.

      EPR "drying" in comparison with the lizard is a very conditional matter and is easily covered by the presence of a longer-range arsenal and a good radar, as well as better maneuverability.
    5. iouris
      iouris 2 February 2016 20: 43
      0
      For the Middle East theater of war this is not important. Turkey has more planes, tanks and soldiers. In the event of a major nuclear war, fighters are not needed.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 February 2016 21: 12
        +3
        Quote: iouris
        Turkey has more planes, tanks and soldiers.

        More than anyone else? If more than Russia, then the question arises, what sources are you reading?
        Quote: iouris
        In the event of a major nuclear war, fighters are not needed.

        Because of Turkey, no one will unleash the third world war.
        1. iouris
          iouris 2 February 2016 22: 33
          0
          1) On the Syrian theater more.
          2) And what kind of war will begin if Erdogan decides to strike at our group in Syria?
        2. kam4atka
          kam4atka 3 February 2016 01: 06
          0
          Turkey is just an episode in the upcoming production ...
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. Skifotavr
      Skifotavr 3 February 2016 00: 29
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.
      From 1 m2 (without any hanging pylons and weapons) to 4 m2 - with pendants.
      This is much better than the Su-27 - 10 m2, but too much to fight with
      5th generation airplanes.

      For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2, F-35 - 0.005 m2

      The Su-35 radar in terms of detection range is more powerful than that of the F-22 and PAK FA. And do not be confused by the fact that she has a passive antenna array, and not an active one, like fifth-generation fighters. Today it is the most powerful of those that are on fighter jets.
    8. Wheel
      Wheel 3 February 2016 01: 10
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      but too much to fight with
      5th generation airplanes.

      Something tells me that EPR is far from the most important characteristic ... laughing
  • KnightRider
    KnightRider 2 February 2016 18: 38
    +1
    How beautiful the 35th is, I never cease to admire! And the blue color to his face, it’s good that they returned the good old camouflage! By the way, blogs write about the AKU-170 installed on them, which means that soon we can see something interesting on them!
    1. DarkMatter
      DarkMatter 2 February 2016 19: 02
      0
      In theory, the production of RVV-SD missiles has already begun since the end of the 15th year, at least under the contract. So I'd love to see fellow
  • MAD_SERGANT
    MAD_SERGANT 2 February 2016 18: 40
    +1
    Well done !!! They are testing new weapons in the reality of sorties ...
    1. KnightRider
      KnightRider 2 February 2016 19: 05
      +1
      Quote: MAD_SERGANT
      Well done !!! They are testing new weapons in the reality of sorties ...

      This is a long tradition ... MiG-25 in Egypt, Su-25 in Afghanistan, Su-34 in South Ossetia ...
  • Aleksandr2012
    Aleksandr2012 2 February 2016 18: 44
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.
    From 1 m2 (without any hanging pylons and weapons) to 4 m2 - with pendants.
    This is much better than the Su-27 - 10 m2, but too much to fight with
    5th generation airplanes.

    For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2, F-35 - 0.005 m2

    This is very arbitrary and depends on the direction of exposure, the frequency of the radar, and much more. I also met these numbers, and I think that these are the minimum values ​​under ideal conditions. In practice, they will be higher by orders of magnitude.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 2 February 2016 19: 11
      -6
      0.0001 m2 - the size of a pea, 0.005 m2 - a tennis ball.
      In practice, this means that they will be: either 1) simply cut off by the radar software as interference, or 2) still appear on the screen as vague interference.
      In any case, they will not be defined as an adversary - with the opening on it
      fire missiles from maximum distance. This is what is required of the "stealth": "I can see clearly, and they are still trying to see me."
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 2 February 2016 19: 42
        +4
        Warrior, this EPR data is only in a certain angle (aircraft position). And accordingly the question: "How was the F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia?" It is clearly visible in the meter range. Such radars were developed in Nizhny Novgorod, and in the west, due to large errors in height, work on such radars was closed after the Second World War. Nobody in the West attaches importance to the special statement. from Almaz-Antey that stealth for air defense systems is not a problem.
        So you can point these stealth from the ground. hi
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 3 February 2016 10: 56
          -1
          Quote: Kasym
          And accordingly the question: "How was the F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia?"


          He fell into the channel of visibility. There were hundreds of sorties, and shot down one. And that is not due to the radar.

          Quote: Kasym
          In the meter range it is clearly visible.


          This is complete nonsense, which was launched by journalists, and continue to quote everything.
          In the meter range, only a number of tricks are not working - such as the Yauman effect and absorbing the coating (and even then not always). In this case, the ESR of the object also falls due to the very wavelength

          Quote: Kasym
          Here, no one in the west attaches importance to the statement of the spec. from Almaz-Antey, that stealth for air defense systems is not a problem.


          Attach! And the radar there is not a meter but a meter or centimeter. And they see them because of the area and power, and not the wavelength - which is just negative.

          Their air defense / missile defense radars an / spy-1 and AN / TPY-2 also see them not badly (since they are also more powerful than all our C-400).

          But there is a radio horizon - and they do not declare that this is not a problem at all !!!
      2. Skifotavr
        Skifotavr 3 February 2016 17: 23
        0
        0.0001 m2 is a fairy tale.
  • Alex1313
    Alex1313 2 February 2016 18: 59
    -3
    Quote: wizarden
    There is something for them to say, do not hesitate ... Drones will fill up soon. And it’s not necessary to say that we will drown them out, take them away, etc. These are all childhood diseases of drones that are being resolved. But we, unfortunately, are behind in this direction.


    Darth Vader smokes nervously (shmal)))))))
  • Redfox3k
    Redfox3k 2 February 2016 19: 03
    +5
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR .....

    For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2 ...


    This is in what plane is 0.0001 m2, in what conditions and at what frequencies ???
    Do you even believe in this nonsense? Uncle Sam said? Uncle Sam won't even say that!
  • BOB044
    BOB044 2 February 2016 19: 16
    0
    Stern: Su-35 - the most powerful and most dangerous fighters in the world
    And what do you think r .... do not release and do not develop.
  • semuil
    semuil 2 February 2016 19: 16
    +1
    "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.
    I would like to learn more about such weapons.
  • Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 2 February 2016 19: 18
    0
    There is no limit to perfection! Handsome, nothing more.
  • AIR-ZNAK
    AIR-ZNAK 2 February 2016 19: 18
    +3
    Quote: DarkMatter
    In general, who is in the subject, explain why they did the flight without missiles?

    And if they flew over the territory of another state, then these are elementary rules of courtesy
    1. DarkMatter
      DarkMatter 2 February 2016 19: 33
      0
      Of course they did, over Iran and Iraq yes
      Just not knowing such nuances, I'm a little surprised by this answer what
      And if the Turks (well, purely theoretically) in front of the Syrian border over Iraq jumped out to intercept? Or according to the laws of politeness, even the minimum number of missiles is not welcome? Just politeness is good, but not so much to the detriment of security.
      1. WUA 518
        WUA 518 2 February 2016 21: 39
        +2
        Quote: DarkMatter
        Just not knowing such nuances, I'm a little surprised by this answer
        § 6. International air and space law. It is forbidden to draw maps, take measurements, take photographs in the airspace of foreign states from military aircraft. Military aircraft of a foreign state cannot carry out exercises and training firing. Firearms, ammunition, explosives and other military materials may not be transported on military aircraft of foreign countries.
        1. DarkMatter
          DarkMatter 2 February 2016 22: 13
          0
          Thank you hi
          However, I suspect that the passage of cruise missiles through the airspace of other countries is prohibited, but flew =))
          impossible without permission

          Could have agreed, purely so that there would be nothing later, God forbid.
        2. pilot bin-bom
          pilot bin-bom 2 February 2016 22: 48
          0
          International air and space law. In the airspace of foreign countries, it is forbidden to draw maps, take measurements, or take photographs from military aircraft.

          Several shuttle flights (there was such a shuttle in the USA) were just carried out to digitize the earth's surface, with the establishment of reference points. Those. in principle, the United States has had a digital map of the globe's surface for a long time. And some shifts of the reference points are easier to control from satellites. Aerial photography is needed, in principle, only for "special" operations.
  • Served once
    Served once 2 February 2016 19: 25
    0
    Stern is the mouthpiece of our "partners". Oh, I don’t like it when they praise us. Well, the drying-Beauty! If only the partners liked lol
  • Aleksandr2012
    Aleksandr2012 2 February 2016 19: 29
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    0.0001 m2 - the size of a pea, 0.005 m2 - a tennis ball.
    In practice, this means that they will be: either 1) simply cut off by the radar software as interference, or 2) still appear on the screen as vague interference.
    In any case, they will not be defined as an adversary - with the opening on it
    fire missiles from maximum distance. This is what is required of the "stealth": "I can see clearly, and they are still trying to see me."

    I do not argue that stealth technology gives a significant advantage in terms of stealth, but you have to pay for everything. Aerodynamics suffers significantly, and the cost of the aircraft and operation increases significantly. At the same time, the "invisibility" mode is observed in a narrow frequency range of the radar, subject to radio silence.
  • tyler2
    tyler2 2 February 2016 19: 29
    +5
    During the Cope India 2004 exercises, Indian pilots on the Su-30K defeated the American F-15 Eagle with a score of 9: 1.
    In November 2005, another US-Indian Cope India-2005 exercise was held, during which the F-16C Block 50 and Su-30MKI were used. And then almost all the battles were won by Russian fighters.
    In 2006, Indian pilots defeated French pilots at the Mirage 2000.
    In 2009, the Su-30MKI proved its superiority over the latest multi-purpose fighter Rafale.
    At the end of summer 2015, the best British Air Force pilots at the Eurofighter Typhoon lost to the Indian aces on the Su-30MKI during joint exercises.

    But the “real sensation” happened in August 2008. The Australian military planned to buy a batch of F-35 fighters, but first decided to hold
    virtual battle between them and the Russian Su-30. In the simulation computer program developed by the Americans, the data of two aircraft were introduced. As a result
    The fourth-generation Russian fighter beat the fifth-generation American fighter.

    I don’t know about the Su-35 and F-22, but I know that there will never be such that the Su-35 and F-22 will fight 1 on 1, and without air defense. And let's be honest, all these nonsense about stealth work well against the Papuans, and when it comes to the clash of the two most powerful powers, the situation changes radically.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 February 2016 13: 04
      -3
      "Su-30K defeated American F-15 Eagle with a score of 9: 1" ////

      The Americans practiced group tactics against Su.
      They forced the Indians (at the cost of "losing" part of their planes) to squeeze
      of su maximum when using rotary
      nozzles and afterburners and secles, what is more convenient to shoot them down at a loss of speed after
      "super-maneuverability" and afterburner leaving.
      After their "defeat" the Americans were beaming with happiness. They received
      valuable material (fully on the photo tape) how to fight with the Su-30.

      There are "enemy squadrons" in the States. They have a lot of MiG-29s, there are several Su-27s,
      but no Su-30 or Su-35.

      In the original article, by the way
      Obwohl die Sukhoi Su-35S auf einem alten Modell aus der UDSSR basiert,
      gilt sie als gefährlichstes Kampfflugzeug der Welt - wenn man vom US-Jet F-22 Raptor absieht

      "... the strongest EXCEPT Raptor." Translators ... laughing
      1. Skifotavr
        Skifotavr 3 February 2016 17: 44
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh

        They forced the Indians (at the cost of "losing" part of their planes) to squeeze
        of su maximum when using rotary
        nozzles and afterburners and secles, what is more convenient to shoot them down at a loss of speed after
        "super-maneuverability" and afterburner leaving.

        Yes? So what about? Just don’t say that the second American fighter was waiting in ambush laughing
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 4 February 2016 17: 18
          0
          Exactly as you suggested. drinks
          Some of the F-15s were "beaters", and some were "shooters".
          Arrows were waiting in the areas where they broke through
          detached from the pursuit (with the help of "super-maneuverability"
          or afterburner) Indians on the Su-30.
          As you know, the United States (currently) has combat aircraft
          about 6 times that of Russia, so such a collective
          tactics are easy to do.
          1. Skifotavr
            Skifotavr 4 February 2016 20: 20
            +1
            That is, in your opinion, the Americans gained experience defeating one Su-30 with the help of several F-15s at the cost of losing one of their own? You yourself are not funny? laughing And what other Su-30s that have broken away from the chase "with the help of super-maneuverability or afterburner" are you talking about, when you yourself previously admitted that the Su-30 defeated the F-15 with a score of 9: 1? If you do not know what this means, then I will answer you: this is when the Su-30 comes into the tail of the F-15 and the latter cannot drop it in any way - this was the format in which these competitions were held. So who was chasing whom?
  • DMB3000
    DMB3000 2 February 2016 19: 44
    0
    Quote: From Samara
    The main thing is not to get stuck at this level! And most importantly, Avionics!

    off-topic. yesterday the Mistral film about the Maidan was shown against the will of great ukrov. Does anyone have a translation into Russian?
  • CRASH
    CRASH 2 February 2016 19: 50
    0
    If only there was no war.
  • gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 2 February 2016 19: 54
    +1
    Quote: Talker
    In short, on airplanes - it will only be enough for Swifts to transplant new equipment. So it goes.

    Entering into the polemic, please appeal to the numbers. And it turns out that you yourself are creating negative and unproven information that people consider stuffing and politicking. We are at the moment discussing the appearance of the SU-35S in the Syrian sky, and not unreasonable economic alarmist calculations, be correct, and you will not be told where to go hi ! This car (Su-35) "costs" better in the air than many cars on the asphalt good !
  • Hooks
    Hooks 2 February 2016 19: 56
    0
    I beg your pardon, but deb, bl, the quote: "very few Western weapons will be able to resist the Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system" suggests suicide. Well, how are they going to resist the guns? Active protection on the F-16 or magnets like in Ukraine?
  • dison
    dison 2 February 2016 20: 11
    0
    Well, it's time to try it out!
  • arckan33
    arckan33 2 February 2016 20: 24
    0
    if everything is so cool why did the Rafaeli Indians buy it?
  • DMM2006
    DMM2006 2 February 2016 20: 32
    +1
    Quote: poquello
    There is! Tank "Abrams"!

    I understood a joke !!! Funny !!! wassat
  • maksim
    maksim 2 February 2016 20: 43
    0
    Well, that started ...
  • naGua
    naGua 2 February 2016 20: 45
    0
    The article, of course, is pleasant, but you should not get carried away with complacency and rest on your laurels. This is fraught ... I remember Iosif Vissarionovich had an article called "Dizziness from success." And then there was the tragic 1941! We will remember.
  • Cobra77
    Cobra77 2 February 2016 21: 00
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Achilles heel of the Su-35S - a large EPR.
    From 1 m2 (without any hanging pylons and weapons) to 4 m2 - with pendants.
    This is much better than the Su-27 - 10 m2, but too much to fight with
    5th generation airplanes.

    For comparison: F-22 - 0.0001 m2, F-35 - 0.005 m2


    Well, in a clean field one on one, this may be the decisive argument over long distances. But who will fight like that? There are ground stations, there is A-50, there are air defense systems, there is a terrain profile. In real combat use it will be already much more difficult. That's what we lack in a sufficient volume of ducks: long-range air-to-air missiles, given that it is quite difficult to capture a target of the F-22 type and there is a high probability of a capture failure. In my opinion, their presence in sufficient volume compensates for the difference in the EPR.

    In general, it is worth looking at historical analogies. Recall the Korean War, the Vietnam War. What happened in the end.
    1. demandy1
      demandy1 2 February 2016 21: 09
      +1
      But how stupid is it to compare 4 (albeit ++) and 5 generations of aircraft?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 February 2016 21: 14
        +1
        Quote: demandy1
        But how stupid is it to compare 4 (albeit ++) and 5 generations of aircraft?

        The concept of "generation" is rather arbitrary, since each country has different requirements for this. It is not generations that are compared, but aircraft and their capabilities. hi
        1. complete zero
          complete zero 3 February 2016 18: 32
          0
          so the fact is that the Raptor is already a squadron and has been in service not for the first year, but there are no new Dryers ... and there are no troops (alas), as it turned out that there were only FIVE of them all over Russia
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 February 2016 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: complete zero
            and there are no new Dryers ... and there are no troops (alas)

            Because only in the 15th year, the 35th passed the GSI. But I think that they will be purchased by our Moscow region on an emergency basis and it’s not at all a fact that it is relatively small.
    2. complete zero
      complete zero 4 February 2016 17: 55
      0
      c Results began to use CANNONS (including the Americans) on the "phantoms" they were not
  • Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 2 February 2016 21: 03
    0
    Stern, tell us not to us, but to your stubs
  • Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 2 February 2016 21: 12
    0
    Quote: GSH-18
    Quote: wizarden
    Drones will fill up soon. And do not say that we will drown them, take them away, etc.

    Don't whistle. The drone at this stage versus a modern combat fighter is a goose in front of a hunter. How to jam the most advanced encrypted radio communications, and for one and ALL of its radars, computers and other weapons systems of the ship with just one plane, we have shown on the example of the American destroyer "Donald Cook" in our Black Sea. So far, the FIGHTER dominates the sky. The time of drones has not come yet, and I doubt that it will come in THIS quality. A real combat pilot is extremely difficult to fully replace with a computer, as it turned out.

    But didn’t they irradiate some coastal tram in memory from the shore with a gizmo and, realizing that the boat was in sight, the cookie was urgently taken away? After all, someone was capturing already here, the capacity of those hibs is not enough or what kind of containers are there, that under the wing of a su-24 (bomber) to turn off the electronics on the cookie. Or or?
  • tolancop
    tolancop 2 February 2016 21: 15
    +1
    [I]"... improved engines, providing a fighter with a service life of 30 years," the magazine notes ... "[
    /I]
    This one phrase characterizes the level of journalists of the magazine. You can not read further.
    An engine is an assembly that can be removed, repaired, replaced with another at last. Those. engines do not affect the life of an aircraft, unlike a glider. It could be understood that the new engines will allow the aircraft to be competitive for another 30 years, but this is another matter.
    1. pilot bin-bom
      pilot bin-bom 2 February 2016 23: 11
      +2
      Yes. Absolutely agree. I already wrote that the engine is certainly a miracle in terms of weight and pitch vector, but you need to sort out the hot zone about once a year (this is on the fly), even with zirconium heat protection (I did it for Lytkarintsev, I know). But it seems that for some reason the comments were deleted.
  • 15 apr
    15 apr 2 February 2016 21: 16
    +1
    ... "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.
    Please, a list of items that can withstand previously mentioned weapons.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • afrikanez
    afrikanez 2 February 2016 22: 15
    0
    "Very few Western weapons will be able to resist the S-400 missile system and the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and cannon system," Stern emphasizes.
    It would be interesting to know what kind of Western armaments these are?
  • clidon
    clidon 2 February 2016 22: 27
    0
    I wonder why the Stern article was partially translated. It says that the Su-35 is the most dangerous in the world, except for the F-22:
    Obwohl die Sukhoi Su-35S auf einem alten Modell aus der UDSSR basiert, gilt sie als gefährlichstes Kampfflugzeug der Welt - wenn man vom US-Jet F-22 Raptor absieht.
    1. iouris
      iouris 2 February 2016 22: 37
      0
      Is Stern an Aviation Magazine? This is the yellow press.
      1. clidon
        clidon 2 February 2016 22: 44
        0
        So what then is everyone so excited? )
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 2 February 2016 22: 31
    +1
    When the USSR was in place, all advanced military equipment was carefully hidden from enemies. And now everything is on display. Although there is still the T-50, which for some time has ceased to provide information. Let NATO fear the SU-35 for now.
    1. clidon
      clidon 2 February 2016 22: 47
      0
      Why stopped giving? It’s completely illuminated. Of course before American openness as before Mars, but it is known how many cars fly (5) and how many are in high availability on a slipway (6). A lot is known from the Indians, since the FGFA is still a considerable contract and is discussed in detail.
    2. gg.na
      gg.na 2 February 2016 22: 50
      0
      Quote: Pvi1206
      When the USSR was in place, all advanced military equipment was carefully hidden from enemies.

      Yes, now they say a lot about, write, show ... but they haven’t said a word about even more and will not do it (talk show, etc.) and so even we who live in RUSSIA don’t know all the secret developments being conducted today! wink
  • pilot bin-bom
    pilot bin-bom 2 February 2016 22: 42
    0
    and improved engines providing the fighter with a 30-year resource

    Thirty years for the engine is cool! Probably it was meant that the characteristics of the engine along the strand are such that the design of the airframe and thirty years does not need to be changed, but the engine - if something is for bulkhead. The hot zone, even with zirconium thermal protection, will need a bulkhead.
  • tehnokrat
    tehnokrat 2 February 2016 22: 43
    0
    Quote: СРЦ П-15
    The main thing is not to be arrogant from the praise of the West! And continue to modernize the fleet at an accelerated pace.

    Do they really think so? Isn't that a bluff? Do they really have almost no antidote?
    If we go from the promise that all their statements are false, then the picture may be different!
    We show a lot at air shows, they could also extrapolate what we hid ...
  • tchoni
    tchoni 2 February 2016 22: 44
    0
    but it seems to me that this article (I mean the original bourgeois text) is aimed at inciting military hysteria ... and knocking out grandmas.
    1. clidon
      clidon 2 February 2016 22: 48
      0
      Yes, there is nothing "such" in that article, read. The usual journalistic obscurity of the question.
  • Olegi1
    Olegi1 2 February 2016 22: 49
    0
    Quote: Red_Hamer
    Do not despair, our defense industry likes to make surprises. Work is underway in this direction, do not even hesitate. Moreover, we are talking about creating a supersonic strategic drone.


    He is not even in the sketch, only an idea. Dry is going to do.
    1. Voyager
      Voyager 3 February 2016 11: 47
      0
      Not the fact that not. Rumors about the trials of the Yu-71 have been around for a long time
  • The legacy of ancestors
    The legacy of ancestors 2 February 2016 23: 15
    0
    Quote: dyksi
    China, by the way, quietly bought a certain amount of MiG-31 from us and this is not a good idea, it comes with weapons and everything else


    Can I talk about this in more detail? When, how much and under what conditions was it?
    1. clidon
      clidon 3 February 2016 19: 40
      0
      Yes, it never happened. The bike goes because of erroneous information already in the 90s.