Military Review

Visible Invisibles: The Most Famous Stealth Aircraft

78
Visible Invisibles: The Most Famous Stealth Aircraft

In March 2016, Japan is planning to complete testing of the new generation Advanced Technology Demonstrator X aircraft, created using stealth technologies. The Land of the Rising Sun will be the fourth in the world to be armed with stealth aircraft.


Previously, the presence of combat aviation complexes created using technologies to reduce the visibility, could boast only Russia, China and the United States. The presence of "stealth" technologies is one of the mandatory parameters of the fifth generation aircraft.

The essence of stealth technology is to reduce visibility in the radar and infrared ranges. The effect is achieved due to a special coating, the specific shape of the aircraft body, as well as the materials from which its structure is made.

Radar waves emitted, for example, by the transmitter of an anti-aircraft missile system, are reflected from the outer surface of the aircraft and are received by the radar station - this is radar signature.

It is characterized by an effective scattering area (ESR). This is a formal parameter that is measured in units of area and is a quantitative measure of the property of an object to reflect an electromagnetic wave. The smaller this area, the more difficult it is to detect an aircraft and hit it with a missile (at least, its detection range decreases).

For old bombers, the EPR can reach 100 square meters, for a conventional modern fighter it is from 3 to 12 square meters. m, and for "invisible" aircraft - about 0,3-0,4 sq. m.

The EPR of complex objects cannot be accurately calculated using the formulas; it is measured empirically with special instruments at test sites or in anechoic chambers. Its value strongly depends on the direction from which the aircraft is irradiated, and for the same flying machine it is represented by a range - as a rule, the best values ​​for the scattering area are recorded when the aircraft is irradiated in the forward hemisphere. Thus, there can be no accurate RCS indicators, and the experimental values ​​for the existing fifth generation aircraft are classified.

Western analytical resources, as a rule, underestimate the EPR data for their stealth aircraft.

THE MOST KNOWN IN THE WORLD MODERN AIRCRAFT- "INVISIBLE":
B-2: American "spirit"
F-117: American Lame Goblin
F-22: American Raptor
F-35: American "lightning"
T-50: Russian invisibility J-20: Chinese "mighty dragon"
X-2: Japanese "soul"


B-2: American "spirit"

The B-2A Spirit heavy, stealth strategic bomber is the most expensive aircraft in the US Air Force fleet. As of 1998, the cost of one B-2 was $ 1,16 billion.The cost of the entire program was estimated at almost $ 45 billion.

The first public flight of the B-2 took place in 1989. A total of 21 aircraft were built: almost all of them are named after the American states.
The B-2 has an unusual appearance and is sometimes compared to an alien ship. At one time, this gave rise to many rumors that the plane was built using technologies obtained from the study of UFO wreckage in the so-called Area 51.

The aircraft is capable of taking on board 16 atomic bombs, or eight laser-guided bombs weighing 907 kg, or 80 227 kg bombs and deliver them from Whiteman airbase (Missouri) to almost anywhere in the world - the flight range of the "ghost" is 11 thousand. km.

Spirit is as automated as possible, the crew consists of two pilots. The bomber has a solid margin of safety and is capable of making a safe landing in a crosswind of 40 m / s. According to foreign publications, the RCS of a bomber is estimated in the range from 0,0014 to 0,1 sq. m. According to other sources, the bomber has more modest performance - from 0,05 to 0,5 square meters. m in frontal projection.
The main disadvantage of the B-2 Spirit is its maintenance cost. Placing the aircraft is possible only in a special hangar with an artificial microclimate - otherwise ultraviolet radiation will damage the aircraft's radio-absorbing coating.

The B-2 is invisible to legacy radars, but modern Russian-made anti-aircraft missile systems are capable of detecting and effectively hitting it. According to unconfirmed reports, one B-2 was shot down or received serious combat damage from the use of an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) during the NATO military operation in Yugoslavia.

F-117: American Lame Goblin

The Lockheed F-117 Night Hawk is an American single-seat tactical subsonic stealth strike aircraft from Lockheed Martin. It was designed for covert penetration through the enemy's air defense system and attacks on strategically important ground targets.

The first flight was made on June 18, 1981. 64 units were produced, the last production copy was delivered to the USAF in 1990. More than $ 117 billion was spent on the creation and production of the F-6. In 2008, aircraft of this type were completely decommissioned, both for financial reasons, and because of the adoption of the F-22 Raptor.

EPR of the aircraft, according to foreign publications, ranged from 0,01 to 0,0025 sq. m depending on the angle.

The reduction in visibility for the F-117 was mainly achieved due to the specific angular shape of the hull, built according to the concept of "reflector planes", composite and radio-absorbing materials and a special coating were also used. As a result, the bomber looked extremely futuristic, and because of this, the popularity of the F-117 in games and cinematography can rival those of Hollywood stars of the first magnitude.

However, having achieved a significant reduction in visibility, the designers had to violate all possible laws of aerodynamics, and the aircraft received disgusting flight characteristics. American pilots nicknamed him "the lame goblin" (Wobblin 'Goblin).

As a result, six aircraft - almost 64% of the total - were lost from accidents of 117 built F-10A stealth aircraft. F-117 was used only by the most experienced pilots, but they were regularly crashed.

The aircraft took part in five wars: the US invasion of Panama (1989), the Gulf War (1991), Operation Desert Fox (1998), the NATO war against Yugoslavia (1999), the Iraqi war (2003).

In sorties, at least one aircraft was lost in Yugoslavia - an invisible aircraft was shot down by the Yugoslav air defense forces using the outdated Soviet S-125 Neva air defense system.

F-22: American Raptor

The first and so far the only aircraft of the fifth generation adopted for service is the American F-22A Raptor.

The production of the aircraft began in 2001. At the moment, several F-22s are taking part in the operation of the coalition forces in Iraq to strike at the militants of the terrorist organization Islamic State banned in Russia.

Today the Raptor is considered the most expensive fighter in the world. According to open sources, taking into account the costs of its development and other factors, the cost of each of the aircraft ordered by the American Air Force exceeds $ 300 million.

Nevertheless, the F-22A has something to brag about: it is the ability to fly at supersonic speed without switching on afterburner, powerful avionics (avionics) and, again, low visibility. However, in terms of maneuverability, the aircraft is inferior to many Russian fighters, even of the fourth generation.

The thrust vector of the F-22 changes only in one plane (up and down), while on the most modern Russian combat aircraft, the thrust vector can change in all planes, and independently of each other on the right and left engines.

There is no exact data on the RCS of the fighter: the spread of the figures given by different sources is from 0,3 to 0,0001 sq. m. According to domestic experts, the EPR of the F-22A ranges from 0,5 to 0,1 sq. At the same time, the Irbis radar station of the Su-35S fighter is capable of detecting the Raptor at a distance of at least 95 km.

At its prohibitive cost, the Raptor has a number of operational problems. In particular, the fighter's anti-radar coating was easily washed off by rain, and although over time this deficiency was eliminated, the price of the aircraft increased even more.

Another major drawback of the F-22 is the pilot's oxygen supply system. In 2010, due to asphyxiation, he lost control of a fighter and crashed pilot Jeffrey Haney.

Since 2011, all F-22A have been prohibited from climbing above 7,6 thousand meters. It was believed that at such an altitude, the pilot, when the first signs of suffocation appeared, would be able to drop to 5,4 thousand meters in order to remove the mask and breathe the air in the cockpit. The reason turned out to be a design flaw - carbon dioxide from the engines got into the breathing system of the pilots. They tried to solve the problem with the help of additional carbon filters. But the drawback has not been completely eliminated until now.

F-35: American "lightning"

The F-35 Lightning II ("Lightning") was conceived as a universal aircraft for the US armed forces and NATO allies, capable of replacing the F-16 fighter, A-10 attack aircraft, McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical takeoff and landing attack aircraft, and carrier-based fighter-bomber McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet.

Huge money was spent on the development of this fifth generation fighter-bomber (expenses exceeded $ 56 billion, and the cost of one aircraft was $ 108 million), but it was not possible to bring the design to mind.

Analysts point out that the enemy radar suppression systems installed on the F-35 cannot complete their mission in full. As a consequence, this may require the development of a separate aircraft designed to suppress enemy radars to ensure the stealth of these fighters. Experts, therefore, question the feasibility of the multibillion-dollar Pentagon spending on the creation of the F-35 aircraft.

Some American media also note that the F-35 largely does not meet the requirements for fifth-generation aircraft: the Molniya is distinguished by its low thrust-to-weight ratio, survivability and maneuverability, and cannot fly at supersonic speed without afterburner.
In addition, the fighter is easily detected by radars operating at ultra-high frequencies, and its RCS turned out to be greater than it was stated in the characteristics. Nevertheless, foreign publications, according to the existing tradition, estimate the value of the effective scattering area of ​​the F-35 aircraft, depending on the angle, at 0,001 sq. m. According to many experts, including Western experts, in terms of EPR, the F-35 is much worse than the F-22.

T-50: Russian invisibility 
Russian specialists used certain elements of the stealth technology on such aircraft as the Su-34 fighter-bomber, the MiG-35 light front-line fighter and the Su-35S heavy fighter. However, the PAK FA T-50 heavy multipurpose fighter and the PAK DA long-range strategic bomber will become full-fledged stealth aircraft.

The T-50 (Advanced Frontline Aviation Complex, PAK FA) is the Russian response to the American fifth-generation F-22 fighter. The aircraft is the quintessence of all the most modern that is in the domestic aviation. Little is known about its characteristics, and most of it is still kept secret.

It is known that PAK FA was the first to use a whole range of the latest polymer carbon fiber reinforced plastics. They are two times lighter than aluminum of comparable strength and titanium, four to five times lighter than steel. New materials make up 70% of the fighter's materials coverage, and as a result, the aircraft's structural mass has been drastically reduced - it weighs four times less than an aircraft assembled from conventional materials.


TV channel "Star" / YouTube

The Sukhoi design bureau declares an "unprecedentedly low level of radar, optical and infrared visibility" of the machine, "although the EPR of the fighter is estimated by domestic experts rather restrainedly - in the region of 0,3-0,4 sq. At the same time, some Western analysts are more optimistic about our aircraft: for the T-50, they call the EPR three times less - 0,1 sq. m. True data of the effective scattering area for the PAK FA are classified.

The T-50 has a high level of intellectualization of the board. A fighter's radar with a new active phased antenna array (AFAR) Tikhomirova can detect targets at a distance of more than 400 kilometers, simultaneously track up to 60 targets and fire up to 16. The minimum RCS of tracked targets is 0,01 sq. m.

PAK FA: combat wings of the future PAK FA engines are spaced from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, such a solution made it possible to increase the thrust shoulder during maneuvering and make a spacious weapons a compartment capable of accommodating heavy weapons, inaccessible due to the size of the F-35 Lightning II. PAK FA is distinguished by excellent maneuverability and controllability in the vertical and horizontal planes both at supersonic and at low speeds.

Currently, the T-50 has first stage engines, with which it is capable of maintaining supersonic speed in non-afterburner mode. After receiving the standard engine of the second stage, the tactical and technical characteristics of the fighter will significantly increase.

The aircraft made its first flight on January 29, 2010. Serial deliveries of the PAK FA to the troops are expected to begin in 2017; in total, the military should receive 2020 fifth-generation fighters by 55.

J-20: Chinese "mighty dragon"

Chengdu J-20 is a Chinese fighter of the fourth (according to Chinese nomenclature) or fifth generation (according to the western). In 2011 it made its first test flight. The fighter is expected to enter service in 2017-2019.

According to some media reports, the J-20 is powered by Russian AL-31FN engines, and the Chinese military has massively purchased decommissioned engines of these brands.
Most of the tactical and technical characteristics of the development remain secret. The J-20 has a large number of similar and fully copied elements from the Russian MiG 1.44 technology demonstrator aircraft and the American fifth generation F-22 and F-35 fighters.

The aircraft is made according to the duck pattern: a pair of ventral keels and closely spaced engines (similar to the MiG 1.44), the canopy and the nose are identical to the same elements on the F-22. The location of the air intakes is similar to that of the F-35. The vertical tail is all-turning and has a geometry similar to that of the F-35 fighter.

X-2: Japanese "soul"

Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin is the prototype of the fifth generation Japanese fighter with stealth technology. The aircraft was designed at the Technical Design Institute of the Ministry of Defense of Japan, and built by the corporation that produced the famous Zero fighters during the Second World War. The fighter received the poetic name Shinshin - "Soul".

The ATD-X is similar in size to the Swedish Saab Gripen multi-role fighter, and in shape to the American F-22 Raptor. The dimensions and angle of inclination of the vertical tail, the shape of the influx and air intakes are identical to those of the American fifth generation fighter. The cost of the aircraft can reach about $ 324 million.

The first public demonstration of the new Japanese fighter took place at the end of January 2016. Flight tests of the aircraft were supposed to be carried out in 2015, but the development company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries could not meet the delivery dates set by the Ministry of Defense.

In addition, Japanese specialists need to modify the engine of a fighter with a controlled thrust vector, in particular, to test the possibility of restarting it in the event of a possible stop during flight.

The Japanese Ministry of Defense notes that the aircraft was built exclusively for the development of technologies, including ATD-X - "stealth". However, it could become the base from which a replacement for the Japanese F-2 fighter-bomber, developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Lockheed Martin for the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force, will be created.

In this case, the ATD-X will have to be equipped with three times more powerful engines, and in the aircraft body there will be enough space for placing ammunition.

According to preliminary plans, development work on the creation of the new F-3 will begin in 2016-2017, and the first prototype of the fighter will take off in 2024-2025.
Author:
Originator:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2758617
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Igor39
    Igor39 27 March 2016 06: 46
    -13%
    F 117, of course, there was no plane, both visible and downed, with poor performance characteristics. About V-2, a few were shot down 1 and a little damaged, they would have written downed 5 and 10 left with damage laughing
    1. Professor
      Professor 27 March 2016 08: 00
      +9
      Quote: Igor39
      F 117, of course, there is no plane both visible and downed with bad LTH

      "Iron" is not a fighter and its flight characteristics fully ensured its successful combat use. The loss of just one plane is a good thing.


      Quote: Igor39
      B-2 cheto shot down a little 1 and somewhat damaged, they would have written down 5 and 10 left with damage

      According to unconfirmed reports, 22-23 aircraft were shot down and a minimum of 56 were damaged. There were confirmed losses. bully
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 27 March 2016 08: 39
        +10
        The F-117 lost 7 aircraft, or about 10% percent. The accident rate is still high. According to combat losses, yes, only one aircraft was officially counted. For five wars, the result is excellent. How many actually hit is unknown. On the B-2 Spirit. 20 serial and one experimental or experimental (in different editions it is called differently) Something was not enough to knock them down. A total of 22-23 shot down and at least 56 damaged. Why not an order of magnitude more? The paper will endure everything.
        1. Operator
          Operator 27 March 2016 09: 03
          +13
          Confirmed losses of the F-117A amounted to 59 vehicles, of which:
          - 1 shot down by S-125M;
          - 6 fell for technical reasons;
          - 52 withdrawn from service after the downing of the S-125M air defense system.
          1. Throw
            Throw 27 March 2016 22: 44
            0
            According to unconfirmed data, they shot down an 22-23 aircraft and damaged a minimum of 56. There were confirmed losses. bully

            During the time, the habit has developed on the site not to look who the author of the kament is, but to read essentially what is written.
            I read it, thought "what a nonsense", then looked who the author is)))))
            (by "minus" I missed at first, so everything is ok)
            1. Operator
              Operator 27 March 2016 23: 43
              +2
              At the beginning of the operation of the NATO armed forces in Yugoslavia for three days from 24 to 27 on March 1999, the standard tactics of suppressing enemy air defense was carried out.

              About 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles were used against air defense facilities, command posts and communication centers, and about 30 combat missions of F-117 aircraft were carried out (which made up only 10 percent of the total number of air strikes).

              Since March 28, 1999, after the suppression of air defense, NATO tactical aviation joined the raids on Yugoslavia, including F-16 and F-15 fighters, Tornado fighter-bombers and A-10 attack aircraft, numbering from 450 (at the beginning of the operation) to 1200 (in end of the operation). The number of flights exceeded 35000 in 75 days.
              Against this background, the actions of about a dozen F-117 with 830 departures (4 percent) were of the nature of statistical error.

              PS The most effective air defense system of all time is the Soviet C-125M of the 1970 model of the year, which sent the most technologically advanced F-53A aircraft to the 117 junk.
      2. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 27 March 2016 08: 43
        +10
        According to unconfirmed reports, 22-23 aircraft were shot down and at least 56 were damaged. There were no confirmed losses
        - For some reason, this does not surprise me at all, but if there had been evidence of losses, it would have been equal to a summer thunderstorm in the middle of winter at the edges of permafrost (well, or at the pole - it doesn’t matter which one - north or south!). Because in concealment of their combat losses, the Anglo-Saxons have long gained some knowledge (at least since the Second World War). A typical example is when a plane that has suffered severe injuries over the battlefield (whether it is aerial combat or anti-aircraft fire) and crashed onto sinful earth (or into the water if at sea) on the way home is not included in the list of combat losses - well, not over crashed through the battlefield - the truth is!
        For the sake of fairness, one should also take into account such an option - the enemy counts as downed a damaged (well, seemingly such) aircraft that came out of the battle "with smoke and decline" according to the principle - "flew to die. So the lists of "reliable" and "probable" losses on both sides should be treated very carefully.
        Regarding the F-117, F-117 Nighthawk - why this "incredibly successful aircraft, successfully used in armed conflicts", was still removed from service 25 years after the start of operation in combat units, if its peers (the same F-15 , F-16 and others like them) continue to be operated and modernized.
        They explain to us that in mid-2008 the F-117 aircraft were completely withdrawn from service, mainly due to the adoption of the F-22 Raptor.
        However:
        Lockheed F-117 Night Hawk (Lockheed F-117 Night Hawk) is a Lockheed Martin single-seat subsonic tactical stealth strike aircraft designed to covertly penetrate the enemy’s air defense system and attack strategically important ground-based military infrastructure (missile bases, airfields) , control and communication centers, etc.).

        Now about its "substitute":
        The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation multi-role fighter developed by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics to replace the F-15 Eagle (which it did not replace by the way).

        And nowhere have I come across a mention of the Raptor completely replacing the Lame Dwarf (aka Lame Goblin in the performance of the latter's shock missions on the battlefield.
        I have the honor. hi
        1. Professor
          Professor 27 March 2016 09: 12
          -2
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          For some reason, this does not surprise me at all, but if there were confirmation of losses, it would be

          And they did not exist (except for one F-117), and all the rest was from the category of Armat losses in the Donbass. wassat
          It is impossible to hide the combat lash of an aircraft with a nominal value of $ 1,16 billion. And why not, it did not go for export and it does not need advertising. It is not possible to hide this from Congress at all.

          Quote: Aleksandr72
          Regarding the F-117, F-117 Nighthawk - why this "incredibly successful aircraft, successfully used in armed conflicts", was still removed from service 25 years after the start of operation in combat units, if its peers (the same F-15 , F-16 and others like them) continue to be operated and modernized.

          Because the F-22 came to replace the Utyug.

          Quote: Aleksandr72
          And nowhere have I come across a mention of the Raptor completely replacing the Lame Dwarf (aka Lame Goblin in the performance of the latter's shock missions on the battlefield.

          The Raptor not only completely replaced the F-117 (Designed for covert penetration through the enemy’s air defense system and attacks of strategically important ground-based objects of military infrastructure (missile bases, airfields, command and communications centers, etc.)), but also in many ways surpassed it.

          Quote: Amurets
          And why not an order of magnitude more? The paper will endure everything.

          Here I am about that. No confirmed losses, nothing to discuss.
          "In God we trust; all others must bring data".
          W. Edwards Deming

          I have a girl. hi
          1. 0255
            0255 27 March 2016 09: 37
            +7
            Quote: Professor
            The Raptor not only completely replaced the F-117 (Designed for covert penetration through the enemy’s air defense system and attacks of strategically important ground-based objects of military infrastructure (missile bases, airfields, command and communications centers, etc.)), but also in many ways surpassed it.

            The F-22 was also intended to replace the F-15. Do not enlighten me why the F-15s are still flying, and 280 were built Raptors. or so instead of the planned 600 pieces? Why in American aggression against countries with ancient Soviet air defense, most of the sorties are due to the F-1970 and F-15 developed in the 16s, and the best in the world F-22 was first used only in 2014, the best in the world Is the F-35 only fighting in the movies so far?
            1. Professor
              Professor 27 March 2016 09: 54
              +3
              Quote: 0255
              The F-22 was also intended to replace the F-15. Do not enlighten me why the F-15s are still flying, and 280 Raptors were built. or so instead of the planned 600 pieces?

              F-22 is incredibly expensive even for a country printing money. T-50 is also planned only 55 (fifty-five) units. MiG-29 for example, more than 1600 pieces were produced.

              Quote: 0255
              Why in American aggressions against countries with ancient Soviet air defense, most of the sorties took place on the F-1970 and F-15 developed in the 16s, and the best in the world F-22 was first used only in 2014, the best in the world F-35 so far fighting only in the movies?

              Because the old people there are quite coping. Their use is much cheaper. Why drive the B-2 where the B-52 is enough? request

              I have a girl. hi
              1. ML-334
                ML-334 27 March 2016 12: 00
                +6
                Do you have a spring aggravation? Somehow everything goes well and you have a girl, you have and you have time to knock on the clave. Joke.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 27 March 2016 12: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: ML-334
                  Do you have a spring aggravation? Somehow everything goes well and you have a girl, you have and you have time to knock on the clave. Joke.

                  Who has the honor, who the summer cottage, and who the girl. wink
                  1. Locksmith
                    Locksmith 27 March 2016 17: 01
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    Who has the honor, who the summer cottage, and who the girl.

                    Type have those who have ??
                  2. abrakadabre
                    abrakadabre 27 March 2016 22: 56
                    +4
                    Who has the honor, who the summer cottage, and who the girl.
                    This is from the category of who has what and what is missing? wink
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 28 March 2016 06: 43
                      -2
                      Quote: abrakadabre
                      This is from the category of who has what and what is missing?

                      This is from the category of boasting. One boasts about the whole mit that has honor, the other that has a summer residence, and I'm talking about a girl. wink
              2. Locksmith
                Locksmith 27 March 2016 16: 59
                +2
                Quote: Professor
                Because the old people there are quite coping. Their use is much cheaper. Why drive the B-2 where the B-52 is enough?

                Yes, because new devices - from Ottoy, neither in. Ed .. nor in the Red Army laughing
                cha frankly jealous of our aviation, SUCH A pancake they saw only in their urotic dreams ...... repeat
              3. igorka357
                igorka357 29 March 2016 12: 58
                0
                And not because it is pissed that some old Soviet air defense missile system will fill up the high-tech monster F-22, and prof)), then it will be fun again!
          2. Fregate
            Fregate 27 March 2016 15: 25
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            Because the F-22 came to replace the Utyug.

            I hardly think of a replacement. All the same, the f-22 is a fighter. And f-117 don’t understand that, it’s sound like an attack aircraft, but it’s not an attack aircraft. On it it’s pure to drop a bomb from a height, like on a strategic bomb, but they are big. In general, the f-117 is not a strategic bomber smile . For delivering precision / precision strikes. Rather, we can say that the F-117th was replaced by the X-47b UAV.
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 27 March 2016 19: 20
              +2
              Here I am reading the arguments here, reading ... And after watching the video I thought: "And why is everyone calling the PAK FA a fighter? The decoding of the abbreviation says about the front-line aviation complex. There is nothing about the fighter!" This I mean, with all the wealth of properties as a fighter, the T-50 is quite capable of being adequately applied at the level of a front-line bomber. No matter how you look, but for almost all fighters the bomber function is made at a very poor level, well, like "There is a couple of babakhals in the enemy camp - and that is bread!" fellow
              1. Fregate
                Fregate 27 March 2016 19: 32
                +2
                Quote: Aqela
                Here I am reading the arguments here, reading ... And after watching the video I thought: "And why is everyone calling the PAK FA a fighter? The decoding of the abbreviation says about the front-line aviation complex. There is nothing about the fighter!" This I mean, with all the wealth of properties as a fighter, the T-50 is quite capable of being adequately applied at the level of a front-line bomber. No matter how you look, but for almost all fighters the bomber function is made at a very poor level, well, like "There is a couple of babakhals in the enemy camp - and that is bread!"

                Well yes. Simply, MFI is a multi-functional fighter. Therefore, they call it a fighter.
          3. Locksmith
            Locksmith 27 March 2016 16: 55
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            And they weren’t (except for one F-117), and all the rest from the category of losses of Armat in the Donbass

            just as there were no losses of your chariots ... laughing
          4. nedgen
            nedgen 28 March 2016 01: 07
            +2
            Sorry professor, but I can’t believe something that you can’t hide the number of downed planes (helicopters). Of course, it is not necessary to hide from the congress, but from the public, it was very possible and done. Here's an example: according to official figures, the United States lost about 100 aircraft in the Korean War (I don’t remember the exact number) !!!! belay and shot down 2000 wassat In general, several times the entire aviation of the USSR, China and North Korea combined. And the funny thing is that the US Air Force rescue service 5 boasted that it managed to withdraw 5000 pilots (50 pilots per shot down laughing ) But yet another air army worked there and naval pilots too !! So the Anglo-Americans are best able to lie. One more example. About the war in Iraq. There, for example, losses of personnel of infantry units decreased significantly. And this is normal. After all, they considered only American citizens. But at least half of the personnel of the infantry units were soldiers of the Mexican origin and served for American citizenship, and they were not considered members of PMCs either. And naturally they were buried in Iraq and were not put on the list of losses at all. Such are the things. hi
            1. Professor
              Professor 28 March 2016 06: 53
              -2
              Quote: nedgen
              Sorry professor, but I can’t believe something that you can’t hide the number of downed planes (helicopters).

              You can hide the loss of a pair, or even a couple of dozen F-16s if there are no captured pilots and the wreckage of the aircraft has evaporated. But to conceal the loss of the plane at a cost of $ 1.2 billion which only two dozen pieces were built is not realistic. But the most important thing is no reason. request

              Quote: nedgen
              So the Anglo-Americans are best able to lie.

              They occupy an honorable second place, giving the palm to the green men.

              Quote: nedgen
              About the war in Iraq. There, for example, losses of personnel of infantry units decreased significantly. And this is normal. After all, they considered only American citizens. But at least half of the personnel of the infantry units were soldiers of the Mexican origin and served for American citizenship, and they were not considered members of PMCs either. And naturally they were buried in Iraq and were not put on the list of losses at all. Such are the things.

              I doubt it. The bodies of all American soldiers were taken out of Iraq. There are no American military cemeteries.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 28 March 2016 17: 52
              -1
              "And naturally they were buried in Iraq and were not included in the list of losses at all." ///

              Fake. All US Army soldiers are contract soldiers. Upon admission
              all sign the same contract with the same insurance.
              There is no difference whether or not citizenship is not.
              In Iraq, the Marines and Israelis, who served in the army,
              signatory contracts overlooking Greencart.
              They talked about the service - no difference or discrimination
              between them and US citizens were not.
          5. sivuch
            sivuch 28 March 2016 21: 22
            -1
            What about one damaged goblin (a month later)?
          6. igorka357
            igorka357 29 March 2016 12: 56
            0
            Well, or from the category of losses of carrots, yes prof))?
      3. Locksmith
        Locksmith 27 March 2016 16: 54
        -1
        Quote: Professor
        "Iron" is not a fighter and its flight characteristics fully ensured its successful combat use. The loss of just one plane is a good thing.

        Well, yes, especially in a kindergarten for sedentary, or rather idiots wink
        Shl; because your air defense is specially written in small letters does not see anything, absolutely does not mean that the "goblin" will be a "black hole", but rather, as a rule, a medium-sized target. soldier
      4. igorka357
        igorka357 29 March 2016 12: 52
        +1
        And the loss of 10% during testing and operation, are these good results?
  2. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 27 March 2016 07: 18
    +7
    Previously, only Russia, China and the United States could boast of the presence of combat aircraft systems created using technologies of reducing visibility. The presence of "stealth" technology is one of the required parameters of fifth-generation aircraft.



    T.S. only the USA has such complexes in service. The rest haven’t gone further than prototypes and tests. Be objective.
  3. spech
    spech 27 March 2016 07: 38
    +2
    According to 1998 data, the cost of one B-2 was $ 1,16 billion. The cost of the entire program was estimated at almost $ 45 billion.

    The first public flight of the B-2 took place in 1989. A total of 21 aircraft were built

    Damn, what could be easier 45/21 = 2,145, but where did the figure 1,16 come from?
    ps just do not have to dissemble something there is not considered.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 27 March 2016 07: 47
      +7
      You confuse the cost of the aircraft with the cost of the program. These costs include not only the cost and maintenance of the aircraft for a certain period of time, but also the creation of the necessary infrastructure, training of personnel, logistics, and other related elements.
  4. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 27 March 2016 07: 48
    +4
    On sorties, at least one aircraft was lost in Yugoslavia - an invisible aircraft was shot down by the Yugoslav air defense forces using the outdated Soviet S-125 "Neva" air defense system.

    By the way, exactly 17 years ago.
  5. Operator
    Operator 27 March 2016 07: 51
    +9
    After the downing of the F-117 in Yugoslavia, the definition of "invisible" was changed to "inconspicuous."
    1. chebman
      chebman 27 March 2016 11: 01
      +5
      Then, to be more precise, inconspicuous for radar.
  6. tchoni
    tchoni 27 March 2016 07: 57
    +3
    We love rubbish in the eyes of others
    In his logs without noticing.
    The affairs of others actively
    Praise your successes.
  7. Amurets
    Amurets 27 March 2016 07: 59
    +5
    Cost

    The B-2 is the most expensive aircraft in the world (and probably the most expensive aircraft in aviation history). In 1998, the cost of one B-2, excluding R&D, amounted to $ 1,157 billion [17]. The cost of the entire B-2 program for 1997 was estimated at almost $ 45 billion; Thus, taking into account R&D, the cost of one car at that time reached $ 2,1 billion [18].

    According to the US Air Force and manufacturers, the high cost of the aircraft is mainly due to a reduction in its purchases. In connection with the collapse of the USSR, of the originally planned 132 bombers, only 20 units were purchased for the entire production period. [nineteen]
  8. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 27 March 2016 08: 34
    +7
    For obvious reasons, not much is known about the T-50. But even ama talk about its peculiarity to ensure its stealth through the use of plasma generators. Moreover, this is actively discussed in aviation circles. The author does not sound about this, and yet he writes a review on the topic. We could also write more about weapons, remember, for example, K-77, etc.
    Nevertheless, I liked the article, plus!
    Yours faithfully, hi
    1. 0255
      0255 27 March 2016 09: 41
      +1
      They used to write that it’s enough to put plasma generators on the MiG 1.44 and Su-35, and no PAK FA is needed. I wonder how true this is?
      1. Forest
        Forest 27 March 2016 13: 37
        +3
        About plasma generators - a fairy tale, although beautiful. It is necessary to have monstrous energy reserves on board, and materials that are not damaged by high temperatures, and radars that are not drowned out by their own system.
        1. 0255
          0255 27 March 2016 21: 56
          0
          Quote: Forest
          About plasma generators - a fairy tale, although beautiful.

          ((((((((
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 27 March 2016 23: 10
        +1
        Now explain to me how the plasma makes the apparatus invisible? Every day in our sky there is a clot of plasma - the Sun. Someone may not notice him? Even the blind sense it in the infrared. A man-made plasma flash - a nuclear explosion - is also not an example of invisibility. Even an electric arc discharge is never invisible. Neither in the optical, nor in the radio, nor in the infrared ranges.
        Landing meteorites or descent vehicles - SHO, also invisible? Will it not type reflect radar signals? Duc Sun also does not reflect, unlike the Moon. So what? It itself SO LEDs that active scanning is in principle not required. Yes, and in the passive requires serious filtering. An example in the optical and UV ranges for schoolchildren is a dark filter on a telescope. For an electric discharge - a mask of the welder. For an X-ray unit in a hospital, the entire room is leaded.

        Can I at least briefly explain what the chip of the plasma generator in reducing the visibility of the aircraft?
        Because of stupidity, I consider any plasma a bright and super-bright broadband radiation source. With peak radiation in different ranges, depending on temperature. But nonetheless broadband.
        1. adept666
          adept666 28 March 2016 11: 33
          0
          Can I at least briefly explain what the chip of the plasma generator in reducing the visibility of the aircraft?
          Purely technically, there are two chips passive and active. Passive: in the interaction of electromagnetic waves with plasma, a partial absorption of the energy of these waves occurs (an external electromagnetic wave causes eddy currents in the plasma, and the energy that comes from the radar waves is spent on their creation and maintenance). Cons: at a low frequency, the plasma will work like a mirror (it will reflect, but not absorb, like the solar corona reflecting meter waves). Active (it’s very difficult to technically implement): A plasma can work as an antenna and, unlike conventional antennas, it has a number of advantages (for example, the ability to dynamically change the frequency, direction, bandwidth and gain) that allow it to be used as an active radar and EW systems at the same time (fixation of irradiation - analysis of the parameters of irradiation - formation of the return signal in antiphase).
          A man-made plasma flash - a nuclear explosion - is also not an example of invisibility.
          Seriously? Radar and radio communications in the active zone of an explosion of 4-5 km simply die, and at a considerable distance, depending on the power (explosion), they receive significant interference.
          Landing meteorites or descent vehicles - SHO, also invisible?
          It depends on the frequency ranges ... The stealth using plasma was first discovered by the US Air Force while tracking the first satellite of the USSR (electromagnetic scattering was different from what was expected for the conducting sphere)
          Will it not type reflect radar signals?
          There will be practically no shortwaves, and the shorter the wavelength, the less reflection.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 28 March 2016 15: 29
            0
            I apologize, can you give an example of a plasma, which in itself does not emit certain waves, but only absorbs those coming to it? Well ... besides space objects - black holes.
            Why is it necessary to irradiate a plasma with a radar if it is in itself a powerful source of radiation? Moreover, in a very wide frequency band. Just take and listen to the broadcast.
            Actively scanning a plasma formation with a radar is like illuminating the sun with a flashlight at noon to detect it. And it’s completely spit that the light of the flashlight will still be absorbed by our luminary. When it reaches it after about 8 minutes 30 seconds.

            The only, in my opinion, way to get lost to a hypothetical aircraft in a plasma cloud, to create a cloud with dimensions 3-4 orders of magnitude larger than the size of the device itself. That is, an extensive plasma field. Then, according to the readings of the radar, it will not be clear in which part of the cloud the aircraft is.
            Even a blinding heavy-duty flash (or continuous emission) will not have a masking effect. Because a passive receiver can always be created with the necessary level of protection against overload of the input circuit. Which in military affairs has long been implemented as protection against electromagnetic radiation.

            The use of plasma to conceal aircraft is nonsense. For clogging the air with broadband noise - yes, no doubt. Perhaps even to dazzle all the electronics around. How the sun clogs the light of stars in the afternoon. That's just get both a stranger and his own. But there will be no invisibility among the undisturbed background.
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 27 March 2016 08: 34
    +6
    This whole story invisibly harbors many dark spots. Physicists wanted money for experiments, and "lit" the military for the "ultimate weapon" - invisible super-duper wunderwafers. And it rushed. The fact that it was necessary to engage in stealth was not in doubt. But the fact that you can achieve absolute invisibility is a deception, understandable to any physicist. Why is "absolute invisibility" impossible? Because he himself will not see anything - if you want to see the light, it must be "reworked", i.e. absorb. The Shadow will give the invisible person. And such systems exist.
  10. mvg
    mvg 27 March 2016 08: 42
    +4
    An advertising type article, again everything is American, and we will do better .. I don’t care that 30 years later, but better ... But now it doesn’t work out.
    Japans will not build the TTD-X for military purposes, but rather a technology demonstrator showing the level of Japanese aircraft technology. They are massively planning to buy F-35s, although they are rolling their lips on F-22s.
    PS: When will they write objective articles, and consider the technique, and not its belonging to any block (ours or not ours). All F-35 buyers obviously don’t understand anything on airplanes, neither shaving (Germans, Italians, Spaniards), with their Typhoons, nor Japanese, with their good traditions and F-2, and the rest, with such a diverse market, everything they buy Penguins .. and there are Swedes, and Russia, and frogs .. and joint projects ..
    1. dauria
      dauria 27 March 2016 22: 23
      -1
      with such a diverse market, Penguins still buy.


      Come on, what "variety"? This is the only aircraft brought to the series, and also a successful one in terms of price and characteristics. The rest were late. And the rest are us and China. Neither France, nor the Swedes, nor the British, nor the Japanese will pull the development of a modern aircraft. The "eurofighter" is too expensive for them. Even the USA tried to stir up cooperation and co-financing. We didn't have to walk, now hangover. And the Chinese have not yet matured a bit.
  11. igordok
    igordok 27 March 2016 10: 11
    +1
    ... carbon dioxide from engines entered the pilots' breathing system. They tried to solve the problem with the help of additional carbon filters. But the flaw has not been completely eliminated so far.

    Probably for this a team of ENGLISH scientists was hired. recourse Even in the WWI they already knew that activated carbon neither carbon dioxide nor carbon monoxide can be cleaned.
  12. KCA
    KCA 27 March 2016 11: 09
    +1
    I don’t understand radar, but are ERP calculated when reflecting radio waves with strictly frontal exposure? and if the radiation goes at an angle close even to 90 degrees, i.e. from ground-based radars, how, in this case, wretched forms of 117 will help?
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 27 March 2016 12: 18
      +4
      The so-called DOR (backscatter diagram) is drawn, which is an approximation of discrete EPR measurements carried out in the horizontal plane with a sampling frequency of, say, 1 degree (less can be, more can be). If such DORs are built for the entire set of planes passing, say, through the center line of the aircraft, then we can already talk about the backscattering matrix (the number of planes is naturally discrete and must be finite).
      In general, the EPR is usually always spoken of as a value averaged over an angle or sector. This, by the way, may cause a scatter in the data given in the documentation. (in one case, we took the EPR value at an angle of 0 relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, and got 0.0001 dm sq, and in the other we averaged + - 5 degrees and already got half a meter. In addition to focuses with an angle, there is also a focus with measurement accuracy. In radar measurements the accuracy of the complexes is considered sufficient + - 3 dB, which is translated into Russian as + -2 times, that is, if you measured the EPR of 1 sq. m, then really there can be from 0.5 to 2 sq. with inaccuracies in the measurement of the positioning of the object of research and measuring antennas, the zag adds the same ochnosti allegations record ESR values.
      One thing is certain that the technology for reducing radar signature, together with technologies for reducing other signatures (thermal, optical and acoustic), significantly increases the combat capabilities of the aircraft.
  13. demiurg
    demiurg 27 March 2016 13: 29
    +4
    As in childhood, "I'm in the house" :)) The hope that you will invisibly sneak up on the enemy, kill him and run away, this is the dream of all the children of the world. And what if the locators are suppressed / jammed with interference for everyone?
    EPR reduction is undoubtedly a useful thing, but it is by no means a panacea. For some reason everyone forgets about the progress of the OLS. There is still the opportunity to look at the invisible in the infrared range.
    A plane for 100 lyam greens. But who will let him against an equal opponent then. Chopping in meat is the destiny of third-generation aircraft, a maximum of the fourth, if there is absolute superiority in the air. No economy can take out a war with heavy losses of lightning or raptors. They will occasionally be far from the front point to the camera and that's it. And the old people will suffer on the battlefield. The fact that Iraq seems to fly like raptors is far from an indicator; there is no sane air defense there.
  14. gregor6549
    gregor6549 27 March 2016 13: 45
    +5
    So many g .. poured onto a plane F117 not poured on any other. But if you look at the statistics of its combat use, then these statistics are not so crappy, especially when you consider that he flew to bomb the targets tightly covered by modern air defense systems at that time. The only case when the F117 was shot down over Yugoslavia is also not a standard one because that F117 was sent to the BZ alone without the usual cover in such sorties by fighters and electronic warfare aircraft, as prescribed by the rules for the combat use of FNNXX.
    There are many legends, songs and tales about how it was discovered0 and shot down, but the fact is that even one such case of the US Air Force was enough to abandon the F117 and start developing a new generation of aircraft that would combine stealth (not invisibility) in all wave ranges and worthy performance characteristics. At the same time, the experience gained during the creation and combat use of the F117 did not disappear, but was used 100%. Those. The "lame goblin" was not so lame and "dying" passed on to future generations all his rich and not at all useless experience. And the last thing. There are no ideal "litaks", there have not been, and will not be. each aircraft is a set of compromises that their designers have to make in order to realize all the growing appetites of the Customer. So it happened and F35, the customer of which sought to harness a donkey and a quivering doe in one cart. As a result, we got a super-expensive package, from which those who invested large sums in it do not know how to get rid of. Moreover, they are unlikely to be allowed to. Therefore, they will knock around with F35 until there is a convenient reason, as with the downed F117, to bury F35 alive. In this regard, I would not be very surprised that the single flight of F117 in Yugoslavia was organized by his "admirers" from the US Air Force. It is also possible that these admirers went even further and organized a leak of information to the Yugoslav air defense units. The F117 pilot remained unharmed then and even escaped capture. Those. not everything is so simple (and clean) in the world under the moon.
    1. KCA
      KCA 27 March 2016 18: 48
      0
      I’ll cynically ask, but how many A-10 would be needed to complete the tasks of one F-117 sortie? 10? twenty? thirty? and if they were all brought down, they would be much cheaper, without adding the cost of pre-flight maintenance
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 28 March 2016 12: 02
        0
        It should be noted that in addition to the aircraft themselves in the United States, the pilots' lives are, however oddly valued, so when it is possible to choose between pay and die, they choose to pay. Moreover, the USA is not a very poor country and can afford such a luxury. in addition, the cost of training a combat pilot in the US is also expensive.
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 27 March 2016 19: 27
      +1
      It was nice to read a balanced judgment. Thank.
    3. Locksmith
      Locksmith 27 March 2016 19: 58
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      especially when you consider that he flew for the bombing of targets tightly covered by modern air defense systems at that time

      Nuka Nuka
      .from this place in more detail laughing
      As far as statistics are aware, this pepelats NEVER flew in the area of ​​previously UNSuppressed air defense
      An attempt to "fly" independently "was immediately stopped by the" suppressed "air defense of Yugoslavia am
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 March 2016 20: 32
        0
        Quote: Locksmith
        As far as statistics are aware, this pepelats NEVER flew in the area of ​​previously UNSuppressed air defense


        Although, by default, this is what I should have done. Otherwise, instead of him, even some "Hercules" could work on purpose.
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 28 March 2016 15: 13
        0
        Quote: Locksmith
        Quote: gregor6549
        especially when you consider that he flew for the bombing of targets tightly covered by modern air defense systems at that time

        Nuka Nuka
        .from this place in more detail laughing
        As far as statistics are aware, this pepelats NEVER flew in the area of ​​previously UNSuppressed air defense
        An attempt to "fly" independently "was immediately stopped by the" suppressed "air defense of Yugoslavia am



        As far as I remember, info on the first Iraq - There they flew precisely to suppress air defense facilities, command posts, radar stations ..
        And without any accompaniment.
        And even the escorts say it was generally forbidden for that tactic.
        Not closer than 100 miles to the route of 117, not a single one of his 1 could approach.

        1300 sorties in Iraq - not one shot down.
        900 sorties in Yugoslavia - 2 shot down / damaged. One on the spot. the second reached the base.
      3. gregor6549
        gregor6549 28 March 2016 16: 18
        0
        Do not say nonsense. He flew more than once. As far as I know, its first use was in the area of ​​the Panama Canal, which, by the way, was covered by the not very bad air defense. And neither this air defense nor the other did not even notice how the F117 flew up and dropped the bomb. And those on whom he threw it in a panic fled and did not understand where this gift came from. Google in Russian and English on the topic of combat use of the F117 and you will find many interesting things for yourself
    4. Locksmith
      Locksmith 27 March 2016 20: 01
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      that F117 was sent to the BZ alone without the usual cover in such sorties with EW fighter jets and aircraft, as prescribed by the rules for the combat use of F117.

      Stop inventing what a damn support belay , always for "stealth" individual application map, enough to make people laugh from the air defense !!!
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 28 March 2016 11: 57
        0
        I dare to object. Yes, at the beginning of the combat use of the FNUMX, solo flights were performed especially in areas where there was no strong air defense. In the future, such cover was used, but cover aircraft were never used at a distance closer than 117 km to the covered Ф100. The use of aircraft for cover was also confirmed by the pilot of the F117 shot down in Yugoslavia in an interview with the BBC channel, which I managed to watch several years ago. (I think it has been preserved in the archives of this channel to this day, so with some knowledge of English what this pilot talks about can be understood)
        The tasks of the cover groups (groups) in this case included counteraction to air defense systems on the flight path Ф117, including reconnaissance of working radars for detection and guidance. (The F117 was not equipped with radiation warning equipment operating in all wavelength ranges used by the Yugoslav air defense system, in particular a meter radar). I can’t say that all of the above is true, but such a tactical device seems quite reasonable since such a cover group can successfully divert attention to itself without particularly risking being outside the zone of destruction of the air defense system and at the same time put interference with these air defense systems and use anti-radar missiles
  15. Geser
    Geser 27 March 2016 15: 32
    +4
    The very idea of ​​dividing the fuselage into triangles to scatter radar radiation in order to ensure invisibility was invented by the American mathematician Dennis Overholzer. And he borrowed it from the works of the Soviet scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev. Even then, our specialists were sure that invisibility, to the detriment of other characteristics, would not make the aircraft reliable and invulnerable to radar and air defense systems. Time has confirmed the conclusions - the invisible man was shot down in Yugoslavia. It also turned out that the invisible ones perfectly detect the VHF radars, since the "stealth" were created for VHF and decimeter wave locators. But our specialists have invented another method of detecting invisible people. The essence of the method is not to detect the target itself, but the trail that it leaves. And this method makes it pointless to create any invisible ones, only money will be wasted.
  16. Fregate
    Fregate 27 March 2016 15: 36
    +2
    EPR F-22 0,0001 m2 is 1 cm2. I don’t know, I don’t know, but something even with difficulty I can’t believe it.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 27 March 2016 19: 09
      +1
      Well, I also figured it out quickly, even without a calculator ... But how dare you not to believe the advertising statements of the prodigy manufacturers! belay Ayayay! wassat And no one would even think that such a single effective reflection surface has a single computer keyboard key. Somehow, in comparison with such a rather big flying chariot, it looks strange ... sad
    2. Locksmith
      Locksmith 27 March 2016 19: 51
      0
      Quote: Fregate
      EPR F-22 0,0001 m2 is 1 cm2. I don’t know, I don’t know, but something even with difficulty I can’t believe it.

      This is an equivalent area, like "we see a lot - we reflect a little", there is no reality, F22 still flies with a Luneberg prism - it increases the EPR hundreds of times, although I think pin_tan is not stupid, and tries not to "shine" F22 in vain, Well, from there, the same = if they see brine = one hundred pounds do not sleep and write a signature. laughing
  17. Technologist
    Technologist 27 March 2016 16: 56
    +1
    And if you do without statistics, then from the point of view of engineering, the F-117 is a very interesting aircraft.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 27 March 2016 19: 39
      +1
      Quote: Technologist
      In terms of engineering, the F-117 is a very interesting aircraft.

      Well, yes, not everyone can pull an owl on a globe laughing ,
      It is shameful to deceive the blind, in those years we simply did not "graze" our "colleagues", we are like a famous picture of three monkeys, but unlike them we "see", "hear" and, most importantly, we talk about it laughing
  18. Aqela
    Aqela 27 March 2016 19: 04
    +1
    The reason turned out to be a design flaw - carbon dioxide from engines got into the pilots' breathing system. They tried to solve the problem with the help of additional carbon filters.

    The phrase touches! winked Since when did carbon filters absorb carbon dioxide? Answer: with no! There is only one protection against CO and CO2 - an insulating gas mask or a cylinder with air (breathing mixture).
    Another portion of suggestions that can convince a person who does not know chemistry in the volume of the school curriculum.
    Yes ... A good 5 generation aircraft with a ceiling like the 30-40 fighter ...
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 27 March 2016 19: 44
      0
      Quote: Aqela
      They tried to solve the problem with the help of additional carbon filters.

      This is apparently just an unsuccessful translation of the allowed material - actually, compressed air is taken after the turbine = it can contain oil impurities, or some crap, it is filtered including carbon filters, then it is enriched with oxygen and fed into the breathing system, or how also call her wink
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 28 March 2016 16: 37
      0
      Quote: Aqela

      Yes ... A good 5 generation aircraft with a ceiling like the 30-40 fighter ...


      It's not about the plane.
      Just a mudag author.

      He deliberately introduces misinformation.

      As far back as 2 years ago, absolutely all restrictions were lifted.
      http://topwar.ru/26516-s-istrebiteley-f-22-snyali-vse-letnye-ogranicheniya.html
  19. Olegi1
    Olegi1 27 March 2016 20: 16
    0
    Quote: Locksmith

    EF22 still flies with a Luneberg prism - it increases the EPR hundreds of times, although I think pin_tan is not stupid, and tries not to "shine" F22 in vain, and from there, if they see brine = one hundred pounds do not sleep but write signature. laughing


    And can you elaborate on what kind of Luneberg prism applied to an airplane?
  20. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 28 March 2016 00: 06
    0
    Already some people are writing off obsolete stealth, and I am touched by people who still claim that stealth technology is complete nonsense. Probably another half century should pass so that something reaches them. It is clear that any pilot wants only one thing - that the enemy noticed him already on takeoff. And I also like it when they begin to prove that it is impossible to make an absolutely inconspicuous aircraft. I thought so! By the way, the French have been painting their rafal for a long time with something more than radio-absorbing and they perform zigzag joints of panels. As I understand it, the only question now is who and how much is willing to pay for stealth technologies, and how far to go along this path. Elements of stealth - this is now, in my opinion, the same inalienable attribute of a combat aircraft (and not only) as camouflage paint used to be.
    and the MiG-35 is, exactly, a light fighter? Is it because he has a maximum take-off weight of about thirty tons? And a heavy fighter - if it's a hundred tons? Is the pilot’s breathing system oxygen or air conditioning? By the way, air is not taken from the turbine, it is taken from the turbocharger. And combustion products fly out of the turbine.
  21. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 28 March 2016 00: 16
    0
    Interesting! But the Japanese just spend money to show how cool they are. Are they planning to build any combat aircraft using stealth technologists? We will soon wait for some kind of Iran to start stealth modeling (most likely using Russian developments, by the way).
  22. abc_alex
    abc_alex 28 March 2016 12: 47
    0
    Quote: Professor

    It is impossible to hide the combat lash of an aircraft with a nominal value of $ 1,16 billion. And why not, it did not go for export and it does not need advertising. It is not possible to hide this from Congress at all.


    Why so? Your government and army manage to hide the number of wrecked Merkav :) And their price is also not small :)

    Quote: Professor

    Because the F-22 came to replace the Utyug.


    Professor, do not mislead the audience. Nighthawk - strike aircraft. The fact that he dreamed of a fighter in the wet dreams of the creators does not make him such. This is a light bomber.
    And the Raptor is a fighter. An almost clean fighter, with extremely limited real capabilities of strikes against ground targets.
    They would say "to replace" the goblin "came the Light-2, then it would be more correct.

    Quote: Professor

    The Raptor not only completely replaced the F-117 (Designed for covert penetration through the enemy’s air defense system and attacks of strategically important ground-based objects of military infrastructure (missile bases, airfields, command and communications centers, etc.)), but also in many ways surpassed it.


    The Raptor not only did not replace Nighthawk, but was never intended to replace him. And certainly it was never imagined by an airplane to attack strategic targets closed by an air defense system.
    The raptor was officially put on the replacement of the F-15. His program was called ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter - Advanced Tactical Fighter). And in 1983, the strike requirements were excluded from the ATF requirements and the aircraft was completely reoriented to combat the air enemy.
    And as such it exists to this day. Those two unfortunate 450-kg GBU-32 JDAM bombs that he can carry and use do not replace him with a nighthock that could normally carry the air-to-ground SDs AGM-88 HARM, AGM-65 Maveric, AGM-137 TSSAM, AGM -154 JSOW, AGM-154 JASSM.
    2x 907kg optical guided bombs GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-27 Paveway or or BLU-109 with laser or nuclear bombs B-61 (100/500 kilotons) or 2 bombs Mk.84 or Mk.61 or GBU-30 (31,32) JDAM 2 WCMD ammunition.


    So I repeat, do not mislead the audience.
    1. Professor
      Professor 28 March 2016 13: 22
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      Why so? Your government and army manage to hide the number of wrecked Merkav :) And their price is also not small :)

      1. Nobody hides their losses.
      2. The cost of the tank and B-2 is incomparable.
      3. Thickly troll.

      Quote: abc_alex
      And the Raptor is a fighter. An almost clean fighter, with extremely limited real capabilities of strikes against ground targets.

      F-22 is able to use GBU no worse than F-117.


      Quote: abc_alex
      The Raptor not only did not replace Nighthawk, but was never intended to replace him. And certainly it was never imagined by an airplane to attack strategic targets closed by an air defense system.

      The F-22 not only replaced the F-117, but also surpassed the capabilities of the "iron". In the central bomb bay, the F-22 is capable of carrying 4 pound bombs. In total, in the internal compartments, it is capable of carrying 250 pounds of bomb load, and this is not taking into account the factor that it is able to stand up for itself (radar, cannon, air-to-air missiles, electronic warfare systems, cruising supersonic, maneuverability). Versatility comes at a price.
  23. abc_alex
    abc_alex 28 March 2016 13: 10
    0
    Quote: gregor6549
    So many g .. poured onto a plane F117 not poured on any other. But if you look at the statistics of its combat use, then these statistics are not so crappy, especially when you consider that he flew to bomb the targets tightly covered by modern air defense systems at that time.


    Uh-uh, excuse me for any goals than covered ones? What are modern air defense systems for?
    If we are talking about Yugoslavia, then I remind you, Yugoslavia has never been included in the Warsaw Pact. And modern weapons were not there and could not be. What about missiles and radar, the Serbs experienced a shortage of elementary shells for the receiver of anti-aircraft artillery.
    In addition, in Yugoslavia there was no air defense as a system. The basis of the Air Force is the MiG-21.
    And the S-125 air defense system is the development of 50-60.
    If we are talking about Iraq, then the Nighthawks were let off the chain when they practically suppressed all the radar systems. BEFORE the first shock wave of aviation, more than a hundred Tomahawks were struck at all Iraqi air defense facilities, on target designation prepared in advance by radio reconnaissance aircraft deployed along the borders of Iraq up to and including AVKS. And what remained was suppressed by F-4G, A-6, F / A-18 and "Tornado" missiles AGM-88 HARM and British anti-radar missiles ALARM.
    Then the Apaches worked on the systems of object air defense. And only then the "invisible" nighthawks proudly entered the business. They defiantly gouged the position of the air defense system.

    And again, there was nothing in Iraq, modern night hoku, All the same C-75 and C-125.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 28 March 2016 16: 45
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      Quote: gregor6549
      So many g .. poured onto a plane F117 not poured on any other. But if you look at the statistics of its combat use, then these statistics are not so crappy, especially when you consider that he flew to bomb the targets tightly covered by modern air defense systems at that time.


      Uh-uh, excuse me for any goals than covered ones? What are modern air defense systems for?
      If we are talking about Yugoslavia, then I remind you, Yugoslavia has never been included in the Warsaw Pact. And modern weapons were not there and could not be. What about missiles and radar, the Serbs experienced a shortage of elementary shells for the receiver of anti-aircraft artillery.
      In addition, in Yugoslavia there was no air defense as a system. The basis of the Air Force is the MiG-21.
      And the S-125 air defense system is the development of 50-60.
      If we are talking about Iraq, then the Nighthawks were let off the chain when they practically suppressed all the radar systems. BEFORE the first shock wave of aviation, more than a hundred Tomahawks were struck at all Iraqi air defense facilities, on target designation prepared in advance by radio reconnaissance aircraft deployed along the borders of Iraq up to and including AVKS. And what remained was suppressed by F-4G, A-6, F / A-18 and "Tornado" missiles AGM-88 HARM and British anti-radar missiles ALARM.
      Then the Apaches worked on the systems of object air defense. And only then the "invisible" nighthawks proudly entered the business. They defiantly gouged the position of the air defense system.

      And again, there was nothing in Iraq, modern night hoku, All the same C-75 and C-125.


      You do not confuse the first with the second?
  24. mav1971
    mav1971 28 March 2016 16: 45
    +2
    The author is a liar.
    He deliberately introduces misinformation.
    Even 2 years ago, absolutely all restrictions were removed from the F-22.

    http://topwar.ru/26516-s-istrebiteley-f-22-snyali-vse-letnye-ogranicheniya.html

    If you are trying to write, write honestly. Just don't lie!
    And if you do not own the subject, are not able to search for information - do not poke around writing articles.

    Trying to unscrew in any direction - know - you're lying!
    And any of your lies are always bad.
    Both misinformation and the beyond.

    Go write fantastic books about an alternative story ...
  25. sivuch
    sivuch 28 March 2016 21: 27
    0
    Gregor
    In combat use, you are wrong in almost everything
  26. sivuch
    sivuch 28 March 2016 22: 55
    0
    The author did not say a word that the EPR depends not only on the angle and relative speed of the target, but also on the radar wavelength, and this is first and foremost. In the same Serbia, all cases of stealth detection (and there were more than one) are meter Terekami.
    In principle, you can argue about the effectiveness as much as you like, but the fact remains - the combat use of the Goblins was constantly reduced, but the CR, on the contrary, increased
  27. Russian dream
    Russian dream 29 March 2016 06: 48
    0
    The plane participated in several wars, threw a lot of bombs and bombed opponents in the Stone Age. For all time 1 plane was lost! Outstanding result.
    Is it too early to be written off ?!