Military Review

The scale and causes of the “strategic failure” of the fleets and the USAF and Australian air forces in the light of the write-off of F-14D and F-111C / E / G

61

All serial versions of deck multipurpose interceptor fighters of the F-14A “Tomcat” family have an important tactical advantage - a two-seat cockpit. As on the Su-30CM or F-15E, on the Super Tomcats, the 2 pilot performs the role of the avionics operator, controlling the AN / APG-71 radar station, the infrared television sighting system IRSTS, analyzing the radiation sources on the AN / ALR- indicator 67, as well as observing information about the tactical situation, obtained from the board of the deck aircraft DRLOiU E-2C / D via radio "Link-16". The F-14D's good information field, based on the 2's compact LCD MFIs in the pilot and 3-like indicators from the operator of the systems (central - large), in addition to the ability to scan the earth and water surface, can be attributed to “Super Tomcat” by generation "4 +." A possible upgrade of these machines would also include updating the dashboards of the pilots, because despite the presence of MFIs in the front cockpit, their size does not allow fully duplicating the operator’s cab, and a large number of electromechanical analog devices that occupy most of the area dashboards. Despite the tandem layout of the F-14A / D pilots, there is a drawback in the cabin layout: the visual front view of the system operator is severely limited, since his seat is located at the level of the first pilot seat



Tactical and strategic combat aircraft aviation with variable wing geometry, they began to delight and interest amateurs and experts in the field of aerospace technologies, and also fell in love with military pilots more than 52 years ago, when in December 1964 the first prototype of a multi-purpose long-range fighter-bomber F took off -111A "Aardvark", which later turned into several universal shock modifications with strategic capabilities specifically for the American and Australian Navy and Air Force. The variable wing geometry gave aviation two important tactical qualities: low-altitude flight following the terrain at a transonic or low supersonic speed to overcome the enemy air defense system (with the wing folded) and mid-altitude or high-altitude flight at subsonic cruising speeds with the wing open, used for the minimum flow rate fuel for flights over long distances within the vast regional theater of operations. This category of cars also includes those withdrawn from the American fleet F-14A "Tomcat" family carrier-based interceptor / multirole fighters, which are being actively replaced by the very dubious F / A-18E / F "Super Hornet" tactical and technical specifications and the terribly slow 1,3-missile multirole fighter aircraft 5 -th generation F-35C.

This review continues an interesting, but very short and summarizing opinion of an unnamed Chinese author and columnist in the field of military equipment, which was published on the Military Parity resource, which briefly described the scale of tactical omissions that came into the American fleet after the cancellation of all modifications of the deck Tomcats "And" Super Tomcata ". A similar situation exists with the F-111 fighter-bomber that was decommissioned, together with the EF EF-111A "Raven" versions in the USAF at the end of 90, and in Australia at the end of 2010. The completion of the deployment of these machines, of course, for the worse affected the operational capabilities of the long-range tactical strike aircraft of the US Air Force. The magnitude of the omissions is no less than a bit like the freezing of the integration program of the strategic low-profile AGM-129A / B / C ACM strategic missile into the armaments of the B-52H and B-1B "Lancer" strategic bombers, as the efficiency of the Australian Air Force and the US Air Force in Indo has sharply decreased - Asia Pacific. Both Super Tomkaty and Trubkozuby possessed all the qualities necessary for the implementation of the BSU concept, as well as an enormous modernization potential for successful service in the 21st century, but the Americans safely missed this opportunity for us.


Australian F-111C "Aardvark" (in the RAAF they were called "Pig", - "Pig") in the number of 24 long-range strike fighter-bomber became the main patrol aircraft of the Air Force in IATR. The huge radius of action in 2000 km, as well as the speed of 2400 km / h made it possible in a matter of hours to reach one or another point in Southeast Asia, as well as near borders in the Indian and Pacific oceans with 14-tonnage rocket-bomb "equipment" on 8 nodes suspension. It consisted of: PRLR AGM-88 HARM, modifications of the air-to-ground tactical missiles AGM-65 "Maveric", as well as various precision bombs with a semi-active laser seeker or satellite guidance system. Today, these unique machines are decommissioned by the RAAF and are being replaced by “positional” and slow “Super Hornets”.


WHAT DID THE US NAVY LOST AFTER THE "CARE" OF "SUPER TOMKETA"?

Grumman's specialists, who won the Pentagon's 3 February 1969 contest for the promising VFX interceptor fighter ("Variable geometry Fighter Experimental" or "Navy Fighter Geometry"), originally announced in 1968, initially relied on the design of the glider with variable geometry wing, because they knew that such a wing would make of the future F-14A a truly multi-purpose deck aircraft complex, allowing the fleet to not only effectively defend aircraft carrier strike groups from tactical fighters, strategic bombers and enemy aviation, but also to escort their missile-carrying bombers within a radius of up to 1500 km from AUG without refueling, and also to carry out strike operations at a similar distance from the aircraft carrier. The solid experience gained by the “Grummen” in the design and mass production of the F-111A / B / C / D was also used in relation to the “Tomkat”, and therefore any questions concerning the aerodynamic qualities of the wing at various sweep angles were quickly resolved or absent altogether.

The most important, one might even say, revolutionary, can be considered the design of the power plant and the tail planes of the airframe. Firstly, the engine nacelles of 2 "Pratt & Whitney" TF30-P-414A turbojet engines were separated by a decent distance from each other, which, in comparison with "Phantoms" and "Aardvarks", dramatically increased the survivability of the vehicle in the event of damage to one of the engines ( a similar scheme found its application in our multipurpose fighters of the MiG-29, Su-27 and T-50 PAK-FA families, as well as the Chinese J-11 and J-15). The first design solution led to the second: the glider received a tail unit with 2 vertical stabilizers located directly on the nacelles and above the engine nozzles. This solution made it possible to avoid the strong torque in the yaw plane when flying with one engine running. The moment arose due to the decent separation of the engines from the longitudinal axis of the airframe. The large total area of ​​the stabilizers compensated for all these disadvantages. This design was also supported by the entry into service of the USSR Air Force of the high-speed interceptor MiG-25P, which also has a large two-fin vertical tail.

Like any high-speed interceptor, the F-14A received adjustable air intakes for external compression engines with a bucket-type engine, where the air flow is adjusted by deflecting the ramps at the top of the air intakes. The air intake duct clearance created by the automatic ramp movement depends on the height, speed, angle of attack and the current aircraft mass. Fully ramps are revealed in high-speed and high-altitude interception modes. Due to the wide use of titanium alloys (24,4%), aluminum (39,4%) and boro-epoxy materials (0,6%) with a small amount of steel elements (17,4%), the airframe of the machine, even with taking into account drives of changing the geometry of the wing and V -shaped titanium beam with a caisson design with a central transverse wing of the wing, turned out to be quite light and durable, allowing you to implement loads to 7 units. The empty mass of the F-14A was 18,1 tons, and the normal take-off mass with a pair of Phoenixes (AIM-54A / B) and a pair of Sparrow (AIM-7F / M) approached 26 tons. This, of course, did not allow to have a thrust-weight level at the 1,0 level with the engines of the first versions, but allowed to reach this level later (in the 1986-th year), when the first experienced F-14D "Super Tomcat" took off, which is a serial F-14B with significantly more powerful General Electic TRDDF F110-GE-400 12700 kg / s. The high aerodynamic qualities of the F-14A glider, as well as adjustable air intakes, ensured a maximum speed of 2480 km / h (without suspensions) and around 2200 km / h (with suspensions), which is approximately 25% higher than the current F / A-18E / F "Super Hornet". But these are only the visible benefits of the Super Tomcat.

Having removed the Tomcats from the US Navy on September 23, 2006, the fleet command made bets on the less complicated and expensive Super Hornets to maintain. It is no secret that the accident rate of these aircraft is much lower than that of the first versions of the F-14, and the speed of the established turn in the "dog dump" (close maneuverable air combat) is also higher due to the higher thrust-to-weight ratio and large influxes at the wing root; But this is not the main thing when the E-2D Hawkeye detects, 600 km from the AUG, up to hundreds of strategic cruise missiles, which are approaching, for example, a friendly naval base in the Philippines: F / A-18E / F with its 1700 km / h they will not be able to do anything for sure, and the range of 800 km for long-distance interceptions is clearly small. But the F-14D could really "make the weather", especially when using the advanced interceptor missiles AIM-54C "Phoenix" and AIM-120D AMRAAM. And the accident rate of these modifications was no longer at such a critical level as in the first fighters with TF-30 engines from Pratt & Whitney.

What can be said about the maneuverability of the Tomcats? Like any aircraft with a thrust-weight ratio significantly lower than the 1,0, the first modification of the TomCat cannot be compared with such power-up maneuvers as the MiG-29C, Su-35C, F-16C, F-15C / E / SE and F / A-18E / F. Nevertheless, the “bully-cat” could always “show its teeth”, and often it did in training battles with our front-line MiG-23LD fighters based in the 80s. on the Vietnamese Avb Cam Ranh, as part of the 169 of the mixed air regiment. When our fighters took to the air on patrol, the pilots of the American F-14A, carrying air on the South China Sea, took the Twenty-third to escort them in advance thanks to the powerful on-board pulse-Doppler radar with a slit antenna array (AAR) AN / AWG- 9, this happened at a distance of 200 km, the MiG-31B with its “Shield” was then at the pre-production stage, and we did not have the tools for a decent response. And they had “Phoenixes” on active suspensions with active radar seeker and range up to 180 km. Further, according to the logic of things, there was a rapprochement and our machines entered into imitation short-range air battles with American Tomcats, half of which often ended in victory for the latter: everything depended on the training and experience of our and American pilots. In other words, the maneuverability of the first version of the F-14A was not so bad, and this is understandable from the published documentation of the initial stage of tests of the deck fighter-interceptor: the maximum angle of attack reached 41 degrees, a sharp turn in the pitch plane without loss of controllability could reach 90 degrees (almost “Pugachev's Cobra”, there is even a video in “YouTube” to prove it), the glider confidently maintained the 9,5 multiple positive overload, which is comparable to the performance of most modern tactics Sgiach fighters. The excellent bearing qualities of the airframe in the maximum wing sweep mode (68 degrees) are realized due to the combination of aerodynamic properties of the wing and the fuselage surface between the nacelles, and the full turning rear tailgate (elevators) also plays a role: high maneuverability qualities at transonic and supersonic speeds.

An interesting fact is that the aerodynamic quality of the F-14A-D glider has a 9,1 coefficient, which is even higher than that of the European multi-purpose fighter EF-2000 "Typhoon" (the factor is 8,8). It is also known that the new engines from General Electric F-110-GE-400 increased the afterburner per midsection by 34% in the F-14D Super Tomcat modification: from 1481,25 kg / sq. m, it increased to 1984 kg / sq. The result was an increase in the acceleration qualities of the Tomcat, an increase in the climb from 150 to 180 m / s (by 20%), an increase in thrust ratio to 0,85 - 1,0 (depending on the type of suspension and amount of fuel), and the possibility of flying from a small supersonic cruising speed (up to 1,25M) that the “Super Hornets” pilots did not “dream the best”. H 8 suspension can be placed up to 6580 kg of high-precision rocket-bomb armament and various optical-electronic sighting and navigation containers for conducting reconnaissance and target designation at a large distance from the target. But this is information that can be calculated with the help of simple mathematical operations, a more complicated and interesting point - the modernization of all versions of Tomcata, which depends directly on the fuselage design.

“F-14D + BLOCK X”: VARIATIONS ON THE TOPIC OF MODERNIZATION OR FOLLOWING THE “SILENT WITH NEEDLE”

F-15E's “Srike Eagle” and F-15C “Eagle” profoundly improved and merged to a single updated version of the F-15SE “Silent Eagle” is today the main highlight of the Boeing Corporation in achieving its many billions of contracts among the large list of Arab States in the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, and the Republic of Korea. Combining the best flight-technical and combat qualities of the two key versions of the Eagle, the F-15SE received an advanced glider with a tailing angle of tail vertical empennage, as well as extensive use of radio absorbing materials, which reduced the radar signature to EPR indicators around 0,7 - 1 square. The conformal armaments compartments located immediately behind the air intakes contribute to this. They hide the radio-contrast active homing heads of AIM-120C / D missiles from the enemy radar exposure. The new airborne radar AN / APG-63 (V) 3 c AFAR implemented in Silent Eagle the possibility of high-precision work both on small airborne and ground targets, probably in the mode of the synthesized aperture. The parameters of this radar are close to AN / APG-81, mounted on low-profile fighters of the F-35 family, in particular, the detection range of the Rafale-type air target from AN / APG-63 (V) 3 is 150 km, and of the type “F- 15C ”- 215 km. The F-14A "Tomcat" has been sharpened for such an improvement.

The main emphasis in the modernization is on reducing the radar visibility of the aircraft. As applied to the F-14D "Super Tomcat", it is giving the angle of dilution to vertical tail stabilizers within 20 — 30 degrees for the most effective spread of the irradiating electromagnetic wave of the enemy radar, introducing radio-absorbing materials into the air intake edges and winged fixed flows, changing the geometry of airway channels, changing airway inlets and airfoils, changing the geometry of airway inlets and airfoils. in front of the blades of the engine compressors in order to avoid the reflection of the radar radiation of the enemy’s radar, the creation of an improved design the cab light (avoiding right angles and rounding in the flashlight binding model, radio absorbing materials in the binding elements).

The second point is the installation of the internal weapons compartment. Like the F-14D "Super Tomcat", and with the earlier versions of the deck multipurpose fighter, there is a rather large niche between the engine nacelles; its width is about 1,6 m, thanks to which a large weapons compartment longer than 4,5 m could be built in, which could fit from 4 to 6 long-range air-to-air missiles AIM-120D. Firstly, it would significantly increase the value of the “Super Tomcat” as a long-range interceptor and deck fighter to gain air supremacy, secondly, it would eliminate the external suspension in operations that require overcoming the enemy’s ground and air defense, and therefore additional decrease in ESR. The armament compartment could also accommodate such high-precision armament as small-sized planning bombs GBU-39 SDB, moreover in quantities up to 10 units, making the F-14D an excellent tactical strike fighter of the 4 ++ generation.

No less interesting is the consideration of a possible upgrade of the F-14 D “Super Tomcat” avionics, where the fighter’s BRLS comes to the fore. The Super Tomcats were equipped with the AN / APG-71 radar, which, unlike the purely anti-aircraft AN / AWG-9, was the first most powerful stories deck-mounted multi-mode radar aircraft capable of operating on land, sea and air targets within a radius of up to 250 km, while its instrumental range reached 370 km. The fact is, AN / APG-71 is a modification of the AN / APG-70 station installed on tactical fighter F-15E "Strike Eagle", but with improved energy performance. The antenna array AN / APG-71 is 914 mm in diameter, with an azimuthal field of view 160 degrees (in the AN / AWG-9 radar, it is 130 degrees). Later, it was planned to improve the software for controlling the on-board radar modes by including the algorithms used on the Strike Needle: this is the SAR (synthesized aperture) mode, the terrain following mode, and the Doppler mode; the latter, as is well known, allows one to accurately calculate the radial velocities of the objects being accompanied, and also boasts a high degree of noise immunity. But all the works “froze” simultaneously with the completion of the combat deployment of “Tomcats” and “Super Tomcats” based on the AUG of the US Navy, while the upgraded F-14D could get a radar of a fundamentally new type.

The internal dimensions of the radio transparent fairing F-14D fair fighter are adapted to the installation of virtually any version of the American airborne radar. The favorites could be AN / APG-63 (V) 3, AN / APG-81 and even AN / APG-77 stations installed on Raptors, the combat power and tactical features of such a bastard would have surpassed those with which we are familiar in “Super Hornets”, with the exception, of course, of stable maneuverability in long-term BVB, because the controlled thrust vector for F110-GE-400 has not yet been developed, and “lit up” only in conjunction with the F100-PW-100 TRDDF for an experimental super-maneuverable American fighter F-15 ACTIVE, which was not in the series.

The combined optical-electronic sighting system IRSTS installed under the radar nose radar, which allows observing ground, surface and air targets in infrared and television channels at a distance of up to 80 km in the daytime and at night, could be replaced with an optical-electronic IR system with the DAS aperture distributed over the glider of the fighter, used in the F-35A avionics, or its equivalent. Such an F-14D + would become an excellent reconnaissance-strike deck unit of the US Navy, capable of performing air defense functions. With regards to DAS, we can note the growth of “stealth” -the capabilities of the aircraft possessing it. As in the case of our optical-electronic sighting complexes OLS-UEM (MiG-35), 8ТК (MiG-31), 36Ш / OLS-27К (Su-27 / 33) and OLS-35 (Su-35С / 50), AN / AAQ-37 DAS is capable in passive mode (with radar off) to detect and track air targets far from 100 (tactical aircraft) to 1000 or more kilometers (starting OTBR and ICBM), AIM- missiles can be launched to targets 120D, which will be detected already on the approach to the target, either by its radar tools or according to STR, which notifies about the irradiation of ARGSN. "Tomkat" with full 2-swing afterburner could start leaving with the included EW complex. F-14D + would have an order of magnitude more anti-aircraft / anti-missile, anti-ship and pure impact capabilities confidently supported by a large radius of action, speed and number of suspension nodes, but the Americans were inclined towards simplicity, “dubious” cheapness and limited advantages of “Super Hornets”, depriving its strategically important fleet of the “long arm” for decades, which is beneficial both to us and to China.
Author:
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 7 June 2016 07: 13
    +12
    The review continues with an interesting, but very short and generalized opinion. unnamed Chinese author writer in the field of military equipment

    Chinese reviewers are not always objective, IMHO ... request
    Citizen D. Majumdar won himself as an expert in the field of military equipment, but in reality he was a two-way student! lol

    F-14A "Tomcat", which are actively being replaced by the very questionable in terms of overall performance parameters F / A-18E / F "Super Hornet" and the terribly slow 1,3-swing deck multirole fighter of the 5 generation F-35C.

    Well, F-35 is still a turd, but according to Super Hornet a controversial statement! The aircraft is still successful and reliable, and its younger age, in comparison with the Cat, involves a greater modernization resource, just based on logic.
    First, the 2's Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-414A engine nacelles were spaced a decent distance apart, which compared to Phantoms and Aardvarks dramatically increased the survivability of the machine in the event of damage to one of the engines ( a similar scheme has found its application in our multi-role fighters of the MiG-29, Su-27 and T-50 PAK-FA families, as well as the Chinese J-11 and J-15)

    I believe that the nacelles were carried for another reason, completely unrelated to the survivability of the car. As a matter of fact, both on MiGs and Sushki. Vitality here as a bonus.
    Nevertheless, the “cat-bully” could always “show its teeth”, and often did this in training battles with our MiG-23MLD front-line fighters

    there was a rapprochement and our cars entered into simulated close air battles with the American Tomcat, half which often ended in victory for the latter

    If not the most successful Soviet fighter of the third generation wins half of the imitation fights of the interceptor, in fact, of the fourth generation, then this is more to the merit of the design bureaus of Mikoyan than the engineers of Grumman!
    but the Americans leaned towards the simplicity, “dubious” cheapness and limited advantages of the Super Hornets, depriving their strategically important fleet of “long arms” for decades, which is beneficial to us and China

    Low bow to the US "sawflies"!
    In general, the article is interesting, I read it with pleasure!
    E. Damantsev + from me! hi
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 8 June 2016 21: 30
      0
      The article is sensible. Thanks to the author +!
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 June 2016 21: 35
        0
        there could be stations AN / APG-63 (V) 3, AN / APG-81, and even AN / APG-77 installed on the Raptors, the combat power and tactical features of such a deck would be many times greater than those we are familiar with Super Hornets

        Praise God that this did not happen yes
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 8 June 2016 21: 36
      0
      If my sclerosis does not change me, the separation of the engines was associated with the elimination of the loss of propulsive power due to the interference of jet streams. All other achievements are additional "goodies" and are not reasons. what
      1. The comment was deleted.
  2. bober1982
    bober1982 7 June 2016 08: 14
    +3
    Withdrawal from service of the F-111 did not reduce the strike capabilities of American aviation. The aircraft is outdated, as well as the very scheme of aircraft with variable wing geometry. I do not agree with the author when he reports: [i] [i] The variable wing geometry gave aviation two important tactical qualities - low-altitude flight in the mode of following the terrain at transonic or low supersonic speeds ......... and mid-altitude flight at subsonic cruising speeds with the wing open ... for minimum fuel consumption ....
    If you do not take into account the peculiar style of presentation in the article (aeronautical terminology), then flying at extremely low altitude with bending around the relief cannot be performed at supersound, and is very problematic at speeds close to the speed of sound.
    The Americans quite quickly abandoned the variable wing geometry, as unpromising.
    1. castle
      castle 7 June 2016 09: 10
      .
      This is one of the reasons why the "dumb" Americans have given up on the B-1 and move on. But Tu-160 is the pride of Russia. Although experts know that this is not pride, but ordinary people powder it into their brains. Everything in Strugatsky, "Inhabited Island"
      1. Operator
        Operator 7 June 2016 09: 52
        +12
        "Smart" Americans rivet Penguins, and "dumb" Russian Su-35S.

        Tu-160 is the carrier of the X-101 / 102 cruise missiles with a range of 5500 km. What kind of air defense will he break through at an extremely low altitude?

        Aviation platforms - carriers of cruise missiles "Caliber-A" with a nuclear warhead and a range of 2500+ km potentially include all military and civil aviation aircraft with a takeoff weight of 10 tons or more.

        "This is war, baby" (C), not fiction.
      2. RomanS
        RomanS 8 June 2016 22: 09
        +1
        Well, yes, you're right ... The Americans came up with B-2. Unreal coolness! (In dollars).
    2. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 7 June 2016 10: 58
      +9
      Quote: bober1982
      The aircraft is outdated, as well as the scheme of aircraft with variable wing geometry.

      The F-111 has a combat radius of 2140 kilometers, a combat load of 14290 kilograms. What modern tactical bomber can boast of such indicators? + Speed ​​2655 km / h?
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 7 June 2016 11: 40
        0
        I agree that the F-111 had excellent combat characteristics. But it would not be right to compare it with a tactical bomber. This aircraft also solved strategic problems. You can’t compare it with the Su-24, in general, not a very good copy of the F-111
        The plane was very expensive to operate, and expensive.
        1. Papandopulo
          Papandopulo 7 June 2016 11: 56
          0
          Is a tornado a copy of the F-111 too?
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 7 June 2016 12: 09
            +5
            No, the Tornado has nothing to do with the F-111, and it cannot be.
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 7 June 2016 21: 12
              +2
              Those. Su-24 is a bad copy, and Tornado is not a copy or a bad one? )))) Oh well. Su-24s performed a combat mission in Syria quite at the level of American aircraft. Such a "bad" copy of the Communists has turned out - is still not outdated.
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 8 June 2016 14: 00
                0
                I did not call the Su-24 a bad copy, I called it not too successful compared to the original, so to speak. Moreover, the F-111 is a veteran of the Vietnam War, our Su-24 is Afghan, the difference in years is big.
                I can't say anything about "Tornado", neither good nor bad, I just don't know, and I was not particularly interested. Although your words are not clear ... Isn't a tornado a copy and a bad one? If this is not a copy, then what does it mean: and not bad? what exactly?
                Su-24 and F-111 are classic bombers, although they are sometimes called (not correctly) - fighter-bombers, and therefore it is inappropriate to compare these aircraft with Tornadoes, in different categories.
                1. Papandopulo
                  Papandopulo 11 June 2016 01: 47
                  -1
                  Each "copy" has its own "original". You can't express yourself like that.
      2. Operator
        Operator 7 June 2016 11: 55
        +3
        For a Su-35С single-seat fighter with a take-off weight of 34,5 tons, the combat radius with two hanging tanks is 2000 km, and the maximum combat load is 8 tons.
        The total thrust of the Su-35С engines in 29 tons and the airframe, designed for operational overload in 10g, allow to increase the take-off weight to 45 tons and, accordingly, the combat load to 18 tons, provided the chassis is strengthened to the level of Su-34.

        Therefore, the F-111 two-seater bomber with a take-off weight of 45 tons has to go to rest.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 7 June 2016 12: 10
          +1
          He was sent to rest.
          1. Operator
            Operator 7 June 2016 12: 53
            -1
            I mean peace in the sense of the lack of galvanization F-111, as in the article by Evgeny Damantsev laughing
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 7 June 2016 13: 06
              0
              I will not argue.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 8 June 2016 11: 01
          -2
          "The total thrust of the Su-35S engines is 29 tons" ////

          Is that a lot, do you think?
          2 X 86,3 = 172,6 for the Su-35. Cruising supersonic can't
          provide. Therefore, they design for PAK-FA another, more powerful motor.
          2 X 116 = 232 for F-22
          1 X 125 = 125 U F-35
          Both have cruising supersonic
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Operator
            Operator 8 June 2016 12: 22
            +1
            Oh, the new trick is cruising supersonic (flying at supersonic speed at the engine afterburning mode).
            It is determined by the ratio of the maximum after-thrust to the normal flight weight of the aircraft (thrust ratio) and the ratio of the normal flight weight of the aircraft to the wing area (wing load) - the more the better:
            F-22 ~ thrust 21 tf, weight 30 t, speed 1960 km / h or 1,82 M (thrust-weight ratio 0,7 tf / t, wing load 385 kg / sq.m)
            Su-35С ~ thrust 17,6 tf, weight 25,3 t, speed 1938 km / h or 1,8 M (thrust-weight ratio 0,69 tf / t, wing load 411 kg / sq.m)
            F-35A ~ thrust 13 tf, weight 24,4 t, speed 1290 km / h or 1,2 M (thrust-weight ratio 0,53 tf / t, wing load 571 kg / sq.m)
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 8 June 2016 14: 47
              -1
              "Oh, new feature - cruising supersonic" ////

              This is an important feature. When they start up from afterburning supersonic
              missile BB, it receives an additional impulse.

              Therefore, the afterburner flight of 1,2 MAX for a distance of 250 km of Penguin is more important than the fast and the furious for a few seconds to 1,8 MAX of Drying.
              1. Parsec
                Parsec 8 June 2016 15: 07
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                When they start up from afterburning supersonic
                missile BB, it receives an additional impulse.


                Yah?
                Why do they need them?

                Afterburning supersound is needed for quick withdrawal to the lines of attack and deployment in the required areas.

                Sculpt again ...
              2. Operator
                Operator 8 June 2016 15: 44
                +2
                If the Su-35С can briefly fly the 1,8 M with maximum thrust, then even more so, it can fly for a long time on the 1,2 M with less thrust.

                The most economical supersonic speed (based on the minimum wave impedance) for any aircraft is the 1,6 M. It is she who is the supersonic non-boost cruising speed for both the F-22 Raptor and the Su-35С. F-35 cannot reach the 1,6 M afterburners due to low thrust-to-weight ratio.

                As Parsec correctly explained, supersonic cruising speed serves for a quick and relatively economical flight from the base to the battlefield. After which fighters reduce their speed to 900 km / h, as the most effective for performing maneuvers and cruising subsonic flight.

                A range of speeds below 900 km / h is used for barrage or fueling the air, a range of speeds above 1,6 M is used to intercept high-speed targets or detach from the enemy in catch-up courses.

                The use of the maximum afterburner or non-afterburner speed to increase the momentum of air-to-air missiles is in principle possible, but in practice it is not used due to the reduction of the fighter's combat radius. The only exception to this rule is the launch of anti-satellite missiles.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 8 June 2016 22: 24
                  0
                  "After which the fighters reduce their speed to 900 km / h, as the most
                  effective for performing maneuvers "////

                  The raptor is planned specifically for conducting air combat at supersonic, and not at all for
                  "Fast flight to the place of battle".
                  But for hits on the ground, the speed of 0.9 MAX is optimal. F-35 is imprisoned on it.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 9 June 2016 11: 28
                    +1
                    "The Raptor is designed specifically for supersonic air combat" (C) laughing

                    Type flew all such stealth at 90 km (the longest range of missile use for maneuverable targets) to the Su-35С, launched the AIM-120D with radio command guidance and fly at supersonic cruising speed directly towards the Su-35С, transmitting radio commands to the rocket using the nose radar.

                    In this case, the Su-35С will launch the RVV-DB with radio command guidance using the tail radar, turn it 180 degrees, turn on the afterburner, will not allow to reduce the distance and will hit the F-22 in the forehead with the RVV-DB before the AIM-120D can capture the goal of its GOS.

                    The moral is that no one but a kamikaze will fly in long-range aerial combat at supersonic speed.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 10 June 2016 13: 56
                      +1
                      You really have an extraordinary fantasy. So paint in full details
                      fictional air battle! fellow
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 10 June 2016 14: 48
                        -1
                        Do not be shy - I am far from yours: "The Raptor is designed specifically for air combat at supersonic" (C) laughing

                        And then what for him then the UVT and the lowest in the class 30-40 tons of specific load on the wing (in the last indicator, it even surpasses the Su-35С)?

                        Hint - the efficiency of the controlled aerodynamic surfaces at supersonic sound exceeds the efficiency of the shock wave drive, and the low specific load on the wing slows down the aircraft.
              3. GSH-18
                GSH-18 8 June 2016 21: 54
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                This is an important feature. When they start up from afterburning supersonic
                missile BB, it receives an additional impulse.

                Here the warrior is right.
                But only starting with the latest Su-30 versions, non-afterburning supersonic sound has become commonplace on our Sukhoi fighters.
            2. GSH-18
              GSH-18 8 June 2016 21: 52
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Su-35S ~ thrust 17,6 tf, weight 25,3 t, speed 1938 km / h or 1,8 M

              Not true! 17,6 must be multiplied by 2! On the Su-35 TWO engine. Thus, the thrust-to-weight ratio is much larger than unity! It began with the Su-30 and as tradition continues on the following models yes
              1. Operator
                Operator 9 June 2016 11: 34
                -1
                You, dear, first familiarize yourself with the afterburner traction one engine Su-35С, and then already state what is true and what is not true.
          3. GSH-18
            GSH-18 8 June 2016 21: 49
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The total thrust of the Su-35S engines is 29 tons "////

            Is that a lot, do you think?
            2 X 86,3 = 172,6 for the Su-35. Cruising supersonic can't
            provide. Therefore, they design for PAK-FA another, more powerful motor.
            2 X 116 = 232 for F-22
            1 X 125 = 125 U F-35
            Both have cruising supersonic

            Warrior, do you even understand yourself that you are nonsense? On the Su-35, as well as on the T-50, identical engines are installed, at the same time for the T-50 they are engines of the 1st stage. Nevertheless, both the Su-35 and the T-50 fully maintain the parameter of the afterburner supersonic flight. Otherwise, there would be no talk of their excellent combat radiuses today. The engine of the 2nd stage for the T-50 will have a power debit in different modes from 4 to 8 percent. Which is very significant. But this is not the main thing! The engine of the 2nd stage will have a significantly greater motor resource. For this, it is created by ours now. Yours faithfully yes
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 8 June 2016 22: 31
              +1
              "The engine of the 2nd stage will have a significantly longer service life" ////

              Good afternoon! And then the engines of the Indian Su-30 after 3-4 days of very intensive training
              battles with the F-15 in the United States completely failed (for all aircraft). They were changed.
              Super-maneuverability with the rotation of nozzles ruins the engines rapidly ...
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 8 June 2016 22: 39
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                "The engine of the 2nd stage will have a significantly longer service life" ////

                Good afternoon! And then the engines of the Indian Su-30 after 3-4 days of very intensive training
                battles with the F-15 in the United States completely failed (for all aircraft). They were changed.
                Super-maneuverability with the rotation of nozzles ruins the engines rapidly ...

                About the total replacement of engines in Indian dryers, I heard it looks like a fake. Again unproven.
                Nonetheless, the Indians tore America as a Bobik heating pad! Both in the Indian phase and in the American lol
                Only here their Drying is an export, stripped-down option. Well, you understand, yes, what am I talking about? wink
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 9 June 2016 09: 00
                  +2
                  "Nevertheless, the Indians tore the Americans like Bobby a heating pad!" ////

                  The Americans themselves write from this with great irony.
                  The goals were different. The Hindus wanted to win, and the Americans wanted to thoroughly explore the possibilities of the Dryers. On the one hand, the Americans succumbed, on the other hand, they forced the Indians (those, of course, sent the best aces) to squeeze the maximum out of the Su-30, including afterburners, nozzle turns, and all aerobatics.
                  The Americans themselves never fight like that. They try to build their groups in such a way as to bring down with guarantee, with insurance, without any dog ​​dumps.
                  Therefore, they were very pleased with the results, unrestrainedly praised the skill of the Hindu pilots (which the truth was at the highest level).
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 9 June 2016 11: 41
                    -2
                    We believe you - the Americans succumbed (losing their reputation), the Indians overheated engines, they showed awesome skills, the US Air Force Secretary personally praised the Idnian colleagues for the defeat of the F-22 in close air combat, but you have no references to this laughing

                    But is it that the main fighter of the Russian Aerospace Forces is a single Su-35С, and not a double Su-30?
                    1. Bongo
                      Bongo 9 June 2016 11: 46
                      +2
                      Quote: Operator
                      But is it that the main fighter of the Russian Aerospace Forces is a single Su-35С, and not a double Su-30?

                      Main? True? Did not know... No. Andrey, "urya-patriotism" just let it go, it brings you too much once again.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 9 June 2016 12: 30
                        -4
                        I do not believe that you did NOT understand what I wanted to say - in comparison with the double Su-30, the single-seat Su-35С is the main one for the Russian Aerospace Forces.
                      2. Bongo
                        Bongo 9 June 2016 13: 24
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        I do not believe that you did NOT understand what I wanted to say - in comparison with the double Su-30, the single-seat Su-35С is the main one for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

                        The "main" so far are the Su-27s of various modifications. Do you even know how many IAPs the Su-35S is equipped with and how things were with missile armament for this aircraft until recently?
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 9 June 2016 16: 05
                        -4
                        "Until recently" we didn't have a lot of things.
                        Do you know how much IU Su-35С will be equipped with?
                      4. Bongo
                        Bongo 10 June 2016 02: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        "Until recently" we didn't have a lot of things.

                        Do not play with words, a fighter that is in service single IAP can not be "the main". Let's talk not about the" wonderful future ", but about what we have. The Su-30 in our Air Force (VKS) at the moment is much larger.

                        Parking Su-35С 23-go IAP, photo from the personal collection


                        Quote: Operator
                        Do you know how much IU Su-35С will be equipped with?

                        It is known, but about 100 fighters will not be able to replace in the future all the Su-27 to be decommissioned. Moreover, it was not from a good life that the Soviet-made P-27 was introduced into the armament. Only recently, the epic with new missiles has moved towards practical implementation.

                        You know Andrei, no offense, but you have one feature that does not allow you to take you and what you write seriously. Having certain knowledge, you are very inclined to wishful thinking, absolutely detaching yourself from reality ..
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 10 June 2016 09: 59
                        -2
                        No offense, you also have a trait - idolatry in front of Western wunderwaves ("only recently", "epic", "moved towards practical realization" - why pedal what has already been overcome).

                        How do you know the Su-35S production program? "About a hundred" is 90 or 190 units? If you do not know, then do not pass off the desired (90) as valid (190).

                        And refresh your memory about the number of F-22 and F-35 released.
                      6. Bongo
                        Bongo 10 June 2016 10: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        you also have a trait - idolatry before the western prodigies

                        In which place? what
                        Quote: Operator
                        "only recently", "epic", "moved towards practical implementation" - why pedal what has already been overcome

                        Are you sure that is overcome? No. You are a great optimist, until the second half of 2015 the Su-35S were essentially "doves of peace", and even now the problems with armament have not been completely resolved, they got off with half measures. I personally made a photo of Jomog, I inserted it into the comments for a reason.
                        Quote: Operator
                        How do you know the Su-35C release program?


                        Firstly, this is open information, and secondly, I live and work in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

                        Quote: Operator
                        And refresh your memory about the number of F-22 and F-35 released.

                        Today many times more than Su-35С. Or do you also disagree with this? Yes, and comparing the Su-35C with these machines is by and large not correct. We all know perfectly well on the basis of the glider of which aircraft the Su-35С was made.
                      7. Operator
                        Operator 10 June 2016 11: 12
                        -1
                        When you publish articles on topwar.ru about Israeli wunderwaffles (which are lagging behind the Russian ones every year in their performance characteristics), do not forget to analyze these products for at least operability.

                        Even living in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, it is impossible to establish a telepathic connection with the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the subject scheduling release of Su-35С or serial production of RVV-MD / SD / DB. In these matters, the dynamics of the price of oil (available, including to residents of Moscow) is a more revealing marker.

                        To be honest, I'm at a loss - I did not understand your logic between the flight characteristics of the Su-35S and the base of its glider. By the way, on the site of the Stealth Machines forum (paralay.iboards.ru) in the T-50 topic there is an illustrative picture of a comparison of the side projections of the Su-27 and T-50 gliders - almost complete coincidence of profiles and basic dimensions. And what follows from this? laughing

                        It is necessary to compare the characteristics of aircraft, and not the base of gliders. And for all LTX, with the exception of EPR and radar, Su-35С beats F-22. For example, try to give at least one example of the opposite.
                      8. Bongo
                        Bongo 10 June 2016 13: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        When you publish articles on topwar.ru about Israeli wunderwaffles (which are lagging behind the Russian ones every year in their performance characteristics), do not forget to analyze these products for at least operability.

                        More details please about the Israeli "wunderfly"? stop Do not you think that your words need something to confirm?
                        Quote: Operator
                        To be honest, I'm at a loss - I did not understand your logic between the flight characteristics of the Su-35S and the base of its glider. By the way, on the site of the Stealth Machines forum (paralay.iboards.ru) in the T-50 topic there is an illustrative picture of a comparison of the side projections of the Su-27 and T-50 gliders - almost complete coincidence of profiles and basic dimensions. And what follows from this?

                        Are you really like that or are you fooling around? what
                        Quote: Operator
                        Even living in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, it is impossible to establish a telepathic connection with the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation regarding the planning of the release of Su-35С or serial production of RVV-MD / SD / BD. In these matters, the dynamics of the price of oil (available, including to residents of Moscow) is a more revealing marker.

                        Quote: Bongo
                        Firstly, it’s open information

                        There is nothing more to comment here, apparently you are not capable of adequately perceiving reality. All the best. hi
                      9. Operator
                        Operator 10 June 2016 13: 53
                        -1
                        Oh, but what about the lead of the F-22 in at least one of the flight characteristics, except for those indicated by me - is it really difficult to name or "adequacy" interferes?
                        And you all the best.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • cast iron
    cast iron 7 June 2016 21: 10
    +3
    Just let’s do without Dieferambs. The United States has never loaded its F111 above 7-8 tons. Because an acceptable range will not work, as well as speed.
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 8 June 2016 21: 41
    0
    but the Americans leaned toward simplicity, “dubious” cheapness and the limited virtues of the Super Hornets

    I would not say that. The F-35C is by no means a cheap machine! Of course, it has not yet been brought to mind, but we do not know all the nuances of the American Navy doctrine ... request
  • Aqela
    Aqela 8 June 2016 21: 44
    +1
    Well, the Su-24, it seems, do not show themselves badly. The Chinese do not plan to remove the Tu-16 counterparts from service. The Brazilians are quite good at using the Tucano aircraft, obviously of an outdated design. About the years of development of helicopters "Iroquois", "Hugh-Cobra" need to speak?
    It seemed like a message flashed that representatives of the American special forces highly appreciated the "latest development" of the Russian aviation industry - the An-2, which is quite good in its segment ...
    In the appendage:
    Boeing CH-47 "Chinook" (Eng. Boeing CH-47 Chinook) - American heavy military transport helicopter longitudinal scheme. Designed based on the CH-46, it has been widely used since the early 1960s. He replaced the H-37 helicopter in the US Army, and later the CH-54. It is in service with more than 20 countries. In addition to the USA, it has been produced since 1970 in Italy (more than 200 helicopters) and Japan (Kawasaki produced 54 helicopters [1])

    and more
    Bell 206 - a family of light multi-purpose helicopters. Design and manufacture: Bell Helicopter Textron Company. The helicopter first took off on January 10, 1966. Serial production, begun in 1968, continues at the moment (2011).
  • kote119
    kote119 7 June 2016 10: 16
    +7
    tomcat is a good, beautiful airplane, for its time was an advanced airplane
  • sivuch
    sivuch 7 June 2016 11: 17
    +6
    And you can find out from the author, where did the author get information about training battles with 23-18 from Kamrani?
    No, I don’t dispute, I just wrote a monograph about Mig-23 at one time and I went through the entire Internet quite tightly, I didn’t find this.
    In principle, in the II-Mig-23ML war (it was they, not the previous models) who fought with tomkets quite successfully
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 7 June 2016 11: 35
      +2
      The superhornet was replaced by Tomket and Hornet at the same time. When refueling, he does almost everything the same as the Tomket.
      It was the most advanced American aircraft in aerodynamics, but on the verticals he could not even compete with the usual MiG-23.
    2. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 7 June 2016 12: 04
      0
      A supehorn appeared in Australia - they also threw the freak F-111 incapable of conducting a full-fledged air battle, especially Indonesia ceased to pose a significant threat. It was intended for tactical nuclear bombing and did not solve any strategic problems. Where did Australia get the cores from? Royal Air Force of course, only she does not command them ...
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 7 June 2016 12: 15
        +1
        Australia bought the F-111 to deter Indonesia, as a counterbalance to the Indonesian Tu-16 that our country supplied. And then everything was right - the threat passed and they were removed.
        1. Operator
          Operator 7 June 2016 13: 00
          +1
          Now Australia is faced with an insoluble problem - Indonesia buys Su-35S, and Australia can only rely on Penguins in return bully
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 June 2016 22: 02
        0
        Quote: Papandopulo
        especially Indonesia has ceased to pose a significant threat.

        This is for now ... Dryings are densely populated there. And the 35th will be.
        1. Papandopulo
          Papandopulo 12 June 2016 14: 21
          0
          There, for once, the Americans deployed their bases.
    3. Bongo
      Bongo 7 June 2016 14: 22
      +6
      Quote: sivuch
      And you can find out from the author, where did the author get information about training battles with 23-18 from Kamrani?

      Igor, there is such an inexhaustible source of information - fantasy smile The author mainly relies on it.
      What is it worth:
      F-14D + would have on order more anti-aircraft / anti-missile, anti-ship and purely shock capabilities, confidently supported by a large range, speed and number of suspension units
      The author at school taught math badly negative "an order of magnitude" is 10 times! In general, the author once again demonstrates poor knowledge of the subject, the publication is replete with "blunders".
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 June 2016 22: 32
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        The author at school poorly taught mathematics negative "by an order of magnitude" - this is 10 times!

        In a mathematical sense, yes. However, the orders are different. In this case, 2 times.
  • 00001
    00001 7 June 2016 16: 51
    0
    Now everything has been done for a long time under consumables, and this "... imitator" will not get out of the umbrella
  • Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 7 June 2016 17: 31
    0
    and Fe-35 on the way. Museums are getting ready already.
  • Aqela
    Aqela 8 June 2016 21: 56
    +1
    I carefully read all the comments. Yes, the article is not controversial. A lot of inaccuracies and mistakes. However, on the whole it’s quite interesting and, what’s especially important, encouraging an interesting and thorough discussion at the level of facts, not emotions. This is a definite plus! good