Military Review

Su-27 vs F-15C: combat check

156
In a duel situation, our fighter has more chances

Heavy Su-27 fighters will be the main tool for the operational maneuver of air defense forces in the most dangerous areas. His opponent, most likely, will be the main US Air Force fighter F-15C.

In the open press, one can often find comparative assessments of combat aircraft, mainly fighters. In most cases, the authors of such materials are trying to determine the winner in a real battle based on a comparison of tactical and technical characteristics, on-board electronic systems and weapons, as well as maneuvering capabilities. Tactical combat techniques, the mission of the combat vehicles being mapped are not taken into account.

Choice arshin

A certain exception is the comparison of the fourth-generation Soviet and American fighters, which happened to converge in training battles in the 90s. However, the parties tried to avoid the full use of their RES, in particular, electronic warfare, apparently, for reasons of flight safety and secrecy. MiG-29 fighters, which went to Germany from the NNA GDR, were subjected to a similar test. In these battles, our machines demonstrated superiority, mainly due to maneuverability. But a combat fighter is a complex that includes, in addition to the aircraft itself and its airborne equipment, weapons, including outboard, primarily missile. Yes and by appointment aviation funds from different countries are different. Therefore, to compare the two samples, it is advisable to refer to the methodology, which was tested on Russian and foreign warships, adapting it to aircraft.

The first step is to correctly select the objects to be mapped. With a significant advantage of NATO in military aviation, the main task of our space forces will be to prevent the enemy from gaining air superiority. The main solution to this problem, taking into account the limited ability to attack the basing system of the alliance aircraft, is their destruction in battle. Accordingly, the main role is assigned to fighter aircraft. To assess the real level of combat capabilities, it is advisable to choose the most popular types of vehicles. We have this Su-27 and MiG-29 of various modifications. Possessing a large radius of action and powerful weapons, heavy fighters Su-27 will be the main means of allowing the operational concentration of air defense potential in the most dangerous areas. F-15C is likely to be the opponent of NATO.

Recognizing the correctness of such a comparison, we will take into account that the "duelists" will have to perform a range of other tasks, in particular, to destroy XRD, EW aircraft, bombers and attack aircraft. Note that both samples do not have special bomber equipment, therefore their use for strikes against land and sea targets will be the exception rather than the rule. Let us dwell on the analysis of the capabilities of the Su-27 and F-15C to conduct combat with fighters, with each other.

Our eagle

Su-27 with a normal take-off mass of about 23 tons can carry up to six thousand kilograms of load and has a combat radius when flying at high altitudes at subsonic speeds up to 1400 kilometers. Outboard armament is located at ten nodes: six under the wings and four under the fuselage and engine nacelles. In the ammunition - air-to-air missiles: medium range with semi-active seeker (PRGSN) - Р-27Р and Р-27РЭ, thermal seeker (ТГСН) - Р-27Т and Р-27Т, and also short-range with ТГСН Р-73 . Built-in weapons are 30-mm air cannon with 150 ammunition shells. The average ESR of the Su-27 airframe is estimated at 10 – 20 square meters. The aircraft's thrust-to-weight ratio is greater than one. The on-board radar sighting complex RLPK-27 includes a pulse Doppler radar H001 with mechanical scanning of the space, which allows you to find targets with EPR corresponding to the American F-15C, at distances to 190 kilometers in PPS and to 80 – 100 kilometers in EPS. Su-27 has an 36Sh optical-location station (RL) with a search field of 120x75 degrees capable of detecting fighter-type objects at a distance of up to 50 kilometers in RPS and up to 15 kilometers in PPS. Control system weapons provides escort to 10 targets and the firing of one of them with two missiles with PRGSN. The airborne defense complex includes a warning station about the irradiation of SPO-15 "Birch", blocks for the release of passive interference APP-50. At the wing tips (at the location of the launcher), an active sorption station “Sorption” can be installed in two containers. In the base Su-27 does not have the ability to use guided weapons to destroy ground and surface targets.

The maximum energy range of missile missile Р-27 - 80 kilometers in PPP and 20 – 30 kilometers in RFP. The corresponding figures for P-27РЭ and ТЭ are 110 and 40, for Р-73 are 30 and 10 – 15. However, the effective firing range may be significantly (at times) smaller, depending on the altitude of the target and the carrier, and the capabilities of the homing target.

Their hawk


F-15C with a normal take-off mass of about 21 tons has a combat radius when flying at high altitudes at subsonic speeds up to 900 kilometers. Suspended armament is located at eight nodes, where in a typical load is placed four missiles of medium and short range. Thrust-to-weight ratio even with normal take-off weight is less than one. The average ESR of the airframe is slightly larger than that of the Su-27. The absolute majority of F-15S are equipped with AN / APG-63 radar radar of various modifications, which provides detection of an aircraft with EPR, like that of Su-27, at a distance of 160 – 170 kilometers in PPP. Scanning in azimuth is mechanical, and in elevation - electronic. The main fire means are medium-range missiles with AIM-120 PRGSN (AMRAAM) and short-range missiles with AIM-9L / M TGSN. Built-in weapons are represented by a cannon "Volcano" caliber 20 millimeters. The on-board defense system includes Laurent AN / FLR-56 radiation warning stations (ACT), AN / FLQ-135 active jamming and AN / FLE-45 dipole reflectors. The maximum energy range of the AIM-120 rocket is estimated at 50 kilometers in PPP and about 15 – 20 kilometers in RFP. Indicators for AIM-9L / M roughly correspond to the Russian P-73.

Su-27 vs F-15C: combat check


We state that both planes possess symmetrical armament (when the Su-27 is considered with “Sorption”, in this case the composition of the missile weapon is identical). The experience of joint exercises shows that the Russian fighter surpasses his opponent in vertical and horizontal maneuverability.

F-15С without additional fuel tanks (DTB) has a smaller combat radius by 36 percent. Parity with the Su-27 will require suspension of two DTB, which will further reduce its maneuverability characteristics and reduce the composition of weapons by two missiles. AIM-120 is almost twice as inferior in energy to our P-27РЭ. An important advantage of our fighter is the presence in the ammunition of medium-range missiles with TGSN. This makes it possible to carry out covert attacks from medium distances according to the OLS data without the use of an RLPK in a ZPS.

To the barrier!


Consider a course of action when both aircraft search in a wide area. The most effective radar in this case is the periodic inclusion for a short time. This is due to the fact that the SPO of both machines are capable of detecting the work of the enemy’s radar at a distance of about one and a half times its detection range. That is, when the radar is turned on continuously, the enemy has the opportunity to preempt and move to a more advantageous position to attack. In this case, the Russian fighter can conduct a continuous search using the OLS in the passive mode.

Without going into details of the calculation, we give the final result. The probability of detection for a single survey of the area by Russian and American fighters using only the radar is about the same - 0,4 – 0,5. The likelihood of anticipation when applying STR and getting out of the band to view or take other responses is 0,3 – 0,4. But when maneuvering, when both are trying to get out of the viewing strip, the Russian fighter can effectively use the OLS for covert enemy detection and attack using TGSN missiles. In addition, having more long-range RSD, Su-27, even if the F-15C detects it earlier, has serious chances to preempt the American, because he has to approach each other for a relatively long time in order to reach the salvo position.

F-15C will be able to perform the first attack with medium-range missiles with a probability around 0,2. The ability of the Su-27 to preempt the enemy using not only medium, but also short-range missiles according to the OLS data is estimated at 0,25 – 0,3. Attacked to use the EW. Stations of active jamming can disrupt the enemy's auto tracking of a radar for a certain period of time. It takes several seconds to retake the target PRGSN. The likelihood of a missile attack disrupting a PRGSN can be quite significant - up to 0,4 – 0,6. In the Russian fighter, the indicator is better, as the Su-27 performs the anti-missile maneuver more vigorously and with the use of pilotage figures inaccessible to the F-15C. The likelihood of proactively destroying our aircraft by an American will not exceed 0,07 – 0,09. Su-27 using P-27Р (РЭ) with PRGSN, as well as Р-27Т (ТЭ) or Р-73 with ТГСН will destroy the enemy in the first strike with a probability of significantly higher - 0,12 – 0,16, in particular due to the fact that missiles with TGSN, launched according to the OLS operating in the passive mode, are very difficult to detect with sufficient preflexion to repel the blow.

In the event of the failure of the first attacks from both sides, a close air battle will begin, in which Su-27, as experience has shown, has an undeniable superiority over F-15C. Predicting its results, I suppose, the American pilot will try to leave the battlefield. In this case, a certain probability of its destruction will take place. But even the obtained probabilities from the results of the first strike speak for themselves: the Russian fighter is more than 1.5 times more efficient (in 1,7) than the American.

A different picture emerges when the F-15C operates on hover in a radar field, for example, according to the AWACS aircraft. In this case, it will go directly to the point of attack covertly, without turning on the radar. If Su-27 is not provided with guidance data, that is, it acts independently by searching for targets using radar and OLS, the enemy is likely to be able to take a position for a preemptive strike. However, our fighter will begin to use complex maneuvering and, probably, use its radar in a continuous mode, seeking to detect the attack. F-15C will be advantageous to take a position for a volley of short-range missiles with TGSN - for a sudden and virtually irresistible strike. If this happens, our fighter will most likely be destroyed. But, since the F-15C does not have optoelectronic systems similar to our OLS, and therefore should be placed in fact at the target capture range of a short-range TGSN missile "out of the wing", the use of AIM-120 with PRGSN is more likely. In this case, he will be forced to turn on the radar for auto-tracking of the target and its illumination to ensure missile guidance. The Russian fighter will be able to take measures to disrupt the attack and will begin maneuvering for an additional search of the American fighter and launching an attack on it or evading combat with withdrawal from the enemy’s observation zone. Rough estimates of the outcomes of such a collision show that the probability of destroying our fighter is very high and can reach up to 0,4 – 0,5, while F-15C can die with a probability less than 0,05.

With the opposite situation and the same logic of events, the probability of F-15C death will be higher - 0,5 – 0,65. This is due to the fact that there are significantly more opportunities to bring our fighter to the position of a covert attack thanks to the OLS and missiles with TGSN, which can be used from a range inaccessible to the American AIM-9L / M.

When both fighters are targeting in the radar field, each side will seek to ensure its advantageous position for attack. Americans, realizing the weaknesses of the F-15C, are likely to be limited to long-range combat. Our, taking the challenge, will try to develop the success of the duel in melee. At long distances, the advantage of our missiles in terms of energy will be affected, as well as the presence of RSD with PRGSN and TGSN, which will significantly increase the probability of hitting targets under REB conditions. Thus, during the matches of pairs and links, our Su-27 will have an advantage over the American F-15C. However, in combat operations with the participation of large masses of aviation, other factors will play a decisive role: the chosen tactics and the construction of air connections, the organization of control and monitoring of airspace, interaction.

In general, it can be stated that our fighter is superior to the American one and, in the possible collision options, has more chances to destroy it. This is not surprising, since Su-27 was created at the beginning of 80-s, while F-15 - in the middle of 70-s.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30951
156 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 13 June 2016 06: 22
    +4
    The author looks like a four-part film about the creation of the Su-27 on YouTube has not even been watched, since he is trying to compare something ...
    1. carp
      carp 13 June 2016 06: 41
      +35
      The author data is incorrect. 50 km - the range of the AIM-120B already withdrawn from service. The most massive modification of the AIM-120C has a range of 105 km, the new AIM-120D has a range of 180 km. A completely different arithmetic is obtained. More thoroughly necessary, more thoroughly)))
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 08: 54
        +1
        You need more measured, more measured ... the same fuels and GOS were still in the USSR, but watch the film anyway.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 13 June 2016 09: 20
          .
          In addition, the mass of the combat load of the F-15Ts exceeds ten tons, against which our 6s look flawed and wretched. And in electronics, the American fighter is decades ahead of ours.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 13 June 2016 09: 54
            +21
            Firstly, drying BN has 8 tons, and secondly, it is not necessary to compare guitars by their strength. The criteria are completely different, although the article itself says about them in a gallop across Europe
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 05
              0
              Quote: sivuch
              Firstly, drying BN 8 tons,


              The Su-27 RLE load is possible with only three layout options. At the largest we get 8 FAB 500 and 2 pcs P-73 This is a maximum + AKU about 6t with a tail.
              And this is not with full refueling.
              Full refueling only with KN-41 or KT-156D wheels.
              1. Tiratori
                Tiratori 14 June 2016 19: 26
                0
                500 kg bombs can be suspended only 7 pieces, 2tp not suspended. RLE and BP
                1. Tiratori
                  Tiratori 14 June 2016 19: 27
                  0
                  And there are quite a lot of mixed suspension options ...
            2. goose
              goose 14 June 2016 14: 57
              +4
              Quote: sivuch
              Firstly, drying BN 8 tons

              Carrying capacity is nothing at all, since it indicates exclusively the bearing ability of the pylons and wings not to fall off in the parking lot. Up to the real flight configuration here is like heaven. Reinforced pylons have been introduced at the F-15 to hook huge PTBs of 2 tons or more. And this does not mean at all that if you attach 15 tons to the F-10, then it can safely fly up and fly somewhere. In talking about the bearing capacity of the pylons. Real take-off configurations at real ranges, that of the F-15, that of the Su-27 are much more modest.
          2. figwam
            figwam 13 June 2016 10: 21
            +17
            Quote: Basarev
            In addition, the mass of the combat load of the F-15Ts exceeds ten tons, against which our 6s look flawed and wretched. And in electronics, the American fighter is decades ahead of ours.

            Now estimate, with 10 tons of its combat radius and its maneuverability, it will be an iron flying slowly in a circle.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 13 June 2016 22: 33
              +1
              F-15 with PTB range due to non-integrated layout and other things less than the Su-27 without them.
              1. Falcon
                Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 14
                0
                Quote: Simpsonian
                F-15 with PTB range due to non-integrated layout and other things less than the Su-27 without them.


                And where is the lineup?

                The total amount of fuel in the internal tanks F-15С 7637л in conformal tanks 2304л 2 pcs CFT - and this is not PTB but CFT !!! Knowing the density of aviation fuel, we can calculate the total fuel weight: 9544 kg.
                Fuel weight Su-27 9400kg approximately.

                The specific consumption at the maximum of Al-31 is 0,78, F110-GE-129 is 0,76.

                Everything is comparable.
                1. goose
                  goose 14 June 2016 14: 46
                  0
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Total fuel in internal tanks F-15C 7637l in conformal tanks 2304l 2 pcs CFT

                  Recall which modifications of the F-15 have conformal tanks? If you take the United States, then only the modification E.
                  1. Falcon
                    Falcon 14 June 2016 15: 15
                    0
                    Quote: goose
                    Recall which modifications of the F-15 have conformal tanks? If you take the United States, then only the modification E.


                    Remind. ALL F-15C can carry CFT tanks.
                2. Tiratori
                  Tiratori 14 June 2016 19: 29
                  +1
                  Citizens who said that there is CFT on the F-15C ??, the modification is not the same. But the Striiglig or Silentglove have them!
            2. goose
              goose 14 June 2016 14: 44
              +1
              Quote: figvam
              Now estimate, with 10 tons of its combat radius and its maneuverability, it will be an iron flying slowly in a circle.

              After 10 years of operation, no one will hang 10 tons under the F-15, especially since the maximum load and take-off weight are two different things.
              Specifically, to bomb over a distance of over 700 km, the F-15 will be able to take loads less than the Su-27. Given the diverse ammunition, the devil’s leg will be broken here, which of them will have better efficiency.
          3. fzr1000
            fzr1000 13 June 2016 13: 00
            +5
            Thousands of thousands surpasses, do not trifle.
          4. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 13 June 2016 22: 35
            +5
            This is probably why the FAR began to appear on American planes only ten years ago, and on Soviet planes back in the 1970s lol
          5. The comment was deleted.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 13 June 2016 09: 30
        +22
        Quote: carpag
        The most massive modification of the AIM-120C has a range of 105 km, the new AIM-120D has a range of 180 km. A completely different arithmetic is obtained. More thoroughly necessary, more thoroughly)))

        And about the R-33-228 km missile, and the R-37-300 km ... You are right, another arithmetic is obtained, if more carefully. laughing
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 13 June 2016 09: 41
          +4
          Long range missiles are useful without! The whole world practice of air battles proves that short-range air-to-air missiles are most effective. Well, a longer-range missile can only be fired at strategists and DLRO aircraft, so there is no need for enthusiastic screams
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 13 June 2016 12: 37
            +5
            Quote: Nehist
            Long range missiles are useful without!

            Dear, have you ever looked at what I gave an answer to Karpag? And are they useless here?
            Quote: Nehist
            The whole world practice of air battles proves that short-range air-to-air missiles are most effective.

            Sushi has a big advantage in this matter due to better maneuverability.
        2. Pushkar77
          Pushkar77 13 June 2016 12: 30
          +12
          R-33 and R-37, this is the MiG-31 (MiG-31BM) and the F-15 will be met on the distant approaches, it will be they, not the Su-30, it is the MiG-31 that is the first echelon in the sky, since their combat the radius reaches 3000 km. It is the MiG-31 that must reach the point of interception as quickly as possible, fire at the targets and quickly dump, or aim at the target "Rusks". Also, comparing the "Crackers" and the F-15, one should not forget that the F-15 is a high-altitude machine, which is why it is made not according to an integrated circuit, but with huge air inlets on the sides. In this regard, having AIM-120 missiles on board, it has an advantage over the "Rusks" at high altitudes, it is simply banal that it will start firing at the "Rusks" earlier and from a greater distance. It is possible to dodge such missiles, but on condition that the combat load is dropped. In Yugoslavia, the MiG-21 and MiG-29 evaded such missiles and often managed to attack the fighters that fired at them, but these are light and very light vehicles, "Rusks" with fuel and BN weigh within 30 tons, so it will be harder for them to dodge. if the load can be dumped, then it will not be possible to get rid of the fuel quickly. Most likely the battle groups of both us and the west will consist of different machines and tactics will most likely win, no one in their right mind will throw F-15, F-22 and Su -30, Su-35, T-50 into maneuverable close combat, much cheaper versions of the MiG-29, F-16, Mirage, Gripen will do this. The operation in Syria revealed a very weak point of heavy vehicles, this is an extremely expensive combat mission, it is for this reason that the operation, which was to be carried out before the complete defeat of the militants, ended very quickly, 33 billion disappeared instantly. Now we need to imagine the hostilities between us and the West, the answer is obvious, we will have to count every penny, and the hostilities will be much more intense than in Syria.And we also need to take into account air battles and losses in them, these are tens and hundreds of billions of dollars. Therefore, you will need a machine that is light at the price of an BMP, you will have to recall the experience with the MiG-21, which during the Vietnam War put the military aircraft industry of a powerful power on the brink of disaster, since the states were approaching a situation where it was impossible to reproduce losses of fighters. So that's it. The author of the article is not bad, but this topic is much more complicated than just maneuverability, or super-maneuverability. in combat you are the first. In turn, you will consider which machines to send where, so that you win battles and not go broke, because any war, in a technical sense, is primarily money (a lot of money) and you will be shot on the spot if you just take it like that, and throw the same Su-30, or Su-35 into close maneuverable combat, when you have cheap and evil MiG-29s at your side, you don't have to stutter about the T-50, dust will be blown off it, as with the F-22 ... And if they take off, then whole armies of previous generations will accompany them (for example, F-22 in Syria).
          1. NIKNN
            NIKNN 13 June 2016 17: 12
            +3
            In general, these who have already fed up with sopora on the rather meager data from the media and attempts to analyze a rather complex model of air combat. You could just write "I think ours will win
            .. ". And an attempt to view the sparring of two planes is possible only for sporting purposes and not as a combat use.
            With regard to the avionics of avionics, it will half lose its relevance in the first two days after the start of the database of serious opponents since all satellites (control, navigation, guidance, etc.) will be taken down from orbits. Then on the MiG21 it will be possible to fight with a map on the knee.
          2. user1212
            user1212 14 June 2016 04: 17
            +1
            You, as the author of the article, once again compare spherical aviation in a vacuum. From the article, as from your narrative, TVD is not clear. A single conflict in the sky of Syria is one thing, and a full-fledged conflict on the border of the EU-Russia is quite another. The participation of land and sea air defense systems, as well as the possibility of causing unacceptable damage in response to an act of air attack, is completely excluded.
          3. Lucy
            Lucy 15 June 2016 00: 03
            +2
            Pushkar77
            Specify the location of the MiG-31 on the territory of the Russian Federation, the composition and operating procedure of the crew, and you will understand by whom the MiG-31 will work. Specify the b / radius of the MiG-31 and compare with the Su-27!

            Something the audience brought into the combat (bomb) load (load) when comparing fighters in the WB (for the main task)!
            The author, something I did not even see the range scale on the N001 radar in 190 km!
        3. potroshenko
          potroshenko 13 June 2016 12: 43
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          And about the R-33-228 km missile, and the R-37-300 km ... You are right, another arithmetic is obtained, if more carefully. laughing

          Missiles of the Soviet era. (R-33 on dryers are not used for your information) By the way, how many are in parts?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 13 June 2016 13: 14
            +5
            Quote: potroshenko
            Missiles of the Soviet era. (R-33 on dryers are not used for your information)

            R-37 is used. And there the range is even more, up to 300 km. For your information.
            1. potroshenko
              potroshenko 13 June 2016 17: 22
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              R-37 is used. And there the range is even more, up to 300 km. For your information.

              In the same 1989, tests of missiles with a guidance system (2 launches) were started. In April 1994, an air target was successfully hit at a record distance of 304 km. Tests of the rocket lasted until 1997. After 1997, in connection with a violation of cooperation with Ukrainian enterprises that were involved in the creation of missile guidance systems, it was decided to develop a guidance system using only Russian components. The MiG-31M with the K-37 rocket was presented at the MAKS-1997 international aerospace show, the Russian Air Force was not accepted.
              The resulting backlog was used to create an aviation interception complex for the MiG-31BM fighter-interceptor. The modified missile, made of Russian components, received the designation K-37M (product 610M). Under the designation RVV-BD, the rocket was repeatedly exhibited at exhibitions of military equipment.
              The diameter of the GOS 9B-1388 is 380 mm, the mass is 40 kg, the range of radio correction (from the carrier) is up to 100 km, the range of target acquisition with an EPR area of ​​5 m2 of active radar of the GOS is 40 km.
              RVV-BD rocket suspension on the carrier, power supply in flight, tactical launch and emergency reset is carried out using the AKU-410-1 (AKU-620) aircraft ejection device. When placed on a carrier near the RVV-BD rocket, unlike the K-37, only the upper stabilizer rudders are folded.
              Assigned Life - 8 years. The assigned resource for an unlimited number of takeoffs and landings from a concrete-covered runway (20 takeoffs and landings from unpaved and metal runways) is 50 flight hours. The time of continuous operation of the equipment in flight under the carrier aircraft is 3 hours. The operability of the onboard missile equipment during operation is checked annually at the Oka-E aircraft weapons preparation complex or the Oka-620 control equipment.

              Source http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/r37/r37.shtml
              Even RVV-BD has a life of 8 years. What kind of P-37 are you talking about? There is not a word about RVV-DB about the use of Su aircraft.
            2. Falcon
              Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 22
              +1
              On the su-27 with the HNUMX, and even the P-001 and on the 37km No.
        4. evgenaleks
          evgenaleks 5 December 2016 18: 13
          0
          but SU does not carry them? and the possibility of radar allows you to apply them? P-33 I mean.
      3. tomket
        tomket 13 June 2016 10: 24
        +7
        Quote: carpag
        The new AIM-120D has a range of 180 km. A completely different arithmetic is obtained. More carefully necessary, more thoroughly)))

        Yes does not have AIM-120D range 180 km! Well, how many times has this been discussed! Anyway, someone is located with 180 km ....
        1. potroshenko
          potroshenko 13 June 2016 12: 30
          0
          Quote: tomket
          Yes does not have AIM-120D range 180 km! Well, how many times has this been discussed! Anyway, someone is located with 180 km ....

          Give a pliz reference to the "correct" data.
          1. tomket
            tomket 13 June 2016 23: 23
            +3
            Quote: potroshenko
            Give a pliz reference to the "correct" data.

            Attributed to 180km was the missile project, which was closed, and its index was transferred to another modification with a range of 120 km. From here we went for a walk around the world, a range of 180 km.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 24
              +1
              Quote: tomket
              Attributed to 180km was the missile project, which was closed, and its index was transferred to another modification with a range of 120 km. From here we went for a walk around the world, a range of 180 km.


              Join

              Quote: potroshenko
              Give a pliz reference to the "correct" data.


              It has always been said that the range of AIM-120C-8 will be 50% more than its predecessor. Even when development began.
        2. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 19: 01
          +2
          Quote: tomket
          Yes does not have AIM-120D range 180 km! Well, how many times has this been discussed! Anyway, someone is located with 180 km ....

          So aim-120D with ramjet seems to be going to produce.
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 27
            +1
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            So aim-120D with ramjet seems to be going to produce.


            RVV-AE too. But it’s probably expensive and difficult

            1. Lt. Air Force stock
              Lt. Air Force stock 14 June 2016 12: 21
              0
              Quote: Falcon
              RVV-AE too. But it’s probably expensive and difficult

              Well, the Europeans are developing a rocket with a ramjet Meteor, the Americans Aim-120D.
              The pluses are that such missiles do not lose speed throughout the flight, while conventional ones with a solid-fuel engine receive short-term acceleration, and then the speed drops.
      4. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 13 June 2016 12: 50
        +5
        Quote: carpag
        The new AIM-120D has a range of 180 km.

        Burst out laughing. Not 180, but 120 km. And then only with 18.000 meters at a speed of 1,3 M on target at 1000 meters and a speed of 0,6 M. That is, it still flies to the taking off Boeing, to something else - nope.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 13 June 2016 15: 16
          +2
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          Now estimate, with 10 tons of its combat radius and its maneuverability, it will be an iron flying slowly in a circle.

          Now maneuverability does not play any role - tea is not Vietnam. With the backward rocket technology of that time, close combat still meant something (and even then began to obsolete). Now the main role is played by missile homing and external target designation - for the fighter to launch a rocket from afar and topple it. And all the tales about electronic warfare, the super-maneuverability and the great role of the dog dump - from the reluctance to recognize the absolute lag in the development of GOS and AWACS in particular and avionics in general. American missiles now have onboard full-fledged radars with AFAR. We have no AFAR even on fighter jets. Everyone knows that the Beetle-M is still the same terribly ancient passive array. It seems that they will put the active one on PAK FA, however there is not a single serial one, but there are only floodlights. But this is particular. Most importantly, life itself has shown that the American concept of ultra-long air combat is the only true one. And only fools or kamikazes try to break into the neighbor, which is basically the same thing.
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 13 June 2016 23: 28
            0
            You correctly noticed the long-range missile battle, it depends on external target designation. The question is, in the case of a mass disarray without the use of nuclear weapons, what are the primary goals? Do you answer or suggest? So the maneuver close combat will still be relevant, and here the su-27 and its modifications are too redundant
      5. just exp
        just exp 13 June 2016 21: 05
        +1
        The author data is incorrect. 50 km - the range of the AIM-120B already withdrawn from service. The most massive modification of the AIM-120C has a range of 105 km, the new AIM-120D has a range of 180 km. A completely different arithmetic is obtained. More thoroughly necessary, more thoroughly)))

        Your data is also incorrect, the D version of Amraam is placed only on superhornets and will stand on raptors and F-35s, they are not even going to integrate it on F-15Ts.
        Moreover, even the latest versions of the C version, they also do not stand.
        they have rockets with a range of 70 km
      6. yehat
        yehat 14 June 2016 12: 25
        +3
        this is dibilism, not arithmetic, because for the long-range missiles, the probability coefficient of getting into it is very important! for Phoenix, he was no more than 15%. And this is without the use of electronic warfare! And in this area, the US has had little progress (development was not funded). According to this parameter, our missiles now bypass the Americans by about half.
        Therefore, the use of long-range missiles for American fighters is a big problem! The most relevant distances for them are 30-60 km. Recent developments have been carried out in this area and new missiles have appeared. The United States has a very good melee rocket.
        The article does not at all take into account the progress of recent years!
        On shooting at a long distance, the Russian Federation took a big step forward.
        The most unpleasant tactics have remained since the days of the Arab-Israeli wars - the AWACS aircraft induces and our planes find themselves in a very disadvantageous tactical situation.
        Do not forget that in addition to the F-15, they will certainly be supported by a large number of F-16s, which will enable the F-15 to remain in the shade more.
        Until the Russian Air Force establishes broad support for its interceptors with support means - AWACS, electronic warfare, decoys like F-16s, the advantage will be on the side of the F-15,
        as the battles with the Israelis showed when the MiG-25 fell into tactical traps several times and fell under attack.

        True, now the su-27 and su-30 are not defenseless in front of the AWACS aircraft - missiles have appeared that can strike at it from afar.
      7. goose
        goose 14 June 2016 14: 52
        +1
        Quote: carpag
        The author data is incorrect. 50 km - the range of the AIM-120B already withdrawn from service. The most massive modification of the AIM-120C has a range of 105 km, the new AIM-120D has a range of 180 km.

        Author data is correct. D practically did not change her energy. What does it mean? Low marching flight speed, lack of active maneuvering in the last 30 km of flight. In fact, a fighter is of little use for hitting class aircraft, as is modification C, by the way. We add also extremely limited capabilities for target designation in combat conditions, when everyone flies at low altitudes, and the detection range drops to 50-80 km.
        As a result, the AIM-120B in real conditions will be more effective than the new C and D.
        Long ranges are only feasible over the sea and flat desert.
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 14 June 2016 15: 23
          -1
          Quote: goose
          Low marching flight speed


          Do rockets with solid propellant rocket engines? And from this range is greater? belay

          Quote: goose
          lack of active maneuvering in the last 30 km of flight


          Why would anyone need such a rocket at all? If you can not maneuver in the final section? belay

          Quote: goose
          practically did not change her energy


          Spectral analysis of fuel is no less likely

          Quote: goose
          for 25-30 years in service, there are already restrictions on maneuver and take-off weight.


          And damn it? Do we have all planes with old age come with restrictions on maneuverability and take-off weight? Just like a rusty penny huh?

    2. nimboris
      nimboris 14 June 2016 11: 22
      0
      And F / A-18 is not from the same category. The 15th is already a bit old for comparison, or am I mistaken?
    3. yehat
      yehat 14 June 2016 12: 38
      +3
      the author did not take into account something. F-15Cs are outdated and held mostly like interceptors on US borders and are slowly disbanded. For front-line work, other machines are being intensely prepared - F-35, f-22. Su-27 is also outdated.
      How to plan battles in the future of obsolete cars?
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 14 June 2016 13: 35
        +2
        Quote: yehat
        the author did not take into account something. F-15C are outdated and they are mostly kept

        A new radar with AFAR AN / APG-15 (V) 63 is installed on the F-3C.
        1. goose
          goose 14 June 2016 15: 08
          +1
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          A new radar with AFAR AN / APG-15 (V) 63 is installed on the F-3C

          Only the wings and other parts that are old for aircraft that have been in service for 25-30 years already have restrictions on maneuver and take-off weight. They didn't have much time left. But there are quite a lot of new Su-27s, and not very new F-15s, only "E" in a limited series and in a "pregnant" version, not capable of intensive maneuvers.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 15 June 2016 21: 38
            0
            Quote: goose
            and take-off weight.

            So aim-120c weighs like 170 kilograms, aim-9X and even less, the F-15C is a fighter for gaining air superiority, and unlike the F-15E (Strike eagle), it does not need to carry 8 tons of bomb load. Let's say 6 missiles aim-120 weigh 1020 kilograms + 2 sindvinder it is about 200 kilograms. Total combat load of 1220 kilograms.
        2. yehat
          yehat 14 June 2016 16: 29
          +2
          it's a dead poultice
          you can equip an aircraft with new equipment, increase its relevance and effectiveness, but countries with a large budget prefer to change the generation of aircraft. The United States has a problem in that it still cannot fully replace the generation of aircraft from the 70-80s. The old people fly 30-40 years old. It's one thing when the plane just carries - like Hercules, B-52, and quite another - a machine, which is important.
          Yes, the F-15C can still break the flu or F-35, but it encounters problems when meeting with any modern fighter of the Russian Federation.
  2. bandabas
    bandabas 13 June 2016 06: 31
    +13
    Everything can be learned only in real battle. Pah, pah, pah.
    1. svp67
      svp67 13 June 2016 08: 47
      +8
      Quote: bandabas
      Everything can be learned only in real battle. Pah, pah, pah.

      Yes it is, this is the "toughest and fair measure".
      In the USSR, test battles were held between the Su27 and MiG29, in which the MiGs won. But just a few years later, in the skies of Africa, these fighters had to face real clashes, and the Su27 was the unconditional winner. Tests are trials, but in battle, a lot happens quite differently.
      1. Lucy
        Lucy 15 June 2016 00: 16
        +2
        svp67

        In the USSR, test battles were held between the Su27 and MiG29, in which the MiGs won.

        You probably somehow sideways, took part in these 'test' battles somewhere in Mary, Lipetsk, or Akhtubinsk?
  3. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 13 June 2016 06: 43
    +4
    What can you say about such comparisons .. It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines. You can’t underestimate the enemy, they are modernizing their relatively old aircraft.
  4. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 June 2016 07: 02
    +6
    It seems to the author that it is important that this is SU-27, and not its latest modifications, but oh well.
  5. Gennady Chepur
    Gennady Chepur 13 June 2016 07: 33
    -8
    Why don't the author compare raptors with drying? After all, the Americans are armed with 187 of these aircraft (I wonder how many dryers Russia has?). Well and then, it would be worth at least a few words to say about the quantitative ratio of NATO fighters and Russia ...
    In light of this, the advantage of the TTX SU-27 over the F-15 looks like a very insignificant factor.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 13 June 2016 11: 39
      +6
      Quote: Gennady Chepur
      Why don't the author compare raptors with drying?
      Do you mean with the T-50? Why not compare! They will adopt our PAK FA in the 2017 year - it will be possible to compare!
      And so it turns out that aircraft of different generations are compared ... Well, it's just not fair! hi
      1. Gennady Chepur
        Gennady Chepur 13 June 2016 23: 51
        +1
        I'm talking about adopted aircraft - about the raptor and the entire series of dryers that are in service. As for the T-50, it is only being tested and refined. In 2017, it is only planned to be delivered to the troops. Suppose the limit - the plant in Komsomolsk will produce 10 cars a year. It means building as much as the Americans - it will take 18 years! Draw your own conclusions.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Operator
      Operator 13 June 2016 13: 18
      +3
      F-22 / Su-35С:

      empty weight, t ~ 19,7 / 19,0
      fuel weight in internal tanks, t ~ 8,2 / 11,5
      maximum range, km ~ 2000 / 3600
      maximum take-off weight, t ~ 38 / 34,5
      normal take-off weight, t ~ 29,2 / 27,0
      maximum engine thrust, t ~ 31,6 / 29,0
      all-aspect thrust vector control ~ no / yes
      maximum speed, km / h ~ 2124 / 2500
      maximum overload, g ~ 8 / 9
      angular pivot speed, degrees / s ~ 24 / 72
      wing area, sq.m ~ 78 / 62
      optical location station ~ no / yes
      Rearview Radar ~ No / Yes
      active electronic warfare system ~ no / yes
      number of missiles BB SD ~ 6 / 8
      the number of missiles BB MD ~ 2 / 4
      cost, USD ~ 411 / 30

      In the tail boom of the Su-35С, it is planned to install a multifunctional MF2-2 radar with X-band PFAR weighing 35 kg and 160 range of km
      1. Skubudu
        Skubudu 13 June 2016 18: 04
        +2
        F-22 / SU-35
        Stealth Technology - Yes / No
        Radar with AFAR - yes / no
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 19: 06
          +2
          Quote: Skubudu
          F-22 / SU-35
          Stealth Technology - Yes / No
          Radar with AFAR - yes / no

          In ground-based air defense systems there is also no AFAR, it seems that only with the C-500 the first radar stations with an active phased array will appear, from this our S-300 / C-400 air defense systems did not become worse with PFAR.
          As for the "Stealth", the 1-in A-50U or A-100 AWACS aircraft will equalize the chances of detection.
          1. Skubudu
            Skubudu 13 June 2016 20: 20
            -1
            At what distance can the A-50U / A-100 detect the Raptor?
            SU-35 will be detected by Avax at a distance of 400km ... according to Wikipedia
            1. Lt. Air Force stock
              Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 20: 34
              +1
              Quote: Skubudu
              At what distance can the A-50U / A-100 detect the Raptor?
              SU-35 will be detected by Avax at a distance of 400km ... according to Wikipedia

              The network has data only on the base A-50 (target detection with EPR 1 meter square for 215 kilometers). There are no data on advanced versions, the A-100 will be with AFAR and, in theory, the detection range will increase even more. In order for the F-22 to be dangerous, it needs to fly up to a missile launch distance of 120-180 kilometers, the Su-35S radar can detect a target with an EPR of 0,01 square meters at a distance of 90 kilometers. The A-50U and A-100 radars clearly should have more impressive capabilities.
              1. Skubudu
                Skubudu 13 June 2016 20: 45
                +1
                I would like to believe that the E-F-22 is not fantastic .0,0001 .. and 0,1m2 and F-35 is not less than 0,3m2
                1. Lt. Air Force stock
                  Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 20: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Skubudu
                  I would like to believe that the E-F-22 is not fantastic .0,0001 .. and 0,1m2 and F-35 is not less than 0,3m2

                  And someone believes that the F-22 in all angles and in all ranges (meter, decimeter, centimeter) has an EPR of 0,0001 ...?
                  1. Skubudu
                    Skubudu 13 June 2016 20: 54
                    +2
                    The West believes in frontal EPR of 0,00 ... 1 ...
                    1. Lt. Air Force stock
                      Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 21: 10
                      0
                      Quote: Skubudu
                      The West believes in frontal EPR of 0,00 ... 1 ...

                      For this, we need a centimeter-range radar in the nose fairing of PakFa and decimeter-range radars in the leading edges of the wings + an optical station is rumored to detect a plane for 50 kilometers.
                      Su-35S also seems to have a L-band radar in the leading edges of the wings.
                  2. sivuch
                    sivuch 13 June 2016 21: 10
                    +1
                    And how they believe!
              2. Operator
                Operator 13 June 2016 21: 01
                +1
                The range of application of the long-range American air-to-air missile AIM-120D against a maneuverable target is 90 km.
                1. Lt. Air Force stock
                  Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 21: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  The range of application of the long-range American air-to-air missile AIM-120D against a maneuverable target is 90 km.

                  And if the target also puts active interference. Not the fact that all missiles will reach the target.
                  1. goose
                    goose 14 June 2016 15: 26
                    +1
                    Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                    Not the fact that all missiles will reach the target.

                    It is enough to get a breakdown of escort, after which the inertial system will lead the rocket to nowhere without correction. With the ridiculous energy of the ARGSN AIM-120D, she herself will not find anything - it must be output accurately.
                    In the demonstration battles with Rafal, the breakdown of escort with the F-22 was a regular affair. This, by the way, is the most important plus of stealth technology.
                    With constant breakdowns of escort, it is much more difficult to direct a missile from an RL-GSN.
                  2. yehat
                    yehat 14 June 2016 16: 42
                    +1
                    maybe they will fly, but not everyone will get there.
              3. yehat
                yehat 14 June 2016 16: 41
                +3
                Afar will not only increase range and resolution.
                also, the scanning frequency and the detection speed sharply increase.
                improved noise immunity and ability to track the target.
                EPR 0.0001m2 real advertising nonsense.
                the area equivalent to 1 cm2, even on an anti-aircraft missile, is unlikely to succeed, and the plane is much larger.
                Finally, the wavelength. American stealth designed for a certain range of waves.
                old anti-aircraft systems, operating in longer waves, calmly observe the "invisible". There are even engineering calculations on how to turn old escort radars into stealth detectors.
            2. Operator
              Operator 13 June 2016 21: 06
              +1
              AWACS will detect a Su-35S 800 km away, after which it will be shot down by an air-to-air missile based on 400N40E at a distance of 6 km.
              1. Falcon
                Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 40
                0
                Quote: Operator
                AWACS will detect a Su-35S 800 km away, after which it will be shot down by an air-to-air missile based on 400N40E at a distance of 6 km.


                800 KM? and what is not 1000km? Do radars have no range limitations? no attenuation coefficient? Or do you think everything from the radar equation when detected in a vacuum?
                and air-to-air 40н6 is generally cool

            3. goose
              goose 14 June 2016 15: 21
              +1
              Quote: Skubudu
              SU-35 will be detected by Avax at a distance of 400km ... according to Wikipedia

              I read NATO reports. There was a good example in Yugoslavia - the real detection ranges of the MiG-29 were about 50-80 km. In the case of the Su-27, well, a maximum of 1,5 times further. There were cases when the MiG-29 remained undetected throughout the flight at low altitude.
              Now, if you drive the Su-27 into the stratosphere, and even with a full set of suspensions, well, maybe there will be a range of 250 km. 400 - generally fantastic, based on radar data on the E-3A. More dangerous E-7s, they have radars with very good resolution (although the maximum detection range is less), and they are able to see planes against the background of the earth.
            4. yehat
              yehat 14 June 2016 16: 34
              +2
              Radar range is not a detection range.
              if the plane flies high, there is no atmospheric interference, then yes, for 300-350 kilometers it can be detected and even try to accompany it.
              however, much more often it turns out that they track much closer.
              For example, if an airplane flies with a profile "near the ground", the AWAC will detect it well if it is 100 km away, and most likely even closer.
          2. Falcon
            Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 35
            -1
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            In ground-based air defense systems there is also no AFAR, it seems that only with the C-500 the first radar stations with an active phased array will appear, from this our S-300 / C-400 air defense systems did not become worse with PFAR.
            As for the "Stealth", the 1-in A-50U or A-100 AWACS aircraft will equalize the chances of detection.


            The question is noise immunity, signal accumulation time and the number of simultaneously accompanying targets.
            Ground THAAD with AFAR
            1. goose
              goose 14 June 2016 15: 33
              +1
              Quote: Falcon
              The question is noise immunity, signal accumulation time and the number of simultaneously accompanying targets.

              Only noise immunity. The rest of PFAR is no worse.
              There is also the possibility of a synthesized aperture, which PFAR does not have.
              BUT ... everything rests on energy.
              Firstly, a slotted AFAR cannot be made, but this type of antenna has the best radiation pattern, i.e. VFAR is more energetically effective. These are the requirements for cooling, on-board electric power and operating time in heavy duty.
              Secondly, PFAR is corny cheaper.
              Thirdly, high-frequency modules are a very capricious thing, and their mass production with modern technology capabilities is extremely difficult. Those. the bulk will fly with PFAR.
              1. Falcon
                Falcon 14 June 2016 15: 45
                +2
                Quote: goose
                Only noise immunity. The rest of PFAR is no worse.


                Yes, you sho? I wonder how this number of simultaneously tracked targets and the signal accumulation time can be the same when several MRPs or one generator are running? belay

                Quote: goose
                BUT ... everything rests on energy.
                Firstly, a slotted AFAR cannot be made, but this type of antenna has the best radiation pattern, i.e. VFAR is more energetically effective. These are the requirements for cooling, on-board electric power and operating time in heavy duty.


                Is that how it is? Are slotted radiation patterns better than AFAR? belay There, the principle itself gives many times less side lobes than the crevice.
        2. figwam
          figwam 13 June 2016 20: 24
          +2
          Quote: Skubudu
          F-22 / SU-35
          Stealth Technology - Yes / No
          Radar with AFAR - yes / no

          So that you know!
          F-22 aircraft of the 5th generation, SU-35 is 4 ++ and its PFAR sees a target beyond 400 km no worse than AFAR.
        3. Operator
          Operator 13 June 2016 20: 57
          +1
          F-22:
          flight without the use of medium and long-range air-to-air missiles - there is stealth technology;
          flight using medium and long-range air-to-air missiles with radio correction - no stealth technology.
          Those. The raptor is like the elusive Joe laughing

          Turned on AFAR - became visible on 300 km.
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 14 June 2016 09: 34
        0
        Quote: Operator
        MF2-2 radar with PFAR X-band


        In general, the photo is not PFAR
    3. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 19: 03
      +1
      Quote: Gennady Chepur
      Why don't the author compare raptors with drying? After all, the Americans are armed with 187 of these aircraft (I wonder how many dryers Russia has?). Well and then, it would be worth at least a few words to say about the quantitative ratio of NATO fighters and Russia ...
      In light of this, the advantage of the TTX SU-27 over the F-15 looks like a very insignificant factor.

      F-15C in the USA there are about 200 fighters (F15 strike eagle is a front-line attack bomber), and in the USSR 700 Su-27s were fired.
  6. RUBEROID
    RUBEROID 13 June 2016 07: 36
    +8
    Missiles, shells, electronic warfare, turn-around are all good. The main thing is PREPARATION and SKILL of the pilot.
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 13 June 2016 14: 14
      0
      I would even say more, not just preparation and skill, willingness to apply this skill, courage, folly, hooliganism, all these qualities are completely beaten out of the pilots of Western countries, only a flight mission and the preservation of their own lives.
      There was such a video in the early 90s that American pilots flew to visit the Russians, when our supersonic people passed over the riverbed, the Americans said that they would have been fired from the ranks the next day without the right to retire. There’s no initiative, only flying task and therefore they are predictable .... And not only pilots.
  7. sa-ag
    sa-ag 13 June 2016 07: 37
    +3
    This test was carried out in a training battle, somewhere in the 90s at an exhibition in America, the Su-27 came out the winner, and I read about it to Science and Life then
  8. Wild Hunt
    Wild Hunt 13 June 2016 08: 09
    -6
    This is not surprising, because the Su-27 was created at the beginning of the 80's, while the F-15 was created in the middle of the 70's.

    stupid argument lol
    1. tomket
      tomket 13 June 2016 10: 29
      +3
      Quote: Wild Hunt
      This is not surprising, because the Su-27 was created at the beginning of the 80's, while the F-15 was created in the middle of the 70's.

      stupid argument

      The superiority of Drying is predetermined by the choice of the integral layout, and the Americans abandoning it, and not by the years of creation. The Americans have opted for the layout of the f-15, stipulating that it is more traditional and will not create problems in production and development. In addition, it played a role that the MiG-25 had a similar layout, thus proving the verification of the scheme and the correct choice.
      1. potroshenko
        potroshenko 13 June 2016 12: 33
        0
        Quote: tomket

        Superiority of Drying is predetermined

        "Superiority" in what? Please clarify.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 13 June 2016 13: 15
          +4
          Quote: potroshenko
          "Superiority" in what? Please clarify.

          In the arsenal and maneuverability for example.
          1. potroshenko
            potroshenko 13 June 2016 17: 27
            -1
            Quote: NEXUS
            Quote: potroshenko
            "Superiority" in what? Please clarify.

            In the arsenal and maneuverability for example.

            1. What is the advantage in arsenal predetermined by the choice of integrated layout? F-ka takes more load.
            2. What superiority does maneuverability give? Do not get away from the explosive rocket anyway.
            1. opus
              opus 14 June 2016 13: 10
              +3
              Quote: potroshenko
              Do not get away from the explosive rocket anyway.

              Not allowed.
              Disruption of the speaker.
              GOS still has a fairly narrow capture sector.
              Yes, and the radar station (or IR or Optics receiver) is still small there in terms of the area of ​​the canvas (tea is not Granite), the diameter is limited.
              PM agility is important
              1. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 14 June 2016 13: 38
                0
                Quote: opus
                Not allowed.
                Disruption of the speaker.
                GOS still has a fairly narrow capture sector.
                Yes, and the radar station (or IR or Optics receiver) is still small there in terms of the area of ​​the canvas (tea is not Granite), the diameter is limited.
                PM agility is important

                If I am not mistaken, the aim-120C missiles exchange information with fighter radars for greater noise immunity. Also, fighters in the squadron automatically exchange radar data with other fighters, if there is still an AWACS aircraft, the exchange also takes place with it.
                1. opus
                  opus 15 June 2016 12: 59
                  +3
                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  If I am not mistaken, the aim-120С missiles exchange information

                  1.With AIM-120A !.
                  the transmission of appropriate correction commands through the side lobes of the radar antenna of the carrier aircraft, moreover, with the frequency of scanning the antenna pattern. These commands are received on board the missile by the command line receiver. A similar inertial command guidance is possible simultaneously for eight AIM-120A missiles when they are launched for different purposes. At the same time, the value of the remaining flight time of each rocket until its active radar equipment is turned on is displayed on the airplane display, which allows the pilot to stop sending correction commands to missiles that have switched over and homing modes in time. Such a stop of the transmission of correction commands can also be made in case of stopping the maneuvering of the target, when the missile is capable of pointing with the help of its inertial equipment until the transition to homing. But this guidance method is applied only in the absence of radio interference.
                  "C" differs from "A" only in wingspan and tail and the best ISN
                  2. Correction is used only for long / medium distances, as the RVV flies along the ANN, if the target maneuvers, it will leave the GOS sector
                  3. they have an active radar homing mode.
                  Radiation to the target and reception of the reflected come from the RVV, and not from external sources. external for see item 2
                  1. Lt. Air Force stock
                    Lt. Air Force stock 15 June 2016 22: 27
                    -1
                    Quote: opus
                    2. Correction is used only for long / medium distances, as the RVV flies along the ANN, if the target maneuvers, it will leave the GOS sector
                    3. they have an active radar homing mode.
                    Radiation to the target and reception of the reflected come from the RVV, and not from external sources. external for see item 2

                    I wrote because on Wikipedia about the SM-6 rocket on which the target from 120 seek is written, they write the following.
                    "The possibility of more effective counteraction by means of electronic warfare is due to the two-way data exchange with the carrier ship and the possibility of comparing data from the missile's onboard radar and the ship's radar."
                    If the GOS on the SM-6 from aim-120 means the air-to-air missile must also verify the data at the final section of the flight of its own GOS with the radar data of the fighter.
                    1. opus
                      opus 16 June 2016 23: 59
                      +1
                      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                      due to the two-way data exchange with the carrier ship and the possibility of comparing data from the missile's onboard radar and the ship's radar. "

                      so it is when approaching the target! To the target capture distance ARGSN (approx 30-40 km (+ / _)
                      And on the terminal ACTIVE GOS from 120!
                      It used to be semi-active The Americans generally have everything "through missiles", this method is chosen
                      a dual link for shooting at targets over the horizon and with active interference on the AGSN (if active interference goes to the head, then the external radar helps to "filter it)
                      here is the AIM-120 block (with radar, controller, process and drive)), the same on CM-6

                      sector +/- 17 gr, in my opinion (if not forgotten)


                      Quote: Cat Man Null
                      Stop arguing with him .. "leith of the reserve" - ​​nirazu not served as a financier,

                      Come on.
                      Financiers are also interested in the ARGS ... wink
                  2. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 15 June 2016 22: 31
                    +2
                    Anton, hi

                    Quit arguing with him .. "Leith of the stock" is a nirazu not serving as a financier, I caught him on this somehow, and since then he has an emergency .. no words :)
        2. yehat
          yehat 14 June 2016 16: 45
          0
          of course, in TTX laughing
  9. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 13 June 2016 08: 20
    +4
    With a significant quantitative advantage of the NATO Air Force, the main burden on preventing air superiority will rest on air defense systems of various modifications. And in general, another article is not about anything (((, the author did not even bother to collect information on the performance characteristics of the aircraft being compared.
  10. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 08: 26
    0
    https://youtu.be/NpoxF6ljeHA
    there is also something to see :-)
  11. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 08: 27
    +3
    Quote: Wild Hunt
    This is not surprising, because the Su-27 was created at the beginning of the 80's, while the F-15 was created in the middle of the 70's.

    stupid argument lol

    The Su-27 was created since 1977, in May the first flight of the T-10.
    1. TARSUS
      TARSUS 13 June 2016 13: 22
      +4
      T-10 at the time of the first flight has nothing to do with the final SU-27. Learn the mat part.
    2. yehat
      yehat 14 June 2016 16: 48
      +1
      Su-27 is a significantly revised and improved T10, because according to calculations, it turned out that T10 would be approximately equal to F-15.
      It is curious that dry solved this problem in half a year.
      1. Tiratori
        Tiratori 14 June 2016 19: 49
        0
        http://www.aviation-gb7.ru/Compare.htm
        All discussion of this topic at this link, a comparison of maneuvering characteristics.
  12. complete zero
    complete zero 13 June 2016 08: 39
    +3
    the mistake is already the initial ... AIM-120 missiles, unlike the P-27, have an active guidance head ... which actually distinguishes the concept (combat) adopted in the west of the Russian
    1. yehat
      yehat 14 June 2016 16: 49
      +1
      can't 1 rocket concept define
      1. complete zero
        complete zero 15 June 2016 08: 20
        0
        yes easily
  13. Hey
    Hey 13 June 2016 10: 12
    +1
    In my opinion, it is also an important question over whose territory there is an air battle.
    And the response to it of ground-based air defense systems.
  14. mvg
    mvg 13 June 2016 10: 36
    +8
    It’s not for me to judge, but the article is weak, the states have enough F-15SE, not so long ago an order to modernize another 227 aircraft was approved. 120D has long been at the conveyor, unlike our family of RVV-SD, DB and MD. Avionics is more interesting, AFAR is, after all, a numerical superiority to help AWACS .. (we have, as far as I know, only one board of the A-50U, the rest of the A-50 are not clear to what degree of flight readiness, maybe 5 more can fly, maybe 10, and their performance characteristics are inferior to the E-2 Hokai and E-3 Sentry.
    PS: In general - some kind of window dressing, like "you can sleep well." I sleep normally anyway, because I know that with the "big myasilov" there will be no one to keep statistics on the "performances" of the Air Force and Navy pilots, even Russia, the United States, even the Geyropes .. well, maybe they will play in Africa from time to time. " pluses - minuses "
    1. goose
      goose 14 June 2016 15: 42
      +1
      Quote: mvg
      AFAR in the end, numerical superiority, to help AWACS ..

      What excites me more is the lack of simpler AWACS, such as the E-2, or the Swedish SAAB S-100B. The operational command in life will not have at its disposal the A-50, which means that tactical operations will remain without support.
      For a long time, something simpler would be washed down on the basis of the AN-24, MS-21 or An-10. Even a drone would do.
      1. yehat
        yehat 14 June 2016 16: 51
        +1
        Based on the old anti-submarine aircraft, IL-28 seems possible.
  15. Leeder
    Leeder 13 June 2016 11: 14
    +5
    I’m worried about something else, the Americans had Drying for experience and running in strengths and weaknesses, but we didn’t. So the Americans are best able to talk about the confrontation of these machines, but for some reason they are silent. :)
    Of course this is a good sign, otherwise they would have trumpeted about the superiority of their technique, but in battle we will have to look for weaknesses by "typing", and they already have the data.
  16. Yak28
    Yak28 13 June 2016 11: 27
    0
    If air battles take place in the Russian air defense zone, then the advantage is with us, and if in another place then the USA, since the Americans have many more planes, and if 1 on 1 then everything will depend on the luck and skill of the pilots
  17. Operator
    Operator 13 June 2016 11: 29
    +2
    Su-27 and F-15 are written off due to serial production of Su-35С and F-35A, respectively.

    The same is true with aviation weapons: AIM-120D with a maximum flight range of 180 km (90 km for a maneuverable target) should be compared with a RVV-DB with a maximum flight range of 300 km (150 km for a maneuverable target).

    A set of stealth technology elements reduces the EPR of the Su-35С with a conformal weapon container to 1 sq.m, for the F-35A with an arms suspension in the internal compartments of the EPR it is 0,3 sq.m. When conducting air battles at medium and long range using missiles with radio command guidance, the radio detection ranges of the Su-35С and F-35A are equal. When conducting short-range air battles using homing missiles with a thermal seeker, the radar and optolocation detection ranges of these aircraft are also equal.

    The speed, thrust-weight ratio, range and combat load of the Penguins can not be compared with the Su-35С.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 19: 08
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      F-15s go under decommissioning

      The United States intends to operate the F-15 until 2035, naturally in a modernized form. Was on VO which described plans to install 16 suspension points for aim-120.
      1. Operator
        Operator 13 June 2016 21: 09
        +1
        There is an intention to upgrade F-15, there is no funding - the F-35 program is eating up all the money.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 13 June 2016 22: 37
      -3
      "(F-35) EPR is 0,3 sq.m." //////

      Actually, 0,005, but such a small typo is excusable to you. smile
      1. Operator
        Operator 13 June 2016 23: 06
        +3
        You, of course, have a link to 0,005 sq.m - please bring it.

        In the meantime, for comparison, I will give the data of the Central Design Bureau "Almaz" on the EPR of the aeroballistic rocket AGM-69 SRAM - an aircraft 4,3 meters long, spindle-shaped, optimal for scattering the radar signal, without air intakes, wings, radar and canopy, with plumage , made of radio-transparent material, and a body covered with RPM - from 0,01 mXNUMX and above (depending on the angle)
      2. Parsec
        Parsec 13 June 2016 23: 33
        0
        This is in what range, I would like to know?

        And who intended.
        1. Operator
          Operator 14 June 2016 00: 24
          +3
          The EPRs of AGM-69 SRAM are given in the radio wavelength range from 3 to 10 cm.

          What does it matter who measured - maybe Boing (manufacturer) or US Air Force (operator), the main thing - who knew (GRU General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces).
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 14 June 2016 01: 21
            +2
            The question was not for you.
            I can read such documents ("... corresponds to the boundary waves of the centimeter range (3; 10 cm) and I know what EPR is. SLAM is a geometrically simple body, it is not a problem to simulate it in full scale, there are enough tinsmiths.

            The question was this:
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Actually 0,005, but such a small typo is excusable to you


            Where did these values ​​come from, and for what range.

            And something tells me that there will be no answer.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Samy
    Samy 13 June 2016 12: 16
    0
    Why is it compared with the F-15, and not with the Raptor? The raptor is a machine for gaining dominance in the air, and it will be cast in the forefront.
  20. Takashi
    Takashi 13 June 2016 12: 23
    .
    As we like to compare: what is better, what is worse. Either tanks or planes.
    I can’t understand how you can compare aircraft of different eras. Su27 was created much later (as a counterweight to the f-15), moreover, it is an enlarged tracing paper of Mig29. And how can they be compared if they did not encounter in a real battle?
    It seems to me that Americans are also patriots of their country. They also tested the Su27. Yes, and engineering, they have high enough. Since Su27 is so good, it means they should either copy or use the best ideas from it. But this does not happen? Mig-25 (stolen to Japan) - they were dismantled by cogs. But, something did not appear in them either titanium aircraft, or copied engines (even if improved).

    Su27 - no one will cheat. Their grouping is quite numerous. They will upgrade as long as the airframe resource allows. And the su-35s is just an intermediate, far from the best modification of the su-27. In any case, the su-30 is better than the su-35.
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 14 June 2016 05: 34
      +1
      Mig 25/31 you cited in vain as an example .... Mig-unique pepelats (there is no analogue to it anywhere at all) ... this is explained even by not so many unique characteristics ... but the peculiarities of the territory of Russia itself. A car of this class is simply not needed anywhere else .. except as a "guardian of the Russian sky"
      1. goose
        goose 14 June 2016 15: 46
        +1
        Quote: complete zero
        Ashina of this class is simply not needed anywhere else .. except as a "guardian of the Russian sky"

        And such as the Tu-128 - the same purely Russian invention to control the vast expanses of the sky of the Arctic.
  21. 1goose3
    1goose3 13 June 2016 13: 47
    +1
    No, but there is a purely ENGLISH option to complain about Russian fighter jugglers, at least to the UN.
  22. K-36
    K-36 13 June 2016 14: 07
    +7
    Quote: potroshenko
    Quote: tomket

    Superiority of Drying is predetermined

    "Superiority" in what? Please clarify.

    Sorry to get into your dialogue without permission love I hope this infa (Kharchevsky's video interview) will serve as an excuse for me about what they, together with Karabasov, saw a clear flaw in the performance characteristics of the F-15, due to which it can be easily "done" yes . By the way, pay attention to Kharchevsky’s admission that, preparing for the flight to America, he and Karabasov had to shovel a bunch of technical information to find that flaw in the F-15, due to which you can at least compete with him. in our secret and current secret documents) request And already in America, they calculated the capabilities of the "unkillable" F-15 at once. That was easy and proved by "hitting" him in all training close air battles. yes
    So video:
  23. RedBaron
    RedBaron 13 June 2016 14: 18
    0
    Quote: Operator
    A set of stealth technology elements reduces the EPR of the Su-35S with a conformal weapon container to 1 sq.m,

    The layout of the aircraft itself will not, under any circumstances, allow to reduce the EPR to 1 square meter, and where is the source for the stealth "components"? Did you invent it yourself?
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 June 2016 21: 14
      0
      "For what purpose are you interested?" (FROM)

      For an example, find the official source for E-FR-22.
  24. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 13 June 2016 14: 52
    +1
    I did not understand something, the author compares the Su-27 and F-15S, and why not the Su-27 and F-15A.
  25. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 13 June 2016 16: 32
    +5
    Around the same good aircraft.
    It all depends on the tactics of application.
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 14 June 2016 05: 39
      -2
      AGSN missiles ... when launched at the maximum allowable distances, it is NEVER better than the P 27 Russian fighter .... and it may not reach P 73))))
  26. Awaz
    Awaz 13 June 2016 17: 11
    0
    forgot to add - the creativity of Russian pilots. good
  27. Ros 56
    Ros 56 13 June 2016 17: 54
    0
    Come on, I’m arranging a bunch, look at how striped butts were with Indians on the Su-30MKI. Stripes of which only sticks were not inserted into the wheels, and the Indians shod them in full, and this was several years ago. By the way, ours, too, with striped butted, of the 20 training fights, they did not win a single one. And now you yourself understand, plus modification with modernization, plus experience, so we have good prospects. hi good
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 15 June 2016 08: 31
      0
      the Indians have a flying clock (we will envy) .. secondly, the cameras (fixing the capture), but the capture of the target and its real defeat, is it still somewhat different? ... (just the same difference between missiles with a semi-active head against AGSN ... and this a significant difference) .. well, and in the third BB ... what (without a doubt our cars are better) ... knowing this Amer will not go into close combat .. shoots from long distances, where his missiles have an advantage (no need to highlight the target until hit)
  28. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 13 June 2016 18: 03
    0
    PPS - ZPS: it means on which side the target plane is visible, isn’t it?
    And the "looking" always looks and shoots ahead. Accordingly, everyone will try to get behind the battle (in fact, just like the old days), using all sorts of radars and AWACS.
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 15 June 2016 08: 35
      0
      only rockets are ALL ANNIVERSARY
  29. iouris
    iouris 13 June 2016 18: 17
    +2
    The statement of the problem is fundamentally wrong. It is not individual aircraft that are opposed, but two unequal groups. Depends on who is the first and with what strikes the home airfields. The operation lasts five days or until the numerical strength of the group is reduced below the established minimum. In DRB, the F-15 has an advantage or equality. In the BMVB Su-27 "flies" the F-15 and F-16. The Su-27 is not suitable for strike missions.
  30. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 19: 54
    0
    Quote: TARS
    T-10 at the time of the first flight has nothing to do with the final SU-27. Learn the mat part.

    Learn mat.chast - front desk! and not her position, namely the design
  31. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 00
    0
    Quote: iouris
    The statement of the problem is fundamentally wrong. It is not individual aircraft that are opposed, but two unequal groups. Depends on who is the first and with what strikes the home airfields. The operation lasts five days or until the numerical strength of the group is reduced below the established minimum. In DRB, the F-15 has an advantage or equality. In the BMVB Su-27 "flies" the F-15 and F-16. The Su-27 is not suitable for strike missions.

    Actually, cheats as an educational program, the first modification of the Su-27, namely, the Su-27S - works on the ground - and personally checked, there is also the possibility of using SPBp. But the Su-27P is deprived of all earthly privileges, an acre of cannon fire on the ground, while even on the Su-27P, the gun is a very good sniper rifle - and I also checked it. And if we take the Su-27SM 1, 2 or 3 - then this is already a full-fledged tactical fighter.
    1. iouris
      iouris 14 June 2016 00: 42
      0
      Quote: Tiratori
      And if we take the Su-27SM 1, 2 or 3 - then this is already a full-fledged tactical fighter.

      1) Too large a target, for example, for a DShK.
      2) For a long flight on PMV, an aircraft with a high specific wing load, like the Su-24, is better suited.
      3) There are no "multipurpose" pilots with an annual flight time of 100 hours.
      1. Tiratori
        Tiratori 14 June 2016 07: 37
        0
        Something about paragraph 3 is very incomprehensible, this is why it does not happen. For 100 hours a year, even as part of a pair of land can be prepared.
  32. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 04
    0
    With a full ammo, the F-15E (and this is not a lot, not a little, almost 11 tons) is not a very agile vehicle: limited both in normal overload and in the indicated speed and the number "M", winning only in one - on-board radar + on-board computer, AIM-120 this is good, but the R-27 is used on the 77CM - and the SM3 is practically on a par with the F-15E, but still you will lose in the radar ...
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 15 June 2016 08: 39
      0
      in the subject, P 27 is indicated and not "seventy-seventh" (and this is still a serious difference)
      1. Tiratori
        Tiratori 18 June 2016 21: 37
        0
        As someone wrote: you need to compare the F-15a and Su-27P - then everything will become clear. Like :-)
  33. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 07
    0
    And if we consider the possibility of using the "TKS" equipment of the Su-27 aircraft, then this is practically the level of the radar of the MiG-31 aircraft
  34. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 11
    +1
    Quote: Falcon5555
    PPS - ZPS: it means on which side the target plane is visible, isn’t it?
    And the "looking" always looks and shoots ahead. Accordingly, everyone will try to get behind the battle (in fact, just like the old days), using all sorts of radars and AWACS.

    This is also not a very correct decision, modern aerial combat is a battle in the teaching staff, since this is the maximum launch range, but if both sides have dodged, then the transition to the BMVB. In long-range combat, the Su-27 is good, but the first modifications do not have a normal SD rocket, and even more so a DB. The advertising data of the R-27TE / RE is very, very high ;-)
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 13 June 2016 20: 42
      0
      Quote: Tiratori
      modern air combat is a battle in the teaching staff, since this is the maximum launch range, but if both sides have dodged, then the transition to the BMVB.

      On the 5th generation fighters, not only in this photo you can find a radiation hazard sign on the "tail", which means all the same PakFa will see at 360 degrees. In addition to the X-band radar in the nose cone and side radars + radars in the wings, there will also be a rearview radar.
  35. Kenneth
    Kenneth 13 June 2016 20: 52
    0
    Well, at first I was happy for ours. And then I remembered who had better electronics, who had advanced scientific institutions, who had already written off the first stealth, who had three times as many planes, who didn’t spend money on useless thousands of new tanks and realized what kind of world I was.
  36. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 53
    0
    But why go so far ??, the Su-35S and Su-35BM also cover 360, and they also have heat direction finders for tracking torches launching UR
  37. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 57
    0
    Moreover, if the Su-27 of the first modifications is equipped with a "Birch-L" with limited functions and very weak noise immunity (it catches everything from the P-35 and P-18, altimeters, and in general the work is difficult in flight), then the SM modification is equipped with new equipment - "Pastel", very milky in work and informative, and only about the Su-35 and even more so the T-50 is a completely different LEVL :-)
  38. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 20: 59
    0
    Quote: Kenneth
    Well, at first I was happy for ours. And then I remembered who had better electronics, who had advanced scientific institutions, who had already written off the first stealth, who had three times as many planes, who didn’t spend money on useless thousands of new tanks and realized what kind of world I was.

    Yes, but about 100 aircraft are deployed at NATO training camps in Europe, and about 2014 flying at the Votsok-100 exercises in our Far East as well, this is only one district
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 13 June 2016 21: 32
      -2
      And what. Of course, with our negative GDP, we can spend more money on our studies. Because they learn continuously, and we from case to case.
      1. Tiratori
        Tiratori 13 June 2016 23: 14
        0
        We are also continuous, but our bosses choose the path - it’s better to fly simple species, it’s safer ... but we must strive for perfection. Now the raid per year is very decent ...
  39. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 21: 02
    0
    Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
    Quote: Tiratori
    modern air combat is a battle in the teaching staff, since this is the maximum launch range, but if both sides have dodged, then the transition to the BMVB.

    On the 5th generation fighters, not only in this photo you can find a radiation hazard sign on the "tail", which means all the same PakFa will see at 360 degrees. In addition to the X-band radar in the nose cone and side radars + radars in the wings, there will also be a rearview radar.

    And by the way, the sign of radiation hazard, it's not him. On Su-27 aircraft, the only radiation source is UR R-73 (more precisely, its rods)
  40. Tiratori
    Tiratori 13 June 2016 21: 03
    0
    This is most likely the sign "microwave"
  41. Vasya Zhulbin
    Vasya Zhulbin 20 October 2016 16: 14
    0
    The Russian Air Force will withstand, but Iranian and Syrian aircraft against the F-15 with Avax are unlikely to be able to do anything.
  42. evgenaleks
    evgenaleks 5 December 2016 18: 20
    0
    [quote = Operator] F-22 / Su-35C:

    empty weight, t ~ 19,7 / 19,0
    fuel weight in internal tanks, t ~ 8,2 / 11,5
    maximum range, km ~ 2000 / 3600
    maximum take-off weight, t ~ 38 / 34,5
    normal take-off weight, t ~ 29,2 / 27,0
    maximum engine thrust, t ~ 31,6 / 29,0
    all-aspect thrust vector control ~ no / yes
    maximum speed, km / h ~ 2124 / 2500
    maximum overload, g ~ 8 / 9
    angular pivot speed, degrees / s ~ 24 / 72
    wing area, sq.m ~ 78 / 6
    Even I can’t believe that the speed is 2 100 at the raptor. . + here the raptar is inconspicuous - the cator allows him to paddle at close distances to the SU and S wings - 78 and 6. as ? maybe you from the United States and specifically distort the data so that Russia does not suffer to rearm?: but! It is thought that if in the Second World War surrendered 4. then pilots who consider themselves bourgeois will not give up. the ani themselves will do (they did!!!) orders such as they need and there will be no war.
  43. Santa Claus
    Santa Claus 29 May 2017 06: 42
    0
    Well, yes, of course, the r-27r or r-27er of 80 years with a semi-active head is much better than an aim-120 with an active one. The author is simply handsome fellow
  44. egeny patykov
    egeny patykov April 29 2018 15: 37
    0
    but hanging tanks are a typical load. for this, they took suspended ones to reduce the EPR, and here it is less than f-15, but the EPR is more. not even that. their AMRAM rocket has a range probably more. and because ALL the money is being raked by an ahfitseryer in the USA, it’s probably an paetama ani that people