Military Review

American fighter F-35A - "the wrong plane"

78
An unnamed insider from South Korea reported that the F-35A fighter, released by Lockheed Martin, an American company, and announced to the South Korean Air Force tender to purchase sixty multi-purpose fighters totaling $ 7,2 billion, most likely, not yet corresponds to the declared characteristics.



The insider noted that the South Korean military in a competitive request clearly indicated two main requirements for the fighter: for hanging arms, the aircraft must be equipped with external pylons; fighter must demonstrate maximum speed in 1913 km / h. Tests of airplanes submitted to the tender (F-35A; F-15 "Silent Eagle" from Boeing; "Typhoon" from the European EADS consortium) should start from June to September 2012. The winner of the competition will begin deliveries of aircraft with 2016 year.

And another insider pointed out the same lack of American aircraft. The F-35A fighter, he noted, should be equipped with 6 underwing pylons for attacking guided missiles, but it is doubtful that this requirement could be met by the planned start of deliveries. The representative of Lockheed Martin said that the pylons can be installed, as required by the South Korean Air Force, but added that he does not understand why this is necessary: ​​after all, the fighter was created using Stealth technology and is intended to deliver hidden blows at the enemy. External suspension weapons, about which there is a speech, will increase the radar visibility of the fighter.

A spokesman said: “The plane has internal weapons bays. When hanging on F-35 weapons on external hangers, the fighter will lose its Stealth capabilities. This is not normal! ”The representative also said:“ However, if you insist on external hangers, such a requirement will be easily realized: there are all possibilities for this. ”

However, representatives of the Air Force of South Korea reported that the reason for “doubtfulness”, besides “inconspicuousness”, lies in the fact that the USAF - for financial reasons - do not want to fundamentally change the F-35. After all, it is clear that the plane with the added external suspension will have to go through an additional stage of flight tests with different aerodynamics.

And not only Koreans doubt the F-35 fighter. The other day this fighter was called the “wrong plane” in Australia.

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Arms and Trade of Australia held a special meeting. His goal was to assess the need to purchase F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, destined for the Australian Air Force.

The Canberra Times reports that representatives of RepSim, a manufacturer of simulators, and analytical agency Air Power Australia, spoke at the meeting. Experts said that the States and Australia are now developing the "wrong plane", and should not buy it.

As the speakers said, the F-35 creation project is a failure. Developed aircraft does not meet the stated specifications. And the main mistake of American experts, Australian experts considered the intention to develop a fighter-type 3: normal take-off, shortened take-off and vertical landing, and deck-based F-35. Representatives of RepSim and Air Power Australia also stated that before the completion of the program on the F-35 far, and the fighter already faced many difficulties.

During its report, RepSim presented the results of the air combat between the 240 F-35 and 240 Su-35s, simulated off the coast of Fr. Taiwan in 2018. According to calculations, only thirty F-35 survived in air combat. Combat simulations were also carried out between the Su-35С and 240 F-22 Raptor and then between the Su-35С and F / A-18E / F Super Hornet. In the first simulation, one hundred and thirty-nine F-22 survived, and in the second, all Super Hornet were shot down.

Speakers at the meeting strongly demanded that the Australian government refused to purchase F-35. Experts believe that the Australian government should put some pressure on the US government - so that the latter will allow the delivery of F-22 fighters to the Australian Air Force. Now exporting F-22 is legally prohibited in the United States; The reason is copy protection technology.

The Australian government has been revising the F-35 procurement program since November 2011. As part of this revision, it is planned to analyze a fighter development project based on test data and design difficulties. Expected to explore the parameters of the price. Based on the revision, it may be decided to postpone the purchase. Earlier, Australia announced its intention to acquire 100 aircraft F-35, but now decided to buy only fourteen. The contract is likely to be signed this year.
78 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nova
    Nova 10 February 2012 09: 16
    +10
    "We built, built and finally built ..." Cheburashka ©
    1. urzul
      urzul 10 February 2012 12: 02
      +5
      A little off topic, but good news
      !!!Three prototypes of the Russian T-50 fighter (PAK FA) have made more than 120 flights to date. According to ITAR-TASS, this was stated by the President of the United Aircraft Corporation Mikhail Pogosyan. According to him, in 2012, the fourth prototype of the aircraft will join the flight tests. "We will start deliveries of the pilot batch in 2013. Everything is going according to plan," Poghosyan said.

      The third prototype T-50 joined flight tests at the end of November 2011. It was planned that the fourth prototype - T-50-4 - will also begin to fly before the end of last year. The first two prototypes are currently being tested at the airport of the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Zhukovsky. The first prototype of the aircraft has been operating since January 2010, and the second since March 2011. As expected, the test of the T-50 glider will be completed this year.

      Under the terms of an agreement with the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Sukhoi company, which develops the fighter, will have to deliver the first ten T-50s to the Lipetsk Center for Combat Use and Flight Personnel Retraining, where the test program will continue. Currently, the Russian military department plans to purchase 60 T-50 fighters, not counting the aircraft of the experimental batch. The Russian Air Force's need for T-50 aircraft is estimated at 150 units.

      Touching upon the production program as a whole, M. Poghosyan informed that in the 2011 year the UAC increased the volume of production compared to the 2010 year by 25%. Now the final consolidated balance sheet has not yet been let down, but the revenue will be more than 160 billion rubles. (128 billion rubles in the 2010 year). Last year, more than 100 military and civilian aircraft were delivered, RBC notes.

      This year, UAC should reach more than 200 billion rubles in revenue. According to M. Poghosyan, this means that about 120 aircraft will be delivered to customers, Interfax reports.
      1. Gurza
        Gurza 10 February 2012 15: 29
        0
        It seems to me that in the final version of the T-50, the nozzles of the engines will not be round, but rectangular, I looked at the records when I tested such nozzles, they said that they reduce the thermal footprint at times.
        Litter for off top.
        1. urzul
          urzul 10 February 2012 15: 45
          0
          But at the same time, the aircraft’s maneuverability is greatly reduced; on the basis of the reduction in IR visibility, the nozzles are spaced apart over a large distance
        2. Born in USSR
          Born in USSR 13 February 2012 03: 22
          0
          How then will nozzle control be implemented in the horizontal plane?
  2. Varnaga
    Varnaga 10 February 2012 09: 17
    +1
    So here, no one needs Pindos junk with a sky-high price. However, this is a very natural result of this epicail. And yes, the results of the fighting are very optimistic, especially for the Sraptor.
    1. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 10 February 2012 09: 24
      +4
      After all this, they now think Kama would push this plane. Nikamu is useless, dear, and worthless. I think for the money that the Pindos spent on the exterminator, our scientists developed a space exterminator, and there would still be some money left. laughing
      1. esaul
        esaul 10 February 2012 09: 54
        +3
        What else is this article talking about, friends? The fact that the intellectual resource of military development at the USA is not unlimited and is impoverished, with the cessation of the drain of ideas and brains to the states! After all, Yusov’s political scientist said in an article yesterday that America, in fact, gives birth to few geniuses and lives off of the intelligence of attracted specialists and geniuses and the theft of ideas and technologies. Let it be so! drinks
        1. Sergh
          Sergh 10 February 2012 12: 59
          +2
          Hmm, recently specifically five articles chewed on the F-35 specifically. All shout with one voice, three directions, this is absurdity. Well, let's say there may not be any questions for a short take-off and a vertical landing, but what for is it needed for a regular take-off, so that only then a vertical landing in the corn field can be made, no one can understand this.
          There is a suspicion that everything will be cut off from him, such as if they put external suspensions, then he will not give the design speed, then they will find a hundred more reasons where he does not meet the stated requirements. Rather, the amerovskie "friends" have already realized that they have fallen into a trap and if they do not force him to be crammed, they will tell if they will take him at all, well, except for themselves. This is not to say that this plane has its own problems above the roof. Two crashed, but the truth was without casualties, the flyers flew into the air, and prohibited flights for half a year.
          Okay, let's observe, see.

          By the way, some countries are already turning the weather vane on the T-50, which, like the Russians, has already tested four cars in two years and a third, the fourth come with full avionics. And if in the 13th in ten cars they will teach pilots, then some even drooled.
      2. Krilion
        Krilion 11 February 2012 04: 05
        -2
        After all this, they now think toаI would shove this plane. Nickаmu nиnecessary, dear and useless. I think for the money that Pindos spendеwhether on istrиOur scientists have developed spaceиthe attendant and even a little money would be left.

        in the taiga grammar is no longer taught?
    2. gor
      gor 10 February 2012 13: 08
      +3
      only the author said nothing that as a result of these virtual battles all the su-35s were shot down. why is it so optimistic in your opinion? and these battles were modeled so that the level of pilots was equal. but in reality the level of their pilots is higher. they say that they fly on airplanes
      1. urzul
        urzul 10 February 2012 13: 20
        +12
        Su-35С is almost a serial aircraft, to which no one ascribes to the 5 generation. HE is generally a modification of Su-27, it turns out that in the 7 battle on 7 of Su-35С and F-35 machines, only the probability of leaving the battle alive one F-35! And given the investment and claims of excellence, to put it mildly worthless result.
        And with F-22, the joy is that the developers themselves assured the superiority of 1 to 10, and here 1 to 2 turns out.
        Then they better not meet with PAK FA in battle.
        1. gor
          gor 10 February 2012 13: 47
          -6
          but is there any certainty that the Pak fa will surpass the Su-35? what they still say is just words. they beat ourselves in the chest saying that we have surpassed. then why do the F-35s take so much time to do with what the Americans have already gained and the advantage electronically. the feeling that you call a plane a fifth-generation aircraft, and from and to ... you can dazzle and there will be no analogues. There are requirements and these requirements are not limited to cruising supersonic and also ...... etc.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 14: 40
            +5
            Quote: gor
            and there is confidence that the pack fa will surpass the su-35?

            There is
            Quote: gor
            what they still say is only words.

            Just PAK FA relatively recently developed. The prototype of the F-35 was already flying with might and main, when the PAK FA was not even in the layout yet
            Quote: gor
            triumphantly beat themselves in the chest, saying we have surpassed. Then

            Because the PAK FA was originally designed as a counterweight to the F-22. And F-35 inferior to F-22
            Quote: gor
            What do the Americans already have and have advantages in electronics

            Their advantages are that our radars, for example, are slightly better, but twice as heavy.
            1. gor
              gor 10 February 2012 17: 40
              -5
              and only words. essentially nothing. better, developed, is. so this still needs to be achieved in order to beat yourself in the chest
              1. gor
                gor 10 February 2012 18: 14
                -5
                and even the prototypes f-22 and f-23 flew back in 1991 and look at the path taken before they were put into service for 15 years. because Pak-fa took off, it in fact does not surprise anyone. But that's why and why it is better only time will tell. do not forget that the raptor has already been modernized 3 times and nobody knows anything about the results of modernization, nor does it know about the real capabilities of the f-35. although it’s stupid if you take what is written on the wiki about avionics is impressive
                1. Insurgent
                  Insurgent 10 February 2012 18: 50
                  +3
                  If the Soviet Union did not order a long life, then f-22 would not have been lonely, the moment the IFI would fly
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 February 2012 15: 22
          +3
          Quote: urzul
          Su-35S is almost a serial aircraft, which no one ascribes to the 5th generation
          ___ Actually, some experts attribute it. There is such a table, with points where signs of a 5th generation aircraft are indicated. By the total points scored, the Su-35 corresponds to the 5th generation more than the F-22.
          ___ And to call the Su-35 a modification of the Su-27 is not entirely correct, more correct is the further development of the 27th. If you recall the history of its creation, then:
          the further development of the 27th was the Su-35 (which had PGO, like the su-33,37),
          Then came the Su-37, which already had a different hull.
          and then, the Su-35BM aircraft appeared, which is developing from the Su-37, but for the sake of stealth, they removed the PGO, leaving the engines with a controlled thrust vector. Now it is equipped with AL-41F1S developed by NPO Saturn with a plasma ignition system and a controlled thrust vector. These engines satisfy the engine requirements for a fifth-generation fighter, including the ability to develop supersonic speed without the use of afterburner, differing only in the use of the old electronic-mechanical control system (in the future, they plan to install the same as on the PAKFA)
          ___ The visibility of the aircraft relative to fourth-generation fighters was reduced due to the use of composite materials and radar absorbing coatings, and it is also possible to install radar blockers in the engine air intakes.
        3. Insurgent
          Insurgent 10 February 2012 18: 48
          +3
          Well, the f-35 can be attributed to 5 soreness; the language is not rotated; it does not have a supersonic cruising regime; and stealth is not all right
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 14: 35
        +5
        Quote: gor
        only the author was silent that as a result of these virtual battles everything was su-35

        Indicators of battles are as follows:
        With the raptor - all Su are killed, 139 raptors are alive The ratio of 3,3 losses to one
        With F-35 - all Su died, 30 F-35 survived. The loss ratio is less than 1,18 to one.
        With the Super Hornet - all the Super Hornets died, how many sushiks survived - not reported.
        Now consider that Su-35 cost (60 - 70 million dollars) - only half of F-35 (about 150 million) - and this despite the fact that the results of the games show that 10 F-35 are equal to 12 dryers ... .
        1. gor
          gor 10 February 2012 18: 03
          -4
          look at the ratio between super hornets and su-35. there’s about 1k 1. so think about it somehow. I think that it will depend on the level of training of the pilots. and if you take that into account, then I think the super hornets won, would be. Such a simulation is done when equal to the level of training and therefore such a ratio. but if you already understand completely, given the superiority of both the aircraft themselves and the superiority of the pilot level, the results for dryers would be devastating
          1. Insurgent
            Insurgent 10 February 2012 18: 53
            +4
            This is just a simulation in real battle, everything is wrong
            1. gor
              gor 10 February 2012 19: 34
              0
              and I actually wrote about it
      3. saruman
        saruman 10 February 2012 14: 44
        +5
        Virtual battles are just a comparison of the declared performance characteristics and potentials, for a preliminary assessment it will do. Training fights are closer to reality. American - Indian teachings, very aroused the thought of amers and military experts about the superiority of Yusovian technology.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 15: 15
          +2
          Quote: saruman
          The American - Indian teachings, very much made the amers and military experts think about the superiority of the Yusov technique.

          Unfortunately, there was no F-22 and F-35
          And I would very much like to look at this spectacle - that's all, well, everyone-everyone writes that Su-30MKI will be an unanswered victim of a raptor or there F-35 ... And how would it actually turn?
        2. Insurgent
          Insurgent 11 February 2012 00: 41
          +1
          And knocking extra funds out of the budget
  3. Miha_Skif
    Miha_Skif 10 February 2012 09: 44
    +7
    "A neighbor's cow died. It's a trifle, but nice" (c)
  4. Uralm
    Uralm 10 February 2012 09: 46
    +6
    One of the most expensive and unnecessary aircraft! Well, just like the German battleship Tirpitz. I bought it or built it myself, and put it to hell. A friend will fall, and suddenly knocked down
    1. alex popov
      alex popov 10 February 2012 14: 45
      +3
      This can be said about the F-22. How many years in the ranks and not a single sortie, taking into account the fact that the United States is simultaneously waging 2 wars. Do you see them "no combat use")))
  5. I hate pendosov
    I hate pendosov 10 February 2012 10: 22
    +1
    Yes, the Pindos even with the fifth generation are not lucky. In fact, the same thing happened with the 3rd generation
  6. elk
    elk 10 February 2012 10: 34
    +4
    A dead cow of a neighbor is certainly a plus, But you should not underestimate it either. And it will fly and go into a series. Refuse from the declared parameters for 3 versions. Unify and drive in a series. Already after the fact, bringing to the requirements. Another thing is that the US military-industrial complex has been losing face over the past 10 years with this project. But this is a bell turning into an alarm. Given that the entire state system is built on lobbying for arms manufacturers ..
    1. urzul
      urzul 10 February 2012 13: 25
      -2
      And with this and with the Raptor, I’m glad that the PAK FA is getting closer in time to F-35
  7. Kyrgyz
    Kyrgyz 10 February 2012 10: 43
    +4
    A spokesman said: “The plane has internal weapons bays. When hanging on F-35 weapons on external hangers, the fighter will lose its Stealth capabilities. This is not normal! ”The representative also said:“ However, if you insist on external hangers, such a requirement will be easily realized: there are all possibilities for this. ”
    Representatives are right for all 100, you just can’t put a lot of weapons inside and weapons for internal placement will be of a different standard at a different price and manufactured in the USA, apparently this is not like by customers, there is a dilemma or armament or stealth, you can be happy but most likely we have the same garbage will come out with T50, everything individual will be needed for it, which makes the project more expensive
    1. urzul
      urzul 10 February 2012 13: 23
      0
      This is all individual is already being developed in parallel with the aircraft, so the price is already with the development of weapons. The same Su-35S will use PAK FA weapons
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 February 2012 17: 20
        +3
        Quote: urzul

        This is all individual is already being developed in parallel with the aircraft, so the price is already with the development of weapons. The same Su-35S will use PAK FA weapons
        For example, what is already being positioned at exhibitions
  8. AlexiusKit
    AlexiusKit 10 February 2012 11: 10
    -1
    Well, I think this plane will be easily destroyed by our PAK FA, and stealth will not help ... yes
  9. neri73-r
    neri73-r 10 February 2012 11: 19
    +7
    The F-35 program is RosPil American !!! Where is Novalny, where is it? Why does our liberal community not scream, where are US citizens Kasparov and Alekseev? Why are they silent ????? Ah, I forgot Putin didn’t pay them for shouting about American corruption.
    1. Born in USSR
      Born in USSR 13 February 2012 03: 31
      +1
      Quietly Quiet! Do not be scared - the more they saw and build, the better for us :-). It is also desirable that they would impose it on all allies - nehai rospil will be a group sex ...
  10. kPoJluK2008
    kPoJluK2008 10 February 2012 11: 48
    +3
    heh .. but I remember someone once exhibited as much as 10 Su-35s against one F-35 =))
    Where are these wiseacres now? In general, yes, but this simulation is too overpriced! I remember there were people who said that it was super-hornet, it would stack the Su-35 with piles .. Mdee. Is it true that it hurts your eyes?
  11. maksman
    maksman 10 February 2012 12: 23
    +2
    Q.E.D...
  12. mambito
    mambito 10 February 2012 13: 18
    +4
    Simulation is not proof of real victory. it is necessary to take into account the qualities of the pilot (training, teamwork, stress resistance, cold calculation and the desire to win), and not just the quality of the machine. And where did they get the number 240, it’s funny to hear 240 F22 (they closed the conveyor).
  13. Dmitry Desnyansky
    Dmitry Desnyansky 10 February 2012 16: 26
    +1
    stsuki simulate the possibility of attacking us. In the virtual, there was probably no melee. The numbers would be different. 240 to 240 and without melee? Somehow I can’t believe it. And if the radars of all 480 aircraft are suppressed? Who is then on horseback? Just thinking out loud
    1. Uralm
      Uralm 11 February 2012 03: 31
      0
      Simulation?! What nonsense!
  14. VORON
    VORON 10 February 2012 18: 08
    +4
    What do you compare all F-35s with PAK-FA and Su-35? F-35 three options and each for its specific tasks and individual types of armed forces in which it will be used, F-35B compare with its counterpart (as usually has no analogues in the world) Yak-141.
    1. gor
      gor 10 February 2012 18: 17
      -1
      why let them compare .and make sure that the attack aircraft, fighter and bomber are three in one person superior to the aircraft in order to gain superiority in the air of the su-35. only here the problem with the conclusions is deaf to some
      1. Dmitry Desnyansky
        Dmitry Desnyansky 10 February 2012 19: 26
        +3
        Troll! let your f22, f35 at least somewhere gain dominance in the air. At least at the air show, at least anywhere. Heard a joke about elusive Joe?
        1. gor
          gor 10 February 2012 19: 35
          -2
          about the conclusions deafly))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) transfusion from empty to empty participants in a computer game.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 19: 55
        +3
        Quote: gor
        why let them compare. and make sure that the attack aircraft, fighter and bomber alone in three persons surpasses the aircraft to gain air superiority su-35.

        Su-35 has already gone to the series. In the sense that he - almost completely passed all the required tests, i.e. This is a combat aircraft.
        The F-35 is not a combat aircraft, because, although it is produced in small quantities, and produced in this "series" more than the Su-35S - but it went into mass production very long before the tests were completed - in terms of technical readiness "not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal" - this is just the F-35. And with what happiness the person who voices on the PAK FA "so let them do it first and then we'll see" declares "and the F-35 is stronger" - this is nonsense. Let them do the F-35 first - then look.
        The Su-35 is a MULTIFUNCTIONAL aircraft, not pure air superiority.
        Quote: gor
        Only here is the problem here with the deaf conclusions of some

        The only point on which 100% agree. With the conclusions of some (we will not show fingers) really deafly
        1. gor
          gor 10 February 2012 20: 09
          -4
          in fact, it is for air supremacy, but can also be used for strikes against ground targets. And they said that according to the results of the f-35 it defeats the su-35. For example, I understand
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2012 01: 36
            +3
            Quote: gor
            .and they said that according to the results, f-35 wins against sous-35. for example, it is clear

            According to the results of the model. And F-35 will reach to the performance characteristics laid down in Matmodel?
      3. kPoJluK2008
        kPoJluK2008 15 February 2012 12: 53
        0
        Conclusions have long been made! The only thing the Su-35 is inferior to the F-35 is stealth! However, a more powerful and reliable radar compensates for this superiority! In all other respects, the Su-35 is several times superior to the F-35.
    2. adoyl
      adoyl 12 February 2012 13: 58
      0
      F-35B (modification of F-35 with GDP) is very close to the Yak-141 in design and layout. It also uses a combined power plant (1 PMD + 1 lifting fan), a compartment with a lifting fan (it performs the same function as the PD on the Yak) is also located behind the cockpit, and the nozzle of the lifting-marching engine is also covered by tail beams although their length is less. The PMD nozzle design still uses the idea first embodied in the P79B-300 (segments rotating in opposite directions). It happened because in the middle of the 1990's, the F-35 development company, Lockheed Martin, collaborated with Yakovlev Design Bureau for a short time. According to some reports, in 1995, Yakovlevites, with the permission of the Russian government, sold the Americans all the documentation for the Yak-38 and Yak-141.

      We sold our Yak-141 Pindos for a penny.
  15. Dmitry Desnyansky
    Dmitry Desnyansky 10 February 2012 19: 49
    0
    And what did you think they would put a trump card on the table?
    Naive silly. Your hosts know that fxnumx is a toy. If there is a maneuverable aerial battle, then it will simply fall apart in the air from overloads, and the pilot will die from asphyxia before he can press the trigger
  16. gor
    gor 10 February 2012 19: 53
    -4
    Well, think to yourself that the f-22 is a toy. I’d be smart, I would compare the performance characteristics of the f-22 with any other aircraft, and then I would write something
    and if we talk about maneuverability, so he does it all as standard. but not like at air shows with shutdown, and then the pilots are one thousand. And I really would like to see the Su-35 at full load how it will maneuver. And the raptor is does at full load
    1. GRU Special Forces
      GRU Special Forces 10 February 2012 21: 11
      +2
      Quote: gor
      I wanted to look at the Su-35 at full load, how it will maneuver. and the raptor does this at full load

      su 35 at full load does not lose its maneuverability in any way everything also hangs on revenge to turn around 180 degrees performs any aerobatics without losing speed and maneuverability like this learn the part))
      1. gor
        gor 10 February 2012 22: 30
        0
        this makes only a couple of pilots at an air show and the restrictions are lifted as well as there are no weapons on the suspensions.
        and one f-35 engine in the driveless mode produces almost the same thrust as two engines, about twice as heavy as the Su-35.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 February 2012 22: 57
          +1
          Quote: gor
          one f-35 engine in the afterburner mode produces almost the same thrust as two engines of about two times the heavier su-35.
          Clear lies.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 23: 10
          +4
          Quote: gor
          and one f-35 engine in the driveless mode produces almost the same thrust as two engines, about twice as heavy as the Su-35.

          Boy, aren't you ashamed? Well, how much nonsense can you carry? According to reference books, is it not fate to look?
          The one hundred and nineteenth Prat and Whitney has a formless thrust somewhere in the range from 10500 to 11000 kgf. And in the afterburner, the mentioned animal gives out about 15 800 kgf, but at the same time it weighs about 1780 kg
          And Al-41F1С, which stands on the Su-35С, has approximately 8800 kgf of unforced traction and 14500 kgf - at the afterburner But it weighs less - 1520 kg.
          But here's the thing - Su-35С has a total 25500 kg of normal take-off weight. And your favorite Raptor - 30 206 kg What does it mean - in terms of load on the afterburner the Raptor loses Su-35С (1,137 versus 1,046)
          As for the F-35 - its engine - 18100 kgf. A normal take-off weight - 24 350 kg (F-35A) Ie its thrust-to-weight ratio - 0,74
          1. gor
            gor 11 February 2012 09: 40
            0
            military (6 + 2 UR, 52% fuel): 1,23
            normal take-off weight: 1,05
            with the maximum take-off weight: 0,83 with what I forgot to write that the maximum take-off weight for drying 34 tones from the raptor 38. It is not necessary to manipulate the numbers and mix everything in one pile to give the desired for the real.
            By the way, the maximum take-off weight of f-35 is approximately 31 ton. Well, everyone shouted about the thrust of the f-35 which is small and that kind. Consider just if 18 is the thrust of one engine, then it doesn't look like these 0.54 thrust. 18 said it roughly there 17 with tail
            and where is the lie? he himself wrote that 8800 is one engine and multiplied by 2 and we get 17600, that is, something that gives the engine f-35
            1. gor
              gor 11 February 2012 10: 57
              0
              and if you don’t listen to the Wikipedia which you stick to and roughly calculate the f-35 thrust rate at maximum take-off, as you said 0.74, this is when using afterburner, that is, when the engine gives out 22 tons of thrust. Without using afterburner at maximum, we have about 54 when thrust 17 tons of brass. And the mentioned animal produces 15200 thrusts in my opinion on the raptor and 17 with the tail on the afterburner, but nobody measured the thrust-weight ratio on the raptor with the afterburners on, as they are not intended to be used although they remained.
              Yes, and roughly calculate the drying capacity at maximum take-off and we get that it is lower than the raptor
              1. gor
                gor 11 February 2012 13: 00
                0
                so if you count without turning on afterburners on drying at the maximum, you get about 0.51, i.e. less than f-35
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2012 13: 10
                +2
                Quote: gor
                military (6 + 2 UR, 52% fuel): 1,23

                Well, where is the calculation of thrust-to-weight Xu-35 in combat load? Or will we compare the Su-35C in normal and F-35 in combat? So you then take a lot of empty F-35 - it will be even steeper laughing
                Quote: gor
                with the maximum take-off weight: 0,83 with what I forgot to write that the maximum take-off weight for drying 34 tones from the raptor 38. It is not necessary to manipulate the numbers and mix everything in one pile to give the desired for the real.

                Yep Now tense up and try to figure out what the full combat load of the Raptor is and what is the maximum for the C-35.
                Quote: gor
                By the way, the maximum take-off weight of f-35 is approximately 31 ton. Well, everyone shouted about the thrust of the f-35 which is small and that kind. Consider just if 18 is the thrust of one engine, then it doesn't look like these 0.54 thrust. 18 said it roughly there 17 with tail
                and where is the lie? he himself wrote that 8800 is one engine and multiplied by 2 and we get 17600, that is, something that gives the engine f-35

                So I tell you once again - you lie and do not be fooled. 8800 is the maximum free speed of the 1 engine of the AL-41F1C, respectively, the thrust of the 2-x engines is 17 600 kgf. At F-35 the maximum speed without afterburner is 12 450 kgf. And 18 100 kgf, about which you write - this is a thrust. In AL-41F1C, this indicator is 14 500 kgf, i.e. for 2 engines - 29 000 kgf.
                So, the two Su-35 engines have an advantage over one-third of the F-35 engine. And this is despite the fact that at least you run over the ceiling, but the normal take-off weight of the Su-35 is almost equal to F-35 and the maximum - only 8-10% more.
                In general, I say it again - take the trouble to read at least something, before blurting out "advice of cosmic scales and cosmic stupidity"
                Quote: gor
                Yes, and roughly calculate the drying capacity at maximum take-off and we get that it is lower than the raptor

                TO SCHOOL!!!
                29 000 / 34 500 = 0, 84 for drying
                31 752 / 38 000 = 0,835 at the raptor
                no, not to school
                TO TREATMENT !!!!
                1. gor
                  gor 11 February 2012 13: 12
                  -1
                  it’s on wikipedia for you. and you take it and count
                  and go to school yourself. drying on the afterburner gives this out, and a raptor without using afterburner and count the drying maximum take-off without afterburner
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2012 20: 55
                    +2
                    Quote: gor
                    then wikipedia you so. and you yourself take it and count

                    Well you are a miracle ... why are you guys, you really can't count? once again - take a calculator and count the data on me tsiferki.
                    For those who niasili high school program
                    RAPTOR - at ONE engine thrust is maximum unformed - 11 000 kgf (or still 10 500) This is for two engines -21 000 - 22 000 kgf.
                    Now - the fast and the furious. In the afterburner, the Raptor engine is 15 760 kgf. For two engines - 31 752 kgf. It's clear?
                    At Su-35 - one engine has unforgived traction 8800 kgf. Two engines - twice as much, i.e. - 17 600. And the afterburner of one engine Su-35 - 14500 kgf Accordingly, two - 29 000 kgf
                    maximum take-off weight of raptor - 38 tons
                    Total thrust ratio raptor
                    in bass-free mode - 0,579
                    in the afterburner - 0,835
                    Su-35 has a maximum take-off weight of 34 500 kg, respectively
                    in bass-free mode - 0,547
                    in the afterburner - 0,840
                    1. gor
                      gor 11 February 2012 21: 30
                      0
                      I actually figured it all out in my mind. Explain to me then where did you get 0,74 for the f-35 thrust-to-weight ratio at maximum take-off? For example, I’m rude if you take 31 tons of maximum take-off and 18 tons of thrust comes out 0,56 that is what is officially said , and 0,74 comes out for 22 tons of traction.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2012 21: 46
                        +1
                        Dear Druk!
                        Quote: gor
                        I actually figured it all out in my mind. Explain to me then where did you get the 0,74 for f-35 thrust at maximum take-off?

                        Azokhen vey, as they say in Israel :))))
                        Here I am copying how I got 0,74, and you read it, okay? One request - CAREFULLY am
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As for the F-35 - its engine - 18100 kgf. A normal take-off weight - 24 350 kg (F-35A) Ie its thrust-to-weight ratio - 0,74

                        Clear? 0,74 is the thrust ratio of the F-35 with a normal take-off mass. NORMAL, NOT MAXIMUM
                      2. gor
                        gor 11 February 2012 22: 23
                        0
                        I know that it was written under normal)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                2. gor
                  gor 11 February 2012 13: 55
                  -1
                  Didn’t you yourself write that f-35 has o, 74? and count and make sure that o, 54 correspond to 18 and 0,74 to 22 tons of thrust when using afterburner and at maximum combat load
  17. kostya
    kostya 10 February 2012 20: 32
    -1
    a miserable semblance of the Soviet Yak141.
    1. Dmitry Desnyansky
      Dmitry Desnyansky 10 February 2012 20: 44
      0
      and not even 4 generation
  18. Dmitry Desnyansky
    Dmitry Desnyansky 10 February 2012 20: 33
    +4
    So you understand


    And what about the fighting radius of the Aeths?
    1. gor
      gor 10 February 2012 22: 34
      -5
      and at the same time f-35 gouging drying in the simulation. very interesting. notice the pack fa is not very different from the su-35. didn’t the Chinese make the table the case?)))))))))))))))
    2. adoyl
      adoyl 12 February 2012 11: 54
      -1
      Approximately 1.5 times lower than the Su-35S
  19. wolverine7778
    wolverine7778 10 February 2012 20: 52
    0
    It seems that the F-35 was made by the United States specifically for export sales to the Allied countries, maybe this is a bad copy of the F-22, and the F-22 itself will only be in the service of the US Air Force. Everyone knows about it but can not do anything about it, here and rage fellow
  20. ward
    ward 10 February 2012 21: 21
    0
    Electronics .. Avionics ... On the F-15, the helmet-mounted target designator in the heap weighs 120 kg. and on 3 MIGs (three) KG, with accuracy on 30% greater ... Ears .. Paws .. Tail The brain is the main thing ...
  21. azgard13
    azgard13 10 February 2012 22: 29
    0
    in any case, the future is for the UAV
  22. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 10 February 2012 22: 53
    +1
    F-35 Options
  23. Gunner
    Gunner 10 February 2012 23: 57
    +5
    A simulated aerial combat of 240 by 240 is a laugh, why didn’t they simulate the air battle of the F-35 with the S-300 air defense system then? The result would be interesting.
    1. serg792002
      serg792002 11 February 2012 00: 34
      +2
      I agree 100%. In addition, the C 300 has missiles with a special warhead for such flocks.
  24. serg792002
    serg792002 11 February 2012 00: 32
    -1
    Judging by the wikipedie F22 is not ice but F35 so generally flying iron.
  25. Insurgent
    Insurgent 11 February 2012 00: 46
    +1
    Australia with whom it is going to fight, Russia is far from fighter jets, too, seem to fly under, the Chinese also have no interests in Australia, why does she need f-22?
    1. Gunner
      Gunner 11 February 2012 00: 55
      +1
      F-22 Australia is needed to participate in NATO's "peacekeeping" operations to establish democracy. Austalians - breed kangaroos better.
  26. Patos89
    Patos89 11 February 2012 01: 25
    -1
    Bullshit, this simulation all depends on the pilots and knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of their car
  27. Sarbaz
    Sarbaz 11 February 2012 11: 05
    0
    The USA is the largest advertising agency in the world.
  28. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 11 February 2012 11: 49
    0
    ___ Interestingly, a year ago there was information that Lockheed Martin on its website corrected the information on its F-22. The maximum speed, for example, was no longer indicated by 2600 km / h, but 2100 km / h, the distillation range fell from more than 5000 kilometers to 3000 with a penny, the declared thrust of one engine fell from 20 tons to 15,8 tons. Etc.
    ___ Now I stuck it on the same link on the official website - a long list of characteristics was reduced, only the size of the aircraft is indicated, its weight, maximum speed is indicated not exactly, but 2M.
    ___In general, it is thought-provoking, or did not correspond to these corrected data, or with these data, it does not look like a super plane, but just a good plane that does not justify the money invested in it, so most of the data from the list was removed.
    ___ Manufacturer's address http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html
    1. gor
      gor 11 February 2012 12: 54
      +3
      or no one knows the conscious information and real characteristics and everyone argues about what they don’t know
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 11 February 2012 18: 03
        0
        Quote: gor
        or no one knows the conscious information and real characteristics and everyone argues about what they don’t know
        Site of the aircraft manufacturer F-22. Does the manufacturer not know the characteristics of his aircraft?
        1. gor
          gor 11 February 2012 20: 57
          +1
          Of course they know. Only I noticed one thing that there were much fewer available materials on these topics. And there was just about any PR available, but not only among Americans
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 11 February 2012 13: 04
      0
      Found an article on this topic http://rusarm.com/arhiv/n4_2008/f-22a_reptor_pernatyj_hiwnik_operyaetsya/
      In my opinion, a lot of interesting
      Table from article
      1. Jupiter
        Jupiter 11 February 2012 19: 43
        +1
        In this table, the MiG-29 or MiG-35 would look more logical ...
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 11 February 2012 20: 00
          0
          Quote: Jupiter
          In this table, the MiG-29 or MiG-35 would look more logical ...

          The table for the article to which I gave a link.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2012 21: 03
        +1
        TTX Sukhoi distorted shamelessly.
        Correct look here http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/su35bm.html
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 13 February 2012 16: 34
          0
          I did not find the TTX on the manufacturer's website. And according to different sources, the data varies. For example, here in this table with the previous table, the discrepancy is only in combat weight.
          1. gor
            gor 13 February 2012 19: 16
            0
            as I understand it, they themselves do not know the data of their creation. although I know one parameter for sure. there are no analogues
  29. froglodit
    froglodit 12 February 2012 04: 05
    0
    and where did 2 photos from the article
  30. adoyl
    adoyl 12 February 2012 13: 28
    0
    Su-35BM is a very good aircraft, except for its visibility to radars, and the F-35 is an experienced aircraft, a very capricious design reacts to weather, humidity, the aircraft is inconspicuous, but very expensive both in production and in service, operation is not possible on every airbase, unlike the F-15. In general, it is not entirely correct to compare the Su-35BM and the F-35, the Su-35 is a modernization of the Su-27, and the F-35 is a newly designed model. It will be more correct to compare the F-15E Strike Eagle and Su-35BM.
    1. FROST
      FROST 12 February 2012 14: 34
      -1
      A better Silent Eagle.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 February 2012 15: 40
        +1
        IN!
        Gold words:)))
        Because another aspect is being added to the F15 versus Su-27 dispute - who of them has a larger modernization reserve and, most importantly, will the parties be able to take advantage of this reserve?
  31. FROST
    FROST 12 February 2012 14: 46
    -1
    He has an AFAR, the most powerful avionics, a helmet-mounted target designation system for close combat, an inconspicuous glider and a thrust-weight ratio of 1,41 (!!!) with normal take-off weight.
    1. gor
      gor 12 February 2012 20: 09
      0
      and as far as I know they will install engines with uvt
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 13 February 2012 14: 44
        0
        Quote: gor
        and as far as I know they will install engines with uvt
        If the engines will be with UVT, then they are not all-perspective: the exhaust can only be directed up or down, it cannot be done to the side - the design features of the aircraft interfere.
        PS
        Incidentally, the F-22 engine nozzles can only fall up or down, and, only at the same time, they cannot fall apart.
        Our T-50 has all-angle nozzles, which can be placed in a mess (one up, the other down)
        1. gor
          gor 13 February 2012 15: 30
          +1
          I actually said about the quiet eagle that the engines with uvt.
          okay but what is the meaning of the difference? and on f-22 only up or down. but they are technologically simpler which makes it possible to more quickly change this same vector
          On a silent needle, UVT will also be all-round. It is not naive to think that UVT has no analogues. Europeans were also supposed to equip engines with UVT 10 years ago and the design was developed. Only for some reason they refused it
          and the f-35 should be compared with the instant -35 since the planes belong to the same class. the ss-35 is another weight class already. and for those who don’t know the f-35 and are developing cruising bezforsazhnaya. does not develop only a modification with since high drag caused by increased wing area
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 February 2012 15: 54
            +1
            Quote: gor
            and f-35 should be compared with the moment -35 since the planes belong to the same class

            So, the F-35 with maximum take-off weight in 31 750 kg is a lightweight fighter? !!! And it should be compared with Mig-35 which has a maximum take-off in 23 500 kg, i.e. less than 75% of the weight of the F-35? !!! But with Su-35 which has a mass of 34 500 kg (it turns out that F-35 is 92% by weight of Su-35) - is it impossible? !!!!
            BROTHER! STOP !! I BEG!!!!!
            1. gor
              gor 13 February 2012 19: 27
              0
              yes lan stop. I'll see how much the light fighter of the 5th generation of the Russian assembly will weigh
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 February 2012 22: 12
                +1
                Quote: gor
                I will see how much light the 5 light fighter of the Russian assembly will weigh

                Yep Bearman do not forget
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 13 February 2012 17: 00
            0
            Quote: gor
            okay but what is the meaning of the difference? and on f-22 only up or down. but they are technologically simpler which makes it possible to more quickly change this same vector
            If the engines are like the "Raptor", then it makes no sense to do it in a different way. If the engines are widely spaced like our PAKFA (and all dryers, starting from the 27th), then at low flight speeds the aircraft is able to twist the barrel, and even more so to unfold its nose (and therefore, the locator and weapons) in the right direction.
            If I remember correctly, then on PAKFA engine nozzles should turn in all directions, in contrast to the Su-30, in which the nozzle of each engine runs in the same plane (and between each other, both synchronously and in different directions)
            1. gor
              gor 13 February 2012 19: 20
              +1
              Why do you need a barrel at extremely low speeds? What advantage will this give except for disorienting the pilot for a couple of seconds?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 14 February 2012 11: 14
                0
                Quote: gor
                Why do you need a barrel at extremely low speeds?
                I also wrote there: "... and even more so turn your nose (and therefore the locator and weapons) in the right direction ..."
                1. gor
                  gor 14 February 2012 12: 47
                  +1
                  only everyone forgets to write that while he will unfold his nose then by this moment he may already be shot down. Isn’t speed loss in battle really dangerous and the plane becomes very vulnerable at these moments?
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 14 February 2012 15: 14
                    0
                    Quote: gor
                    only everyone forgets to write that while he will unfold his nose then by this moment he may already be shot down. Isn’t speed loss in battle really dangerous and the plane becomes very vulnerable at these moments?
                    In a similar situation (low speed), the plane of our potential friends can only raise or lower its nose - is this better than full control of the plane's position?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 February 2012 15: 43
      +1
      Quote: FROST
      and thrust-to-weight ratio 1,41 (!!!) with a normal take-off mass.

      ... And engines from the trophy "Energy" laughing
  32. Patos89
    Patos89 14 February 2012 01: 46
    0
    F-35A is a light aircraft that will mainly be based on aircraft carriers with the T-50. It’s silly to compare it. The T-50 is still under development and it’s unknown that it still takes time to bring it to mind.
    The first flight of the F-22 September 29, 1990
    F-22: September 7, 1997
    Start of operation December 15, 2005
    And if America does not let the desa they even bring it to mind
    Plus, not every pilot can control it.
    And as if the T-50 would not repeat the sad account of the Su-47 Golden Eagle
  33. Uralm
    Uralm 14 February 2012 01: 49
    0
    In the words of Winnie the Pooh
    These are wrong americans
    So they make the wrong planes!
    1. gor
      gor 14 February 2012 12: 49
      0
      they are all trying to catch up with these wrong Americans and that their planes should at least be equal to these wrong American planes))))))) very strange trends
  34. alesinelnikov
    alesinelnikov 10 March 2012 21: 43
    +3
    I beg your pardon, I am off topic. It is not correct to compare the I-16 and the Me-109! And the simulator would give an answer about one hundred percent victory of the mesers, but in real life it was like in Vysotsky's song (hereinafter the holy words) "there are two of us eight - the alignment before the battle" and in this situation, all the first heroes of the USSR, the pilots fought on Ishaks! Our fighter school is the best !!! and the SU-35 with our pilot, who will not do it before the overseas miracle, will dump this crap in spite of the simulators !!! you can minus me.