Military Review

The company Lockheed Martin reported on the success in the release of fighter F-35

75
15 December, Lockheed Martin rolled out the 66 F-35 fighter produced in the 2017 year. Thus, the company fully met the deadlines approved earlier and fulfilled all the obligations to supply F-35A, F-35B and F-35C fighters to customers.


The company Lockheed Martin reported on the success in the release of fighter F-35


In honor of the successful completion of the year, Lockheed Martin assembled a video in which they told about the main successes of the F-35 program. In addition, the video shows the production line and part of the assembly processes of fighters.

In Lockheed Martin indicate that to date, already assembled X-NUMX fighter F-265. It is planned that 35 units will descend from the conveyor annually from 2023. In 160, the price of these aircraft has decreased by 2017% compared to the fighters supplied under the first contract, and by 60, it will drop to $ 2020 million, which is less than the price of many 80 generation fighters, reports "Warspot"

Photos used:
Lockheed Martin
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ragnar Lodbrok
    Ragnar Lodbrok 19 December 2017 16: 56
    19
    This is called totalitarian marketing! A plane that does not meet the requirements of the fifth generation is imposed on NATO countries as super products! Over perfection!
    Russia would learn.
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 19 December 2017 17: 04
      +4
      Quote: Ragnar lodbrok
      This is called totalitarian marketing! A plane that does not meet the requirements of the fifth generation is imposed on NATO countries as super products! Over perfection!
      Russia would learn.

      From there, and the price is so reduced ..
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 19 December 2017 18: 05
        15
        F-35 promises to repeat the success of the F-16. Over time, childhood diseases will be eliminated naturally.
        1. Shironay
          Shironay 19 December 2017 19: 40
          +8
          It’s even not interesting to watch the video. All progressive mankind already knows that "F-35 is a flying iron, a child prodigy and sawed dough." And of course, that the SU-35 will shoot them down like ducks. Hurray, comrades !!!
          1. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 19 December 2017 19: 48
            +9
            Quote: Shiryonay
            Hurray, comrades !!!

            Tambov Wolf is your friend.
          2. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 19 December 2017 21: 50
            +7
            F-22 + F-35 = Su-57
            1. dubovitskiy.1947
              dubovitskiy.1947 20 December 2017 11: 04
              0
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              F-22 + F-35 = Su-57

              Numerology, brother.
            2. Romulus
              Romulus 20 December 2017 11: 18
              0
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              F-22 + F-35 = Su-57

              That is, if you believe the local commentators - to add up these two who can’t really fly troughs .. will it turn out Su -57? Holy holy repeat
        2. Dead duck
          Dead duck 19 December 2017 19: 48
          +9
          Quote: xetai9977
          F-35 promises to repeat the success of F-16.

          Like a classic ... "Tradition is fresh, but hard to believe"
          1. Lexus
            Lexus 19 December 2017 22: 26
            +4
            Eh, if not for the famous events, the MiG-29 would have reduced this very success of the F-16. In 1992, about 1600 cars were produced.
            1. Shahno
              Shahno 19 December 2017 22: 38
              +1
              Maybe. Machines are close in capabilities.
        3. Berkut24
          Berkut24 19 December 2017 20: 36
          +3
          F-35 promises to repeat the success of F-16.

          I don’t know what success you are writing about. F-16 was created as a killer MIG-21. By the time of its creation, the 21st was already withdrawn from service and the MIG-29 came to replace it. The first 20 years, American pilots sincerely did not understand why they adopted this misunderstanding. And only then, when almost everything was replaced on the F-16 during the modernization process, including some elements of the airframe, it became more or less popular. But only for war with third countries.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 19 December 2017 21: 06
            +3
            The F-16 was successfully tested in 1982 against the Syrian Air Force. They shot down a lot of MiG-21 and MiG-23. No loss. Although they were usually aimed at targets by F-15 or AWACS aircraft.
            1. Lock36
              Lock36 19 December 2017 22: 08
              +3
              Wars with the Arabs are more relevant to the fighting qualities of the Arabs, and not our BT. There would be normal pilots in those MiGs - there would be a different conversation.
              Nothing, now turn around on F35! ))) And soon, the OS will start supporting the second rocket as well - then defeat everyone! )))
              1. Shironay
                Shironay 19 December 2017 22: 16
                +1
                Quote: Lock36
                Wars with the Arabs are more relevant to the fighting qualities of the Arabs, and not our BT. There would be normal pilots in those MiGs - there would be a different conversation.
                Nothing, now turn around on F35! ))) And soon, the OS will start supporting the second rocket as well - then defeat everyone! )))


                I hope you have no complaints about the quality of Russian pilots? In the only battle that took place in July 1970 over the Suez Canal between Russian pilots on the latest version of the MIG-21 at that time and Israeli pilots on phantoms and mirages-3, the Russians lost 5-0. Since the winners after the battle called the aerobatic properties of Russian pilots, it is most likely that the MIG-21 aircraft is so-so. Yes, and Mig-29 for his entire career did not bring down a single efki
                1. Lock36
                  Lock36 19 December 2017 22: 57
                  +6
                  I hope you have no complaints about the quality of Russian pilots?

                  No. War is war, not always you win.
                  В the only The battle in July 1970 over the Suez Canal between Russian pilots on the latest version of the MIG-21 and Israeli pilots on phantoms and mirages-3, the Russians lost witheven 5: 0.

                  How I do not like liars, horror is simple. laughing
                  Come on points, liar. wink
                  Was there only one battle in the whole war? Seriously, liar?
                  ... By June 1970, the Soviet pilots made about 100 combat missions to intercept violators in the skies of Egypt, alas, every time Israeli aircraft refused to join the battle - when the slightest danger of a collision occurred, the enemy would immediately go deep into their territory. The hide-and-seek continued until 25 June 1970 of the year - on that day a pair of Soviet MiGs (pilots Krapivin and Salnik) secretly stepped in to intercept the Skyhawk attack aircraft — one of the MiGs-launched self-guided missiles P-3 hit the aircraft engine with the “Star of David” on the fuselage . However, the resilient Skyhawk managed to stabilize the flight and, smoked with a ruined nozzle, dissolved in the sky beyond the Suez Canal.

                  Yes, of course, in the battle on June 30 we lost, BUT!
                  It was shot down not five, but four aircraft, a liar. wink lol
                  As a result of the battle 30.07.1970/XNUMX/XNUMX was shot down 4 MiG-21, while three Soviet pilots died.
                  At the same time, there are witness testimonies, according to which, after the battle, the Israeli search and rescue helicopters were circling over the battlefield - did the “unbreakable” Hel Haavir suffer any losses? It is not excluded. The operation involved a lot of "Mirage" from 101, 117 and 119 squadrons, as well as multipurpose fighter "Phantom" from the 69 squadron of the Israeli Air Force. There is a high probability that the loss of one (or several) machines was carefully hidden, and the results of the battle were falsified.
                  Reliable Air Force casualties Israel - a lined “Mirage” by Asher Snir that landed at the Refadim air base.

                  Will we discuss further details of the battle, for example, a numerical superiority? Or will you merge right away, liar?
            2. abc_alex
              abc_alex 20 December 2017 02: 47
              +3
              The F-16 was successfully tested in 1982 against the Syrian Air Force. They shot down a lot of MiG-21 and MiG-23. No loss. Although they were usually aimed at targets by F-15 or AWACS aircraft.



              Yes? And what did you want to show with this example? Recall, for starters, that the MiG-21 was developed and put into production in 1959. And the F-16 in 1979. The difference is 20 years. Really a success. :) EMNIP MiG-21 didn’t even have a radar, unlike the F-16. I think if MiG-1 or La-7 fought in Syria, you would have celebrated an even greater triumph.

              MiG-23, a newer, but also launched into the series when the F16 just started to design. And, I think, the "successes" of the Syrian Air Force in the war with ISIS clearly demonstrate the quality of the pilots there ...

              To avoid misunderstanding, I believe that the F-16 is a very good aircraft, from a rare category of centenarians. And I consider Israeli pilots experienced and skilled fighters and pilots.

              But let's be objective.
    2. Lavrenti Pavlovich
      Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 December 2017 17: 08
      11
      Quote: Ragnar lodbrok
      This is called totalitarian marketing! A plane that does not meet the requirements of the fifth generation is imposed on NATO countries as super products! Over perfection!
      Russia would learn.

      Russia would learn to create such industries and such capacities. Our at least 100 pcs per year to produce, as always harness too long.
      1. Ragnar Lodbrok
        Ragnar Lodbrok 19 December 2017 17: 30
        +6
        Capacity building directly depends on orders! There will be more orders, then the volume of productivity will increase. And orders, in turn, depend on a competent marketing company!
        1. Lavrenti Pavlovich
          Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 December 2017 17: 43
          +1
          You want to say that nobody needs our planes, neither our army, nor for export? The main problem of our defense industry is weak capacities, both in shipbuilding and in aviation. Of course, in comparison with the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s, production is developing, but too slowly.
      2. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 19 December 2017 19: 55
        +6
        Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
        Russia would learn to create such industries and such capacities. Our at least 100 pcs per year to produce, as always harness too long.

        On Fe-35, how many states, roughly speaking not the most recent, have cooperated? How much was invested in “production and capacity”, even taking into account the probable cut? And we have? What is there to compare ... Let's look at the final results and draw a final conclusion.
        1. Lavrenti Pavlovich
          Lavrenti Pavlovich 20 December 2017 01: 06
          0
          And if tomorrow is war? How will we fight back? Against three hundred F35 a dozen of our SU57 set? We are far behind NATO in the number of aircraft and experienced pilots, and this gap must be reduced. You can’t save on defense, but then the military budget is suddenly cut. The number of SU30, SU35, SU57 must be brought up to at least one and a half thousand and train pilots.
          1. dubovitskiy.1947
            dubovitskiy.1947 20 December 2017 01: 49
            0
            Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
            And if tomorrow is war? How will we fight back? Against three hundred F35 a dozen of our SU57 set? We are far behind NATO in the number of aircraft and experienced pilots, and this gap must be reduced. You can’t save on defense, but then the military budget is suddenly cut. The number of SU30, SU35, SU57 must be brought up to at least one and a half thousand and train pilots.

            Work better, pay to the budget without hiding, and do as many planes as you can.
            1. Lexus
              Lexus 20 December 2017 02: 03
              +5
              Work better, pay to the budget without hiding

              Offer this to Kerimov, Usmanov, Abramovich and others ... A simple layman, who goes for 20-30 thousand re, has already been robbed even without taxes.
              1. dubovitskiy.1947
                dubovitskiy.1947 20 December 2017 09: 57
                0
                Quote: lexus
                Work better, pay to the budget without hiding

                Offer this to Kerimov, Usmanov, Abramovich and others ... A simple layman, who goes for 20-30 thousand re, has already been robbed even without taxes.

                Do you think that Lavrenty Pavlovich is ordinary? Who is your memory?
            2. Lavrenti Pavlovich
              Lavrenti Pavlovich 20 December 2017 02: 55
              0
              For this, other laws and the iron hand of the leader are needed. Money can be printed, the Great Stalin did not fool around on these topics, but raised the country and gouged the whole of Europe, led by Hitler.
      3. Lock36
        Lock36 19 December 2017 22: 02
        0
        Here you can only print money to study, otherwise there is nothing special to learn. Ahhh, well, even marketing a failed product.
    3. Pirogov
      Pirogov 19 December 2017 17: 33
      +3
      Quote: Ragnar Lothbrok
      This is called totalitarian marketing! A plane that does not meet the requirements of the fifth generation is imposed on NATO countries as super products! Over perfection!
      Russia would learn.

      I agree . And for 50 years we have delivered all kinds of transfers for free.
    4. Berber
      Berber 20 December 2017 10: 57
      0
      In conjunction with politics and economics, the US economy is in the foreground. More precisely, the economic interests of American elites. Our politicians should always consider this.
  2. svp67
    svp67 19 December 2017 16: 58
    +4
    F-35 is similar to a "dachshund" ... In two streams .. They know how to "throw dust in their eyes." In general, of course, I’m not very pleased with the success of the "foreign partners" ... And I would very much like to see a new light fighter in our VKS series, especially since the new engine has already appeared.
    1. NKT
      NKT 19 December 2017 17: 24
      0
      Do we have an engine for a light fighter?
      1. svp67
        svp67 19 December 2017 17: 26
        +3
        Quote: NKT
        Do we have an engine for a light fighter?

        No, for the Su-57, but it’s already possible to do it for easy ...
    2. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 19 December 2017 21: 41
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      And I would very much like to see among our VKS a new light fighter, especially since the new engine already seems to have appeared.

      For starters, I would see the Su-57 at least in some kind of commodity quantities.
      True, the news would sound nice that:
      "The UAC rolled out the 66th Su-57 fighter manufactured in 2017. Thus, the company completely met the previously approved deadlines and fulfilled all the obligations to supply customers with Su-57 fighters"
  3. NEXUS
    NEXUS 19 December 2017 17: 06
    +8
    It is planned that from 2023 of the year 160 units will go off the assembly line annually.

    We would like to rivet fighters ... at least the same MIG-35.
    1. Going
      Going 19 December 2017 17: 31
      11
      For now, we can only lick dry lips.
      1. Jedi
        Jedi 19 December 2017 17: 42
        +5
        Only I hope that our pies in the form of airplanes will not be as raw. Better in any way instead of somehow. Do not be equal to the USA ...
        1. Tektor
          Tektor 19 December 2017 18: 27
          +1
          It’s just that in our current GPV priority was given to the fleet and the development of new weapons. And the next one should be a turn to the large-scale production of these new weapons, especially for the ground forces and rocket science in terms of missile defense, strike, and nuclear. Aviation is not a priority yet.
          1. Jedi
            Jedi 19 December 2017 18: 29
            +4
            And is that right? Develop one to the detriment of the other ???
            1. Olegovi4
              Olegovi4 19 December 2017 18: 51
              +2
              Quote: Jedi
              And is that right? Develop one to the detriment of the other ???

              not enough for everything at once. so you have to "bend"
              1. Going
                Going 19 December 2017 19: 19
                +4
                Quote: Jedi
                And is that right? Develop one to the detriment of the other ???


                Maxim, I really want to believe that everything is balanced and taken into account.
          2. NKT
            NKT 19 December 2017 18: 57
            +2
            But did the fleet have priority in this program? Then in the next program everything will be much sadder with our fleet
    2. Shironay
      Shironay 19 December 2017 20: 32
      +7
      Nexus, but your fighters, as always, are unique and have no analogs in the world, and the F-35 completely sucks.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 19 December 2017 20: 35
        +4
        Quote: Shiryonay
        Nexus, but your fighters, as always, are unique and have no analogs in the world, and the F-35 completely sucks.

        In the IR range, that pangolin that the F-35 are visible perfectly.
      2. shans2
        shans2 19 December 2017 21: 03
        +2
        here you did not lie, liberal licking)
  4. Vadim851
    Vadim851 19 December 2017 17: 10
    +9
    And really inexpensive. Do not underestimate this plane. F-16, for example, is worse in flight performance than the MiG-29, but the results of the battles are not in favor of the MiG ... Despite the shortcomings, the production pace is unrealistic.
  5. Naladchik
    Naladchik 19 December 2017 18: 36
    0
    Marketing is figuring. Engines and engines again. They make 200 engines, get 160 aircraft, we need to make 500 engines at the exit we get 170 SU-57, and from the rejected (brought) some SU-35 SD (with brought). In an airplane, the main engine is the rest of the lining, however, as in a ship or car.
    1. Rushnairfors
      Rushnairfors 19 December 2017 19: 09
      +3
      That is, we produce 15 su35 per year solely because we can’t produce more than 30 AL41 per year? I think that's not why. But because unfortunately a larger quantity is not required now. Rather, it is definitely required, but where to put them? What parts should they arm? As a result of the reforms, the Air Force has been so crippled that we cannot restore it, plus there aren’t enough people. Plus the broken-up airfields, which must first be restored, and then the materiel should be put there. In general, the whole situation with the re-equipment of IAPs is very good. Do not forget about the Mig35 and Su57, which will also go into series in the near future (and according to Mig35, contrary to official statements, the purchase figure is announced at the level of 70-100 boards, but this army wants as much as I really don’t know). So I want more of course, but in the modern realities of what is - enough. We would have to raise IL112 and, together with IL76, launch a normal series, and even with transport aviation bYadaaaa !!!!! Well, give the dalnits a bone, we are bending too.
      1. Naladchik
        Naladchik 19 December 2017 19: 42
        +2
        We need to proceed from the production base, and here we are 10-12 years behind. On the knee and 90 engines will do, and then the limit. Machine tools in the Urals are good, but imported ones are bought.
        15 machines can do, and 150?, Well maybe. Thousands are needed, and even yesterday.
        1. Rushnairfors
          Rushnairfors 19 December 2017 21: 06
          +2
          That is, roughly speaking, and we can’t want to? It’s just that we have a lot of demobilization at the Irkutsk plant, they say that there will be instructions and they can rivet 40-50 a year, I don’t think that they lie. The meaning of his own lie. Not on camera for the president report.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 19 December 2017 22: 51
            0
            Quote: Rushnairfors
            That is, roughly speaking, and we can’t want to? It’s just that we have a lot of demobilization at the Irkutsk plant, they say that there will be instructions and they can rivet 40-50 a year, I don’t think that they lie. The meaning of his own lie. Not on camera for the president report.

            They can rivet, riveters - you can buy it ...
            But who will do 5 times more. chassis, engines, radar, glass and many tens of thousands of other components ???

            They have pneumatic rivets as it is not in use ...
            For the manufacture of chassis radar. glass - other machines and other people are needed
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 December 2017 22: 11
        0
        No, not because of this - just the Su 35 costs almost two billion rubles.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 December 2017 19: 23
      +6
      "They make 200 engines, get 160 aircraft" ///

      Pratt & Whitney would go broke on such arithmetic ... Every 4th
      engine - defective? belay
      Maybe the USSR could afford to live so luxuriously, rejecting 25-50%, but in a large
      private company ...
      1. Naladchik
        Naladchik 19 December 2017 20: 14
        0
        I did not read their contract, but they laid 400-500% purely for warriors, and the rejection goes to spare parts.
      2. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 19 December 2017 21: 44
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Pratt & Whitney would go broke on such arithmetic ... Every 4th
        engine - defective?

        it’s not a marriage, but a strategic stock
        on average, every 3rd engine is stocked
        those. it is produced, but not put on a machine, but lies in a warehouse
        Well, it was thought so in the days of the USSR
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 19 December 2017 22: 23
          0
          There is one engine worth half a billion rubles, they will not be stored - for strategic aviation, please.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 19 December 2017 22: 54
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            There is one engine worth half a billion rubles, they will not be stored - for strategic aviation, please.


            At least at each base, where more than 3 aircraft, one backup engine should already be ...
            Plus, at 2-3 logistics centers, PiV must also be several pieces.
            these are the standards of western logistics.
          2. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 23 December 2017 01: 00
            0
            stock is made for any aviation
            otherwise at hour x the pipe comes
  6. hom0411
    hom0411 19 December 2017 18: 56
    +1
    You did not see our conveyor, in the factory, the Banner of Labor, for the assembly of Mig 29,
    in good times, 15 tons were collected without straining. per month.
  7. chidoryan
    chidoryan 19 December 2017 19: 41
    0
    fifth generation hot cakes, yyyy
  8. Popovich
    Popovich 19 December 2017 20: 24
    0
    Lockheed Martin reported - the loot mastered ...
  9. corporal
    corporal 19 December 2017 20: 46
    0
    66th .... in 2017

    .... like hot cakes.
  10. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 19 December 2017 21: 30
    +5
    Only beautiful planes fly well! (c) A.N. Tupolev

    F-35 - an ugly aircraft, at least as it is not stuffed with electronics. Looks like a pregnant cockroach with diaper wings.
  11. Shahno
    Shahno 19 December 2017 22: 02
    +4
    Quote: NEXUS
    It is planned that from 2023 of the year 160 units will go off the assembly line annually.

    We would like to rivet fighters ... at least the same MIG-35.

    Congratulations to colleagues with significant achievements. And you learn from our mistakes. And what is this Russian engine for a light fighter?
  12. dubovitsckij.viktor
    dubovitsckij.viktor 19 December 2017 22: 46
    +4
    Of the whole article, I liked the following most: “In 2017, the price of these aircraft decreased by 60% compared to fighters supplied under the first contract." Trump, who came to the presidency, coughed, and at the moment 60% of the price flew off the price of this iron. Apparently, profitability from this did not become a minus. Good loot is cut by lads. Mainly due to slaves from NATO.
    1. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 20 December 2017 01: 17
      0
      Quote: dubovitsckij.viktor
      Of the whole article, I liked the following most: “In 2017, the price of these aircraft decreased by 60% compared to fighters supplied under the first contract." Trump, who came to the presidency, coughed, and at the moment 60% of the price flew off the price of this iron. Apparently, profitability from this did not become a minus. Good loot is cut by lads. Mainly due to slaves from NATO.

      That's for sure. And they forget to add that 80 lard is the price without an engine. Lockheeds specially invented this mulch so that the senile in congress stopped fainting in congress. And so 120 as from a bush. Dviglo then buy separately from others. lol
      1. dubovitskiy.1947
        dubovitskiy.1947 20 December 2017 02: 00
        0
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        Quote: dubovitsckij.viktor
        Of the whole article, I liked the following most: “In 2017, the price of these aircraft decreased by 60% compared to fighters supplied under the first contract." Trump, who came to the presidency, coughed, and at the moment 60% of the price flew off the price of this iron. Apparently, profitability from this did not become a minus. Good loot is cut by lads. Mainly due to slaves from NATO.

        That's for sure. And they forget to add that 80 lard is the price without an engine. Lockheeds specially invented this mulch so that the senile in congress stopped fainting in congress. And so 120 as from a bush. Dviglo then buy separately from others. lol

        I don’t know who stole the method of setting the price of the product from someone relatively shabby, but the service staff and repair kits cost almost the same as the assembly itself. A sort of lure. For example, printers. Go crazy - a photo cartridge costs as much as a printer. Without some little things.
        The same F-35, along with the manufacture and service staff for the entire service life, costs 480 million. Exactly the same price is a piece of pure gold of the same weight as the airplane itself. They will throw it off manko from the airplane itself, but will add it to the service staff. And where will they go? Nobody gave them the right to vote. But the dust in the eye, how the same, only 80 lemons! There is nowhere cheaper. And the fact that this is only a carcass is for specialists. But the average man is delighted.
      2. chidoryan
        chidoryan 20 December 2017 07: 55
        0
        what is your evidence? Preferably with reference to an authoritative source
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 December 2017 10: 58
        +1
        "And they forget to add that 80 lard is the price without engine" ////

        The engine costs 11 million normal and 14 for a vertical landing.
        The price of the F-35A for the US Air Force today is 89 million, including the engine
  13. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 20 December 2017 05: 51
    0
    Well? The corporation is powerful, but it is not said whether it uses Russian titanium? Boeing with Airbus covers half of its needs. Although Lockheed cooperated with a Boeing ...
    1. Romulus
      Romulus 20 December 2017 11: 05
      +1
      Quote: pafegosoff
      Does she use Russian titanium?

      Mdya and then it started - a small set of kremlebot troll - titanium, trampoline, our engines ...
  14. k_ply
    k_ply 20 December 2017 08: 43
    0
    Something the people began to mistakenly compare the 21st MiG with the F-16, when the F-5th was its competitor. The F-16 was a real tactical multifunctional (it was also a candidate with the prototype of the well-known deck F / A-18) with an airborne radar, with an acceptable combat radius and with an air refueling system (MiG-29 without it). Even the training squadrons "aggressor", imitating the Soviet MiG-21, were equipped with the F-5, later - the F-16 (imitation of the MiG-29).
    F-35th, of course, will never reach F-16's procurement volumes, times and prices are different.
  15. Felix99
    Felix99 20 December 2017 09: 44
    0
    Quote: Lock36
    And soon the second OS rocket will begin to support

    There, the OS is plow-and-play, as soon as you connect via the COM port, say a matrix printer or a juicer, it instantly communicates with Microsoft servers and downloads drivers. Then just do not forget to reboot the system.
  16. Felix99
    Felix99 20 December 2017 09: 47
    0
    Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
    Looks like a pregnant cockroach with diaper wings.

    You see, the designers relied on biological objects for better aerodynamics.
    1. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 20 December 2017 10: 04
      0
      Quote: Felix99
      Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
      Looks like a pregnant cockroach with diaper wings.

      You see, the designers relied on biological objects for better aerodynamics.

      Therefore, this plywood cannot fly, since such prototypes were chosen.
  17. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 20 December 2017 10: 33
    +1
    Americans have always been able to make aircraft quality and on a large scale. And this only needs to be learned. A lot of things are also planned in the Russian Federation over the next 5 years, but the most important thing is the serial production of MS-21 up to 70 aircraft per year ... that will be a real achievement for the Russian Federation. And combat aircraft as a whole are now being assembled at three plants 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 per year Su30 / 34/35 and MiG-35 is being prepared (I also think 15 units a year), this is quite enough for our Air Force ...