Too small radius. In the US, criticized the deck version of the F-35

The US House of Representatives Committee on the Armed Services has criticized the deck version of the latest stealth fighter-bomber, the F-35C, created in the interests of the US Navy. The main drawback, according to members of the committee, is the aircraft's too small range, clearly insufficient to engage enemy targets, Task & Purporse reports.

According to the committee, the plane, in the development of which billions of dollars were invested, is already outdated. While it was being developed, and this is 20 years, the development of missile weapons has leaped forward.

According to expert opinion, F-35С is not able to effectively carry out military operations without refueling. In connection with the data on anti-ship missiles available to China and Russia, the aircraft carrier must be at least at a distance of 1000 nautical miles from the target (1852 km), and the range of the deck version of the F-35 is 670 nautical miles (1240 kilometers) .

Thus, according to experts, refueling aircraft will be required, which do not have low visibility and will be perfectly visible on the radar, which finally eliminates the main advantages of F-35С

Currently, the US Navy is considering two options for operations of the carrier group with the deck version of the F-35. In the first one, it is proposed to use the “invisibility” refueling in the air, although this poses a threat to detect aircraft, and in the second, to locate aircraft carriers closer to the target, but in this variant the aircraft carrier is already under threat of sinking.

The option of creating a stealth tanker aircraft is also being considered, but this is in the long run.

Comments

[the most important]

for the Yankees will do it! a lap of honor can be done around the deck and that's enough! when transferring technology, this was the calculation.

[sgazeev]

Quote: the most important

for the Yankees will do it!

Give a dozen green lard to search for a large radius.

[For example]

They will build stealth tankers and an aircraft carrier for tankers with a 3 km runway.

[cats]

Quote: For example

Build stealth refueling

And who will refuel the tankers? Need refueling tankers ..
But s.ka invisible ..

[Alex777]

The invisible aircraft carrier they need.

[krot]

To fight with the natives is the most!

[Tomato]

Tell me, doesn’t it bother you that this delightful joke was uttered 9000 times before you?
No, this time I laughed heartily. But some got a little bored.

[dorz]

Also considered is the option of creating a refueling aircraft using stealth technology

It is necessary to do immediately an aircraft carrier using stealth technology, they will give more money.

[screw cutter]

A sort of "Zumvolta" but with the runway?

[Vadivak]

Quote: ....

the range of the deck version of the F-35 is 670 nautical miles

Yeah time flies. Yak 38 with a vertical take-off of 195 km

[YELLOWSTONE]

the radius of the F-35 is less than that of the Yak-141, like almost everything else
and why are you comparing it all here with the Yak-38?

[Vadivak]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

the radius of the F-35 is less than that of the Yak-141, like almost everything else and why are you comparing it all here with the Yak-38?

And somehow they are both serial because

[YELLOWSTONE]

and the FAI record book does it look at seriality?

[Alekseev]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

why are you comparing everything here with the Yak-38?

Why not, but the radius of action for vertical take-off will always be less than for normal for combat aircraft of a comparable generation .. Yes, and many other characteristics of VTOL aircraft are inferior to "normal" aircraft.
Therefore, these machines are not ordinary competitors and are intended for use in conditions where it is not possible to use take-off take-off.

[YELLOWSTONE]

and ordinary can be used at all in such conditions?

[Lord of the Sith]

Need additional tanks to approach the goal or refueling. About this, here on the forum, it was written about 3 years ago. But some readers criticized, saying they don’t understand anything.

[bouncyhunter]

Hi, hello!

Quote: Sith Lord

some readers criticized that they don’t understand anything.

But where are we, Sivolapim ... The farther - the more it becomes obvious that the meaning of the development of the Fu-35 was a cut. Now they will throw some money into the increase in radius.

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: bouncyhunter

the more it becomes obvious that the meaning of the development of the Fu-35 was a cut.

Paul Pavel, how can you, eco you are so undemocratic . The meaning of the project was just saving, but everything slipped into the banal cut and bending of the "allies". Of course, they will either finish it or the requirements will be reduced, but they certainly won’t get what they planned.

[bouncyhunter]

Hobo, hello! I'm sorry that I called a spade a spade. Not sure if anyone will see clearly, but still ...

[Genry]

Quote: Sith Lord

Need additional tanks before approaching the goal

Yes Yes...
Remove all bombs and suspend tanks.

[Lord of the Sith]

And who wrote that to remove the bombs? But in order for the aircraft carrier to be at a sufficient distance from the coast, additional tanks or refueling are needed. Otherwise, it will be a one-way flight.

[Genry]

There is such a parameter "maximum take-off weight." And therefore, an extra ton of weight (roughly) of additional tanks will increase drag (the relative range per kilogram of fuel falls) and reduce the weight of the armament, which is already minimal when refueling an aircraft with fuel to its maximum range (without additional tanks).

[zoff-2017]

Nah, they will create stealth pendant tanks that drop halfway.

[kos2910]

Need additional tanks before approaching the goal

But what about the vaunted invisibility? No wonder everything was removed from the pendants inside the feselage. Well, we are * invisible to invisibility, but the mattresses will not survive this, they will suddenly see them and give them ...

[screw cutter]

And with additional tanks and weapons, it will take off?

[VO3A]

We didn’t even dream of such combat radii for our deck aircraft ... They make high demands on their vertically soaring modifications, but the usual ones can also be used ... We are in the lower league in this regard. And there is so much ambition from the Uri patriots .. ..

[Lord of the Sith]

And where is our deck aircraft? When the news was that there was no reason to replace the F-18. Since it is not possible to complete the task without refueling vehicles that level invisibility, namely invisibility was the main point of development.

[VO3A]

The problem is far-fetched, they can use with full-size aircraft carriers and the F-35A ...

[YELLOWSTONE]

how?

[ALEXXX1983]

Quote: VO3A

The problem is far-fetched, they can use with full-size aircraft carriers and the F-35A ...

I look at many wrong photos misled. Of course, the vertical line for the ILC is on it - F 35B, but the article does not say about it, but about the marine version of F 35C, and it has a radius greater than that of F 35A. And how will he get on deck without a hook?

[sabakina]

Yes Yes. Their decks are required to fly to the Urals, bomb and return to the Mediterranean Sea!

[Monos]

Andrey, you freeze stupidity. It is not necessary to compare carrier-based aviation, but carrier-based aircraft and the means of destruction of aircraft carriers and aircraft. Even in the US Congress, people are smarter than you. In addition, we do not need carrier-based aviation until we have a full-fledged aircraft carrier. We have other priorities.

[VO3A]

Carriers carry out "police" functions ... against weak opponents, for blockades and control, for provocations .... Do you have other priorities? You would think that fools are sitting in the US Congress? It's all? I do not freeze, I light .... and make think those who can ...

[Monos]

Quote: VO3A

against weak opponents, for blockades and control, for provocation ....

Well, you yourself have confirmed that a large radius of carrier-based aviation and powerful protection for aircraft carriers are not needed. The adversary is weak, cannot counteract. Why be afraid of him? Americans, however, think differently than you. They are afraid of us and China.
Say, "make you think"?

[YELLOWSTONE]

not only in congress

[max702]

Quote: Monos

. In addition, we do not need carrier-based aviation until we have

Until we have an urgent need to bring democracy to the other end of the planet ..
Everything else and what we need is at our place!

[Sancho_SP]

And we will reach the other end by land :)

[YELLOWSTONE]

Quote: VO3A

.We are in the lower league in this regard., And so much ambition from the Urya patriots ....

it wasn’t all about vertically taking off, there was only a photo from him for some reason

[75 hammer]

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/62868/227305704.2
0/0_13a32c_85d8387f_orig
The range is far from the new SU-33.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: VO3A

They make high demands on their vertically soaring modifications.

The Morpech F-35B takes off vertically. And the article talks about the decked naval F-35C, which takes off and lands in the traditional way.

According to expert opinion, F-35C not able to effectively carry out hostilities without refueling. In connection with new data on anti-ship missiles available to China and Russia, the aircraft carrier must be at least 1000 nautical miles from the target (1852 km), and the range of the deck version of the F-35 is 670 nautical miles (1240 kilometers) .

[Pimply]

However, range data is shown in F35B

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Pimply

However, range data is shown in F35B

By no means.

the range of the deck version of the F-35 is 670 nautical miles (1240 kilometers).

670 nmi (1,241 km) - this is the combat radius of the F-35C.
The F-35B has a combat radius of 505 nmi (935 km).

[Pete mitchell]

Read carefully, this is an F-35c

[Same lech]

for the Yankees will do it! lap of honor can do around the deck

Well, Jews are these circles in Lebanon and they are screwing up their F-35 super-duper ...
I look at their work and I think the hell so much money was broken into buying a gold plane whose tasks the modernized F-15 and F-16 can fulfill.

[rocket757]

This is just the beginning, it hasn’t come to the present work, and will it really be possible?
the jambs will continue to climb ... but how will it end ??? Well, I buy allies and figs with them, with jambs!

[zhekazs]

Quote: the most important

for the Yankees will do it! a lap of honor can be done around the deck and that's enough! when transferring technology, this was the calculation.

The main thing is that it won’t go against us ..
He sees the eye, but the tooth is numb. The Yankees themselves stepped on their own too low hanging khe-khe ...

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: the most important

for the Yankees will do it! a lap of honor can be done around the deck and that's enough! when transferring technology, this was the calculation.

I agree.

Too small radius. In the US, criticized the deck version of the F-35

I like this. Aircraft carrier, yes to the Miami beach, but to wave its wings .... it's cool.
"Let them fly!" (by mativa)

[Reserve buildbat]

Stealth tankers are brilliant! All B-2 urgently cut into tankers!)))

[Chertt]

Quote: Stroibat stock

Stealth tankers are brilliant!

From the heading “You can’t think of it purposely” Their brains are “stealth”. It seems to be, but no one has seen

[Sancho_SP]

And 20 years ago they didn’t plan to fight with Russia and China. But for a breakthrough of air defense of some sort of Syria, for example, it’s very complete. Politics, however.

[The Siberian barber]

I wonder how much the "compass" that will "draw" them with a larger radius will cost?

[voyaka uh]

"Also considered is the option of creating a refueling aircraft using stealth technology, but this is in the long term." ///

He already exists. The sailors adapted the X-47 drone, which they rejected as a drummer, for
refueling in the air. He was stealth, but stealth had to be spoiled a bit:
added a hanging pylon for refueling.
But all the same, the EPR is small and 100 times smaller than that of an ordinary refueling machine.

[sabakina]

Alexei, apparently at the Pentagon, is not aware of what you wrote.

[Aqr009]

... The sailors adapted the X-47 drone, which they rejected as a drummer, for
refueling in the air. ...

Is he only one aircraft capable of refueling? Designed for single special operations?

[voyaka uh]

I confused, I repent.
Not the X-47B, but the Lockheed competitor - MQ-25.

[NN52]

voyaka uh
Well, this pepelats MQ 25 (small in-2) so far only in trials ...
I don’t know how much fuel he can give.
Amer military want to order 72 of these sides, as I understand it, 6-7 cars for each Avik most likely .. But then the regular number of conventional aircraft will decrease on Avik, because of these banduras ..
Well, the price there is so sick ....

[voyaka uh]

Tanker and aircraft must be on the aircraft carrier
long-range intelligence. Both those and others are turning into stealth drones over time.
Like drummers, by the way. F-18s will leave gradually, and F-35s will become like "shepherds"
shock drones.
During the fighting, AUGs are doubled (and sometimes build).
On one aircraft carrier you can keep more refuelers, on the other
- more drummers. A carousel of gas stations to do the general.

[figwam]

Quote: voyaka uh

He already exists

For each fighter tanker) For each aircraft carrier with F-35, another aircraft carrier with X-47.)

[voyaka uh]

You're right. This is rational. I already wrote that during the wars AUGs are doubled.
From one logistics point of view, it’s easier to concentrate fuel and refuelers,
on the second - drummers

[NN52]

voyaka uh
But it will not be cool to have one F 35C - one X 47 V, as a refueling machine?
Do you think 1 ton of kerosene from a drone will greatly increase the radius of F 35C?
Or now you say that X 47 will be able to give 10 tons of fuel?
Of course, the drone itself can refuel in the air from a tanker, but this again negates the element of stealth ..
This is not an option for amers ..

[voyaka uh]

Americans during the time from building their first
aircraft carriers to this day have been replaced by many
generations of aircraft. Dozens of times changed tactics.
The transition to the 5th generation and drones will not be a special problem.
The main thing is not to stand still, experiment and apply
in local conflicts.
We, as you have seen, from the formation of the first F-35 squadron
less than two months passed before her baptism of fire.

[NN52]

voyaka uh

Your MO hurried ...
You yourself know ...

[cats]

Quote: voyaka uh

But all the same, the EPR is small and 100 times smaller than that of an ordinary refueling machine.

Understand..
When you already swear loudly you start ..

[ALEXXX1983]

Quote: voyaka uh

"Also considered is the option of creating a refueling aircraft using stealth technology, but this is in the long term." ///

He already exists. The sailors adapted the X-47 drone, which they rejected as a drummer, for
refueling in the air. He was stealth, but stealth had to be spoiled a bit:
added a hanging pylon for refueling.
But all the same, the EPR is small and 100 times smaller than that of an ordinary refueling machine.

And he can carry all-nothing fuel. It’s good if at least 1 F 35 is enough to fill, and that is far from a fact.

[Piramidon]

This is information for reflection to those who DEMAND here that Russia should look up to the Yankees and build 100/500 aircraft carriers.

[novel66]

those who want aircraft carriers are not going to think

[ANCIENT]

Doctors all ! Here representatives of one people really pray for him and you do not reject their idol from the pedestal And in general, according to their standards, this is the plane of the 5th, 6th, and 7th generations You just need to write software from scratch, and invest another 3 trillion bucks in it! !!

[voyaka uh]

"here representatives of one people really pray for him" ///

Representatives of one people are really fighting on it. Bomb
from him everything is in vain-vzrybadan. Syrian airflowers even coffee
do not have time to calmly finish ...

[Incvizitor]

You can also bomb from the ancient SU 22, after its many years of doping , it will be cheaper and the range under 2 thousand to deliver missiles will come down

[voyaka uh]

Keeping bombers expensive. Therefore we have
prefer universal fighter-bomber.

[milling machine]

And on the other hand, a radius of 1200 km. - This is quite a lot. What is the radius of our decked Sushki and MiGs?

[Vadim237]

This radius of destruction will be doubled if AGM 35 missiles are installed on deck F 158C

[YELLOWSTONE]

won't increase, they just can't fly from ships

[Vadim237]

Landing ships now, the same will become aircraft carriers.

[YELLOWSTONE]

won't, or won't be for long and aircraft carriers will be left with F-18s even earlier

[voyaka uh]

On external suspensions F-35C can take two such KR

[figwam]

The F-35 radius is 1140 km, the Su-33 is up to 1350 km, the Mig-29K is 850 km, but this is different, the matter is in the strategy, we do not plan to customize our aircraft carrier to the American shores and bases, but they are trying to make their own and therefore and calculate how close to us the F-35 can fly, but so that their group remains safe.

[sabakina]

The main drawback, according to the committee members, is the aircraft's too small range, clearly insufficient to engage enemy targets, Task & Purporse reports.
According to the committee, the plane, in the development of which billions of dollars were invested, is already outdated. While it was being developed, and this is 20 years, the development of missile weapons has leaped forward.

I already wrote that for sure the Yakovlevites made them a trick.

[YELLOWSTONE]

just why, those smart ones and in general the article was about another F-35

[Mountain shooter]

"Dagger" will get the aircraft carrier in 2000 km. at the same time knock down the dagger at the 35th - there is no chance. Intercept the MiG? ours announced that the modification with the "Dagger" does not have a radar. What for? probably to mislead the enemy

[just exp]

against the dagger they will fight SM-3

[-Pollux]

Quote: just explo

against the dagger they will fight SM-3

SM-3 has a KINETIC warhead. It can only hit a dagger if it accidentally crashes into it.

[just exp]

well, and the mattresses are fools along the way, they don’t know that their kinetic part Dagger can hit only by accident.
do not tell me the fool - and who will prevent the kinetic warhead from getting into the dagger?

[-Pollux]

Quote: just explo

do not tell me the fool - and who will prevent the kinetic warhead from getting into the dagger?

Perhaps the fact that the dagger has the ability to maneuver?

[just exp]

xs. and the missile defense probably does not know how to maneuver.
always able. But now I forgot how. did not know . I'll know .
Thank you for enlightening.
(the fact that maneuvers can be with a greater overload than the anti-missile structure can withstand, because the missiles are loaded 3 times more than the maneuvering target and Iskander’s main advantage was that her maneuvers were overloaded at 30g, which would require that the SAM would have an overload strength of 90g, which is impossible with current materials, I know, but you don’t know what kind of overload the dagger can withstand (although it’s logical that 30g is the same as Iskander’s) and you certainly don’t know the exact TTX SM-3)

[-Pollux]

Quote: just explo

xs. and the missile defense probably does not know how to maneuver.
always able. But now I forgot how. did not know . I'll know .
Thank you for enlightening.

You probably do not know, I will continue to educate you. Air defense missiles do not fall into their targets, but explode nearby striking the target with shrapnel! Is it necessary to say that there is no explosive in the kinetic ammunition? And to get directly into the maneuvering aerodynamic target is a non-trivial task. SM-3 is designed to destroy high-altitude ballistic NON-MANEUVING targets.

[just exp]

that's how good they’ll finally teach me.
Oh teacher, please tell us how MSE Erint warheads explode.
(although my heart feels that now there will be tales about the fact that Erint is a missile defense and you say they only talked about air defense and about missile defense which, in fact, was already mixed, they said nothing).
and another teacher. I will tell you a secret. ANY guided missile is designed to defeat maneuvering targets. ANY.
here the question is only about possible overloads of the target and missiles.
also about the teacher. I dare to remind you that the target is fired not by one SAM, but by several (such as the Saudis in Yemen and 8 missiles each launched one), blocking ALL possible maneuver routes (the question “can it?” is already on a slightly different plane. it depends on the CIUS and the number of missiles)
For you, teacher, I’ll remind you once again that it was not in vain that electronic warheads were placed on Iskander. because in your opinion our only in vain loot is thrown into an expensive electronic warfare because Iskander is also invisible without him because he also maneuvers and did not bring thaad to Europe and he is essentially land sm (I know that they differ). but along the way, the Iskander developers, compared with you, illiterate increase the cost of products (and in terms of weight and energy consumption, it also does not take 200 grams of weight). well, or another option, they suspect something that my famous air defense guru does not know.

[-Pollux]

Good student, I will continue to educate.

Quote: just explo

and another teacher. I will tell you a secret. ANY guided missile is designed to defeat maneuvering targets. ANY.

Different cruise missiles hit targets in different ways, anti-ship missiles must hit the ship, an air defense missile does not get into the plane, it explodes nearby, hitting the plane (rocket, hang-glider, paraglider) with fragments.

Quote: just explo

please tell us about how MSE Erint warheads explode.

I won’t tell because it’s not a topic of dialogue, but not even an expert understands that the kinetic warhead does not explode and cannot hit anything with fragments.

Quote: just explo

For you, teacher, I’ll remind you once again that it was not in vain that they installed electronic warfare on Iskander

Well, the Americans SM-3 is not the only missile defense.

[just exp]

Different cruise missiles hit targets in different ways, anti-ship missiles must hit the ship, an air defense missile does not get into the plane, it explodes nearby, hitting the plane (rocket, hang-glider, paraglider) with fragments.

Wow . and in Iraq, the introduction of fragments from the shell did not destroy him (therefore, they began to make kinetic warheads).
by the way about the teacher. and MANPADS also explodes nearby?
and yet - it seems to me that the radius of destruction by fragments of the warhead of the missile launcher is not square kilometers. there is a relatively small radius and the defeat is cone.
accuracy is also needed. and strangely enough, they achieve it by the fact that missiles make maneuvers to approach the target. even if the target maneuvers.

I won’t tell because it’s not a topic of dialogue, but not even an expert understands that the kinetic warhead does not explode and cannot hit anything with fragments.

why not the topic of dialogue? Or is it not a missile defense like SM-3? or do you dislike her color? or country of origin? or should it not work for ballistic purposes like SM-3?
or just an uncomfortable example?

Well, the Americans SM-3 is not the only missile defense

well, so the SM-6 has already become an air defense missile (Erint can fire at aerodynamic targets as well. therefore, it has both missile defense and air defense). I’m stupid, she thought that she was a missile defense. because it doesn’t work on airplanes, missiles, and anti-ship missiles (the lower limit of action is higher than 40 km (thaad in SM-40 has a lower emnip lower threshold)). (the apogee and the greater marching part of the Kintazhal’s flight is above 6 km. I don’t know the details, but it seems like it can reach 40 km at maximum range for an aeroballistic missile)
and most importantly, how did you tactfully move out and the fact that even Iskander developers understand that maneuvering is not a guarantee of non-penetrability, but just one of the methods of complicating intercepts on the topic that rocket mattresses also have a lot.

[-Pollux]

Quote: just explo

so the SM-6 has already become an air defense missile

It depends on the modification, you can put a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, such a function is provided, but this will sharply reduce its performance characteristics.

Quote: just explo

by the way about the teacher. and MANPADS also explodes nearby?

Of course, although at such low speeds and maneuvers a direct hit can occur.

Quote: just explo

I’m stupid, she thought she was a missile defense

Pointless classification argument! Are you sure you want to breed srach here a hundred pages about this?

[just exp]

It depends on the modification, you can put a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, such a function is provided, but this will sharply reduce its performance characteristics.

I hope you understand what I meant SM-3, not SM-6?
since it was about her, but I was thinking about SM-6 because she is both air defense and missile defense, and therefore wrote about her.

Of course, although at such low speeds and maneuvers a direct hit can occur.

in general, MANPADS for the most part have a contact fuse. that is a direct hit. and only with the development of weapons did they receive non-contact fuses that played a secondary role, since warheads are weak for detonating at a distance. it’s like “it’s better than nothing at all”.

Pointless classification argument! Are you sure you want to breed srach here a hundred pages about this?

in general, it was developed by you. You blurted out that since the Dagger maneuvers, it is impossible to bring him down.
and what I could have hinted by REB on Iskander is that the developers themselves know that maneuvering is not a panacea for interception.

[figwam]

Quote: just explo

and who will prevent the kinetic warhead from getting into the dagger?

There is no such missile defense system that can bring down a maneuvering hypersonic target, SM are sharpened against ICBMs in the initial acceleration section.

[just exp]

By the way, are you aware that Iskander is considered hypersonic?
so here. in the final section, its velocity drops to 600-700 m / s, which is a bit far from hypersound. and so they started putting electronic warfare on Iskander. since you can still intercept it. complicated . but it is possible.
By the way, SM-3blockII-a / b can reach ICBMs in the middle section.
in addition, and at the final site they can get it. maneuvering is true there, and it greatly complicates their situation. but Iskander can be intercepted, and so the Dagger is not indestructible. the only question is the number of missile defense.
By the way, SM-3 will be able to get them in the middle section. for range allows.

[-Pollux]

Quote: just explo

By the way, SM-3blockII-a / b can reach ICBMs in the middle section.

Here the key word is ballistic.

Quote: just explo

in addition, and at the final site they can get it. maneuvering is true there, and it greatly complicates their situation.

But this is your speculation.

[just exp]

even? and the mattresses are sure not.
but who will listen to them, Zadornov said that they are stupid, so they are stupid.

[figwam]

Quote: just explo

maneuvering is true there, and it greatly complicates their position

Maneuvering does not complicate, but makes it impossible to hit the target with a missile defense system.

[just exp]

aircraft also maneuver. only for some reason they shoot them down.
probably missiles do not know that they can not shoot down maneuvering targets.

[figwam]

Quote: just EXPL

aircraft also maneuver. only for some reason they shoot them down.
probably missiles do not know that they can not shoot down maneuvering targets.

You do not understand how the missile defense system works. That's when they create a rocket which in space will chase a warhead then your dreams will come true.

[just exp]

I just understand. and along the way, you don’t know what it is all about.
I already wrote to a citizen above that the developers of Iskander (the one that is the ground dagger) understood that his missile was intercepted (especially considering that at the final section its speed drops to 2M) and that’s why they added electronic warfare to it.
and the topic of intercepting Iskander has already occupied more than one hundred pages of military forums, and there is roughly a common opinion - it is possible to intercept Iskander. it’s difficult and expensive (there will be a lot of anti-missile defense from 4 on one of the most optimistic ideas for the West to 24 that we have already counted) and Iskander volleys (that is, 4 launchers of 2 anti-missile defense) will not be reflected by any air defense systems because the missile defense will not be enough.
but I already feel with my heart that you are smarter than all these people, among whom were air defense personnel officers. where to them to you. so yes. I’ll agree not to argue - if the target maneuvers, then it will be intercepted by Nizya. it will be necessary to write a letter to the pilots so that if they shoot at them, then it is necessary to do maneuvers. this will save them from being shot down.
Threat anti-missiles are usually on a collision course (in the case of the Dagger) or from below from the side and they do not need to chase. in the first case, you only need to monitor how the target deviates and catch it on the deviation (therefore, several SAMs are launched along all possible routes in order to block all possible directions) if only on the marching section, you only need to catch up with it. for there the target does not maneuver.

[figwam]

The American SM lll intercepts targets that follow a ballistic trajectory, only in this case the Aegis system can calculate the meeting point with the target, the dagger in the acceleration section goes up to 10 max, it is not possible to shoot down, the maneuvering warhead with false targets and interference remains in the final section.

[just exp]

The American SM lll intercepts targets along a ballistic trajectory, only in this case the Aegis system can calculate the meeting point with the target

I will tell you a secret. SM-3 has its own GOS and this is oops, it’s not a secret at all. she has an IR seeker since ballistic missiles are heated by her mother

The dagger on the accelerating section goes up to 10 max, it is not possible to shoot

learn materiel. The dagger is the same ballistic missile as the rest. only because of the launch is it called aeroballistic. A dagger can be said an air iskander.
and by the way, ICBMs have speeds of more than 10 Machs and you won’t believe them too.
moreover, the dagger does not maneuver even on the marching section.

in the final section, there remains a maneuvering warhead with false targets and interference.

learn materiel the second series. there is no warhead there. since the rocket is monolithic. there are no separating heads at all. that is, what rocket was at launch. so it will be when hit.
Moreover, it is worth considering that the speed of the iskander in the final section drops to 2M. and this is with 7M. draw conclusions.
Dagger rocket is a unique and very dangerous weapon. but do not make him a child prodigy.

[sabakina]

Quote: just EXPL

do not tell me the fool - and who will prevent the kinetic warhead from getting into the dagger?

and what should help the kinetic warhead get into the dagger?

[just exp]

GOS?
no, have not heard .

[figwam]

Quote: just EXPL

I will tell you a secret. SM-3 has its own seeker

))) This is really a discovery! Its infrared seeker is intended only for correction when aiming at a target at the end of the flight, the deviation is within 3-5 km, for this purpose the target maneuvers along the course and pitch over a greater distance. Learn the materiel! The dagger flies faster, it is a different rocket, it has a different engine and at launch it already has a height and speed therefore it goes by 10 max. The heads of ICBMs do not maneuver, so they can be counted and shot down. A maneuvering dagger cannot be brought down by the missile defense system throughout the flight.

[just exp]

so learn the materiel and think about it, but are the ICBM speeds exactly lower than 10M?
and return to the 21st century, RGCh can maneuver for 10 years.
and read about the Dagger again, if you find maneuvers in the middle section, drop the link in PM. really want to be surprised.

[Vadim237]

This is if only in the US they do not begin to work on missile defense - for fighters.

[KCA]

MIG-31K mother will not let one go for a walk, fly with a pair of MIG-31BM or SU-35S, why does he need a radar?

[Sancho_SP]

So they will not catch up. The very meaning of a ballistic missile in an instant is the exit speed to the launch point.

[KCA]

Maximum speed develops only to launch the “Dagger”, and not for the entire duration of the flight, fly together, the 35th go forward to the launch point, well, or one leaves, the second covers from the rear, accelerates 31K, launches anti-ship missiles, turns around and flies away

[Kerensky]

due to new data on anti-ship missiles available in China and Russia, the aircraft carrier must be at least 1000 nautical miles from the target

Russia and China. Open the map! In our vastness, what are the aircraft carriers 1.000 miles offshore ?! They do not need a tanker - they will not return.

[fa2998]

Quote: the most important

for the Yankees will do it! a lap of honor can be done around the deck and that's enough! when transferring technology, this was the calculation.

1240 km. For a vertical take-off aircraft is acceptable! What do you say then about our Yak-38, which does not have a radar, and carried only NURs, and the radius is ten times smaller!

[Piramidon]

Quote: fa2998

What then do you say about our Yak-38

Why compare planes with age differences of more than 40 years. Yak-38 has long been in history. And here - PROSPECTIVE, at the price of pure gold, the 5th generation ...

[YELLOWSTONE]

and licked from another Yak
in general, an article about the F-35C with which things are even worse than with the F-35B

[Skay]

What then do you say about our Yak-38

That progress does not stand still.

[max702]

Quote: fa2998

1240 km. For a vertical take-off aircraft is acceptable!

There are big doubts about this figure .. Once in 2-3 times less real ..

[Vard]

The real radius of ordinary decks ... with weapons ... 400 miles ... means the real radius of the F-35 ... again with weapons ... half as much ...

[alexbg2]

Quote: max702

Quote: fa2998

1240 km. For a vertical take-off aircraft is acceptable!

There are big doubts about this figure .. Once in 2-3 times less real ..

What does this have to do with the F-35C aircraft NOT VERTICALLY take-off and landing?

[ALEXXX1983]

Quote: fa2998

Quote: the most important

for the Yankees will do it! a lap of honor can be done around the deck and that's enough! when transferring technology, this was the calculation.

1240 km. For a vertical take-off aircraft is acceptable! What do you say then about our Yak-38, which does not have a radar, and carried only NURs, and the radius is ten times smaller!

F 35C - not vertical. It’s just that they got the wrong picture.

[Chicha squad]

In the world it is customary to call the deck F-35 "Cripple".

[prior]

Interestingly the girls are dancing ...
Is there anyone here who doubts that in the event of a war with Russia, the Americans will use nuclear weapons?
And if there is no doubt that they will use it, then neither the aircraft carriers nor the FU-35 will have any meaning after the outbreak of the conflict, because the "otvetka" will immediately arrive.
Let's say that American pilots even take off ..... but the homeland is gone, nowhere to land .....
They explained to them intelligibly and popularly - why the hell needs a world in which Russia will not be.
Everything else is dancing with tambourines to cut the budget.

[_Ugene_]

there are enough examples in the world of military clashes of nuclear countries without the use of nuclear weapons

[alexbg2]

The article is about the F-35C, and in the photo F-35B and how much banter about the capabilities of the aircraft, about the lap of honor around the deck, about lards for finding a larger radius, etc. Unfortunately, this is not the Yak-38 with its really lap of honor around the deck , This is a plane with a normal flight range, taking off with the help of a catapult, not vertical take-off, do not confuse with modification B, and having a flight range of 2500 thousand km.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Yes, they just copied it from another Yak and his records, he still can not beat

[alexbg2]

In what sense is another Yak with records, in my memory only the Yak-38 was in service.

[YELLOWSTONE]

you about the Yak-141 his records and the history of the appearance of the F-35 did not hear anything?

[alexbg2]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

you about the Yak-141 his records and the history of the appearance of the F-35 did not hear anything?

For the first time I heard about the Yak-141 stealth, I always considered it a vertical take-off aircraft, unlike the F-35C, which was a stealth and ejection take-off.

[YELLOWSTONE]

why did they write about the Yak-38? there is no stealth on it and it doesn’t take off like the F-35C?

[sib.ataman]

Quote: fa2998

Quote: the most important

for the Yankees will do it! a lap of honor can be done around the deck and that's enough! when transferring technology, this was the calculation.

1240 km. For a vertical take-off aircraft is acceptable! What do you say then about our Yak-38, which does not have a radar, and carried only NURs, and the radius is ten times smaller!

Remember the Wright Brothers plane!

[Altona]

Quote: bouncyhunter

Now they will throw some money into the increase in radius.

--------------------------
Pash, how is it? Inflate the belly with additional tanks, goodbye to speed and stealth-quality. A non-trivial task is obtained. Only Israelis like the F-35, though they have version A, but Israel and the country that fly by in super-sound in half an hour.

[afrikanez]

In the states of money, "chickens do not peck", so let them develop a tanker "invisibility".

[sib.ataman]

Quote: sabakina

The main drawback, according to the committee members, is the aircraft's too small range, clearly insufficient to engage enemy targets, Task & Purporse reports.
According to the committee, the plane, in the development of which billions of dollars were invested, is already outdated. While it was being developed, and this is 20 years, the development of missile weapons has leaped forward.

I already wrote that for sure the Yakovlevites made them a trick.

Yakovlevites made a trick to the Yeltsinoids, for their persuasion to sell the technology instead of financing the development of the project! And the Yeltsinoids are automatically the Clintonites! An honest exchange! You are our beads, we ring you from the bells!

[YELLOWSTONE]

yes RD-180 also ring below cost

[Snakebyte]

The radius is almost twice as large as that of the F / A-18E "specialists" are not satisfied?

[YELLOWSTONE]

the radius is slightly smaller, and this does not take into account that as the increasingly protracted tests show, the F-35C cannot be used from ships

[Snakebyte]

670 a little less than 390? And where did you, the ignorant, learn arithmetic?
You also sang about the F-35B that they would never enter service. And already at the time when the first squadron began military service at Wosp.
Shame on further, "expert."

[YELLOWSTONE]

go to the wiki and look at the range, the F-18E has even more, you’re a disgrace to something you don’t touch
F-35B if they get up, it’s only for a view, because no one needs a plane that is forbidden to fly far from the coast, and the F-35C doesn’t seem to stand even for a view, because you need to board at least sometimes

[Snakebyte]

So you don’t even know how to read on the wiki?
F / A-18E: Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission
F-35: Combat radius: 669 nmi (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration
This is a disgrace.
Is it worth it after that to comment on your other pearls?

[YELLOWSTONE]

no, you don’t know how to understand, it was written to you to see the range
and about the fact that there are big problems with the operation of the F-35C ship, and the F-35B has constant repair and the prohibition of both flying far from the coast

[Snakebyte]

The article discusses the combat radius, I'm talking about the combat radius, and the ignoramuses compare the ferry ranges, one with the PTB, and the other with internal fuel reserves. And at the same time I "do not know how to understand." Oh well.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Well, well ... you weren’t talking about distillation and you have to compare it, because there are many radii and everything depends on advertising
Have you looked and forgot again?

[Snakebyte]

What "was to me" was the one word "range", without specification.
And what did you “invent her” to invent, or who prompted?
I advise you to start learning to correctly formulate your thoughts immediately after you learn to read and compare prime numbers.

[YELLOWSTONE]

It’s clear that for some reason you’ve become “finished” yourself and as you saw it
when you learn to think then you will begin to give advice, but for now, compare how different radii on different planes correspond to ranges, those that are non-racing
and look nevertheless about f-35b / c

[Snakebyte]

And why "finalize" if the original article discusses combat radius? Everything is in order with him.
And to compare the distillation range of one aircraft with the PTB, and the second in internal fuel supplies - this is not for me, this is for ignoramuses.

Interestingly, these guys are aware that Pingo forbade them to fly over the sea?

[YELLOWSTONE]

and then what did you write in Russian about the range and what to compare is not the radius but its
because Lockheed indulges not only in calculating radii but even with an engine price of F-35 or without
distillation is always indicated the largest with tanks or it is specified
there, besides the sea and the ship, there is still a coast with an airfield not far from the frame
cowboy and you are not from israel at all?

[beeper]

Oh my God! How the American F-35 from this angle is similar to our Soviet Yak-141, well, just "aunt at a leg"!

[NEXUS]

In connection with the new data on anti-ship missiles available to China and Russia, the aircraft carrier must be at least 1000 nautical miles from the target (1852 km), and the range of the deck version of the F-35 is 670 nautical miles (1240 kilometers) .

The Chinese anti-ship missile Dongfeng flies for 1400 km ... Our Dagger for 2000 km (according to official figures) ... this is where the criticism of the F-35 deck and its radius are.
In this case, even if the mattresses try to increase the radius of the F-35, which takes time, it is not a fact that during this time, the same Dagger will not be taught to fly 3000 km.

[Azim77]

The option of creating a stealth tanker aircraft is also being considered, but this is in the long run.

Or maybe a stealth aircraft carrier right away?

[izja]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

б

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

the radius is slightly smaller, and this does not take into account that as the increasingly protracted tests show, the F-35C cannot be used from ships

On YouTube, even a child will find a huge number of videos where he sits down and takes off, how do Russian Su57 test crap understand how much it harnesses for a long time, the United States completes its new decks, so it cannot take off.

[YELLOWSTONE]

no, a huge number of videos especially with F-35C landings cannot be found even from different angles

[G A_2]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

no, a huge number of videos especially with F-35C landings cannot be found even from different angles

How much video do you need to calm down. Order angles, they’ll take it for you.

[YELLOWSTONE]

look at wikipedia once what problems he has with boarding the ship and calm down himself

[izja]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

go to the wiki and look at the range, the F-18E has even more, you’re a disgrace to something you don’t touch
F-35B if they get up, it’s only for a view, because no one needs a plane that is forbidden to fly far from the coast, and the F-35C doesn’t seem to stand even for a view, because you need to board at least sometimes

Stop talking nonsense already, the F-35B is already in service, this year's F-35c officer. will, and you continue to freeze crap :)

[YELLOWSTONE]

Quote: izja

Stop talking nonsense already

that's it, read what was in the quotes about them at least on the wiki
there was less trouble with your much-praised Lavi

[Tomato]

Ha ha, why did your Nitanyahu come to Putin to bow? He asked Su 57 to sell at least a dozen. The Syrians then go and beat all your planes, there’s nothing to fly on. A F 35 flying scrap. Their Syrians knock down a sneaker. And your Air Force chief does not understand anything, you hear us, we are real experts.

[YELLOWSTONE]

indeed, for some reason he came, and not one, and went, so it was difficult for others to come up and could not come, especially since there are F-35s

[izja]

Quote: NEXUS

In connection with the new data on anti-ship missiles available to China and Russia, the aircraft carrier must be at least 1000 nautical miles from the target (1852 km), and the range of the deck version of the F-35 is 670 nautical miles (1240 kilometers) .

The Chinese anti-ship missile Dongfeng flies for 1400 km ... Our Dagger for 2000 km (according to official figures) ... this is where the criticism of the F-35 deck and its radius are.
In this case, even if the mattresses try to increase the radius of the F-35, which takes time, it is not a fact that during this time, the same Dagger will not be taught to fly 3000 km.

Better immediately 10 or to Mars, the tales of zircon you have ended, began about the dagger.

[pafegosoff]

For the same reason, they abandoned the Yak-38, and then the Yak-141 (although there was also a flaw in the chassis that led to the accident (it seems there were no casualties, then it was not a disaster).

[YELLOWSTONE]

for what? this article is about the F-35C

[nikoliski]

The Yak-38 didn’t have a radar at all, and in terms of reliability, it lost to the competitor Harrier (48 yaks were lost in plane crashes during relatively short years of operation, almost every fifth aircraft) and about “there were no victims,” the nickname “creating widows” probably speaks myself

[YELLOWSTONE]

on Harrier, too, did not immediately appear, but on many of them even now
in accidents, google it is better how many harrieres had air crashes with the deaths of pilots especially in the US, the Yak-38 was not even the most emergency plane in the USSR or in the world

[YELLOWSTONE]

the nickname "creating widows" is generally a translation from English and it was about F-104
the Harrier radar (without the possibility of guiding missiles) appeared only by 1982, he could still use up to 1985 alone IR-missiles, medium ones pulled, added it in order to better find the Tu-142
in the USSR there was a Yak-39 with a radar which had such an opportunity, and he himself could carry heavier explosives, they did not begin to mass-produce it because he had already completed the Yak-41

[misti1973]

And they can not bombard the Tomahawks with third-party target designation?

[faterdom]

It is necessary to put the Chinese solar panels. Invisible.

[Tomato]

Surprisingly, how stupid these mattresses are! The complete degradation of science, the monstrous technological backwardness, corruption and decline.
Their F-35 is a certain archaic squalor, 2 generations behind our SU 57 at the stage of the drawings.

[G A_2]

Quote: Tomatoes

Surprisingly, how stupid these mattresses are! The complete degradation of science, the monstrous technological backwardness, corruption and decline.
Their F-35 is a certain archaic squalor, 2 generations behind our SU 57 at the stage of the drawings.

Finished people are these Americans. Over. Moreover, dumb to the impossibility. Zadornov will not let lie

[YELLOWSTONE]

therefore, they are constantly trying to dilute their problems with the immigration of various Sikorsky, Zvorykin, Tesla (the one that isn’t a mask from olosha) and von Browns
and from his only whatnot brothers Wright

[nikoliski]

Deprecated with the advent of the Dagger

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The F-35C is simply a unique aircraft, thanks to it ordinary helicopter carriers are approaching aircraft carriers in their capabilities ...

[YELLOWSTONE]

Yes, that's just landing on an aircraft carrier still does not work