Military Review

Sweden is preparing to join the British 6 generation fighter program

110
The British program to create a promising fighter of the new generation Team Tempest has become one step closer to getting on the wing. Sweden is ready to announce that she joined the project and became its first international partner.




Tempest is a cross-industry project of BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, MBDA and Leonardo, with the assistance of the UK government. He presented at the Farnborough Air Show last year.

A new strike fighter is planned to be commissioned in 2035. The program, according to statements by representatives of the military-industrial complex, is aimed at maintaining Britain’s leadership in the military aviation.

Despite the fact that British companies were actively involved in the development of new technologies for the “sixth generation” aircraft: engines, stealth coatings and aerodynamic designs, as well as advanced electronics and new weapons (in particular, laser), London made it clear that it was not ready to self-development of the project in the event that Tempest becomes a reality.

Britain is looking for partners


Although the UK has the technical and engineering capabilities for self-designing and creating Tempest, it is not ready to implement such a financially costly program on its own. Without international partners who will also purchase new machines, increasing the total order and thus making production cheaper, Tempest is unlikely to ever go off the drawing board.

At the opening of the project last summer, then-Secretary of Defense Gavin Williamson made it clear that the UK would look for international partners.

In an exclusive Telegraph interview last month, Martin Taylor, chief operating officer of BAE’s aviation division, said:

Partners are needed in terms of funding. It is clear that other countries are interested. Tempest is more than just supplying parts, it’s also working with the government.

Several states are interested in cooperation with London


Taylor said that negotiations with Sweden are "at a very advanced stage," but there are other interested countries, such as Italy, Japan and Turkey. “Military Review” notes that India has expressed interest in joining the project.

It is expected that the formal accession of Sweden to Tempest will be announced at the Royal International Air Tattoo air show at the end of this month.

Tempest competes directly with a similar French-German program, FCAS, which Spain joined last month. There is an assumption that both projects can be ultimately combined. However, taking into account the British course of separation from the European Union, in which France and Germany occupy leading positions, such a course of development seems less likely.

A representative of the Swedish Ministry of Defense, commenting on this situation, said:

If we had an agreement between the Swedish Ministry of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense, we would have made it public.


Sweden is the manufacturer of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter, a new generation of which was called the “destroyer” of the Su-35. Recall that recently Stockholm dropped out of the Swiss program to update the fighter fleet due to inconsistencies with the program conditions.
110 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. Victor_B
    Victor_B 7 July 2019 09: 55
    +5
    Swedes well done!
    They have all their weapons.
    Well, that's it - not everything, but the "Gripena" machine is not bad.
    So they have something to contribute to the future fighter.
    Not with a bare belly, they come to this program.
    1. Valery Valery
      Valery Valery 7 July 2019 10: 26
      -2
      Do you know which country is immediately straining because of news about the strengthening of the Swedish armed forces ?! ....
      FINLAND!
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 7 July 2019 10: 27
        0
        Do you know which country is immediately straining because of news about the strengthening of the Swedish armed forces ?! ....
        Is it really Russia?
        Fearfully...
        1. Valery Valery
          Valery Valery 7 July 2019 10: 29
          +2
          Read the whole comment, please.
          1. Victor_B
            Victor_B 7 July 2019 10: 31
            0
            Read the whole comment, please.
            I started writing before you added the word FINLAND.
    2. maximum 8
      maximum 8 7 July 2019 13: 35
      -2
      Quote: Victor_B
      Swedes well done!
      They have all their weapons.
      Well, that's it - not everything, but the "Gripena" machine is not bad.
      So they have something to contribute to the future fighter.
      Not with a bare belly, they come to this program.

      Your Swedes never made the advertised "killer Su-35" in any real copy in hardware, and not on paper, since it had an American engine, radar and a lot of avionics, and the Americans did not need competitors in the arms market. And they really go to this program with a bare belly. The Englishmen need the Swedes because of the money, the more buyers to involve in the project, the less the financial burden on the British themselves. We went by the Americans with their F-35.
      1. Avis-bis
        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 03
        -1
        Quote: maximum 8
        with a bare belly, they really go to this program. The Swedes need English for money because the more buyers get involved in the project, the less financial burden is on the British themselves. We went along the Americans with their F-35.

        And I will be sorry if the Swedes curtail their original school of aircraft construction. Really good planes they made and are doing (so far). And the neutral Austrians, whom I sympathize with, also prefer SAABs to other fighters. It is a pity if they lose their individuality in any international "garbage dumps".
        But the Swedes will not come "naked." The aircraft industry is not only and not so much the independent production of all aircraft components, it is, first of all, brains - the ability to link all this into something workable, and the manufacturer of the units is the second question. And the Swedes are good at doing this. Who cares that their UR "Robot" are licensed versions of other people's developments? The main thing is how it works. And it works - God forbid everyone.
  2. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 09: 56
    +2
    The shirt went to tear!
    Germany-France-Spain. Now the gobbles. And the hegemon with its 5th generation rushes, who still doesn’t know who to bet.
    1. Mouse
      Mouse 7 July 2019 10: 05
      +2
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      And the hegemon with its 5th generation rushes, who still doesn’t know who to bet.

      what hegemon ... already vparil, now only sucks money for revision ... wink
      1. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 08
        +1
        Quote: Mouse
        what hegemon ... already vparil

        In such cases, the more endured, the better. And them - the field is not plowed. Travel for your own pleasure!
        1. Mouse
          Mouse 7 July 2019 10: 35
          0
          so I say ... a vacuum cleaner and not a country .... just do not pump dust ... wink
    2. Meliodous
      Meliodous 7 July 2019 10: 13
      +3
      Only the 5th generation of the hegemon already exists and flies, and the 6th is still a dream of the future, and very distant
      1. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 18
        0
        Quote: Meliodous
        Only the 5th generation hegemon is already there and flies

        Well, that is - that is. Although with nuances.
        The point is that the hegemonic 6th generation is of little interest to anyone. So the "partners" are torn to get off the hegemonic hook. Now with gas, then with NATO, then with something else on the little things. Riot, in short!
        1. Meliodous
          Meliodous 7 July 2019 10: 22
          0
          So it’s still necessary to give birth. So far, just gathered. It means at least 10 years before the first flight model. And during this time, the United States will come up with how to press the vassals to the nail. And then they will announce the program to no avail. Like thank you all, we buy Lockheed Martin (well, or a Boeing)
          1. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 27
            +1
            Quote: Meliodous
            And during this time, the United States will come up with how to press the vassals to the nail.

            It could even be. Even, most likely. I say rebellion. Suppress, not suppress ... I will live, I will see. request
            1. Meliodous
              Meliodous 7 July 2019 10: 31
              0
              Why crush them. They themselves will crawl - they will crawl. Money for the army is dumb)
              1. Vasyan1971
                Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 33
                +2
                Quote: Meliodous
                Money for the army is dumb

                I can’t say anything ... My grandmother taught me not to count other people's money.
            2. Mouse
              Mouse 7 July 2019 10: 40
              +1
              Quote: Vasyan1971
              I’ll live and see.

              I want to believe that we will survive! you need to believe in the best and it will come true !!! good
              1. Vasyan1971
                Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 48
                +1
                Quote: Mouse
                you need to believe in the best and it will come true !!!

                Let me rephrase Karl Marx: "Thought is material when it takes possession of the masses."
                So we will try the whole world.
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 7 July 2019 11: 31
          0
          So the "partners" are torn from the hegemonic hook to break

          Yes, everyone is doing the right thing, they understand that in key aspects of defense, one must be independent as much as possible, and one must develop one's industry.
          1. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 11: 42
            0
            And the hegemon is against it! For - nefig!
          2. Avis-bis
            Avis-bis 7 July 2019 12: 59
            0
            Quote: alexmach
            So the "partners" are torn from the hegemonic hook to break

            Yes, everyone is doing the right thing, they understand that in key aspects of defense, one must be independent as much as possible, and one must develop one's industry.

            Well, in the civil aviation industry they have already secured their independence, not even 30 years have passed since WWII. :) I'm talking about EADS + Eurocopter and "Agusta". With fighters, they also get out on the sly: there is Rafal, there is Typhoon, there are Mirages ... Again, there is the SAAB mentioned in the branch, they have good cars.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 7 July 2019 13: 51
              0
              Well, actually the aircraft building traditions they have are very serious. There is industry and experience and scientific potential in all possible areas.
              1. Avis-bis
                Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 06
                -1
                Quote: alexmach
                Well, actually the aircraft building traditions they have are very serious. There is industry and experience and scientific potential in all possible areas.

                Yes, I, as it were, in the know. :) Although, for example, they will not be able to create a supersonic transporter without the wild exertion of forces and resources. Everything will have to be recreated from the ruins, many positions are surrendered. :(
  3. TTX
    TTX 7 July 2019 09: 57
    0
    New strike fighter planned to be commissioned in 2035

    Survive first, and then brag .. No matter what happens over the years. soldier
    1. Antipatr
      Antipatr 7 July 2019 10: 13
      +1
      I wish peace and prosperity to the peoples of Russia, the USA, Great Britain and Sweden!
    2. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 13
      0
      Quote: ttx
      Survive first, and then brag .. No matter what happens over the years.

      And the money is there, in the pocket. And the litak? And what about "litak"? Objective difficulties, panimash, we will have to postpone the dates to 2045.
  4. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 7 July 2019 10: 01
    0
    Swedes are numbing ... apparently the neutral status is tired ... and what is the next step ??? ... joining NATO? ... partnership in the name of insanity ...
    1. Avis-bis
      Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 14
      -1
      Quote: silberwolf88
      Swedes are numbing ... apparently the neutral status is tired ... and what is the next step ??? ... joining NATO? ... partnership in the name of insanity ...

      And what is wrong? Is international cooperation bad?
      So, last year, SAAB released an AWACS aircraft made from the Canadian "Global Express" and what's wrong?
      1. silberwolf88
        silberwolf88 7 July 2019 22: 11
        +1
        with a neutral status as in a joke ... you either remove the cross ... or put on your underpants ...
        maybe they will also start designing a nuclear bomb for themselves ... well, such a neutral one ...
        1. Avis-bis
          Avis-bis 7 July 2019 22: 24
          0
          Quote: silberwolf88
          with a neutral status as in a joke ... you either remove the cross ... or put on your underpants

          How is it? Neutral is not synonymous with the subject who has fallen out of politics and real life. Neutrals can cooperate with any parties. Or they may not cooperate. This is their business.

          maybe they will also start designing a nuclear bomb for themselves ... well, such a neutral one ...

          Yes they can. Who / what will forbid them? Their right.
  5. Runoway
    Runoway 7 July 2019 10: 05
    0
    Well, in my gut I feel "British-led project" = scam! Brexit is not enough for the Europeans, right now, everyone will invest money in development, and then some Trump will block it, the Britons will steal what they have developed and Lockheed Martin will suddenly have an F-45, which they will sell to the whole alliance by friendship
    1. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 7 July 2019 10: 09
      -1
      Mnogohodovochka, however ... In line with "goof is not a mammoth, will not die out."
  6. Masha
    Masha 7 July 2019 10: 07
    0
    well prepared? washed up? repeat
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 7 July 2019 10: 08
    0
    Nothing outstanding Britons have recently created, and in Geyrope nothing so "bright" new in aviation technology, military, is not noticed.
    But the potential is ... perhaps the time has come to shake the antiquity?
    Boom to see.
    1. Avis-bis
      Avis-bis 7 July 2019 13: 03
      -1
      Quote: rocket757
      The Britons haven’t created anything outstanding lately

      And their participation in the Eurofighter Typhoon project does not count?
      and in geyrope nothing so "brightly" new in aviation technology, military, has not been noticed.

      SAAB "Gripen", "Rafale", "Eurocopter" machines ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 7 July 2019 14: 04
        0
        All they did was normal, modern technology at the time of their creation! But this is not a STEP AHEAD, which the Yankees have done, we and China are going.
        They just want to follow the very first ..... They are late, no, this is not yet clear. This is their decision.
        I don’t criticize, I just state ..... maybe they will get something more progressive, combat, it has not yet been determined. A company with strong potential and with glorious traditions can get together ... but this is also not yet determined.
        1. Avis-bis
          Avis-bis 7 July 2019 14: 09
          -1
          Quote: rocket757
          All they did was normal, modern technology at the time of their creation! But this is not a STEP AHEAD, which the Yankees have done, we and China are going.

          Well, you can't give out something revolutionary every year. They have a joint multipurpose aircraft "Typhoon", to which a very glorious company BAe made a huge contribution at one time. Now "Tafyun" is gradually becoming obsolete and they started the next stage. And this is quite a "step forward". In their heavy bombers, they really have a complete blockage - Great Britain no longer has them. Unlike the Russian Federation, the United States and China.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 7 July 2019 14: 24
            -2
            Maybe because they are not necessary from the point of view of Europeans. Heavy bombers are archaism in the 21st century
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 7 July 2019 14: 32
              +1
              When this "archaism" at once equalizes not small such positions, those who below do not think about when this bomber was made!
              Economics, the logic of war, it dictates its strategy, respectively, and the technology necessary for it is done!
              There is a use for everything in war.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 7 July 2019 14: 40
                0
                You can also find use for bows and spears now, but this is not a reason to equip the army with them. Or vice versa, you can hammer nails with an electron microscope. The question is the cost / effectiveness of such things. A B-2 costs a couple of billion dollars, or about 25 F-35s. Or 1000 Tomahawks. I doubt that there are many things that 1 V-2 can do and cannot do 25 f-35s or 1000 Tomahawks.
                1. Avis-bis
                  Avis-bis 7 July 2019 15: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Luke and spear can also be used now

                  "Not allowed". The analogy is very lame.
                  you can hammer nails with an electron microscope.

                  Imagine this Gargantua ...



                  Yes, and these nails ... imagine.
                  The question is the cost / effectiveness of such things. B-2 costs a couple of billion dollars.

                  In addition to the B-2, there are also the B-52, the B-1, the Tu-95, and the Tu-22. And hi-6.
                  I doubt that there are many things that 1 V-2 can do and cannot do 25 f-35 or 1000 tomahawks

                  1000 Tomahawks will not be able to fly again. To do this, you need to make 1000 new gas turbine engines, 1000 new wings, and so on. And B-52 - here it is. He returned and is again ready to carry 30 tons of bombs or other combat cargo anywhere. A point strike is useless against the partisans, because they are everywhere - they covered a dozen, and a hundred more meters away. But the "bomb carpet" quite sets his brains. Even in Vietnam it helped. No, not winning the war, but winning the battle.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 7 July 2019 15: 07
                    0
                    Sly) .1000 tomahawks will harm more than 1 bomber, not in 1 flight, but in their entire operational life. And I did not count the cost of the bomber’s operational life cycle.
                    I doubt that carpet bombing of partisans is what strategic bombers were created for. Yes, and they are mainly armed with guided weapons. Not at all for carpet bombing
                    1. Avis-bis
                      Avis-bis 7 July 2019 16: 17
                      +1
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Sly) .1000 Tomahawks will harm more than 1 bomber in 1 flight

                      This is if the objects are point. And, if you need to clean the area, then no matter how you poke a needle (cruise missile), there will be little sense. Here you need a club.
                      I doubt that the carpet bombing of partisans is what strategic bombers were created for.

                      Do not doubt. They were not only created for A-bombs. And partisans are just an example. Against the classic line of defense of the regular army, the Kyrgyz Republic is not suitable. Unless, of course, talk about the classic explosives.
                      And they are mainly armed with guided weapons. Not at all for carpet bombing.

                      The Vietnamese are now slightly surprised. As, however, and the Afghans (I'm talking about our raids on them at the time). And the Syrians too.
                2. rocket757
                  rocket757 7 July 2019 15: 29
                  0
                  The question was for a "heavy bomber" or a strategic long-range aviation complex sharpened to perform special tasks, and therefore very expensive?
                  Just a heavy bomber, the equipment is not very expensive and copes with its task perfectly.
                  That is, we compare the "hammer" not with a blaster, but with a "KUVALDA"! Otherwise, completely different evaluation criteria must be applied.
            2. Avis-bis
              Avis-bis 7 July 2019 14: 51
              0
              Quote: Town Hall
              Maybe because they are not necessary from the point of view of Europeans. Heavy bombers are archaism in the 21st century

              The Pentagon disagrees with you. :) They recently extended the service life of the B-52 for the Nth time, launched the B-21 program and are not going to stop there. However, other countries I have listed are in solidarity with the Pentagon. China has already managed to modernize its "own" H-6s, pushing "big" D-30s there. This is really cool, ours would like to learn, and not stupidly cut beautiful cars. But I digress.
              Rockets, of course, are cheaper and more glamorous, but they are, by definition, a means of point destruction, and "carpets" do not lose their relevance to this day. And this is, anyway, a bomber, it does not matter manned or unmanned.
              And Great Britain simply cannot afford to maintain a YES fleet. As well as developing a new "strategist". So I gradually lost my YES. Finita.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 7 July 2019 15: 01
                0
                Do you rule out the possibility that the US is also mistaken? True, they have the ability to afford it with their budget. I’m not sure that the Russian Federation and China can also afford it.
                Modern strategic aviation was initially needed as a means of delivering atomic bombs. With the development of air defense and the advent of ballistic missiles, it has become a very vulnerable archaism in fact. And they are trying to attach to various more or less improvised tasks. Eliminating an entire kind of troops is not so easy Indeed, the Americans are trying to extend their lives by creating models with stealth technology. What China and Russia really expect is hard to say. For example, the Tu-23 in Georgia is more than indicative.
                1. rocket757
                  rocket757 7 July 2019 15: 34
                  0
                  TU 23 ??? There is no such plane.
                  In 2008, he played the factor of bossy stupidity, incompetence! TU 22M was shot down.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 7 July 2019 19: 55
                    -2
                    Of course the Tu-22. I have a typo there
                    Leaving aside the stupidity of command, an example shows that these flying sheds are very easy prey for any air defense. Even as weak as Georgia
                2. Avis-bis
                  Avis-bis 7 July 2019 16: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Do you rule out the possibility that the US is also mistaken?

                  I don't exclude it. But when three subjects fall under suspicion at once, doubts somehow sharply decrease. :)
                  True, they have the ability to afford it with their budget. I’m not sure that the Russian Federation and China can also afford it.

                  China certainly can.
                  Modern strategic aviation was originally needed as a means of delivering atomic bombs.

                  * thoughtfully *
                  I imagine an atomic bomb weighing twenty tons. :) Yeah, I'm talking about the B-52. In general, not only for A-bombs, but also simply for "carpets".
                  With the development of anti-aircraft defense and the advent of ballistic missiles, it actually became a very vulnerable archaism.

                  ICBMs entered service long before the strategic bombers of both sides reached combat readiness: that ours, that “theirs,” strategists were brought to mind until the end of the 1950s. But no one has given up on YES.
                  And they are trying to attach to various more or less improvised tasks.

                  Just take into account changing realities. For a single purpose in a single episode of the war of the Kyrgyz Republic, of course, is cheaper than a bomber. But with regular bombing - on the contrary. This is not a NURS, after all, but a full-fledged aircraft, they do not roll in packs in warehouses.
                  Americans are trying to extend their lives by creating models with stealth technology.

                  What a painfully expensive way. :) In order not to eliminate the type of aviation, to build billions into the development of a new long-range bomber. :)
                  What are China and Russia really counting on? It's hard to say

                  On a non-nuclear large-scale war. Where you have to quickly use up tactical ballistic missiles and missiles, and even have to bomb the squares. I’m not a general staffer, and indeed a purely civilian person, but I don’t think that budget saw cutters are sitting in the military departments of the three not the weakest countries in the World.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 7 July 2019 19: 29
                    0
                    Quote: Avis-bis
                    three subjects at once

                    These 3 subjects are also owners of nuclear arsenals. Suddenly)
                    Quote: Avis-bis
                    China certainly can

                    Today, maybe yes. However, this has not always been the case.
                    Quote: Avis-bis
                    Imagine an atomic bomb weighing twenty tons

                    Why only 1 bomb? Doctor banned 2 or 3?)
                    And the question was not only about weight, but also about the range and dimensions of the bombs, all of which determined the size.
                    Quote: Avis-bis

                    ICBMs came into service long before

                    Let's not confuse the first experimental propaganda launches with real combat readiness. ICBMs became an operational reality for the United States in the early 60s and for the USSR and later.
                    Quote: Avis-bis
                    What a painfully expensive way

                    This is actually the question.
                    Quote: Avis-bis
                    On a non-nuclear large-scale war. Where tactical ballistic missiles and missiles will have to be quickly consumed, and even have to bomb the areas

                    Yeah. And first you have to knock out all the aircraft from this hypothetical enemy. And all the air defense. By that moment are you sure that there will still be a need for carpet bombing?)
                    Quote: Avis-bis
                    I don’t think that budget saw cutters are also sitting in the military departments of the three not the weakest countries in the World

                    Seriously?). There is a cut in the sense of theft for personal enrichment. And this really hardly happens in all 3 of these countries. And the second type of "cut" is the promotion of various non-effective weapons, doctrines, etc., this is all the time in all countries throughout history ... Generals are preparing for the last war ... where did this saying come from?). Or those who promoted battleships before WWII, not from the same opera? And it seems like smart people. And not in one country
                    1. Avis-bis
                      Avis-bis 7 July 2019 20: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Quote: Avis-bis
                      three subjects at once

                      These 3 subjects are also owners of nuclear arsenals. Suddenly)

                      AND?..
                      Today, maybe yes. However, this has not always been the case.

                      ... and, nevertheless, China kept the Tu-16 fleet even in not the "fattest" years. Fools. probably yeah ...
                      Why only 1 bomb? Doctor banned 2 or 3?)

                      Basically, as far as I know, they wore one. The free tonnage is not rubber, but JATO on the B-52, as far as I know, was not used.

                      And the question was not only about weight, but also about the range and dimensions of the bombs.

                      Not a single A-bomb weighed 20 tons. Even if weighed, the distribution of reinforced places in the structure would be completely different. But the bomb bay is designed to hang a large number of conventional bombs (say, 1000 lbs) with a total weight of 20+ tons.
                      Let's not confuse the first experimental propaganda launches with real combat readiness. ICBMs became an operational reality for the United States in the early 60s and for the USSR and later.

                      The same bullshit with airplanes. B-29 / -50 does not count. The rest of the strategists came to a state only by the end of the 1950s. And before that, they were less capable than "propaganda" rockets. There was not enough range. But the planes, nevertheless, were not abandoned.
                      Yeah. And first you have to knock out all the aircraft from this hypothetical enemy. And all the air defense. By that moment are you sure that there will still be a need for carpet bombing?)

                      Knocked out in Vietnam? Vietnam bombed?
                      The generals are preparing for the past war .. where did this saying come from?). Or those who promoted battleships before WWII, not from the same opera?. And it seems like stupid people. And not in one country

                      What was wrong with battleships during WWII? Well, they didn't fight like Trafalgar, but they turned out to be a good means of supporting the landing. And the last battleships of the United States, at all, took part in the "Desert Storm". The functions have just changed. Not the first time in military history, and not the last. The same planes ... At the beginning of WWI they were perceived only as a means of reconnaissance. You do not want to say that, for the sake of preserving the type of troops, they artificially invented a new concept of use, making them fighters and bombers? :) "Ilya Muromets" ... He was generally considered by some doldon a fighter of "zeppelin". And when it turned out that "zeppelins" did not fly to our positions, they artificially invented a new concept of a bomber and a long-range reconnaissance aircraft, right? :) The same garbage with Maxim's machine guns, which at first were considered a cross between an artillery piece and a grape-shot. Many examples can be recalled.
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 7 July 2019 23: 23
                +1
                "and the" carpets "do not lose their relevance to this day" ////
                ----
                Strategists are now doing not for carpet bombing.
                And for the delivery of special heavy concrete-piercing precision bombs.
                Such bombs are not planned. They must be dropped from a great height.
                over the object.
                A cruise missile is also useless in this case.
  8. APASUS
    APASUS 7 July 2019 10: 40
    -2
    A strange situation is developing in Europe. Already announced two alternative R&D for the modern aviation complex and all without taking into account the Americans! What is it ? Independence of vassals?
    1. Defender
      Defender 7 July 2019 10: 52
      +1
      A bunch of European aircraft created without the participation of Americans. Learn the layouts of the fighters.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 7 July 2019 10: 54
        0
        Quote: Defender
        A bunch of European aircraft created without the participation of Americans.

        Tell me this bunch that was created after the F-22
        1. Defender
          Defender 7 July 2019 10: 55
          -1
          And why exactly after F22?
          1. APASUS
            APASUS 7 July 2019 10: 59
            0
            Quote: Defender
            And why exactly after F22?

            Until because all that goes further is a direct competitor to the American offspring .And someone needs to play this expensive offspring, so they tried to bend Germany.
            1. Defender
              Defender 7 July 2019 11: 04
              0
              Several European aircraft were created before f22, but are regularly updated. Swedes, French. Who wanted to participate in the f35 program. Now the company has decided to create a 6th generation fighter. I think they can do it.
              It’s not especially the United States that they are impudent. Nishtyaks themselves buy from Israel, artillery from Britain. I’ve never met any reports that the United States will impose sanctions if European companies promote their aircraft for export.
              Do you think US dominance is everywhere?
              1. APASUS
                APASUS 7 July 2019 11: 10
                0
                Quote: Defender
                Do you think US dominance is everywhere?

                Come on, you make fluffy rabbits from Americans. For some reason, I didn’t notice US bans on the sale of aircraft assembled in Israel, if I rummage I can find a dozen bans
            2. Town Hall
              Town Hall 7 July 2019 11: 04
              0
              Quote: APASUS
              Quote: Defender
              And why exactly after F22?

              Until because all that goes further is a direct competitor to the American offspring .And someone needs to play this expensive offspring, so they tried to bend Germany.

              And to whom did the Americans vpend the F-22?
              1. APASUS
                APASUS 7 July 2019 11: 08
                0
                Quote: Town Hall
                And to whom did the Americans vpend the F-22?

                This is a time frame if you do not understand
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 7 July 2019 11: 09
                  0
                  You yourself seem to be confused in theories)
                  1. APASUS
                    APASUS 7 July 2019 11: 13
                    0
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    You yourself seem to be confused in theories)

                    Well, if you don’t understand the branch of conversation that you wedged into, just write the models of military aircraft released in Europe after the F-22
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 7 July 2019 11: 21
                      +2
                      F-22 was adopted in 2001. Typhoon-2003. Rafal-2004
                      1. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 11: 33
                        -2
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        F-22 was adopted in 2001. Typhoon-2003. Rafal-2004

                        Your competitor promised me a mountain of fighters here, and there are only two of them. And then there are one generation 4, and the second generation 4 +, I would not call them f-22/35 competitors and the machines that they plan to create now, they just fit this post.
                      2. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 11: 42
                        +1
                        After f-22-yes, 2 models were released. And according to your theory, not a single one. In general, the user is right. Europeans produced dozens of aircraft models on their own, except for the last two.
                      3. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 11: 48
                        -2
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        After f-22-yes, 2 models released. And according to your theory, not a single one.

                        Paul of my theory to such cool manufacturers of aviation equipment as Italy or England, the Americans put the F-35 out and not the fact that they will suffer competitors!
                      4. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 11: 57
                        +2
                        You’re somehow inconsistent. So f-22 fumble, then easy and easy-f-35. These are 2 different planes, if that)
                        Italy and the World Bank, if anything, participated in the development of the f-35 directly. And Italy generally produces them on its territory. I don’t know how this is consistent with your theory.
                        And as for the competition, they will not / will not tolerate. 120 years, almost as there is aviation, they have suffered competition, but now they suddenly will not tolerate it?). Airbus is being tolerated ... and even by thousands of Americans buy
                      5. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 12: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        You’re somehow inconsistent. So the f-22 was fooling around, then it’s easy and easy-f-35.

                        Inconsistent interlocutor is you. Copy me my words, where it will be indicated that the Americans have funded the F-22, I beg you!
                        I have already indicated that this is a time frame, all f-35 are being played, if it is not clear.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        . These are 2 different planes, if that)

                        If anything, then in the line of F-35 aircraft there are also different aircraft, which differ radically
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        And as for the competition, they will not / will not tolerate. 120 years, almost as long as there is aviation tolerated competition, and now they suddenly will not tolerate?)

                        Prior to this, they did not lobby their industry openly, as the Americans do. They all talked about the advantage of the market, the rules and norms of the WTO and the whole crap. And now, for example, in the open, the US president says where and to whom what to produce!
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Airbus is being tolerated ... and even by thousands, Americans themselves are buying

                        With the sequence you also have trouble, what does Airbus have to do with it? Are we talking about modern fighters or have we already switched to another topic?
                      6. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 12: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: APASUS
                        Inconsistent interlocutor is you. Copy me my words, where it will be indicated that the Americans have funded the F-22, I beg you!

                        Please

                        APASUS
                        Today, 10: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Defender
                        And why exactly after F22?

                        This is because everything that goes further is a direct competitor of the American offspring .And someone needs to play this expensive offspring, so they tried to bend Germany
                      7. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 12: 17
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Please

                        I will copy the answer to you too
                        Quote: APASUS
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        And to whom did the Americans vpend the F-22?

                        This is a time frame if you do not understand
                      8. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 12: 20
                        +2
                        Quote: APASUS
                        what does Airbus have to do with it

                        Despite the fact that this is the most accessible example, refuting your claims about "not competition". If you are not aware, the United States annually purchases weapons from Europe for many billions of dollars
                      9. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 12: 25
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        ". In case you are not aware, the United States buys many billions of dollars worth of weapons from Europe every year.

                        And how much do they sell to Europe as a percentage of purchases? And how do you openly lobby and crush new projects (you know the story of a Turkish plane, they asked for 5 technologies in the USA)?
                      10. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 13: 07
                        0
                        Quote: APASUS
                        And how openly lobby and crush new projects

                        And what is strange and unusual about that? What country in the world does not lobby for its products and interests? Is Russia not trying to build gas pipes wherever possible? Didn't you buy Schroeder for this to lobby your gas to Germany? Why does Marie Lepin give money for what?) Ban on travel to Sharm not to force Egypt to buy Russian weapons? Tomato and Syrian wars with Erdogan in exchange for the Turkish Stream and the supply of S-400? Or is China not building or is trying to build different "silk roads" everywhere in order to promote its products around the world? And the list is endless ...
                      11. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 13: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Russia is not trying wherever possible to build pipes for gas?

                        Russia sells competitive products.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Isn’t that why she bought Schroeder to lobby her gas to Germany?

                        Do not tell, Schroeder is lobbying for gas, and Germany does not know what her pluses will be when she becomes the central European hub
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        What does Marie Lepan give money for?

                        Does Le Pen have leverage in the economy? You do not confuse? And as far as I understand, she has a loan in a Russian bank, it is not prohibited by any law
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        The ban on trips to Sharm is not in order to force Egypt to buy Russian weapons?

                        This is to make the Egyptians rest on the shores of the Barents Sea! Well, you give fantasies to the mountain, this is too much! They did not hear about flight safety or about the bombing of an airplane, about terrorists in the Sinai
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Tomato and Syrian wars with Erdogan in exchange for the Turkish stream and the supply of S-400?

                        Further, in my opinion, it’s all nonsense. They forced the S-400 Turks to buy, otherwise they are small children and do not know what is happening. The same thing with the Turkish stream, forced for tomatoes
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Or is China not building or is trying to build different "silk roads" everywhere in order to promote its products around the world?

                        First of all, China comes with investments and, of course, promotes its goods. Have the USA offered a lot of its goods for gas to the Baltic states?
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        And the list is endless ...

                        Your list is not up to date; you confuse direct pressure on states with trade and competition.
                      12. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 13: 31
                        +1
                        It is clear. If ours is a glorious scout. If "theirs" is a vile spy.
                      13. APASUS
                        APASUS 7 July 2019 13: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        It is clear. If ours is a glorious scout. If "theirs" is a vile spy.

                        Think whatever you want, all countries use their influence, but only the United States orders countries and talks with whom to trade and how. This is not protectionism, but dictatorship and you confuse it ......
                      14. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        The ban on trips to Sharm is not in order to force Egypt to buy Russian weapons?

                        It’s funny. :) Really funny.
                      15. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 19: 48
                        0
                        But Egypt is not funny at all. Egypt has 2 significant sources of income: Suez and tourism. And the share of Russian tourists in Sharm is about 30-40%. And the ban on charters to Sharm was a severe blow
                      16. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 20: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        But Egypt is not funny at all. Egypt has 2 significant sources of income: Suez and tourism. And the share of Russian tourists in Sharm is about 30-40%. And the ban on charters to Sharm was a severe blow

                        And? .. Well, banned, then what? Have you bought weapons? Well, we bought several Ka-52Ks, it seems. Have the ban been lifted? The question is rhetorical. The ban is not connected with weapons. Read about the violations at their airports revealed by the Egyptians themselves. And what was the reason for the check - the crash of the Metrojet plane. What the hell are "arms supplies" ...
                      17. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 21: 27
                        0
                        They made me buy it, of course. I bought a little so far, so I didn’t take it off. They bargain). And as far as I know, there are no other countries barring flights to Egyptian airports, or do you think that the countries of Europe or the USA do not care about the safety of their citizens and one Russia cares about its own?). In Russia, there were also terrorist attacks on various types of transport, and not odn-planes, pokzda, metro, buses. It seems they did not deny their use because of this
                      18. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 21: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Made to buy of course.

                        I don’t remember the author of the aphorism, so, sorry, no copyright: "If you believe in this nonsense, you are able to believe anything!".
                        As for the safety of Egyptian airports, as far as I know, there are no other countries prohibiting flights there. Or do you think that the countries of Europe or the United States do not care about the safety issues of their citizens and Russia alone cares about its own?).

                        If, God forbid, they blow up a West European plane flying out of Egypt, then we'll talk. So far, only ours has been blown up.
                        In Russia, there were also terrorist attacks on various types of transport, and not single-aircraft, pokzda, metro, buses. It seems that they did not deny their use because of this

                        Generally not a topic, therefore, no comment.
                      19. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 13: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        120 years almost as there is aviation

                        Lilienthal is now a little offended. :)
                      20. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 13: 14
                        0
                        Lilienthal still built gliders)
                      21. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 14: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Lilienthal still built gliders)

                        I kind of know. I can quote the definition of "aviation", I remember it too. :)
                      22. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 14: 01
                        0
                        All the same, the topic was competition in aircraft manufacturing.
                      23. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 14: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        All the same, the topic was competition in aircraft manufacturing.

                        You wrote "aviation". And "competition in aircraft manufacturing" (transport) is much less than "120 years". It essentially started after the end of WWI. Before WWI, aircraft were perceived only as sports equipment and a means of conducting reconnaissance.
                      24. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 14: 19
                        0
                        I did not mean kites).
                      25. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 14: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I did not mean kites).

                        So do I. I did not speak about the experiments of Mozhaysky. Lilientalevskie glider quite an aviation. And, for that matter, then the first br. Wright, too, were more likely motorized kites, but you started counting the history of aviation precisely from them. :)



                        If we consider something more or less solid for aviation, then aviation began in the late 1910s, not earlier. :) When there were all-wood and mixed structures, as well as all-metal. Then, in fact, there was real competition in aircraft construction. Before the WWI, there was some fuss in the sandbox instead. :) Competition between manufacturers of balls for Australian football. :)
                      26. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 7 July 2019 14: 51
                        0
                        Well, I’ll fix it. For the 110 year history of aircraft construction)
                      27. Avis-bis
                        Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Well, I’ll fix it. For the 110 year history of aircraft construction)

                        "It will not be enough!"

  9. megadeth
    megadeth 7 July 2019 10: 50
    -1
    There is still no 5th, have already joined the 6th ... Dur the house is resting, like a 4 ++ fighter in Russia, but show us 4 + ????
    1. Defender
      Defender 7 July 2019 10: 58
      0
      Windows 9 was not, immediately 10 so what?
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 7 July 2019 11: 19
        -2
        Quote: Defender
        Windows 9 was not, immediately 10 so what?

        I'm sorry, what? And they all spit on the W-10! Do you know why? And there was no advertising with Lenka! For she knew that the only anthem of Ukraine is worse than W-10!
  10. Defender
    Defender 7 July 2019 10: 51
    0
    I think Ukraine will not participate in this program, with all due respect to the Europeans. We will first take F16, and later F35
  11. gridasov
    gridasov 7 July 2019 11: 03
    0
    The question here is rather the consolidation of financial resources than the use of scientific and technological achievements of each of the participants.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 7 July 2019 12: 32
    0
    Britain and Sweden would still have to take a financial sponsor, such as India, and for three of them! - a decent 5th generation plane would be obtained.
  13. Saboteur Holuy
    Saboteur Holuy 7 July 2019 12: 55
    +1
    I think the English program is preferable, despite the fact that France and Germany will not lag behind. England may lose in geometry but in the engine it is better ... plus the Swedes in geometry are tightened ...
  14. Amateur
    Amateur 7 July 2019 13: 05
    0
    according to statements by representatives of the military-industrial complex, it is aimed at maintaining Britain’s leadership in military aviation.

    Blessed is he who believes.
    And what kind of military aircraft do shavers do at all?
    1. Avis-bis
      Avis-bis 7 July 2019 14: 01
      -1
      Quote: Amateur
      What military aircraft do small-shavens do?

      Eurofighter Typhoon, for example. Maybe the Harriers haven't finished yet ...
      1. Amateur
        Amateur 7 July 2019 14: 21
        +1
        "Typhoon"
        Alenia Aeronautica: left half wing, external flaperons, rear fuselage section.
        BAE Systems: front of the fuselage (including PGO), flashlight, gargrot, tail stabilizer, internal flaperons, rear section of the fuselage.
        EADS Deutschland: central fuselage, center section.
        EADS CASA - right wing, slats.


        "Harrier
        Start of operation April 1, 1969
        Status withdrawn from service
        UK Air Force Operators
        US Navy
        Sea Harrier

        Years of production 1967 - 1970s
        Start of operation July 1979
        End of operation May 2016
        Status withdrawn from service
        Dear Avis-bis (Sergey)! Before you write something, think about whether it is necessary.
        Silence is gold
        1. Avis-bis
          Avis-bis 7 July 2019 15: 32
          -1
          "Dear" you will call your lover. You shouldn't so slavishly copy the English-language phraseology of correspondence.
          About "Harrier" - find out in what sense the word "can" is used. This is not only a variant of the word "to be able", but also (in the context) "possible", that is, the possibility of an erroneous statement is indicated in advance ("errare humanum est", we are all living human beings, not computers).
          OK, the Harrier is out of service, remember.
          Alenia Aeronautica: left half wing, external flaperons, rear fuselage section.
          BAE Systems: front of the fuselage (including PGO), flashlight, gargrot, tail stabilizer, internal flaperons, rear section of the fuselage.
          EADS Deutschland: central fuselage, center section.
          EADS CASA - right wing, slats.

          Do you really think that at least one country in the world is now building aircraft from scratch entirely? Of course, Great Britain is not building the Typhoon in one go. Good morning. Even Boeing doesn't build a plane on its own. For example, the wing for the 787 comes from Japan, and the horizontal tail is from Spain.
          BAe has a very sickly part of the glider.
          But this is not the main thing. You, in your youthful fervor, have forgotten a very important thing: you do not understand a damn thing about aviation. And the plane is not only what all sorts of glamorous boys like you see before leaving for the resort. The plane also has a power plant and avionics (according to the newfangled - "avionics"). And this is more than half of the aircraft in total, both in terms of complexity and cost. The engine was originally from GE, then RR developed (yes, in collaboration) a new engine. Do you know where "RR" is? But that's not all - the multinational corporation that makes the Typhoon engine is not only one-third owned by RR, but RR also produces the most complex part of a gas turbine engine - a combustion chamber and a high-pressure turbine.
          Avionics is also designed and manufactured with the participation of the UK. Moreover, the advertised F-35 has avionics from BAe.
          So, before you advise anyone, do not forget to turn to your pocket mirror.
          1. Amateur
            Amateur 7 July 2019 15: 36
            +1
            Dear! I recommend you Phenazepam before the discussion!
            1. Avis-bis
              Avis-bis 7 July 2019 15: 39
              -1
              Quote: Amateur
              Dear! I recommend you Phenazepam before the discussion!

              To the mirror, to the mirror ... Most likely, it lies with you at the bottom of the reticule. :)
              But it’s already good that we have departed from slavish adherence to English-language revolutions.
              1. Amateur
                Amateur 7 July 2019 17: 03
                +1
                Thanks to you Avis-bis (Sergey), I learned a lot of new information for me about
                To the mirror, to the mirror ... Most likely, it lies with you at the bottom of the reticule. :)
                ,
                And the plane is not only what all sorts of glamorous boys, like you, see before flying to the resort.
                ,
                Do not forget to turn to your pocket mirror.
                .
                Immediately felt professional!
                I hope that, with due diligence, you will begin to understand aviation as well!
                1. Avis-bis
                  Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 22
                  -1
                  Quote: Amateur

                  Immediately felt professional!

                  There is no such profession - "observant person". I just keep my eyes open.
                  I hope that, with due diligence, you will begin to understand aviation as well!

                  I don’t know about zeal, but I understand aviation, unlike you. At the very least, I know that an airplane is not only a glider. "Tail", damn it, "stabilizer". Divorced wikipids ...
                  1. Amateur
                    Amateur 7 July 2019 17: 26
                    +1
                    Another phenazipam tablet - and everything will be fine! drinks
                    1. Avis-bis
                      Avis-bis 7 July 2019 17: 27
                      -1
                      Quote: Amateur
                      Another phenazipam tablet - and everything will be fine! drinks

                      Accept. I allow it. :) I do not know what it is, but I hope it does not harm you.
  15. Alkonost
    Alkonost 7 July 2019 22: 40
    0
    To create a 6th generation fighter, it would not hurt to first make the 5th. In the 90s, when the Americans tested the F-22 and it was already known that they would not sell it, the Europeans said that they were making their 5th generation fighters - Eurofighter and Rafal. Very actively advertised precisely as 5th generation fighters. But in fact they did 4 + ... Now they are going to take up the 6th right away. Well, well ... And what not for the 7th?