Military Review

Only a third of the American F-35 fighters are ready for combat missions

73

The United States' most expensive military program is in jeopardy. This was reported at a recent hearing in the House Armed Forces Committee. American lawmakers were forced to state that only a part of F-35 fighters are capable of performing all those combat missions for which they were intended.


Ellen Lord, Head of Pentagon Arms Purchasing Department, Admitted Service Information Systems fleet the latest fighters do not fully meet the requirements. Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon are still arguing over who owns the F-35 program codes, and these divisions may cast doubt on the future of the program.

Some lawmakers criticized the deal between the corporation and the state, saying that overly generous concessions in intellectual property issues threaten to lock Locked Martin as a profit-making office, but with limited liability for its mistakes.

As a result, the program has problems maintaining the combat readiness of the F-35, which looks unusual for a completely new machine, according to the United States. Only a third of the fleet of these fighters was capable of fulfilling all the tasks assigned, and such a situation could cast doubt on the ability of the military to respond to threats. Two-thirds of the fleet of F-35 fighters experience problems with financing software updates, with the supply of components, or with logistics for use in long-distance operations in connection with the repair of aircraft carriers.
Photos used:
Facebook / F-35 Lightning II Group
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 18 November 2019 11: 23 New
    +10
    Something Indian programmers are completely lazy or dance too much during working hours
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 18 November 2019 12: 19 New
      0
      no matter how many there are, but ours, the “same type”, only made a hundred, and fu35 as many in one naglia.
      1. Vladimir16
        Vladimir16 18 November 2019 12: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Dead Day
        no matter how many there are, but ours, "homosexuals" only made a hundred

        What hundred are you talking about, Grandfather Old? request
      2. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 18 November 2019 15: 12 New
        +2
        and they are made by 8 countries, not just Russia wink
      3. Samaritan
        Samaritan 18 November 2019 15: 24 New
        +3
        no matter how many there are, but ours, the “same type”, only made a hundred, and fu35 as many in one naglia.
        Something you are not in the opera is not in the collective farm ...
        The head of the British defense department on this occasion said that the UK is doubling the fleet of F-35 fighters, purchasing 17 new fighters and thus bringing the total number of fifth-generation invisible aircraft to 35. He added that the 17 aircraft ordered will come from the USA during 2020-2022 and will become an addition to the 16 already based on the Marham Air Force base in the UK and in the United States F-35B.
        Earlier it was reported that all of Great Britain plans to purchase 138 aircraft of the Lockheed Martin F-35V Lightning II family. Until 2021, the kingdom government will spend more than £ 12 billion on fighter jets. At the moment, procurement has been disrupted, and new procurement dates and dates are being discussed.
      4. Nikolai Grek
        Nikolai Grek 19 November 2019 01: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: Dead Day
        no matter how many there are, but ours, the “same type”, only made a hundred, and fu35 as many in one naglia.

        what at least one flies ??? !!! wassat wassat lol lol lol
  2. bessmertniy
    bessmertniy 18 November 2019 11: 23 New
    +6
    The company needs to express our gratitude for keeping the American fighters in an unfit condition. wink
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 18 November 2019 11: 43 New
      -1
      This is to the Pentagon and Congress - thanks!
      Lockheed is fine. Aircraft are delivered to customers on schedule. And they fly, they fight, they don’t fall.
      500 will be soon.
      But the Pentagon got confused with its own bureaucratic procedures.
      Cases-systems for general verification of aircraft software in a "complex environment" are not completed. They argue who owns the self-analysis system of aircraft systems: the Pentagon, Lockheed or the customer countries.
      1. bessmertniy
        bessmertniy 18 November 2019 11: 48 New
        +2
        It turns out that we must thank the bureaucrats! recourse belay
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 November 2019 11: 49 New
          0
          Always! laughing As NASA slows down the Mask with bureaucracy, so the Pentagon is Lockheed.
          1. Kurare
            Kurare 18 November 2019 12: 03 New
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            As NASA slows down the Mask with bureaucracy, so the Pentagon is Lockheed.

            hi Then you compared sour to wooden. NASA is slowing down the Mask not only (due to the fact that they have more bureaucracies, but because Space-X is a direct competitor for NASA and the state-owned company is starting to look very faded against their background.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 18 November 2019 12: 08 New
              +1
              NASA is lobbied by ULA (Boeing), and this Boeing against the backdrop of SpaceX looks pale: everyone does it slowly and expensively.
              1. Kurare
                Kurare 18 November 2019 12: 10 New
                +4
                At NASA, many are tied up, and there are enough lobbyists in government agencies. And yet, yes, everything is done slowly and expensively, as they used to. For so many decades (since the collapse of the USSR) there has been virtually no competition, only the previous merits of "before the fatherland."
          2. Ka-52
            Ka-52 18 November 2019 12: 47 New
            +3
            Is always! laughing As NASA slows down the Mask bureaucracy, so the Pentagon - Lockheed

            she does not slow down. And it ensures compliance with the requirements, the need for which is laid down in flight safety. Such programs have always been described by so many regulations that it is clear to some speed grips that seem redundant. But all the regulations were written by disasters, lives and billions that burned in seconds
      2. basmach
        basmach 18 November 2019 11: 53 New
        -4
        500 is built, but 135 is ready for it .. And? The sense of the built.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 November 2019 11: 58 New
          -1
          Almost everything is ready. There are those who are waiting for spare parts in squadrons. Most of those that are considered "sky-ready" can fly, take bombs, missiles and fight.
          But on paper, according to "safety techniques" they are considered "unverified after software upgrade", etc.
          ----
          Let me explain: in the Israeli Air Force 18 F-35 aircraft. All of them fly on assignments, participate in exercises. But in the US Air Force they would be listed in the "sky-ready", because they did not pass all sorts of bureaucratic checks according to their regulations.
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 18 November 2019 13: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Let me explain: in the Israeli Air Force 18 F-35 aircraft. They all fly to missions

            So be responsible for your 18 aircraft ... Or are you responsible here, as the head of the American company Lockheed Martin? It is said - 1/3, then one third is. And what hung there: paint, software, or just a pilot hanged himself is not so interesting.
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Almost everything is ready. There are those who are waiting for spare parts in squadrons.

            Bright and powerful argument in your favor.
            hi
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 18 November 2019 13: 47 New
              +1
              “So answer for your 18 airplanes ... Or do you answer here as the head of the American company Lockheed Martin?” ///
              ----
              In this case, you are only allowed to be responsible for the Su-35 and other Russian aircraft laughing
              What are you responsible for the F-35? They are not in service with Russia. What do you know about them? Bazaar about your Su -...
              I was kidding smile
              Let's not quarrel drinks
              1. Ross xnumx
                Ross xnumx 18 November 2019 13: 55 New
                +4
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Let's not quarrel

                Yes and no reason. It’s just that sometimes posts pop up among users, “as if” saying that the author has a secret report before his eyes.
                As for the F-35, it sometimes seems that this “ultra-expensive” invisibility is more than covered by the creators of the S-400 in order to reassure certain individuals in the United States. But in fact, experts have ceased to take into account the skills and skills of the pilot.
                1. okko077
                  okko077 18 November 2019 19: 17 New
                  +1
                  this "super-expensive" invisibility is more than covered by the creators of the S-400

                  And why then do the S-500?
                  A non-peacefully flying F35 with its small image intensifier at a large distance in the passive mode will soon detect the radiation from the station! And then it's a matter of choice: turn around or try to destroy! One cannot succeed, although it is possible to launch an anti-radar missile with a low probability of success ... Or you can use prepared tactics ... Use several aircraft, UAVs and false targets, as well as electronic warfare equipment ... And now it is up to us: but we have answers to their preparations ... I think not quite. What do you think? So it’s not so simple ... But the advantage lies with the attacking side, and it can only be leveled by competent, pre-prepared and well-developed actions and preparation ...
          2. basmach
            basmach 18 November 2019 15: 13 New
            0
            Do you serve aviation? Or served? I served, and what combat readiness is, I remember. And I also remember how the pilots wrote a comment (if the PNA went into refusal on flights) and did not fly. Although the route to the landfill was known by heart. And I don’t need noodles that your “heroic” flyers will agree to fly without a working complex (and without any working equipment). I’m silent about Amers. The combat ready is a fully operational, refueled aircraft, ready to perform any combat mission intended for this type
            1. okko077
              okko077 18 November 2019 18: 05 New
              +2
              You have apparently forgotten a lot, even if you knew, although you don’t believe much in the latter!
              PNA systems provide information to the PNA, and the latter without this information either does not shoot at all, or switches to simplified algorithms that provide lower accuracy. And the route here is secondarily ..
              Pilots do not write failures of sighting systems, this affects the combat readiness ... All these failures are hidden and not taken into account, although they are eliminated as quickly as possible ... The military will never show that the aircraft is not really combat ready ...
        2. ilimnoz
          ilimnoz 18 November 2019 12: 15 New
          +4
          even if it’s 135 combat ready, you need to consider all 500 if not more. maybe their congressmen are engaged in disinformation, like Zhirinovsky at one time.
      3. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter 18 November 2019 12: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This is to the Pentagon and Congress - thanks!
        Lockheed is fine. Aircraft are delivered to customers on schedule. And they fly, they fight, they don’t fall.
        500 will be soon.
        But the Pentagon got confused with its own bureaucratic procedures.
        Cases-systems for general verification of aircraft software in a "complex environment" are not completed. They argue who owns the self-analysis system of aircraft systems: the Pentagon, Lockheed or the customer countries.

        "Believe" the word.

        In the Beaufort County, South Carolina, near the US Marine Corps Aviation Station, a fifth-generation F-35B American multi-role fighter crashed. This is with reference to an unnamed military official reports CNN. CBS News clarifies that this was the first crash of "the newest and most expensive US aircraft."

        https://www.rbc.ru/society/28/09/2018/5bae6ace9a7947679f3e7562

        On the evening of April 9, 2019, a fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter from the 302nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (302 Hikotai) of the 3rd Wing (3 Koukuudan) of the Japanese Air Force was crashed over the Pacific Ocean.

        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3603739.html

        The day before, September 8, the press service of the Nellis Air Force Base in the State of Nevada reported that Lt. Col. Eric Schulz had died in a plane crash. At the same time, the press release did not indicate which airplane the pilot flew in his last flight. This nuance violates certain rules that all US military must adhere to when covering emergency situations. Such laconicism is typical for cases when classified technology samples are tested.
        However, in the case of the Nellis base, there is no need to talk about secrecy. She is known for the fact that all foreign pilots who have to fly on American fighters are trained there. In a sense, the base resembles a courtyard and is weak for testing secret aircraft. Currently, it mainly trains F-35 pilots, which the Pentagon is actively selling to its allies around the world. With a high degree of probability, we can say that this type of fighter crashed in the desert regions of Nevada. This version is also supported by the fact that Lieutenant Colonel Schulz was one of the first pilots to master the F-35 and had vast experience in managing this aircraft, in connection with which his task was to train new pilots for the latest aircraft.

        http://m.globalwarnews.ru/pervoe-krushenie-f-35-pentagon-zasekretil-podrobnosti-aviakatastrofy-na-baze-nellis-9119.html
        And the rest is a beautiful marquise, all is well, all is well.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 November 2019 12: 17 New
          +1
          Well? When 2 out of 450 flying planes with 250,000 flying hours with one dead pilot crashed, it’s called:
          world record for low accident rates.
          1. Sky strike fighter
            Sky strike fighter 18 November 2019 13: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Well? When 2 out of 450 flying planes with 250,000 flying hours with one dead pilot crashed, it’s called:
            world record for low accident rates.

            What are two planes? Only I brought you links to 3 F-35 crashes. And this is only the first thing that caught my eye. This is despite the fact that the United States, for obvious reasons, conceals the accidents if possible and is silent about them.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 18 November 2019 13: 15 New
              +1
              The entire F-35 program is absolutely open. Therefore, such a stream of information about her. Two planes crashed:
              1) F-35B marines in exercises at the US military base.
              Engine fire due to frayed fuel supply pipe.
              2) Japanese F-35A in exercises over the sea.
              Version: the pilot lost consciousness during a sharp change in altitude down.
              And in general: ALL accidents in the US Air Force and NATO are immediately published. And immediately fall into VO.
              1. Oyo Sarkazmi
                Oyo Sarkazmi 18 November 2019 16: 51 New
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Two planes crashed:

                We do not consider the non-release of the chassis during landing ...
                Well, the departure from the strip at the end of the run - too. Sorry, the pictures from me are not attached.
            2. MoJloT
              MoJloT 18 November 2019 13: 17 New
              -3
              I gave you links to 3 accidents F-35
              And at that time another moment of the 29th Indian Air Force fell. Which one?
              1. bk316
                bk316 18 November 2019 14: 52 New
                +6
                What about the bill?

                And how many f-16 entire divisions crashed, only this has nothing to do with the topic .... Like the thirty-year-old instantly-29
            3. Avior
              Avior 18 November 2019 23: 50 New
              0
              provided links to 2 accidents.
              Specialized media are filled with reports that Schultz was piloting a Soviet or Russian fighter, so everyone was classified.
              It is known that it was not F-35
              “I can tell you for sure that it was not an F-35 fighter,” General David Goldfein, chief of staff of the United States Air Force, told Military Times.

              https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/news-387152-podpolkovnik-vvs-ssha-pogib-v-zasekrechennoy-aviakatastrofe/
          2. Nikolai Grek
            Nikolai Grek 19 November 2019 02: 16 New
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Well? When 2 out of 450 flying planes with 250,000 flying hours with one dead pilot crashed, it’s called:
            world record for low accident rates.

            it’s just interesting ... if you didn’t have these f35, would you still stoke it for this trough ??? what wassat lol lol lol
        2. Tsoy
          Tsoy 18 November 2019 14: 56 New
          +1
          that all foreign pilots who have to fly on American fighters are trained there.


          This is, to say the least, not true. At Luke Air Force Base, which in Arizona also learns to fly the F-35. Turks until recently and Australians.
      4. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 18 November 2019 15: 14 New
        0
        umm ... but yours with your software, no? what here yours fly ... and the Americans make a profit! good
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. NEXUS
        NEXUS 18 November 2019 17: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And they fly, they fight, they don’t fall.

        Are fighting? I'm afraid to ask with whom? Where does this miracle of American engineering fly, where is there at least some sort of air defense or fighter jets that could oppose them? WHERE, dear?
        They are fighting ... if only they would not make people laugh.
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 18 November 2019 17: 14 New
          +2
          Most likely this refers to air raids on Iraq and Syria.
        2. atalef
          atalef 18 November 2019 17: 17 New
          -3
          Quote: NEXUS
          Are fighting? I'm afraid to ask with whom? Where this miracle of American engineering flies, where there is at least some sort of air defense

          in Syria flies
          Quote: NEXUS
          They are fighting ... if only they would not make people laugh

          I wonder what su-35 do in Syria and why shoot caliber?
          Do watchdogs have air defense or pro?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 18 November 2019 17: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            in Syria flies

            So, no one is touching these feathered ones ... but it flies, excuse me, and excrement, if you shoot it.
            Quote: atalef
            I wonder what su-35 do in Syria and why shoot caliber?

            They cover our attack aircraft and helicopters from such very narcotics as the Israelis and the coalition, led by mattresses.
            Quote: atalef
            Do watchdogs have air defense or pro?

            I have said many times that the SU-35, SU-30 are not there on combat sorties ... on combat sorties our attack aircraft and helicopter pilots are there, since they fly low.
            1. atalef
              atalef 18 November 2019 17: 57 New
              -7
              Quote: NEXUS
              So, no one is touching these feathered ones.

              or they cannot, because they do not see. By the way, in Iraq they also bombed more than once
              Quote: NEXUS
              .a flies, excuse me, and excrement if you bully.

              and touch - Masha for a frog.
              Quote: NEXUS
              They cover our attack aircraft and helicopters from such very narcotics as the Israelis and the coalition, led by mattresses.

              Well, yes, it’s from them - and the Papuans are bombing.
              storyteller
              Quote: NEXUS
              I have said many times that SU-35, SU-30 are not there on sorties.

              clear beer crates scatter
              To do this, by the way, Kuzya sailed and the calibers fly
              Quote: NEXUS
              on combat sorties there our attack aircraft and helicopter pilots,since they fly low.

              who are the calibers?
  3. Alexander Suvorov
    Alexander Suvorov 18 November 2019 11: 23 New
    +6
    How can one look at a burning fire and flowing water forever.
    In the same way, you can always discuss the problems of Fu-35 and the problems of Ukraine. As long as all this exists, topics on VO will not run out.
    1. Andrey Chistyakov
      Andrey Chistyakov 18 November 2019 11: 27 New
      -3
      Quote: Alexander Suvorov
      How can one look at a burning fire and flowing water forever.
      In the same way, you can always discuss the problems of Fu-35 and the problems of Ukraine. As long as all this exists, topics on VO will not run out.

      You write something. We discuss. Got a topic?
      1. Alexander Suvorov
        Alexander Suvorov 18 November 2019 11: 30 New
        +4
        Andrey Chistyakov (Andrey Chistyakov)
        You write something. We discuss. Got a topic?
        Yes, that sea, just write laziness.
        1. Andrey Chistyakov
          Andrey Chistyakov 18 November 2019 11: 31 New
          +3
          Quote: Alexander Suvorov
          Andrey Chistyakov (Andrey Chistyakov)
          You write something. We discuss. Got a topic?
          Yes, that sea, just write laziness.

          Well yes. Grumbling is not laziness. I agree.
          1. Alexander Suvorov
            Alexander Suvorov 18 November 2019 11: 37 New
            +3
            Yes, I do not grumble, just stated a fact. I myself love to walk on the topic of problems of the Fu-35. It’s just that the number of publications on this topic is already beginning to exceed reasonable limits.

            P.S. Minus is not mine, if that.
            1. Andrey Chistyakov
              Andrey Chistyakov 18 November 2019 11: 38 New
              -2
              Quote: Alexander Suvorov
              Yes, I do not grumble, just stated a fact. I myself love to walk on the topic of problems of the Fu-35. It’s just that the number of publications on this topic is already beginning to exceed reasonable limits.

              P.S. Minus is not mine, if that.

              Write to moderators.
          2. Alex_You
            Alex_You 18 November 2019 11: 46 New
            -2
            Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
            Quote: Alexander Suvorov
            Andrey Chistyakov (Andrey Chistyakov)
            You write something. We discuss. Got a topic?
            Yes, that sea, just write laziness.

            Well yes. Grumbling is not laziness. I agree.

            Well, for example:
            The U.S. Navy plans to triple its hours of training in ship driving by 2021.
            https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-20-154
    2. Thrall
      Thrall 18 November 2019 11: 27 New
      +5
      Quote: Alexander Suvorov
      How can one look at a burning fire and flowing water forever.
      In the same way, you can always discuss the problems of Fu-35 and the problems of Ukraine. As long as all this exists, topics on VO will not run out.

      What about Israel problem? She will remain even when VO does not smile
    3. Black_Vatnik
      Black_Vatnik 18 November 2019 11: 39 New
      +2
      Indeed, what a fig a military aircraft is being discussed on a military portal ?!)
  4. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 18 November 2019 11: 24 New
    +4
    Quote: Alexander Suvorov
    How can one look at a burning fire and flowing water forever.
    In the same way, you can always discuss the problems of Fu-35 and the problems of Ukraine. As long as all this exists, topics on VO will not run out.

    laughing laughing good
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 18 November 2019 11: 36 New
    0
    United States most expensive military program is in jeopardy

    The question is, what difference does it make to us? Let the partners of the minke whales have a headache ....
    The Yankees have enough of everything else! even if some of it is not in the platoon.
    Going about our business, we ourselves have problems above the roof!
    1. Siberia 75
      Siberia 75 18 November 2019 12: 05 New
      +3
      I repeat the thought Black_Vatnik
      "Indeed, what a fig a military aircraft is being discussed on a military portal ?!)" (c) tongue
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 18 November 2019 12: 24 New
        +3
        Quote: Siberia 75
        "Indeed, what a fig a military aircraft is being discussed on a military portal ?!)" (c)

        This "psu" was disassembled by bones more than once! Are you hoping to hear / read something new?
        By the way, the topic is not for the plane, but the problems of those services, upgrades, upgrades, i.e. all related services. Nobody will offer anything fundamentally new either ... moreover, all this is subjective.
        1. Siberia 75
          Siberia 75 18 November 2019 12: 45 New
          +4
          Quote: rocket757
          This "psu" was disassembled by bones more than once! Are you hoping to hear / read something new?
          By the way, the topic is not for the plane, but the problems of those services, upgrades, upgrades, i.e.

          The fact of the matter is that the Americans tried to create the first, fully integrated, universal, network-centric aircraft. Therefore, everything that concerns him causes such an interest. What would we then, do not dance on the same rake.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 18 November 2019 12: 55 New
            +5
            Quote: Siberia 75
            The fact of the matter is that the Americans tried to create the first, fully integrated, universal, network-centric aircraft. Therefore, everything that concerns him causes such an interest. What would we then, do not dance on the same rake.

            This is true, because I am not discussing the aircraft as such, I am considering it as an advanced experiment to test / refine the concept of future "network wars". Just so far there is nothing special to watch, because the necessary infrastructure has not been created!
            So far, individual elements are being worked out ... there is nothing much to discuss.
            We have to go the same way ... we had to start yesterday. The path is not close, not particularly tested by anyone.
            1. okko077
              okko077 18 November 2019 18: 28 New
              +1
              No need to flaunt primeval ignorance and stupid judgments. Only we had the task to create such systems was received in 2000, the program was designed until the end of 2020. The goal of the presidential program is to equip the army with similar systems. Successfully failed. ESU TK decays on army garbage dumps from complete uselessness and inconsistency with the tasks set .. And there were several such systems, with the same result ... All of them were transformed into useless ACS of troop control ala Gerasimov ... We are in a deep ass according to ability wage a modern war, again all the holes will be plugged by people, and plugged already, as in Syria ... There are good results in air defense, but they have been traditional and laid down for a long time ... and do not relate to ground operations, but only they are won non-nuclear wars and conflicts are resolved ... successfully !!!
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 18 November 2019 18: 50 New
                +1
                Quote: okko077
                There are good results in air defense, but they are traditional and laid down a long time ago ...

                And for a long time, it also did not work out right away ... they swam, we know.
                There is a problem, it will be solved ... time, the best judge in all disputes.
          2. Oyo Sarkazmi
            Oyo Sarkazmi 18 November 2019 16: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: Siberia 75
            The fact of the matter is that the Americans tried to create the first, fully integrated, universal, network-centric aircraft

            And in my opinion - to cram mountains of modern electronics in a small fuselage, which is more expensive. And almost the main problem of the F-35 is the on-board equipment cooling system, which, it turns out, also requires power and space. And the further, the more.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Alex_You
    Alex_You 18 November 2019 11: 42 New
    0
    https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/6381499
    Of the F-35 fleet in the United States, only a quarter are in full combat readiness

    April 19th year.
  8. Doctor
    Doctor 18 November 2019 11: 48 New
    0
    It makes sense to discuss the topic of the general availability of software on modern models of military equipment, its cost and license rights, the need for updates, as well as vulnerability to hacker attacks and electronic warfare. About 30 years ago, no one bothered about this, but now we must take into account that without software, an airplane is a pile of flightless iron. The experience of the Second World War shows the correctness of tactics for simplifying samples in favor of quantity.
    Whether we will return to the mass production of equipment of the sample of the 70s in the event of a major war, that is the question.
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi 18 November 2019 17: 00 New
      +1
      For this, hundreds of Phantoms stand in the desert, starting with Saber with warm lamps.
  9. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 18 November 2019 11: 54 New
    0
    In general, it is not surprising. Jet advertising is like dust in the eye, but in fact this zilch will have to be finished for a long time.
    And while all happy with everything))
  10. Russobel
    Russobel 18 November 2019 12: 10 New
    -2
    I have not seen so many cons on the topic.
    Apparently the smell of trollin ?!
    Hello, moderator!
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 18 November 2019 12: 22 New
      +5
      And you, sorry, come here only for the pros or cons?
      1. The comment was deleted.
  11. Dmitry Gundorov
    Dmitry Gundorov 18 November 2019 12: 59 New
    +2
    On the other hand, everything is open with them, but how many planes are ready for us to complete the tasks?
    1. knn54
      knn54 18 November 2019 13: 34 New
      +1
      Indeed, "about a third of the finished planes" this year is the second or third article. The next opus from the series "not good for us, but bad for them." And when the stealth coverage and the necessary engine for the SU-57 are ready, then it is a "military secret."
      After all, the Soviet legacy is not rubber.
  12. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 18 November 2019 13: 52 New
    +1
    which looks unusual for a brand new car

    Lie, lie, don’t lie. Has it ever been otherwise? Which of all these Lockheed Boeings, etc. shot for the jambs in the adopted series? laughing
  13. bars1
    bars1 18 November 2019 15: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: knn54
    And when the stealth cover is ready

    Please read more about not ready stealth-coating Su-57.
  14. janeck
    janeck 18 November 2019 16: 17 New
    +5
    kerosene is over?
  15. Zeev Zeev
    Zeev Zeev 18 November 2019 16: 25 New
    -4
    The state of Israel is always ready to provide its allies with a base for the repair and modernization of the F-35. And we will provide basing.
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi 18 November 2019 17: 02 New
      +1
      Will you fill strawberry-banana compote? lol
      1. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 18 November 2019 18: 00 New
        -2
        Biodiesel.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. high
    high 19 November 2019 07: 33 New
    0
    The most expensive United States military program has been threatened.

    The paradox is that the most expensive US military program does not reduce the standard of living of the population, it is enough to compare the cost of health care per capita:
    Russia - 524 dollars
    USA - 9 536 dollars
    https://nonews.co/directory/lists/countries/health-expenditure-capita
  18. mvmptzna
    mvmptzna 19 November 2019 13: 14 New
    0
    Bullshit.
    Previously, they calculated how many aircraft would be needed to destroy an air defense system, with the advent of stealth they calculated how many air defense systems would be needed to destroy an aircraft.
    No matter how much they write about the sky-ready F35s at VO, and the Japanese have once bought hundreds of F35s.