In Nevada, demonstrated spectacular aerobatics on the F-35


Frames with a demo version of piloting an American fifth-generation fighter F-35 appeared on the network. The demonstration flight was carried out by the F-35 air wing stationed at Nellis Air Base (approximately 15 km from Las Vegas, Nevada).


The plane, breaking away from the runway, rose several meters above it, after which the pilot began to make a sharp climb with access to the "hill". Moving for several seconds at an angle of about 80 degrees, the F-35 fighter began to approach the complex of figures of the top pilot - with a fragment of the Nesterov loop controlled by a corkscrew and the subsequent exit to the dive.

Demonstrating the spectacular capabilities of the aircraft and its skills, the American pilot "twisted" several "barrels", made combat turns, and reached low altitudes.


This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the capricious moods from the “ours is still better” series, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction for themselves on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to go into modes high maneuverability without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources.

Another issue is that the United States itself recognizes the following: only a third of the F-35 fleet is suitable for military operations due to numerous problems with maintenance and logistics of supplies. True, a third of the park is a very impressive arsenal, which would be foolish to try to write off.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aerodrome 21 November 2019 08: 18 New
    • 33
    • 14
    +19
    This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the capricious moods from the “ours is still better” series, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction for themselves on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to go into modes high maneuverability without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources.
    and yet not impressed.
    1. novel66 21 November 2019 08: 24 New
      • 29
      • 13
      +16
      bullshit, ours still flew on yak-3 and la-5
      1. Dmitry Donskoy 21 November 2019 09: 13 New
        • 15
        • 3
        +12
        Colleague, you forgot to mention another "Ilya of Muromets" yes
        1. novel66 21 November 2019 10: 14 New
          • 9
          • 3
          +6
          He would surely lay such a bend
          1. Shurik70 21 November 2019 18: 39 New
            • 8
            • 2
            +6
            Fast and furious takeoff, dead loop, barrels and bends. All at subsonic speeds.
            And where is the "spectacular aerobatics"?
            This is the standard set for any aircraft, except for large passenger airliners.
            request
            1. GibSoN 21 November 2019 19: 30 New
              • 2
              • 5
              -3
              Fast and furious takeoff, dead loop, barrels and bends. All at subsonic speeds.
              Like shoulder straps should already be reaped)) And write such a game) Can a video like any plane, even though the Su-100500-57 does aerobatics at supersonic speeds? Well, it just became interesting ..
              1. Shurik70 21 November 2019 20: 29 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                "Cobra", the ballet "Swan Lake", "Rhombus" - this is aerobatics.
                And the SU-57 supersonic at the MAKS simply overcame the crowd - with this, special effects.
                1. GibSoN 22 November 2019 21: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  "Cobra", the ballet "Swan Lake", "Rhombus" - this is aerobatics.
                  We carefully read my comment! What does the subscription you mentioned have to do with these aerobatics? If you hinted about subsonic, definitely, there must be evidence that this is all, can be done on supersonic ?! Facts to the studio!
                  And the supersonic SU-57 on the MAX just overcame the crowd
                  If you are not at all aware of such opuses (switching to supersonic at a low altitude and, especially over a crowd, is NOT FORBIDDEN just like that). Well, yes ... For the sake of the show, many are ready to arrange anything .. By the way, MAKS and Su-57 are not the first and not the only example when they so spectacularly decided to stage a SHOW with super sound over the crowd ..
              2. NEXUS 21 November 2019 21: 00 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: GibSoN
                even though the Su-100500-57 does aerobatics at supersonic speeds? Well, it just became interesting ..

                There is no supersonic ... here you are right. And tell me, dear REVERSE (inverted) corkscrew is able to produce at least some of the mattress or European fighter pilots?
            2. caiman 21 November 2019 22: 14 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              litter and what? And ,,, T)))), what barrels what turns and dead loops on supersonic?)))), I could only write, excuse me for a complete BA ,,, N or just a victim of the exam)))) )))
              1. Scoun 21 November 2019 23: 21 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: caiman
                litter and what? And ,,, T)))), what barrels what turns and dead loops on supersonic?)))), I could only write, excuse me for a complete BA ,,, N or just a victim of the exam)))) )))

                Um ... sorry to interrupt.
                Whose sacrifice are you yourself?
                Imha.
                All these "turns", it is possible and supersonic, only the "radii" will be proportional to human capabilities.
                What glass did you run into with such ambition?
                A rhetorical question. hi
                1. novel66 22 November 2019 07: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I don’t know how much, but judging by the quote from the "red sails" ... "Ginger, you know, makes a person hardened. When I need to fight, I drink ginger." lol GINGER !!!
      2. Vol4ara 21 November 2019 09: 15 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: novel xnumx
        bullshit, ours still flew on yak-3 and la-5

        What biplanes can do
        1. Lone gunman 21 November 2019 11: 08 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          for sure, but Leontiev as dissected on his hang glider ... finally fire
      3. figwam 21 November 2019 09: 37 New
        • 11
        • 5
        +6
        ours so still on yak-3 and la-5 flew

        But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.
        1. Jack O'Neill 21 November 2019 11: 26 New
          • 2
          • 12
          -10
          But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.

          Then A6M2 laughs at all monoplanes, including modern ones, that of the Su-35, that the F-22.
          And so, we all sit on the "Zero"?
        2. NEXUS 21 November 2019 21: 03 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: figvam
          But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.


          Let it be repeated. Their pilots are the highest ...
        3. caiman 21 November 2019 22: 18 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          the clown radius is not a turn but a bend, this is, firstly, and secondly, the bend radius of the fighters of the second world was much smaller, so it’s better to sit and don’t write anything to the clown)))))
          1. figwam 22 November 2019 07: 10 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: caiman
            the clown radius is not a turn but a bend, this is, firstly, and secondly, the bend radius of the fighters of the second world was much smaller, so it’s better to sit and don’t write what the clown is))))

            The clown here is only YOU, remember this, though illiterate. Baby, you have to go to school and don’t write anything where adult people communicate.
            Wikipedia:
            A combat U-turn is one of the types of aircraft maneuvering. It is a quick 180 ° turn with climb. It is used if necessary to quickly change the direction of flight by 180 ° and at the same time gain altitude. Climbing during a combat turn is carried out mainly due to the stock of kinetic energy of movement (speed stock).

            A pivot turn or full circle (eng. Pylon turn) is an aerobatics figure in which the aircraft lies on the wing and describes a 360 ° circle, while during the turn the left or right wing is turned in the direction of the earth, the end of the wing is directed to an imaginary point on earth, which is the geometric center of the circle, thus forming a kind of "pillar" (pylon). The figure was used during aviation competitions, as well as for non-stop address delivery of mail. Later, seeing its potential for shelling ground targets, the technique of performing a circular turn formed the basis of the concept of ganship [1].
        4. Vol4ara 21 November 2019 23: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: figvam
          ours so still on yak-3 and la-5 flew

          But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.

          Aircraft of the 2nd world turning radius are much smaller than modern jet
    2. Bar2 21 November 2019 08: 47 New
      • 17
      • 6
      +11
      it is not clear what such a delight is? That the Nesterov loop is already an achievement for an airplane? So Nesterov did the same on a plywood airplane of the beginning of the 20th century. But he tried this f35 controlled corkscrew, they don’t show something like that. And besides, you need interaction with other planes i.e. Group aerobatics is valuable.
      1. aszzz888 21 November 2019 08: 58 New
        • 11
        • 2
        +9
        Bar2 (Paul) Today, 08: 47
        +1
        it is not clear what such a delight is? That the Nesterov loop is already an achievement for an airplane?

        Campaign, for merikatos, is a feat, laughing and, they were already assigned extraordinary landed, and the orders were glued. wink
    3. Civil 21 November 2019 09: 05 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      And what, it is not clear what a delight.
    4. SSR
      SSR 21 November 2019 09: 44 New
      • 14
      • 1
      +13
      Quote: Aerodrome
      and yet not impressed.

      Personally, I did not like this passage most of all.

      This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter.

      This is how this video allows you to evaluate
      For example, does this video show with full banks or half empty ones?
      And yes, the old Polish MiG-29 is cooler than the F-35 take-off with half-empty.
      1. loki565 21 November 2019 16: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        In the video, F 35 rather passes over the strip, and does not take off.
    5. askort154 21 November 2019 10: 37 New
      • 16
      • 2
      +14
      Airfield ..... This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave hat-inspirational moods from the series “ours are still better”, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers in the right direction for themselves have worked on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to switch to high maneuverability modes without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources ..

      and yet not impressed

      Totally agree with you. hi
      And on the video it is clearly visible that after the separation, the pilot did not immediately transfer him to the set, but held it, making the “platform” for 10 whole seconds, thereby dispersing it over the lane to an increased speed, and then, due to this, “left” in set with an angle of 70-80 degrees. Without such a "platform", he has a set
      heights will be much with a smaller angle. A "cool" aerobatics, does not smell at all.
      There is also a video of the MiG-29 take-off, where the difference is clearly visible.
      MiG-29 immediately after separation goes into the set, almost at 90 degrees.
      So, the washed-up word "hatred" is completely out of place here.
      From the author, Volodin, I did not expect this. The article is a fat minus! yes
      1. Ural-4320 21 November 2019 15: 07 New
        • 1
        • 13
        -12
        The F-35 has one engine. And now we are looking for an analogue of the same aircraft from Russia. Well, for the purity of the experiment.
        How many caps can I throw? Where is the analysis, instead of "Mozart - crap, Monya sang to me."
        1. Cryvedco 21 November 2019 16: 24 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          But what for it is needed, this analogue? We need airplanes that meet our needs, meet our requirements, and not analogues of anything they have, and we have such airplanes.
          1. Ural-4320 21 November 2019 16: 46 New
            • 2
            • 14
            -12
            Then what is the point of comparing warm with soft and saying that ours is better?
            We do not need a plane level B-777 and A-380? Ah, we have better!
            The downed Su-24 showed that 2 motors may not save the crew, can then work out the protection of one motor? There are also many advantages from one motor. MiG-21 successfully fought with the F-4, which has 2 engines. MiG 23/27 were also single-engine. F-16 does not suffer from the lack of a second engine.
            1. Cryvedco 21 November 2019 17: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Ural-4320
              Then what is the point of comparing warm with soft and saying that ours is better?

              And why not compare their fighter with our fighters?

              Quote: Ural-4320
              The downed Su-24 showed that 2 motors may not save the crew, can then work out the protection of one motor?

              Protection is perfectly worked out on the Su-25, you can’t imagine any better, but this is a completely different machine.

              Quote: Ural-4320
              There are also many advantages from one motor. MiG-21 successfully fought with the F-4, which has 2 engines. MiG 23/27 were also single-engine. F-16 does not suffer from the lack of a second engine.

              It is in matters of vitality that 2 engines are more reliable, in any way. I personally also feel sorry that the MiG-23/27 is running out, these are good cars that could still serve. But we have beautiful airplanes that will take their place and will be no worse, and the number of engines here is secondary.
              1. Ural-4320 21 November 2019 18: 26 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                It was about reliability that I mentioned the Su-24. This is a front-line bomber with envelope relief function. He was imprisoned for work at low altitudes, but was shot down at a height and the second motor did not help him.
                And the Su-25 is really another armored car.
                In a modern fighter, the armor is the least, and it will chop both engines with fragments, because they are nearby, and not through the fuselage, as on the Su-25.
                1. YakimovSS 22 November 2019 10: 38 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Honestly, your attacks are not clear. Are you against duplication?
                  Can you imagine a warthog on one shaft?

                  I think that 1 engine on the F-35 is to hide the blades as much as possible from direct exposure. The Soviet / Russian school is focused on survivability. And in fairness, you can find quite a few examples when the second engine allowed to save, if not a car, then the crew for sure.
                  You can also note the reduced height of the aircraft profile on two engines. And how can you use the arising moments of rotary nozzles for spaced apart engines ... watch a video of the performances of dryers and how nozzles play at them.

                  Yes, and purely aesthetically, I categorically do not like the F-35, and here there is not a small fraction of the single-engine scheme that turned it into a barrel.

                  And what do we have in favor of one engine? Even when the stones take off from the ground, the widow will need less and a rarer flock of birds.
                  1. Ural-4320 22 November 2019 11: 20 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    "And what do we have in favor of one engine? Even on take-off from the soil, the widow will need less and a rarer flock of birds."
                    MiG-15, MiG-21, MiG-23/27, F-16, Grippen - these are the aircraft that showed the failure of a single-engine scheme?

                    "Are you against duplication?"
                    I do not need to ascribe your findings. I generally did not write the word "duplication" anywhere. I wrote that 2 engines are not always synonymous with survivability, which was evident from the downed Su-24. And here they say to me about the Su-25 and A-10, which are flying armored boxes (the mass of the Su-25 is 1100 kg,
                    https://topwar.ru/153590-zaschita-dlja-su-25-bronja-i-drugie-sredstva.html)

                    "Yes, and purely aesthetically, I categorically do not like the F-35, and there is not a small fraction of the single-engine scheme that turned it into a barrel."
                    But with this you guessed right. This is directly an "objective expert" opinion, of which there are in bulk and bring a lot of pluses and satisfaction of participants. That's only when people say "to me", then this is a subjective opinion.
        2. caiman 21 November 2019 22: 26 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Crank what are you trying to portray this?)))), why do we need a fighter with one dviglom? It has long been proven that a fighter with two engines is more reliable, more powerful and more efficient, because it takes more payload, and most importantly it is thrust-weight ratio, if you are a victim of the USE, then better not to write anything, do not tell people the clown))))))
          1. Gerneton 21 November 2019 23: 14 New
            • 1
            • 6
            -5
            Quote: caiman
            USE is better not to write anything, do not make people laugh clown)))))

            Well, let's compare instant29 and the same f35, and we'll see. How unsuccessful the engine is on the phantom. lol
            Quote: caiman
            It has long been proven that a fighter with two engines is more reliable

            proven sacrifice ehe? since the developers of instant 29 themselves said that they stuck two for the lack of something close to the f16 engine.
            1. Ural-4320 21 November 2019 23: 42 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Yes, hammer in, Gerneton. Here in each branch, "the cuckoo praises the rooster for praising the cuckoo." The propensity for analytics is zero. A wagon of words, and not a single comparison. If only IMHO added to their comments.
              It is not surprising that many fans of technology as a technique left here, and not a way to change a member, and not their own.
          2. Ural-4320 21 November 2019 23: 37 New
            • 1
            • 4
            -3
            You didn’t fit with your own words, victim? Have you only been given the brain to write to strangers?
        3. tomket 22 November 2019 00: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Ural-4320
          The F-35 has one engine. And now we are looking for an analogue of the same aircraft from Russia. Well, for the purity of the experiment.

          It is important not how many engines, what kind of thrust it gives out. One or two.
  2. Alexander Petrov1 21 November 2019 08: 20 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?
    1. novel66 21 November 2019 08: 24 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      once - yes! lol
      1. bouncyhunter 21 November 2019 08: 54 New
        • 15
        • 3
        +12
        It seems to have been said more than once that American planes are imprisoned for invisibility and range? About their over-maneuverability and there was no question.
        Quote: Alexander Petrov1
        A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

        Quote: novel xnumx
        once - yes!

        Farewell tour? wink
        1. Cryvedco 21 November 2019 09: 09 New
          • 12
          • 3
          +9
          For invisibility, the Serbs forgot to explain something
          1. bouncyhunter 21 November 2019 09: 39 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            Quote: Creedco
            For invisibility, the Serbs forgot to explain something

            That's for sure ! good drinks hi
        2. Alexander Petrov1 21 November 2019 09: 35 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          If, for them, over-maneuverability is not the main and most important invisibility, then why did they even create it and spend tens of billions of dollars and make the F-35 supersonic? and the finished and invisible F-117 was removed from service?
        3. novel66 21 November 2019 10: 21 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          She, darling !! lol
        4. Tusv 21 November 2019 11: 55 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          Farewell tour?

          This is their main design flaw. I didn’t respond to the request - expense two drinks
          About their super maneuverability and there was no question

          We will carefully wait from the American aircraft industry for at least a similar Orelik (F-15) with its 2500
    2. aszzz888 21 November 2019 08: 59 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Alexander Petrov1 (Alexander) Today, 08: 20
      +2
      A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

      What are you about?!!! ENTA piece of iron will crumble when performing such "figures"! laughing
      1. Zhelezyakin 21 November 2019 10: 04 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        It can already be called a piece of iron with a big stretch ...
        1. aszzz888 21 November 2019 10: 06 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Zhelezyakin (Alexey) Today, 10: 04 NEW
          +1
          It can already be called a piece of iron with a big stretch ...

          Sorry, my post is without intent. wink
          1. Yngvar 21 November 2019 12: 02 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Sorry, it turned out even funnier! +++
    3. Tusv 21 November 2019 11: 24 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Alexander Petrov1
      A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

      A bell without going into a flat corkscrew can all, even piston. At MAX, even a woman showed it once. Type at maximum traction, which is not enough to hang. Cobra also will not surprise. But the long Cobra hit me with the Su-57. He slowly flew like this for a minute, and hovered in front of the cloud. Here He is handsome and answers the request, unlike Western counterparts
      1. Timx 24 November 2019 18: 05 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        “At MAKS even a woman showed it once again” - something painfully disdainful of the seven-time absolute world champion Svetlana Kapanina))) Or what complexes, personal, teenage?
  3. Fedorov 21 November 2019 08: 23 New
    • 9
    • 9
    0
    And can this be considered aerobatics? Look at our "old" wretched MiG-29, Su-27. Make any.
    1. 2 Level Advisor 21 November 2019 09: 18 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Well, about the wretched you are in vain! Old, maybe .. but not miserable ...
      1. Fedorov 21 November 2019 09: 32 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        You may not have noticed the quotes - "" "in my comment. This is saying something.
    2. GibSoN 21 November 2019 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Look at our "old" wretched MiG-29, Su-27. Make any.
      Yeah, so old and wretched that the Minister of Defense, in particular, was escorted not on super-lacking analogs in the world of Su-35 or Su-57, but on wretched Su-27. This is so, by the way.
      1. YakimovSS 22 November 2019 10: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Firstly, you are lying about the "Su-35 do not accompany."
        Secondly, you, apparently, are not aware of the difference in one pilot and two.
        1. GibSoN 22 November 2019 21: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Firstly, you are lying about the "Su-35 do not accompany."
          Yah?
          Secondly, you, apparently, are not aware of the difference in one pilot and two.
          Um .. Can I go from this place in more detail? Well, that is, I do not really understand now, did you lower the Su-35, or did you raise the Su-27?
  4. The leader of the Redskins 21 November 2019 08: 31 New
    • 14
    • 16
    -2
    And they said Penguin - Penguin ... Vaughn, flutters no matter how ...
    1. aszzz888 21 November 2019 08: 56 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Chief of the Redskins (Nazarius) Today, 08: 31
      0
      And they said Penguin - Penguin ... Vaughn, flutters no matter howto...

      And on this "flutter" all the tales of phi are finished.
    2. hydrox 21 November 2019 21: 08 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Indeed, rather “no way” :: and “grace of movement” against the background of “elegance of outlines” - well, it’s like a pregnant cow on a village street in March frosts ...
  5. Mountain shooter 21 November 2019 08: 34 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    I guess the combat load is "0"? And fuel for half an hour? Why not hang out? laughing
    Although in this scenario is not impressed.
    1. Spambox 21 November 2019 08: 40 New
      • 21
      • 9
      +12
      Yeah, and our pilots are doing aerobatic maneuvers with tanks to the eyeballs and full bomb loading.
      1. Mountain shooter 21 November 2019 08: 43 New
        • 10
        • 5
        +5
        Quote: Spambox
        full bomb load.

        No. But without it, our pilots show much more serious and useful things in battle. Flat U-turns 180 degrees, for example. What did this show? A standard set, another Mig-17 is such we have twisted over the airfield wassat
        1. Spambox 21 November 2019 08: 48 New
          • 5
          • 7
          -2
          So instant 17 and weighed 4 tons 3 times almost lighter, and by the way possessed very good maneuverable qualities. But seriously, this is an example of how you can make a plane with very mediocre aerodynamics using modern computer technologies fly quite well.
          1. mvmptzna 21 November 2019 10: 10 New
            • 8
            • 11
            -3
            Quote: Spambox
            But seriously, this is an example of how you can make a plane with very mediocre aerodynamics using modern computer technology fly quite well.
            - But seriously, this is an example of how propaganda can convince 140 millions that something flies badly, so that later, seeing that it is not, they try to convince themselves of some kind of computer miracles that help this.
            1. Spambox 21 November 2019 17: 55 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Dear, the f35 has aerodynamics like an iron, the rejection of the classical forms for the sake of stealth has an extremely negative effect on flying qualities. Without a high-performance computerized flight control system, I think it would be extremely difficult to operate this aircraft. No one is trying to convince anyone, these are your fantasies)
              1. GibSoN 21 November 2019 19: 44 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Dear, the f35 has aerodynamics like an iron, the rejection of the classical forms for the sake of stealth has an extremely negative effect on flying qualities.
                What, even the video shows that he generally can not fly? Respected! F-35, doesn’t even have anything to do with the Fighter-Interceptor or the plane gaining air superiority! In fact, this is a universal system designed primarily for delivering missile and bomb attacks on ground targets! Counteraction to aviation, it is implemented according to the residual principle. What, in general, is not surprising for a long time! Modern explosive rockets and guidance systems, in fact, exclude the possibility of dodging any aircraft! Let me remind you! In combat conditions, no one flies at speeds that allow aerobatics! It's just not really physically for the pilot! In addition, modern near-field explosives have such a degree of maneuverability that no super cobra will help to drop it .. Not to mention that this will be a case of 1 in a million!
                1. Spambox 21 November 2019 21: 16 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  You carefully read my post? Did I write somewhere about a fighter for gaining superiority in the air? Or disputed that this is a modern system for striking with precision weapons? Or did I dispute that he could carry aim 120 d missiles with a launch range of 180 km? I wrote about the limitations associated with the design of the aircraft and the presence of a computerized system of electro-remote control. By the way, about the maneuverability of the aim 9x rocket, I also don’t remember to mention it. Do not confuse soft with sour. If you need an interlocutor to argue on an arbitrary topic, then this is not for me. If there is anything on the topic of my post, I’m ready to listen. hi And my answer was originally not addressed to you.
                  1. GibSoN 22 November 2019 21: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    You carefully read my post? Did I write somewhere about a fighter for gaining superiority in the air?
                    Respected! No need to think out for me what I read and wrote there! I didn’t just highlight the moment that I commented on! We re-read it again ... and do not write more of this nonsense, which you yourself thought up and unsubscribed. The whole essence of what I answered you is set out in a highlighted quote. Namely! F-35 is an iron that cannot fly at all .. Now in fact! An iron that is capable of performing 98% of all aerobatics currently in use! And this is provided that the remaining aerobatics are available only to extremely lightweight, super manoeuvrable fighter-interceptors or airplanes gaining air superiority! I’ll answer right away. 1. An attack aircraft, even with a minimally adequate bomb load, will not be able to move at all. 2. Attack aircraft, generally nafig no need to conduct air battles with fighters. Throw away your fantasies. In fact, you probably know the maximum on airplanes by air show such as MAX .. And even then, do not fumble much even in what you saw.
                2. Ka-52 22 November 2019 08: 44 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  In addition, modern near-field explosives have such a degree of maneuverability that no super cobra will help to drop it .. Not to mention that this will be a case of 1 in a million!

                  please do not write what you have no idea
                  1. GibSoN 22 November 2019 21: 34 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    please do not write what you have no idea
                    I am very grateful for such a convincing jerking .. I really hope that you will be able to fully substantiate my blindness .. and enlighten me (well, I think of many others) that are not fumbling. Thanks in advance.
              2. mvmptzna 22 November 2019 10: 14 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Spambox
                the f35 has aerodynamics like an iron, the rejection of the classical forms for the sake of stealth is extremely negative for flight performance. Without a high-performance computerized flight control system, I think it would be extremely difficult to operate this aircraft.

                Ага.
                ABSU - an integrated system, consists of SAU-145M, DUI-2M, "Bort-45" and works with a number of paired radio engineering and navigation systems. It has electrical connections with almost all aircraft equipment.

                Purely manual control on this type of aircraft is not provided, and turn off the power of the ABSU in flight is strictly prohibited.

                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ту-22М
                - TU-22M3
                Now let's hear about the classic forms and irons hi
                1. Spambox 22 November 2019 17: 22 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Well, it's generally beyond. A missile carrier to compare with a fighter is even too much for you) I don’t want to tell you about the size of the Tu 22m3 planes, the stabilization of the aircraft and the limitation of control after reaching supersonic for a long and tedious way to prevent overload and destruction. You yourself read if it will be interesting)
                  1. mvmptzna 22 November 2019 18: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Spambox
                    Well, it's generally beyond. A missile carrier to compare with a fighter is even too much for you) I don’t want to tell you about the size of the Tu 22m3 planes, the stabilization of the aircraft and the limitation of control after reaching supersonic for a long and tedious way to prevent overload and destruction. You yourself read if it will be interesting)

                    Nevertheless, they do not call him an iron (without even stuttering about his aerodynamics), he doesn’t write that he cannot fly (although, by the way, he just cannot fly without a computer, absolutely), and all patriots are everywhere where they can write boiling water repeating what a beautiful airplane (of classical form). So ... either a cross or underpants - something must be chosen.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. mvmptzna 22 November 2019 18: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Spambox
                        A comparison with the iron refers exclusively to the aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft
                        And his allegedly inability to fly without a computer for these reasons. So I brought the pride of the Russian aviation industry, the aerodynamic qualities of which, like other qualities, are never doubted by anyone. Although the Tu22-M3 reliably, unlike the F35, is not able to fly without a computer, not only in a straight line, but fly in general. So it turns out that what is iron and what is not is a subjective concept; depends on the biases of the critics.

                        Before discussing (allegedly) the shortcomings of others, it is worth paying attention to yourself. Do not throw stones while living in a glass house.
                      2. Spambox 22 November 2019 19: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Once again, I tell you the station control electrode for that 22 m3 is due to its size, it is very difficult to control such a large aircraft with its planes on hand, and do not confuse computer control and remote system control. When they did that, 22 computers were in short supply, to say the least, and he flew. Restrictions on shutting down the remote control system are associated with the prevention of access to exorbitant angles of attack and glider destruction. But you do not understand this campaign.
                      3. mvmptzna 22 November 2019 19: 30 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Spambox
                        do not confuse computer control and remote system control.
                        - You don’t confuse “control of the computer by the pilot” and “control of the plane by the computer”.
                        What is A in ABSU? That's right - a computer. Automatic remote control on that 22 m3 is his computer. The computer also controls the airplane that 22 m3; and the crew controls the computer.

                        Quote: Spambox
                        it’s very difficult to fly such a large plane with its planes on hand
                        - That's it. Only, for some reason, when they talk about Tu22m3, they abstrusely talk about its complexity, and not that it is an iron. But when it comes to F35, it is clear to every patriot that the computer controls it because it is an iron. Double standards as they are.

                        I believe that the F35 is also controlled by a computer not because it is an aerodynamic iron, but precisely because it is complex, much more complex than the Tu22m3 (and it looks much smoother and more aerodynamic than the Tu22m3), and, unlike the latter, only one person controls it.

                        I believe the F35 is computer controlled precisely becausethat one of the main directions of modern aviation and one of the requirements for fifth generation combat aircraft is to transfer the maximum possible number of piloting functions to a computer. In order to minimize the pilot workload and maximize the pilot’s attention in a combat situation, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of the combat mission.

                        All here are such specialists in aerodynamics and irons, and such an obvious thing sort of unable to understand. In my opinion, this is an obvious bias. I have nothing more to add to the writing.
                      4. Lozovik 23 November 2019 08: 46 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: mvmptzna
                        What is A in ABSU? That's right - a computer. Automatic remote control on that 22 m3 is his computer. The computer also controls the airplane that 22 m3; and the crew controls the computer.

                        Before making such statements, take an interest in the design of the control wiring in the longitudinal and track channels, as well as the purpose and principle of operation of the ABSU-145M.
        2. Leaning 22 November 2019 20: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          By the way, they don’t control any modern fighter without automation. he is not a glider, he does not fly ...
      2. tomket 22 November 2019 00: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: mvmptzna
        - But seriously, this is an example of how propaganda can convince 140 millions that something flies badly, so that later, seeing that it is not, they try to convince themselves of some kind of computer miracles that help this.

        Well, you can show you in a YouTube video how the plane flies in a straight line, add koment that this is very cool aerobatics, say that the plane is super-technological like an iPhone, and voila, you will prove with foam at the mouth that propaganda handled us. By the way, do not tell me, where does the propaganda?
  6. Ka-52 21 November 2019 08: 56 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Flat U-turns 180 degrees, for example. What did this show? A standard set, another Mig-17 is such we have twisted over the airfield

    a flat U-turn is not an aerobatics figure or a complex element at all. If you have not confused it with a flat corkscrew. Which in itself is a prerequisite for a flight accident
  • letinant 21 November 2019 09: 05 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Quote: Spambox
    Yeah, and our pilots are doing aerobatic maneuvers with tanks to the eyeballs and full bomb loading.

    Wait, but at MAX I saw the SU-34 aerobatics with missiles, albeit an incomplete suspension of 2x X-31, 2x R-77, 2x R-73. And he twisted aerobatics more actively than the F-35. Despite the fact that this is a front-line bomber!
    1. Avior 21 November 2019 15: 26 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Layouts.
      Even out of simple safety, combat men will not suspend.
      1. letinant 21 November 2019 15: 29 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        Layouts.
        Even out of simple safety, combat men will not suspend.

        But what's the difference, it's mass-dimensional layouts. Designed to develop experience in piloting an aircraft with a load. The mass and airflow are the same.
        1. Avior 21 November 2019 15: 43 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Overall yes, but is it mass?
          Need to clarify
          1. hydrox 21 November 2019 21: 20 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Such mock-ups are used to create an AERODYNAMIC LOAD for pilot training in terms of CONTROLLABILITY of an aircraft, and not its record-breaking indicators such as rate of climb and thrown mass ..
  • Chit 21 November 2019 09: 31 New
    • 9
    • 26
    -17
    Why in this way remind about our planes that took off from Kuzi in Syria?
  • Earthshaker 21 November 2019 08: 34 New
    • 9
    • 13
    -4
    Thanks for the pill of objectivity.
  • Ka-52 21 November 2019 08: 41 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the capricious moods from the “ours is still better” series, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction for themselves on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to go into modes high maneuverability without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources.

    it does not say anything and does not allow anything. The author would rather stop making amateurish conclusions from nothing. To assess the maneuverability of a combat vehicle in aerial combat, other criteria are used. This is not an opportunity to perform some kind of FEP, but for example the speed of a steady turn. The modes that allow the aircraft to be the first to reach a convenient position for launching missiles (and accordingly not to allow the enemy to do this) speak about the potential of the machine. And not a stupid reference to a video with acrobatics
    1. Avior 21 November 2019 15: 28 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      . Modes that allow the aircraft to go first in a comfortable position for launching missiles

      For the f-35 with its fully spherical review and launch, this is, as it were, not very relevant
      1. Ka-52 22 November 2019 06: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For the f-35 with its fully spherical review and launch, this is, as it were, not very relevant

        for pilots, for some reason, it was always relevant, but for Internet experts, for some reason, this is always considered unnecessary laughing
        1. Avior 22 November 2019 07: 55 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Yes, actually, f-35, the first such, albeit crude.
          Therefore, the experience of other pilots can not be judged.
          In a car, too, once it was important for the driver to be able to brake jerkily on a slippery road, until the car and ABS appeared in the car
  • cosmonaut 21 November 2019 08: 41 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    and ours is still better))
  • Ross xnumx 21 November 2019 08: 41 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    In Nevada, demonstrated spectacular aerobatics on the F-35

    Do not tell my horseshoes ... And then what?
  • Shooter22 21 November 2019 08: 42 New
    • 16
    • 1
    +15
    Good morning everyone! F-35 - a combat fighter and what is shown in the video, today any combat fighter should do, as this is one of the conditions for its survival on the battlefield. "Efficiency" there can "hook" only a simple layman, for a specialist there is nothing worthy of attention there. Very cautious practiced aerobatics without going into any kind of over modes. It seems like a simple public relations attempt aimed at a wide audience.
    1. Amateur 21 November 2019 08: 51 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      And you noticed the engine from a rear angle. He is either on the fast and the furious, or just shines in IR like a Christmas tree.
    2. aszzz888 21 November 2019 08: 52 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Shooter22 (Alexander) Today, 08: 42
      +1
      Good morning everyone! F-35 - a combat fighter and what is shown in the video, today any combat fighter should do, as this is one of the conditions for its survival on the battlefield. "Efficiency" there can "hook" only a simple layman, for a specialist there is nothing worthy of attention there. Very cautious practiced aerobatics without going into any kind of over modes. It seems like a simple public relations attempt aimed at a wide audience.
      Reply

      And you do not get sick. hi
      Here I am about the same thing - nothing supernatural fi did. CLEAR PR water !!!
    3. mvmptzna 21 November 2019 10: 18 New
      • 2
      • 11
      -9
      Quote: Shooter22
      what is shown in the video today should be done by any combat fighter, since this is one of the conditions for its survival on the battlefield.
      - There are whole articles about that he doesn’t know how went out. Some Chinese, Russian experts quoted. Here is the video, on it - it can. Rt
  • aszzz888 21 November 2019 08: 49 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    And what kind of piece of iron fi35 did ?! laughing Flew and sat down? bully Students in flight do the same.
  • Boris55 21 November 2019 08: 50 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    In Nevada? laughing
    In the desert, of course it is possible. If it crashes, then there will be no victims. laughing
    1. aszzz888 21 November 2019 09: 14 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Boris55 (Boris) Today, 08: 50
      +1
      In Nevada? laughing
      In the desert, of course it is possible. If it crashes, then there will be no victims. laughing

      If only someone on a camel does not slip! wink laughing
  • rocket757 21 November 2019 08: 57 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It doesn’t matter, they will refine, modernize ... what has been achieved in the end, see the boom.
    But in general, the main idea of ​​this development is to create an effective element for conducting "network" wars.
    Here is the interaction with drones, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance and automation of the combat process, this is really interesting.
    And aerobatics, the highest ... what is a glider, engine, pilot, aircraft control system, so it will fly.
    Worse, better, it can only be seen in battle.
  • Slon1978 21 November 2019 09: 08 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    I always try to be objective and I don’t think of myself as a patriot. But what actually showed the F-35 in terms of maneuverability on the roller? The ability to get out of a corkscrew, twist a barrel, make a Nesterov loop (dead loop). This can be done by the Su-27 early releases.
    1. Gerneton 21 November 2019 10: 22 New
      • 3
      • 12
      -9
      Quote: Slon1978
      I always try to be objective and I don’t think of myself as a patriot. But what actually showed the F-35 in terms of maneuverability on the roller? The ability to get out of a corkscrew, twist a barrel, make a loop of Nesterov

      so the uglies are trying to prove that he only flies in a straight line, and here more and more "sensations" in the video.
      1. Winnie76 21 November 2019 11: 02 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Gerneton
        so the uglies are trying to prove that he only flies in a straight line, and here more and more "sensations" in the video.

        What is the sensation? F35 IMHO a flying Swiss knife, which is universal, but bad in everything. Mediocre fighter, slop bomber, worthless deck (like all others)
      2. Tusv 21 November 2019 14: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Gerneton
        so the uglies are trying to prove that he only flies in a straight line, and here more and more "sensations" in the video.

        Go to the MAX at least once. You will immediately feel the difference. Who is the iron, and who is the Su-57. This is not a fool. It's pride hi
    2. GibSoN 21 November 2019 19: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      This can be done by the Su-27 early releases.
      It seems that they started not badly. But why is this here ?! Su-27s of early releases cannot do this. Dot.
  • g1washntwn 21 November 2019 09: 13 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    F-35A.
    Try again also on the F-35B
    (because of which they called him a penguin and which no one wants to take already).
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 29 December 2019 21: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      On a turn a turn.
  • abc_alex 21 November 2019 09: 26 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5

    In Nevada, demonstrated spectacular aerobatics on the F-35


    The only effective thing in this video is the work of the operator. When ours shoots, they almost always make the same mistake - they remove static landmarks from the frame. They want to show the car large. As a result, sometimes it’s completely not clear what and how the plane does.
    And then it feels like the operator knows how to. And the shooting point was chosen correctly and almost the entire distance was shot so that it’s clear what the pilot is doing.
    1. Kamchatsky 21 November 2019 11: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You are right, Comrade! good Hollywood hasn’t yet taught it. hi
  • Chit 21 November 2019 09: 29 New
    • 13
    • 29
    -16
    Quote: Bar2
    it is not clear what such a delight is? That the Nesterov loop is already an achievement for an airplane? So Nesterov did the same on a plywood airplane of the beginning of the 20th century. But he tried this f35 controlled corkscrew, they don’t show something like that. And besides, you need interaction with other planes i.e. Group aerobatics is valuable.

    I heard right? Valuable, it turns out, group aerobatics? Where, let me ask? In the parades over Red Square? In demonstration group flights giving back to the circus?
    Or in a combat situation?
    "Swifts" fly beautifully and harmoniously, but what does this have to do with real combat? Who needs it in a war?
    As for the article, the author draws the correct conclusion.
    You can pour dirt on the 35th as much as you like and throw caps on the ceiling, but the facts are a stubborn thing.
    The 35th is the only fifth-generation fighter exported.
    It really meets all the requirements of the "five" in contrast to the Su-57 (for which, by the way, there are no modern engines either) or the J-20, which, whatever one may say, is just 4 +++.
    And if, according to our estimates, the 35th is really so bad and suffers from a lot of shortcomings, then why has Lockheed Martin already received an order from the US Department of Defense for 478 fighters worth $ 34 billion?
    Of which, by the way, 291 aircraft are intended for US law enforcement agencies, 127 for international partners and 60 for F-35 foreign military customers?
    This, however, is not surprising, because the developers are really constantly working on the aircraft and only recently they have reduced its price by about 12,2%.
    1. Pavel57 21 November 2019 09: 44 New
      • 3
      • 9
      -6
      Remember the history of the sale of raw F-104?
    2. Something 21 November 2019 09: 53 New
      • 26
      • 4
      +22
      Chit not tired of lying dirty every time in VO and write nonsense, spitting on Russian military equipment?
      Quote: Chit
      35th - the only one exported fifth generation fighter.
      It really meets all the requirements of the "five" in contrast to the Su-57 (for which, by the way, there are still no modern engines) or J-20, which, whatever one may say, are just 4 +++.

      F-35 does not meet the criteria of the 5th generation aircraft and is not, since it cannot fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight, it also has a low thrust ratio of about 0,8 and has mediocre maneuverability. Learn materiel, a liberal strategist!
      1. Chit 21 November 2019 11: 01 New
        • 10
        • 26
        -16
        I don’t need to learn anything.
        But I’m ready to remember something. And remind the cheers patriot.
        To begin with, advise him to go to the Russian Wiki, moderated by Russian military experts as well.
        From this Wiki, the Russian cheer patriot can learn a lot of things surprising for him.
        For example, the fact that a fifth-generation aircraft according to the accepted international classification, it turns out, does not need to fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight. This demand is sucked out of the finger.
        Literally, the requirements say: "flying at supersonic speeds without using afterburner." Dot. What "are we talking about throughout the flight"? If the conversation is about short duration, then according to the manufacturer, the 35th is able to fly at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 for ≈240 km without turning on the afterburner.
        Move on. Craving, then a little ... Well, well ...
        Let's see what's on the 35th?
        Maximum traction: 1 x 13000 kgf.
        On the afterburner: 1 x 19500 kgf (engine operation was demonstrated with a thrust of up to 22700 kgf).
        Let me remind you - this is a serial, mass-produced aircraft.
        And what about the Su-57? More precisely, his prototypes, for before the series yet, as before Mars.
        On the AL-41F1 engine, the thrust is 9500 kgf. On the fast and the furious - 15000. Not thick.
        Engines of the second generation, which are not yet available, because they have yet to be created, can produce an estimated 10500 kgf and 17500 afterburner.
        Maybe we omit the traction issue? It’s awkward.
        As for super-maneuverability, this requirement for a fifth-generation fighter exists for some reason only in the RUSSIAN classification. Nowhere else is he.
        Learn the materiel. It will be better this way.
        1. Something 21 November 2019 11: 11 New
          • 18
          • 3
          +15
          Chit, an illiterate cheer is not a patriot, it turns out you are buying rating points the administration of VO for their illiterate opuses ?! Just that you were awarded 700 rating points, and no one gave you likes! So administrators IN pay you for srach, or are you one of them? In short, a corrupt troll!
          1. Chit 21 November 2019 13: 05 New
            • 6
            • 17
            -11
            Sir, I won’t really surprise you if I say that I don’t give a damn about the rating? Absolutely and from the bell tower of Ivan the Great?
            Do you personally pursue a rating? Are you interested in it? Do you need gaps on uniform? Stars? The master's business.
            So, I have all these children’s games to the bulb.
            I do not care about extra stars on uniform.
            I am worried about the state of the Russian army. Real, not cheers-patriotic. I care about the financing of the Russian army.
            I am shocked by tossing caps up to the ceiling, underestimating the potential enemy’s potential.
            Happinessful feelings and underestimation of the military potential of a possible enemy are sometimes too expensive.
            My two grandfathers, who died during WWII, probably understood this better than others.
            And therefore, I do not understand the reaction in some comments. The article dealt with the piloting of an American fifth-generation aircraft. What are the comparisons with the MiGs? Some modification of the Mig is already listed in the 5th generation? Did I miss something?
            Comparison with the Su-57 is all the more incorrect. For it makes no sense to compare a production aircraft with a prototype.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Something 21 November 2019 14: 20 New
              • 12
              • 2
              +10
              Quote: Chit
              Sir, I won’t really surprise you if I say that I don’t give a damn about the rating?

              Judging by what you did, replenishing your rating, repeatedly according to my observations, you don’t give a damn. After all, with a negative rating, even like to put a problem, though there is a way how to get around this!
              Quote: Chit
              I am worried about the state of the Russian army. Real, not cheers-patriotic. I care about the financing of the Russian army.
              I am shocked by tossing caps up to the ceiling, underestimating the potential enemy’s potential.
              Happinessful feelings and underestimation of the military potential of a possible enemy are sometimes too expensive.
              My two grandfathers, who died during WWII, probably understood this better than others.
              And therefore, I do not understand the reaction in some comments. The article dealt with the piloting of an American fifth-generation aircraft. What are the comparisons with the MiGs?

              Chit! Do not consider us Russians as fools! When people like you spit on Russia, its army is only for one thing, so that the Russians all the time “sprinkle their heads with ashes” and all the time make excuses for what neither they nor their fathers and grandfathers did. And so that they were spread rot everywhere, impose sanctions, taking away all their achievements and achievements, history and truth, so that the name of the Russian becomes a household name. Here to this, people like you strive to slander and spit on: our past, our history and so on, in order to then try to destroy the country of Russia. So now Ukrainians and Russophobes of all stripes are behaving, including admins at mail.ru and people like you, admins at VO. Therefore, do not engage in verbiage here. And you all started with spitting on the history of Russia at the military academy, spitting on I.V. Stalin. Do not pretend to be a fool - a wolf in sheep's clothing!
        2. Ka-52 21 November 2019 11: 25 New
          • 12
          • 0
          +12
          For example, the fact that a fifth-generation aircraft according to the accepted international classification, it turns out, does not need to fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight. This demand is sucked out of the finger.

          Monsieur "expert", please write which organization (association, union) adopted the "international classification of aircraft of the 5th generation." Send a link to the protocol of this interesting organization, where this classification is accepted.
          according to the manufacturer’s statement, the 35th is capable of flying at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 for ≈240 km without turning on the afterburner.

          statement. Only. In fact, in the claimed technical specifications, this feature is not indicated. This suggests that such a test flight could be carried out, but no RLE (or rather its American counterpart) does not allow this. So there is no need to sculpt sandpipers here
          As for super-maneuverability, this requirement for a fifth-generation fighter exists for some reason only in the RUSSIAN classification.

          amateurish nonsense. First, the requirement for a combat aircraft is determined not by your “concept” sucked out of your finger, but by the Moscow Defense Ministry on the basis of the application tactics that are laid down by it. Secondly, high maneuverability was in the statement of work on the creation of the F-22. Which then expressed itself in its capabilities. Therefore, here you yourself drenched your nose. Thirdly, history already knows examples when some kind of new-fangled concept (for example, the abandonment of cannon armament) turned out to be sideways to customers-operators
          1. Chit 21 November 2019 13: 19 New
            • 3
            • 19
            -16
            Monsieur, I did not have time to ask, on the basis of the conclusions of which organization, the RUSSIAN Wiki site classifies fifth-generation aircraft. A site whose information is filtered by Russian military experts and ILV. I used to trust the Russian media. Do you have a different approach? Do you trust only foreign media? This, you know, smacks of the presence of a foreign agent here.
            About the speed. Yes, it was stated. And why should I not believe this, even if the patriots do not always use the Russian media? And, as can be seen from the paragraph above, prefer some other sources?
            There is only one tip about super-maneuverability: go back to Wiki. Into a Russian resource with Russian analytics. And if you find over-maneuverability in the list of requirements for fifth-generation aircraft, let me know.
            1. Ka-52 22 November 2019 05: 30 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Monsieur, I did not have time to ask, on the basis of the conclusions of which organization, the RUSSIAN Wiki site classifies fifth-generation aircraft. A site whose information is filtered by Russian military experts and ILV. I used to trust the Russian media. Do you have a different approach?

              That is, there is no link and is not expected? Expected. Attempts to get out cunningly at the expense of Wiki are not counted, because even a baby knows that Wiki is a freely editable portal and is not an absolutely reliable source.
              There is only one tip about super-maneuverability: go back to Wiki. Into a Russian resource with Russian analytics. And if you find over-maneuverability in the list of requirements for fifth-generation aircraft, let me know.

              I don’t need to go to the wiki about requirements. I myself am a retired military pilot, and now I am involved in the design bureau. And I do not rush (unlike you) with sofa-expert statements.
        3. Something 21 November 2019 12: 01 New
          • 13
          • 3
          +10
          Quote: Chit
          For example, the fact that a fifth-generation aircraft according to the accepted international classification, it turns out, does not need to fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight. This demand is sucked out of the finger.

          What is such an international classification? No need to lie, storyteller!

          Quote: Chit
          Literally, the requirements say: "flying at supersonic speeds without using afterburner." Dot. What "are we talking about throughout the flight"? If the conversation is about short duration, then, according to the manufacturer, the 35th is capable of flying at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 per ≈240 km without turning on the afterburner.

          Therefore, F-35 and not a 5th generation airplanecan't fly throughout the flight with cruising supersonic speed without afterburner!
          Quote: Chit
          Let's see what's on the 35th?
          Maximum traction: 1 x 13000 kgf.
          On the afterburner: 1 x 19500 kgf (engine operation was demonstrated with a thrust of up to 22700 kgf).
          Let me remind you - this is a serial, mass-produced aircraft.

          Keep your lie about the operation of the engine with a thrust of 22700 kgf!
          Quote: Chit
          And what about the Su-57? More precisely, his prototypes, for before the series yet, as before Mars.
          On the AL-41F1 engine, the thrust is 9500 kgf. On the fast and the furious - 15000. Not thick.
          Engines of the second generation, which are not yet available, because they have yet to be created, can produce an estimated 10500 kgf and 17500 afterburner.
          Maybe we omit the traction issue? It’s awkward.

          On the prototype Su-57, as well as on the first production samples, which were supposed to go into service with the Russian Air Force in 2015, the engines of the first stage - AL-41F1 (product 117) were installed. This is an aircraft turbojet dual-circuit engine with an afterburner and a controlled thrust vector, created by NPO Saturn by order of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, it allows you to develop supersonic speed without the use of afterburnerIt also has a fully digital control system and a plasma ignition system. Unlike the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines for the F-22 Raptor, it has a round rather than a rectangular nozzle.
          Chit, you are also a dirty, illiterate liar. The Su-57 uses not one, but 2 engines. Multiply by 2 ...
          Quote: Chit
          As for super-maneuverability, this requirement for a fifth-generation fighter exists for some reason only in the RUSSIAN classification. Nowhere else is he.

          In your training manual not. This is for you not only to learn the materiel, but first of all not to lie or write about what you do not know, without being an expert in these areas.
        4. Tusv 21 November 2019 15: 04 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Chit
          To begin with, advise him to go to the Russian Wiki, moderated by Russian military experts as well.

          stop On Wiki, the S-400 hits a ballistic missile at a distance of only 50 km. The Chinese in the export version shot down an imitation of RBU at a distance of 210 km.
          Attention question! Who is lying? Wiki or Chinese ?.
          I am responsible for you. Whose target is it? American or Chinese?
          So with demonstrations. For those who were at the MAKS, this is not aerobatics for the Russian, but aerobatics for the American. Alas deprived of MAX hi
        5. Leaning 22 November 2019 20: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          the whole history of Russian aviation is a pain from engines ... from the time of the Second World War, after, and still we can’t catch up with the West in any way ... therefore, we take it to others.
    3. den3080 21 November 2019 10: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And if, according to our estimates, the 35th is really so bad and suffers from a lot of shortcomings, then why has Lockheed Martin already received an order from the US Department of Defense for 478 fighters worth $ 34 billion?
      Of which, by the way, 291 aircraft are intended for US law enforcement agencies, 127 for international partners and 60 for F-35 foreign military customers?

      there are several reasons:
      1. “Honor of the uniform”, not only military, but also civilian.
      2. Squeezing money out of vassals by any means.
      3. Corruption, as a pleasant addition to specific individuals participating in the "scheme".
      Items 2 and 3 work on item 1 and harmoniously complement it. System.
    4. dvina71 21 November 2019 11: 11 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: Chit
      Or in a combat situation?

      Exactly ... when you send a pair of your F-35s to intercept a single target, and there 4 Su-35s ..., .. it will be fun ...
      Quote: Chit
      You can pour dirt on the 35th as much as you like and throw caps on the ceiling, but the facts are a stubborn thing.
      The 35th is the only fifth-generation fighter exported.

      Eeee .., and beet sound without afterburner? And the maximum speed of 1900?
      Quote: Chit
      And if, according to our estimates, the 35th is really so bad and suffers from a lot of shortcomings, then why has Lockheed Martin already received an order from the US Department of Defense for 478 fighters worth $ 34 billion?

      Tell a story with the M-16? With Zamvolot?
      1. Tusv 21 November 2019 15: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: dvina71
        Exactly ... when you send a couple of your F-35s to intercept a single target, and there 4 Su-35s ..., .. it will be fun ..
        .
        Last year, a pair of Su-35 Japanese F-15 drove. One against the pair, the second just .photo did. Well, or in an ambush. Whoever you like. And in the year before last, the Russian whatnots 2 American AUGs scared that the Iponians had thrown toilet paper over our Foreign Ministry bully
  • Strag 21 November 2019 09: 36 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    A fan of US technology wrote this article for the campaign, as if about nothing. it's something like two friends met - how are you? - Yes, the son goes to college already - and ours already goes.
    after what the SU35 and SU57 do well, it’s up to say something like that, I would say nothing))
  • Pavel57 21 November 2019 09: 43 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    From aerobatics paint does not peel off?
  • mvmptzna 21 November 2019 10: 03 New
    • 1
    • 10
    -9
    So much for the "second stage engines" smile
  • Milmaker 21 November 2019 10: 06 New
    • 3
    • 17
    -14
    If you compare the ease with which the F-35 on one (!) Engine comes off the ground and goes into a loop, then the device is decent. I agree with the author, F makes this easier than SU. This year, of course, the MIG-35 was shown at MAKS, but it’s clear that they regretted .. Vobschem, like "Hurray!" Do not shout, the Americans made a successful glider and engine. And reliability is a matter of time. We, there, a poseydonym and status since the 90s and continue to this day. They are worse)
    1. Jack O'Neill 21 November 2019 11: 50 New
      • 2
      • 12
      -10
      F-135 is generally the best in its class! Pratt & Whitney made a wonderful engine.
  • NikolaiN 21 November 2019 10: 07 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Quote: Chit
    "Swifts" fly beautifully and harmoniously, but what does this have to do with real combat? Who needs it in a war?

    Aircraft operating in tight formation can be classified as a single target on the radar. The same can affect the course of the battle, when subsequently it turns out that the goals are not one but, for example, the 4th.
    Or can’t modern radars be deceived by such a maneuver? I'm not special in this area, who can explain?
    1. Avior 21 November 2019 15: 35 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      And the EPR in their tight formation is more at times, it turns out
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Something 22 November 2019 23: 24 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Quote: NikolaiN
        Aircraft operating in tight formation can be classified as a single target on the radar. The same can affect the course of the battle, when subsequently it turns out that the goals are not one but, for example, the 4th.
        Or can’t modern radars be deceived by such a maneuver? I'm not special in this area, who can explain?

        Quote: Avior
        And the EPR in their tight formation is more at times, it turns out

        Avior, you are asked about one thing, and you write about the warm! Weak to show radar knowledge?
  • Berkut24 21 November 2019 10: 11 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    I must say that the Su-35 makes a candle almost 3-4 seconds after separating from GDP, and the “penguin” has been gaining acceleration over GDP for a rather long time. And the video itself does not start from the moment of take-off, but from the moment it passes over the GDP. So there is a difference, and it is not in favor of the American.
    In general, the American did not impress me either. At MAX, he would be a pale shadow of competitors.
    1. Tusv 21 November 2019 15: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Berkut24
      In general, the American did not impress me either. At MAX, he would be a pale shadow of competitors.

      By the way, at the last MAX. The four Su-35s and Su-30s were not piloted twice by Vityaz, who had arrived with the highlight of the program by evening. It's a fucking how happy
  • letinant 21 November 2019 10: 55 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: Chit
    Why in this way remind about our planes that took off from Kuzi in Syria?

    And what does it have to do with it?
    1. Chit 21 November 2019 10: 59 New
      • 2
      • 16
      -14
      Despite the fact that we are talking about combat loading and fuel loading during take-off.
      1. letinant 21 November 2019 11: 57 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        So what? What is wrong with loading our planes?
        SU-33, 3,4 tons with a fuel supply of 9,5 tons (full tanks and 12 air-to-air missiles).
        MIG-29K 4,5 tons with a fuel supply of 5,7 tons (full tanks and 8 missiles).
  • Good_Anonymous 21 November 2019 11: 00 New
    • 2
    • 9
    -7
    Amazing how many topwar aerobatics are smile
  • Cheerock 21 November 2019 11: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Demonstrating the spectacular capabilities of the aircraft and their skills,


    No spectacular features on the video have been demonstrated. The usual show for local residents, the Yankees are often satisfied with this. No over-maneuverability, everything is primitive and flat, but with rock music. Impressions have something to compare. I remember watching the F-15 demonstration flight, that's about the same thing, only 2 times slower.
  • voyaka uh 21 November 2019 11: 21 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    , "that over the past few years, American manufacturers in the right direction for themselves have worked on the design of the aircraft" ////
    ----
    The design of the aircraft has not changed at all. And the engines have not changed.
    Just removed the restrictions on overloads.
    The aircraft software until December 2018 did not allow pilots to perform such figures.
    Now, please.
    1. Jack O'Neill 21 November 2019 11: 53 New
      • 1
      • 11
      -10
      The moment when the Su-27 has a maximum critical angle of attack = 24 degrees, and the “Penguin” has a “log” and that's it = 50 degrees!
      laughing
      And then all of a sudden.)
      Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has stated that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.
      1. voyaka uh 21 November 2019 12: 08 New
        • 1
        • 7
        -6
        Important for close combat is the ability of the F-35 to describe a full circle in the horizontal plane at a speed of 28 degrees per second, without reducing the linear speed below 0.85-0.9 MAX.
        1. Jack O'Neill 21 November 2019 12: 11 New
          • 1
          • 10
          -9
          Hi, high angles of attack, which the plane may not go to for an air show.
        2. V. shooter 21 November 2019 19: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          At a speed of 0,85 MAX and a turn of 28 degrees per second, the overload will be 14 g. Not much will be, both for the pilot and for the aircraft ?! At such angular speeds and an overload of 9 g, the speed will be 0,55 MAX.
      2. Lozovik 23 November 2019 08: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        when the Su-27 has a maximum critical angle of attack = 24 degrees

        Where is it written? RLE? Practical aerodynamics?

        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        and the "Penguin", like a "log" and now that's it = 50 degrees!

        Where can I see horizontal flight with an angle of attack of 50 °?
  • Topgun 21 November 2019 12: 09 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    and what can pros do on piston sport planes:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaM9aryUGUs
    and now what? to transfer military aircraft to biplanes because they can do this? :))))))))
    we live in rockets !!!!!!! saw - pressed a button
    and if we are talking about aerial combat, then even the terrain features will not help because everything is visible from above, even if someone is trying to fly up to you unnoticed in the gorges (unless in the Himalayas you can get some advantage but they do not cover the entire planet .. .)
    Well and still, to carry out "figures" it is necessary to have the corresponding plaque, I have big doubts about the possibility of performing, for example, a "cobra" by a combat pilot
    1. Good_Anonymous 21 November 2019 12: 52 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      Quote: Topgun
      I have great doubts about the possibility of performing, for example, a “cobra” by a combat pilot


      I heard that combatant pilots were simply forbidden to do a cobra.
      1. Jack O'Neill 21 November 2019 13: 24 New
        • 2
        • 7
        -5
        The “bell” figure is made mainly on all combatant aircraft, but at the same time it is done only by specially trained pilots and at zero speeds.

        Alexander Gostev, Colonel, Pilot-Sniper, Leader of the Falcons of Russia Air Group


        To perform the “cobra” and “somersault”, a special alignment of the aircraft is needed, and often the technique is refined for these figures.

        Alexander Gostev, Colonel, Pilot-Sniper, Leader of the Falcons of Russia Air Group
  • Jack O'Neill 21 November 2019 13: 31 New
    • 1
    • 9
    -8
    SW the author, why didn’t you put a more informative video?
    For F-35, an angle of 55 degrees is the target TK. F-35 has stable control at such angles of attack.



    1. loki565 21 November 2019 17: 04 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Yeah, he manages so well that they even develop an anti-stop parachute for him)))
      1. Good_Anonymous 21 November 2019 21: 00 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Quote: loki565
        it is so well controlled, for him they even develop an anti-stop parachute)))


        What's this. He flies so well that he even developed an ejection seat for him. They do not trust their technology, do not trust.
        1. loki565 21 November 2019 21: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It’s bad, it flies, since it doesn’t have enough angles to exit the corkscrew without a parachute)))
          1. Good_Anonymous 21 November 2019 21: 20 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: loki565
            Bad he flies


            So I agree. I say - they do not risk releasing him on a flight without an ejection seat.
  • Romanenko 21 November 2019 13: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Something no extreme in this video did not see, in principle, colorless ordinary aerobatics, nothing special, by the way, where was the corkscrew, which was written about in the article?
    Most of all, it just reminded of some attempts to perform aerobatics, but so carefully - and suddenly it doesn’t work out ...
  • GibSoN 21 November 2019 20: 07 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I watched the video .. Hmm .. Valuable in this video, except that the work of the operator! There is enough video where the F-35 flies much cooler.
  • letinant 21 November 2019 22: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Overall yes, but is it mass?
    Need to clarify

    So go check out.
    1. Timx 24 November 2019 21: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They use (utilize) discarded bodies (gliders), which were simply driven during the restoration of mass production after the devastation of the 90s and the commissioning of CNC machining centers (for example, up to 31% of rejects occurred on the X-80 rocket). There are three types of such products: for control firing and testing weapons on airplanes (with full electronics and warheads); oversized mock-ups (with the replacement of the filling by equivalent weight `` blanks ''), dimensional mock-ups for display at an air show (both on the ground and in the air) and other events - the most distinguished samples go there. And also there are training mock-ups (including with a demonstration of an “insider”) - those, in general, are made from other (cheaper) materials and using other technologies. Something like this)))
  • eklmn 22 November 2019 04: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    You can look here, no worse than ...
    https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/12/instagram-videos-of-usaf-f-35-demo-team-practice-leaks-some-new-maneuvers/
  • 23exe23 22 November 2019 16: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    flies like an ax)))