Military Review

Alternatives to replacing the F-35A. Chances of supplying Su-35SK to Turkey

100

Turkey Air Defense System. In the second half of the 1980s, it became clear that the Turkish Air Force fighter fleet is largely outdated and needs to be updated. As of 1985, about half of the 300 Turkish fighters did not meet modern requirements. The first Turkish F-100C / D Super Saber supersonic fighters, which were delivered in the early 1960s, had exhausted their life by the mid-1980s, were hopelessly outdated and were subject to decommissioning over the next few years. Enough numerous F-104G / ​​S Starfighter fighters, due to the availability of a solid resource and a large stock of spare parts, could be in operation for another decade and a half. But life has shown that the Starfighters are optimal in the role of air defense interceptors, and in an air battle they are not able to compete with the MiG-21 and MiG-23, which at that time were the main front-line fighters of the Warsaw Pact countries. The F-4E Phantom II multipurpose heavy fighters were primarily assigned missile tasks. Although the Phantom had good acceleration characteristics, it was equipped with a powerful airborne radar and could carry guided medium-range missiles with a semi-active radar seeker, in close combat it lost the MiGam. Three dozen light F-5A Freedom Fighter fighters did not do the weather. These aircraft had good maneuverability, but even in the mid-1980s they were no longer considered modern. There was no radar station on board the fighter, and its maximum flight speed was not much higher than the speed of sound.


Considering the fact that since the mid-1980s, light fighters of the fourth generation MiG-29 began to enter the USSR Air Force combat fighter regiments, and in the future these combat aircraft were supposed to replace the MiG-21 and MiG-23 in the countries of the eastern bloc, it became quite obvious that the Turkish air force needs a radical upgrade. In 1985, the first group of Turkish pilots went to the United States to train on F-16C / D Fighting Falcon fighters. In 1987, the latest generation of light 4th generation fighter aircraft appeared in Turkey. Between 1987 and 1995, the Turkish Air Force received a total of 155 F-16C / D fighters (46 Block 30 and 109 Block 40). The final assembly of some of these aircraft was carried out at the factory in Ankara.


Turkish Air Force F-16C fighter / photo: Jerry Gunner from Lincoln, UK

In the 21st century, the Turkish leadership headed for the development of high-tech military production in the country. In 2008, the Turkish aircraft manufacturer Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) entered into an agreement with the American corporation Lockheed Martin, on the joint production at the Ankara plant of F-16C Block 50 fighters. In March 2009, the Turkish Air Force placed an order for the first batch of 30 aircraft for a total the amount of $ 1,7 billion. At the same time, the agreement provided that the early-release F-16C / D with sufficient resources will be modernized during the overhaul.

On the fighters of the F-16C Block 50 version, instead of the old AN / APG-66 radar, a new multifunctional AN / APG-68 (V) 5 station was installed. The F-16C Block 50+ modification is equipped with AN / APG-68 (V) 9 radar. The armament includes new AIM-9X melee missiles and AIM-120C-7 medium-range missiles. The upgraded F-16C / D received Link 16 information exchange equipment, color multifunctional liquid crystal monitors, a helmet-mounted target designation system and night vision goggles. Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 EEP engines with extended overhaul life significantly reduce the cost of the life cycle and increase flight safety. Some fighters are equipped with two conformal fuel tanks, which somewhat worsened the speed, acceleration characteristics and maneuverability of the fighters, but significantly increased the "range-combat load" parameter.

Fighter modification F-16C Block 50 with the engine F100-PW-229 has a normal take-off weight of 12 kg (723 kg with conformal tanks). The maximum take-off weight is 14 kg. The maximum speed at an altitude of 548 m is 19190 km / h. The combat radius when performing air defense missions with outboard fuel tanks, 12000 UR AIM-2120 and 2 UR AIM-120 - 2 9 km. Built-in weapons - 1 mm gun M750A20 Vulcan. For air combat missiles can be suspended at six external nodes: AIM-61 Sparrow, AIM-1 Sidewinder, AIM-7 AMRAAM or their European and Israeli counterparts.


Google Earth satellite imagery: F-16 fighters at TAI's factory airfield 30 km northwest of Ankara


The first F-16C Block 50 multirole fighter manufactured by the national industry under an American license was handed over to the Turkish Air Force on May 23, 2011. In the same place, in Ankara, Pakistani F-16A / B fighters were modernized and new F-16C / Ds for the Egyptian Air Force were assembled.

Alternatives to replacing the F-35A. Chances of supplying Su-35SK to Turkey

According to The Military Balance 2016, the Turkish Air Force had 35 F-16C / D Block 30, 195 F-16C Block 50 and 30 F-16C Block 50+. Taking into account the fact that non-upgraded F-16C / D Block 30s are mostly decommissioned or transferred to storage, and several newer fighters are lost in flight accidents or are being repaired, a little more than 200 F-16C / D fighters are actually combat-ready. After the F-4E Phantom II and F-5A Freedom Fighter aircraft were decommissioned, the single-engine F-16C / D became the only Turkish Air Force combat aircraft capable of performing air defense missions and fighting for air superiority. In addition, after the cancellation of the latest Phantoms, the main attack tasks were assigned to the Turkish Attacking Falcons.

Compared to the times of the Cold War, the Turkish Air Force fighter fleet decreased by about one third. Given the increased capabilities of the modernized F-16C / D, and due to the reduced risk of global war, a very small fleet of combat aircraft in Armenia and a landslide reduction in the number of strike aviation in Iraq and Syria, two hundred light multi-functional fighters for Turkey at the moment is quite enough.

In the past, Turkish F-16C / D behaved very aggressively. In the mid-1990s, at least two "Attacking Falcons" were lost during a "joint maneuver" with the Greek Air Force fighters. Turkey made extensive use of its F-16s in conflict with Kurds in southeastern Turkey and Iraq. Turkish fighters took an active part in the hostilities in Syria. On September 16, 2013, Turkish F-16s shot down a Syrian Mi-17 helicopter in Latakia province near the Turkish-Syrian border. On March 23, 2014, the Turkish Air Force shot down the Syrian MiG-23 when it bombed Islamist positions a few kilometers from the border. On November 24, 2015, an F-16C fighter was shot down by a Russian front-line Su-24M bomber located in Syrian airspace.


The falling Russian Su-24M, hit by a rocket from a Turkish fighter F-16C

After this incident, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the Turkish attack on the Su-24M in Syria a blow to the back of Russia, which was carried out by terrorist accomplices. According to him, the incident will have serious consequences for relations between Russia and Turkey.

The activity of the Turkish Air Force fell sharply after an attempted military coup July 15-16, 2016. During the coup at night and in the morning of July 16 in the capital of Ankara, F-16 fighters launched air strikes at the presidential palace and the parliament building when a meeting of deputies was taking place in it. After the failure of the coup in Turkey, large-scale purges in law enforcement agencies began. As of December 2016, more than 37 thousand people were arrested in the case of a coup attempt. Several dozens of experienced pilots and high-class technical experts suspected of supporting the rebels were expelled from the Air Force. At the same time, several fighter squadrons were actually disbanded. The Turkish Air Force fighter squadrons are now experiencing an acute shortage of qualified personnel, which is unlikely to be eliminated in the next few years.


Google Earth satellite image: F-16 fighters at Balikesir air base

Until recently, part of the load to ensure the integrity of the airspace of the Republic of Turkey was provided by the US Air Force fighters deployed at the Konya and Inzherlik airbases. At the same time, the Turkish military had the opportunity to get acquainted in detail with the American F-15C / D / E fighters. US Air Force twin-engine fighter jets carry out air defense missions and regularly participate in US-Turkish military exercises.


Google Earth satellite image: US Air Force F-15 fighters at Konya airbase

Fighters from the Konya air base participate in joint patrols and provide cover for E-3C AWACS aircraft, while the Eagles, based in Inzherlik, are part of NATO’s air force on a permanent basis in Turkey.


Google Earth satellite imagery: US Air Force F-15 fighter jets at Inzherlik airbase

At the international air showrooms, Turkish representatives in the past were actively interested in the F-15SE Silent Eagle heavy fighter, which is a further development option for the F-15E Strike Eagl, and today it is the most advanced in the Orlov family. The buyers of this modification were Israel and Saudi Arabia, F-15SE fighters also offered Japan and South Korea. Turkey, if desired, could well have received the F-15SE, but the Americans refused to sell these aircraft on credit and offered to participate in the JSF program. At the same time, the cost of the F-35A is $ 84 million, and in 15 the Boeing Corporation requested $ 2010 million for the twin-engine F-100SE.

In the future, the F-16 were to be supplemented by F-35A Lightning II fighters. First of all, it was planned to replace the decommissioned F-4E fighter-bombers with Lightnings. According to the Turkish military, this machine with a maximum flight speed of 1930 km / h, a maximum take-off mass of 29 kg, a combat radius without refueling and a PTB of 000 km is more suitable for performing attack missions than for intercepting and maneuverable air combat.

In fairness, it is worth saying that the F-35A is equipped with quite advanced avionics, although according to a number of criteria it is difficult to consider it a 5th generation fighter. The aircraft has a multifunctional radar with AFAR AN / APG-81, which effectively operates both on air and ground targets. The pilot of the F-35A has an electron-optical system AN / AAQ-37 with a distributed aperture, consisting of sensors located on the fuselage and a computer complex for processing information. EOS allows timely warning of an aircraft missile attack, detecting the positions of air defense systems and anti-aircraft artillery, launching an air-to-air missile against a target flying behind an airplane. The AAQ-40 omnidirectional infrared CCD-TV camera provides capture and tracking of any ground, surface and air targets without turning on the radar. It is capable of detecting and tracking targets in automatic mode and at a great distance, as well as detecting laser irradiation of an aircraft. AN / ASQ-239 jamming station in an automated mode counteracts various threats: air defense systems, ground and ship radars, as well as fighter radars.

Turkey joined the F-35A program in 2002, and in January 2007, Ankara became a member of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) production program. Under the JSF program, about 900 items of components were to be produced at Turkish enterprises. Throughout the entire life cycle of the F-35, Turkey could earn $ 9 billion in component production.

The first F-35A in the Turkish Air Force was planned to be delivered in 2014. In total, the contract provided for the delivery of 100 aircraft, at a rate of 10-12 units per year. However, due to a missed deadline, the first two vehicles built for the Turkish Air Force were transferred to the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona in 2018.


F-35A fighter built for Turkish Air Force

Until recently, Turkish pilots of the 171st and 172nd squadrons, who previously flew on the F-4E, were trained on these fighters. The Turkish Air Force command planned to deploy the F-35A at the Malatya airbase in Central Anatolia, where NATO’s key radar facility is also located. After the purchase of Russian S-400 relations between Ankara and Washington deteriorated so much that Turkish pilots were asked to leave the United States, and the fate of the aircraft has not yet been determined.

In the future, it was planned to replace the F-16C / D fighters in the Turkish Air Force with fifth-generation fighters TF-X (Turkish Fighter - Experimental). The development of this aircraft is conducted by the national aircraft manufacturing company TAI since 5. Also involved in the project are the Swedish company Saab AB, the British BAE Systems and the Italian Alenia Aeronautica. The development of the radar is entrusted to the Turkish radio-electronic corporation ASELSAN. The engine was supposed to provide the American corporation General Electric. According to open data, the glider for the TF-X is created using Turkish and foreign developments in the field of materials science, which should ensure a decrease in radar and thermal visibility.

For the first time, information on the development of the promising TF-X fighter was officially announced at the IDEF-2013 International Defense Exhibition in Istanbul. A full-scale model was presented on July 17, 2019 at the Le Bourget air show.


TAI fighter model

The twin-engine machine with an arrow-shaped wing and two keels looks reminiscent of foreign fighters of the latest generation. The length of the layout reaches 21 m, the wingspan is 14 m. The maximum take-off weight of a production aircraft will exceed 27 tons. It will be able to reach speeds of up to 2300 km / h, climb to a height of 17000 m and carry a variety of weapons in the internal and external compartments.

In 2013, it was said that flight tests of the prototype will begin in 2023, and subsequently they were moved to 2025. At the same time, Ankara announced the possible purchase of 250 new aircraft. However, the implementation of these plans is in question. From the very beginning, aviation observers from a number of foreign publications specializing in the field of military aviation expressed reasonable doubts about the ability of Turkish developers to meet the deadlines. TAI has no experience creating modern combat aircraft, and after Ankara went into conflict with Washington, Americans are 100% likely to block the transfer of critical technologies and will impede cooperation with European companies. It is clear that without foreign scientific, technical and technological assistance, Turkey has no chance to independently create a 5th generation fighter.

Against the background of aggravation of relations between Turkey and the United States and the freezing of the F-35A supply schedule, Ankara started talking about the possibility of acquiring Russian Su-35SK heavy fighters.


Russian Su-35S fighter at Ataturk Airport

The Turkish top military-political leadership had the opportunity to get acquainted with the Russian Su-35S during the Technofest technology festival, which was held in Istanbul on September 17-22, 2019. According to the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of the Russian Federation at MAKS-2019, the Russian and Turkish sides are discussing the possibility of supplying Russian Su-35 and Su-57 fighters. Later, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he did not rule out the purchase of Russian Su-35 and Su-57 fighters instead of American F-35 aircraft. On December 11, 2019, the Turkish Daily Sabah published the words of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu: “Russia can provide (Turkey) an alternative to F-35 fighters if the US refuses to sell them.”

However, it is highly likely that the Turkish leadership is thus blackmailing the White House. What contradictions and resentment between Ankara and Washington would not be, it should be remembered that Turkey, a member of NATO, is very dependent on military and economic support from the US and the European Union. If we discard the emotional and political components stories with the supply of F-35A frozen, Ankara’s purchase of Russian Su-35SK and Su-57E fighters seems unlikely.

There is no particular doubt that our top leadership can easily authorize the sending of the most advanced military equipment and weapons to the North Atlantic Alliance, even if in the future this could damage Russia's defense capabilities. Another question is how much Turkey needs this. It is no secret that the economic and political situation in the Republic of Turkey is quite difficult, and the country is in an economic crisis. According to SIPRI, Turkey spent $ 2018 billion on defense in 19,0, which amounted to 2,5% of the country's GDP. At the same time, military spending over the decade increased by 65%. For comparison, Russia spends $ 61,4 billion on defense. But at the same time, our country has a much larger territory and is forced to invest heavily in a nuclear missile shield, finance a number of expensive defense programs and maintain large military contingents in harsh climatic conditions. Even with a very solid military budget for a country like Turkey, Ankara does not have free financial resources to buy modern combat aircraft.

The F-35A fighter was designed as a lightweight single-engine multi-purpose platform with low-signature technology and advanced sighting navigation equipment. The main emphasis when creating the F-35A was placed on its shock capabilities. Although this aircraft has some potential as a fighter, it will be inferior to heavy fighters in gaining air superiority. However, it should be understood that the Turkish Air Force, which has operated exclusively American-made combat aircraft since 1952, or built under an American license, are oriented towards Western standards. Although the Su-35S fighter is one of the best in the world, it is hardly possible to equip it with MIDS equipment. The MIDS system is a NATO tactical communications system that unites various types of information platforms into a common tactical data transmission network with Link 16 equipment. In other words, if Turkey buys Russian combat aircraft, they will not be able to be combined with NATO's automated command and control and data exchange system. without which the combat value of fighters will fall. In addition, the life cycle of the Su-35S is significantly more expensive than that of the F-16C / D single-engine fighters, well mastered by the Turkish flight and technical staff. According to information published in open sources, two AL-35F41S bypass turbojet engines with a service life of 1 hours are installed on the combatant Su-4000S. The service life of the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 EEP engine installed on the Turkish F-16C Block 50+ is 6000 hours. The only decisive argument may be the sale of the Su-35SK on credit, with the export price of one aircraft over $ 30 million. But in this case, the question arises, what does our country get besides the short-term deterioration of relations between Turkey and the United States?

Of course, we can deserve to be proud of the best Russian fighters in the world, but in the long run, are we interested in seeing NATO military experts thoroughly familiar with them in the near future? You can recall the damage our defense suffered after the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters and “potential partners” were able to study in detail not only the flight data of the aircraft and the characteristics of the weapons, but also take off the operating parameters of the airborne radar stations and passive optoelectronic detection systems. Those who advocate the speedy sale of the Su-35SK to Turkey should understand that regardless of whether Recep Tayyip Erdogan remains in power or if someone else is the president, the Republic of Turkey will remain in the US zone of influence and will not leave NATO, as no matter what we want.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Turkey's air defense radar: will they ensure the safety of air borders?
Turkish fighter aircraft during the Cold War
100 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 December 2019 06: 13
    0
    It’s still possible to deliver 4 ++ to the Turks as it’s possible, but 5ku only with heavily trimmed avionics, but the Turks didn’t run into it.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 08: 58
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It’s still possible to deliver 4 ++ to the Turks as it’s possible, but 5ku only with heavily trimmed avionics, but the Turks didn’t run into it.

      The Su-35SK delivered to the Peoples Republic of China differed from our Su-35S with more advanced information display monitors, and the absence of the Russian state recognition system and automated data transmission equipment on board. You want to say that the Turks will cut back the characteristics of radar and weapons, and they will agree to buy obviously defective fighters? No.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 18 December 2019 09: 01
        +2
        Here I personally wrote like this:
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        but 5ku only with heavily trimmed avionics, and the Turks didn’t rest against it
        Even nobody here more nothing cuts, and even more so does not buy. No need to expose your own speculation, please.
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 04
          +1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Here I personally wrote like this:
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          but 5ku only with heavily trimmed avionics, and the Turks didn’t rest against it
          Even nobody here more nothing cuts, and even more so does not buy. No need to expose your own speculation, please.

          Gone are the days when a foreign customer gave combat aircraft with trimmed avionics. Therefore, even reading this is somehow strange.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 18 December 2019 09: 10
            -2
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Gone are the days when a foreigner was presented with combat aircraft with a trimmed avionics. Therefore, even reading this is somehow strange

            Indeed, it is strange to read strange written. Maybe you messed up delivering with gifts?
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            to deliver as it is possible somehow
            Sorry, I’ll explain specifically for you: in this case, deliveries must be made exclusively for personal gain, possibly at speculative prices! )))
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 16
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Indeed, it is strange to read strange written. Maybe you messed up delivering with gifts?

              Supply happens when a technique deliver to the recipient, and it doesn’t matter whether they give it or sell it.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Sorry, I’ll explain specifically for you: in this case, deliveries must be made exclusively for personal gain, possibly at speculative prices! )))

              Do Turks have money to get on credit?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 18 December 2019 09: 33
                -1
                You write like that, as if I offer the Turks and airplanes and technologies to donate, this is not there, is it?
                1. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  You write like that, as if I offer the Turks and airplanes and technologies to donate, this is not there, is it?

                  I didn't write that. I'm talking about the fact that the Turks are not stupid enough to buy "cut" fighters and air defense systems.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 18 December 2019 09: 46
                    0
                    Excuse me, BUT:
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    with heavily trimmed avionics, and this is not the Turks rested.
                    Not rested - it means "no need", just a little slang. It seems to me that you pay much more attention to my comment as such than to what it is written about. Already literally every word has been chewed.
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 18 December 2019 07: 19
    -2
    Feeling himself "omnipotent and immortal" (in his area), Erdogan can throw anything out. Maybe go to further confrontation with the mattress. But will he survive the next possible putsch? And their partners know how to arrange ...
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 18 December 2019 07: 23
    +2
    Sweden on the eve of the Northern War actively supplied Russia with the most modern weapons at that time. You know what kind of result.
    I am not afraid, just a warning!
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 18 December 2019 07: 57
    -6
    There is no particular doubt that our top leadership can easily authorize the sending of the most advanced military equipment and weapons to the North Atlantic Alliance, even if in the future this could damage Russia's defense capabilities.

    Pitchfork, water, what are we going to read written in this way?
    The specifics and official statements, actions, if any, will then be the subject of discussion.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 08: 51
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      There is no particular doubt that our top leadership can easily authorize the sending of the most advanced military equipment and weapons to the North Atlantic Alliance, even if in the future this could damage Russia's defense capabilities.

      Pitchfork, water, what are we going to read written in this way?
      The specifics and official statements, actions, if any, will then be the subject of discussion.

      Do not discuss and do not read, and if you are discussing, give clear arguments. What is the author wrong about? Su-35SK with S-400 was delivered to China, and in scanty amounts by the standards of the PRC. The S-400 Turks were also handed over, and on credit, and it is not a fact that it will not be written off later, as is customary with us.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 18 December 2019 09: 33
        -2
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        as we have accepted it will not be written off

        But these facts require specificity, confirmation.
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Do not discuss

        So did not discuss, sort of.
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        S-400 Turks were also handed over, and on credit,

        This, all the same, was not TRANSFERRED, but SOLD ... with a deferred payment.
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Su-35SK with S-400 delivered to China,

        They sold it all the same ... they will rip technology, it’s true that it has already grown with moss, but this is a separate topic that has been discussed more than once.
        By the way, the "brothers" Chinese are one step before the completion of the formation of their school of aircraft construction, and this, from my point of view, is not GUT, but it will almost, almost, start tomorrow.
        So what did you want to tell me, to bring to the attention of t.s.?
        PS ... all these circumstances are not a reason to rave or puppet in yourself. This is just an excuse to WORK intensively and create a new one, for the good of our Motherland ... and secrets, we must be able to keep military secrets so that not a single infection could infect us, nor could we steal anything or harm us!
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 47
          +3
          Quote: rocket757
          But these facts require specificity, confirmation.

          Victor, examples of the fact that we gave loans, and then they were written off by the mass. Aren't you really good?
          Quote: rocket757
          This, all the same, was not TRANSFERRED, but SOLD ... with a deferred payment.

          That is, on credit.
          Quote: rocket757
          They sold it all the same ... they will rip technology, it’s true that it has already grown with moss, but this is a separate topic that has been discussed more than once.

          Is it Su-35SK and S-400 with moss overgrown? However, the piquancy of the situation lies in the fact that part of the electronic units in this technique is built on an elemental base sourced from China.
          Quote: rocket757
          By the way, the Chinese "brothers" are one step away from completing the formation of their aircraft building school

          Already formed. As for the build quality of the aircraft. That in Shenyang it is higher than ours at KnAPO.
          Quote: rocket757
          This is just a reason to INTENSIVELY WORK and create new, for the good of our Motherland

          Let's do without slogans? Or tell about it to the collector-riveters working at the plant in Komsosolsk for 30-35 tr
          Quote: rocket757
          yes, secrets, military secrets must be kept, so that not a single infection could not, could neither steal anything nor harm us!

          That's for sure ... especially supplying the latest air defense equipment to NATO countries.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 18 December 2019 10: 35
            -2
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Let's do without slogans? Or tell about it to the collector-riveters working at the plant in Komsosolsk for 30-35 tr

            Do you think we have MORE? So it’s not up to the slogans of us, the majority.
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            That's for sure ... especially supplying the latest air defense equipment to NATO countries.

            When politics also intervenes ... then it’s difficult to discuss something, so you won’t get deep into our amateurish knowledge. By the way, I ALWAYS was / is against, but now I have to look for at least some explanation for the events. To remain in only against or in complete incomprehensibility is unreasonable. The situation is, you need to understand ...
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Already formed. As for the build quality of the aircraft. That in Shenyang it is higher than ours at KnAPO.

            I’ve been talking about this for a long time ... even just maintaining high-quality copying, this is serious. But when they begin to create their own ... we can only look and hope that our talented designers will be able to create products of a higher technological level!
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Is it Su-35SK and S-400 with moss overgrown?

            This TOPIC lasts a long time, only the range of products that have been torn apart is increasing.
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            However, the piquancy of the situation lies in the fact that part of the electronic units in this technique is built on an elemental base sourced from China.

            About OUR electronic industry talk \ write already TIRED! I can’t say with words, only piquant \ concrete expressions remain.
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Aren't you really good?

            For a lot of things, we can be \ not be in the know. We need specifics, facts. Leave the empty three-ryo-conversation.
          2. Ka-52
            Ka-52 19 December 2019 07: 14
            +1
            Victor, examples of the fact that we gave loans, and then they were written off by the mass. Aren't you really good?

            no need for profanity. They wrote off the debts of the Union, nobody wrote off the debts of the Russian Federation, as far as I know.
            Is it Su-35SK and S-400 with moss overgrown? However, the piquancy of the situation lies in the fact that part of the electronic units in this technique is built on an elemental base sourced from China.

            Can you name what newest components have been supplied with the Su-35? Sh135? I would not call it "newest". Irbis, OLS-35, L-150? Well, a new on-board computer, some synchronization elements. Well, as if there is nothing breakthrough that would really become a "drain of technology". Tell me about AL-41F1S - well, this is probably the only thing that is interesting to the Chinese, tk. in comparison with FN, many new lotions have appeared there. But again Esca already says "the young was not young anymore" laughing
            So there is no need to be like some sofas and write about the hackneyed "putinslil"
            1. Bongo
              19 December 2019 10: 22
              +1
              Quote: Ka-52
              no need for profanity. They wrote off the debts of the Union, nobody wrote off the debts of the Russian Federation, as far as I know.

              No profanity No. Russia is the legal successor of the USSR and from many countries these debts could be shaken off. If not in cash, then concessions for the development of deposits, goods, raw materials and the lease of territory for military bases. Other, there are examples when our country forgave "fresh" loans. In 2013 and 2018, Russia wrote off $ 740 million of debt to Kyrgyzstan. In 2014, Russia wrote off $ 865 million (out of $ 890 million) of debt to Uzbekistan. Here you can add Ukraine's debt of $ 3 billion, which is not going to be returned.
              Quote: Ka-52
              Can you name what newest components were supplied there from the Su-35? Sh135? I would not call it "newest". Irbis, OLS-35, L-150? Well, a new on-board computer, some synchronization elements. Well, as if there is nothing breakthrough that would really become a "drain of technology".

              And we have something different and newer on combat aircraft?
              Quote: Ka-52
              So there is no need to be like some sofas and write about the hackneyed "putinslil"

              Is it better to smack it ?? wassat
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 19 December 2019 14: 12
                +1
                Moreover, there are examples when our country forgave

                Listen, you’re more interested in writing information on military topics. Its interesting to read. But to duplicate stamps laden with flies - no, not yours.
                And we have something different and newer on combat aircraft?

                heh, are you asking me? Actually, I answered Olga the same thing. Read carefully
                Is it better to smack it ??

                it is reasonable to choose a balanced position. But you can see better hi
                1. Bongo
                  19 December 2019 16: 10
                  +2
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  heh, are you asking me? Actually, I answered Olga the same thing. Read carefully

                  Actually, Olga once worked in an armament laboratory at KnAAPO, and is informed much better than you.
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  Listen, you’re more interested in writing information on military topics. Its interesting to read. But to duplicate stamps laden with flies - no, not yours.

                  With all due respect, but if I suddenly need your advice, I will definitely ask him. But until this happens, please do not tell me what to do. And you will not know where you should go. hi
                  1. Ka-52
                    Ka-52 20 December 2019 04: 57
                    -1
                    Actually, Olga once worked in an armament laboratory at KnAAPO, and is informed much better than you.

                    what are you? Do you determine the experience of the interlocutor by the avatar? Well then, by running to the "Battle of Psychics", you will make a fast and dizzying career there laughing
                    With all due respect, but if I suddenly need your advice, I will definitely ask him. But until this happens, please do not tell me what to do. And you won’t know where you should go

                    God forbid you to advise. You can see completely forgotten how to read or comprehend read. I expressed an opinion, a statement, and did not give advice to action. No need to get down to rape and make an offended mine.
                    1. Bongo
                      20 December 2019 10: 25
                      0
                      It is regrettable when a person judges others around him, and is also rude at the same time. negative
                      Let me tell you a story, in the past one character known as "Inok" tried in a similar manner to discuss with Olya about the armament of the Su-27. In particular, they talked about the possibility of using the NAR C-8. The case ended with "Inok" complaining to the administration that it was being discredited. However, if you have a desire, you can also enter into a substantive discussion.
                      1. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 20 December 2019 12: 43
                        +2
                        It’s regrettable when a person judges others around him, and is also rude at the same time

                        regrettably, when a person transfers from a sick head to a healthy one. Mr., you act like a teen internet troll. I gave Olga a very logical objection. Your attempts to puff out your cheeks are ridiculous for me, who was flying during the Soviet Union, with a raid of about 2 tons, of which half the spacecraft. I don't care about your online battles with some Inoks. I fully admit that you know how to drive them too in it you are definitely a master. If you prove to me now that the onboard equipment I indicated was at the time of delivery of the Su-35 the apogee of technical, design, engineering or some other thought, I will easily admit that I am wrong. And so your blablabla like "we worked tama, we twisted the nuts - we all know", this is not necessary, this does not impress me, and I have met not such "eagles".
                      2. Bongo
                        20 December 2019 14: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Mr., you act like a teen internet troll.

                        Dear Andrey, whether you like it or not, I am not "mister".
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        I gave Olga a very logical objection.

                        Forgive me, in addition to general unproven phrases, and information taken from the Internet, I did not notice anything. No.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Your attempts to puff out cheeks are funny to me

                        Let us control ourselves and refrain from switching to personalities, and we will not begin to teach each other how to act.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        flying even under the Union, with a raid of about 2 tons, of which half the spacecraft.

                        Well, my wife and I did not bake pies all our lives, and if we are younger than you, then not by much.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        I don't care about your online battles with some Inoks.

                        But the way you communicate is the same. negative
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        If you prove to me now that the on-board equipment indicated by me was at the time of delivery of the Su-35 the apogee of technical, design, engineering, or some other thought, I will easily admit that I am wrong.

                        Excuse me, but where did I write that this is the "apogee". If you are quoting, then please quote verbatim, I don’t need other people's fantasies. But you, as an absolute connoisseur of the avionics of modern Russian fighters, will be able to easily fill my gaps in knowledge and explain how the combatant Su-35S in the 23rd IAP head, in terms of avionics, differ from the "commercial" Su-35SK supplied to the PRC.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        And so your blablabla like "we worked tama, we twisted the nuts - we all know", this is not necessary, this does not surprise me, and I have met not such "eagles".

                        Well, most likely with such "eagles" you flew as a "ship commander", but these photos are from your personal archive. Can you boast something like that?


                      3. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 20 December 2019 15: 05
                        +1
                        Excuse me, but where did I write that this is the "apogee". If you are quoting, then please quote verbatim, I don’t need other people's fantasies. But you, as an absolute connoisseur of the avionics of modern Russian fighters, will be able to easily fill my gaps in knowledge and explain how the combatant Su-35S in the 23rd IAP head, in terms of avionics, differ from the "commercial" Su-35SK supplied to the PRC.

                        no need for extensive verbiage. I’ve already reviewed your ability to turn everything around. The question was simple.: at the time of delivery, the equipment was the latest or not (again, what is "newest" and what are the criteria for this concept? Newest for us or newest for China)? Was the supply a drain on technology or not? Olga says yes. Me not". What's the latest? Diss SHO-13A? RV-21? SAU-10M? or maybe A-723? Maybe something new could be inserted there, which I don't know? Maybe it was about the Slit, which is far from fresh .... I'm just wondering where we merged the advanced developments in Brao to the Chinese?
                      4. Bongo
                        20 December 2019 16: 23
                        +1
                        Hello again! wink
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        no need for extensive verbiage.

                        Well, don’t fornication, who is captive you?
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        I’ve already reviewed your ability to turn everything around.

                        Oh really ? As it comes around, it will respond. Did not you hear? Moreover, a person with your experience, a ship commander, is simply obliged to control himself.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        What's the latest? Diss SHO-13A? RV-21? SAU-10M? Or maybe A-723?

                        Which forum did you read this on?
                        You were asked a specific question, how does the Chinese Su-35SK differ from our Su-35S? Are you able to answer it? I am also curious about what a more advanced fighter than the Su-35S is in our combat regiments?
                      5. Constructor68
                        Constructor68 20 December 2019 17: 43
                        -2
                        You were asked a specific question, how does the Chinese Su-35SK differ from our Su-35S? Are you able to answer it?

                        Sorry to interfere, but first you will learn how to answer questions, and then ask your own. And it’s silly to lead a discussion - tea is not an investigator during interrogation laughing they couldn’t put anything new in the SK from navigation, sighting system or communications. It doesn't even make sense to discuss
                      6. Bongo
                        21 December 2019 02: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Designer 68
                        You were asked a specific question, how does the Chinese Su-35SK differ from our Su-35S? Are you able to answer it?

                        Sorry to interfere, but first you will learn how to answer questions, and then ask your own.

                        Well, since you are interfering, you probably read in the previous comments this:
                        Quote: Bongo
                        And we have something different and newer on combat aircraft?

                        Quote: Designer 68
                        And it’s silly to lead a discussion - tea is not an investigator during interrogation

                        But you are smart ...good lol
                        Quote: Designer 68
                        they couldn’t put anything new in the SK from navigation, sighting system or communications. It doesn't even make sense to discuss

                        Do I understand correctly that you, unlike the respected Ka-52 (Andrey), know how the Su-35S avionics differ from the Su-35SK? And probably as a "Constructor" you could please VO readers with a professional publication on this topic, personally I would be very happy about that.
                      7. Constructor68
                        Constructor68 23 December 2019 05: 53
                        -2
                        But you are smart ... good lol

                        The level of trolling is as low as your ability to dialogue. How old are you, are you our experienced?
                        Do you know how the Su-35S avionics differs from the Su-35SK?

                        Yes, nothing special actually. And leave sarcastic antics to your friends. And then there was a business swell - I didn’t write anything really, but pathos and ambition from the mountain negative
                      8. Bongo
                        24 December 2019 01: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Designer 68
                        The level of trolling is as low as your ability to dialogue. How old are you, are you our experienced?
                        Do you know how the Su-35S avionics differs from the Su-35SK?

                        Yes, nothing special actually. And leave sarcastic antics to your friends. And then there was a business swell - I didn’t write anything really, but pathos and ambition from the mountain

                        Great comment! Congratulations ! good
                        He absolutely accurately characterizes you as a mature, intelligent and seasoned person! Vividly demonstrates your high moral, personal, business qualities and intellect! fellow
                        Quote: Designer 68
                        Yes, nothing special actually.

                        This is the most informative part of your unique comment! In addition to the state recognition system, closed communications equipment and automated guidance, the Su-35S is no different from the Su-35SK. This is exactly what I tried to bring to a respected Ka-52 (Andrey). However, based on the style and manner of communication and deep semantic content, I dare to assume that Constructor68 (Aviator) и Ka-52 (Andrey) is the same character. What is definitely prohibited by the rules of the site. hi
                      9. The comment was deleted.
            2. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 20 December 2019 05: 57
              +2
              Quote: Ka-52
              They wrote off the debts of the Union, nobody wrote off the debts of the Russian Federation, as far as I know.

              They wrote off. Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Iraq.
  5. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 December 2019 08: 24
    +1
    F16, the latest version costs $ 80 million .... but here is the option, if they will sell TurkammF16, then it’s better to use F16 ..... if they completely block it, then look further. And when they leave NATO, they will still be disconnected from this data exchange system.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 08: 53
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      F16, the latest version costs $ 80 million .... but here is the option, if they will sell TurkammF16, then it’s better to use F16 ..... if they completely block it, then look further. And when they leave NATO, they will still be disconnected from this data exchange system.

      Maybe I missed something, is Turkey really going out of NATO and joining the CSTO?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 December 2019 10: 21
        +1
        I mean, while the Turks are in NATO, they will buy F16 .... and, if they do, they will stop exchanging data with them.
        1. protoss
          protoss 19 December 2019 09: 42
          +1
          finally, Turkey has remained the only manufacturer of f16 (and this is not a screwdriver assembly, but a full cycle), so if they buy something from themselves. it is clear that the Turks rivet them under license, but if their "partners" completely throw them off, then you can spit on licensing rights, in the end, the security of the state is more important.
          the same story with the notorious Altai tank, there was a dviglo, a transmission and a German gun, but, as I understand it, putting a bolt on the legal rights of Hans, the Turks, if they wish, can do it all on their own, since there is documentation and production facilities for this. in fact, they have long mastered and released the Rheinmetall guns. and the engine and transmission are legally stalled.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 19 December 2019 10: 34
            +1
            It is unlikely that the Turks make turbojet engines .... and Radars. Collect, maybe.
            1. Bongo
              19 December 2019 10: 41
              +2
              Quote: Zaurbek
              It is unlikely that the Turks make turbojet engines .... and Radars. Collect, maybe.

              Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 EEP engines are sourced from the USA. I don't know about avionics, maybe production in Turkey may be partially localized.
    2. NN52
      NN52 18 December 2019 09: 35
      +5
      Turkish
      F 16C Block 50+ (with conformal tanks)
  6. Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 08: 53
    -2
    In style - the spitting image of Evgeny "Tempset" Damantsev, and the signature is different.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 00
      0
      Quote: Good_Anonymous
      In style - the spitting image of Evgeny "Tempset" Damantsev, and the signature is different.

      Nothing in common and close. No.
      1. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 09: 12
        -2
        An abundance of names, brands of weapons and equipment, grammatical errors, statements like "F-35 is an easy platform" ...
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 21
          +1
          Quote: Good_Anonymous
          An abundance of names, brands of weapons and equipment, grammatical errors, statements like "F-35 is an easy platform" ...

          Excessive abundance like Damantsev's I did not notice. No. At least a significant part of what is discussed in the article is confirmed by photographs and satellite images, which Damantsev does not bother. If there are complaints about errors, you can point them to the moderator. In my opinion, the single-engine F-35A is a really lightweight platform.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 09: 31
            0
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            If there are complaints about errors, you can point them to the moderator.


            Etcеno tensions. I reported errors before, but I don’t remember being corrected.

            Quote: zyablik.olga
            In my opinion, the single-engine F-35A is a really lightweight platform.


            You have every right to believe that the F-35 with a take-off weight of almost 32 tons is a light platform, and the Su-35 with 35 tons is a heavy platform. I would ask to which platforms do you attribute the F-16C mentioned in article 19t or Gripen 14t, but I'm afraid of an answer smile
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 37
              +2
              Quote: Good_Anonymous
              No complaints.
              lol good Sorry, I’m writing from the phone, T9 is disabled.
              Quote: Good_Anonymous
              You have every right to believe that the F-35 with a take-off weight of almost 32 tons is a light platform, and the Su-35 with 35 tons is a heavy platform.

              Correct me if I am wrong. F-35 aircraft of the 5th generation or not, if the 5th, then it must be compared with the Su-57 and F-22.
              1. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 09: 41
                -3
                Quote: zyablik.olga
                F-35 aircraft of the 5th generation or not, if the 5th, then it must be compared with the Su-57 and F-22.


                Whether the F-35 is the 5th generation or not is irrelevant (and there are different opinions on this topic). The "severity" of the platform does not depend on the generation. However, the maximum takeoff weight of the Su-57 is the same 35t, the F-22 - 38t.
                1. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  The severity of the "platform does not depend on the generation. However, the maximum take-off weight of the Su-57 is the same 35 tons, the F-22 is 38 tons.

                  I understand that Vika is a so-so source, but is it really lying that the F-35A has a maximum weight of 29 tons?
                  1. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 09: 55
                    -4
                    My Vika is lying that

                    Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,751 kg)

                    And I tend to believe her.
                    1. zyablik.olga
                      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 10: 06
                      +2
                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      And I tend to believe her.

                      Russian-speaking writes: 29100 kg. Who to believe?
                      1. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 10: 08
                        -2
                        Quote: zyablik.olga
                        Russian-speaking writes: 29100 kg. Who to believe?


                        To whom to believe - choose for yourself. So, is 29t a light platform for you, and a 35t heavy?
                2. Avior
                  Avior 18 December 2019 10: 39
                  +4
                  I'm sorry to interfere, and why are you comparing the maximum take-off weight?
                  he only says that a light fighter can take a large payload or fuel on board
                  But it may take, or may not take
                  It is more logical to compare the weight of empty planes
                  F-35 13 tons, Su-35-17200, some write 19 tons, Su-57 18500, F-22 - 19700
                  And why generation does not need to be considered?
                  F-4 Phantom - 12700
                  Easy, it turns out?
                  1. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 10: 45
                    -2
                    Quote: Avior
                    I'm sorry to interfere, and why are you comparing the maximum take-off weight?
                    he only says that a light fighter can take a large payload or fuel on board


                    That's why I compare.

                    Quote: Avior
                    It is more logical to compare the weight of empty planes


                    I do not see the logic in this. An empty plane has no combat capabilities.

                    Quote: Avior
                    And why generation does not need to be considered?


                    Because in this respect there is no difference between the 4th and 5th generation.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 18 December 2019 10: 52
                      +3
                      but I don’t see the logic in comparing the maximum weight, which still does not load the plane
                      at your approach a light aircraft capable of taking maximum load as heavy automatically becomes heavy
                      Do not like the empty weight, put them in the same conditions - say, a ton - two fuels and 4 rockets
                      All the same, the F-35 will remain light, while others will remain heavy.
                      And you do not compare planes, but the maximum payload that they can take
                      which is far from the same thing
                      And between the third and fifth there is in this regard? What are your evaluation criteria?
                      And then Phantom with this approach, a light fighter
                      1. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 11: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: Avior
                        I do not see the logic in comparing the maximum weight that still does not load on the plane


                        Who told you that?

                        Quote: Avior
                        Do not like the empty weight, put them in the same conditions - say, a ton - two fuels and 4 rockets


                        And it will prove ... what exactly?

                        Quote: Avior
                        What are your evaluation criteria?


                        Reality. In which it is not clear whether the F-35 belongs to the 4th or 5th generation, and the weight of the aircraft of the 4th and 5th generations differs little (<10% for the Su-35 / Su-57 and F-22).

                        Do you have any evaluation criteria that the F-35 is lightweight and the Su-35 (Su-57) heavy?
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 18 December 2019 11: 16
                        +1
                        I wrote, according to the weight of an empty plane for aircraft of one generation
                        A gap of several tons with the listed group
                        if you are comparing planes, it makes sense to compare the planes
                        but in general, of course, everything is relative and relative
                      3. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 11: 18
                        -2
                        Quote: Avior
                        empty weight for single generation aircraft


                        And I said that I do not see the point. By the way, do you attribute the F-35 to the 4th or 5th generation?
              2. opus
                opus 18 December 2019 10: 11
                -2
                Quote: zyablik.olga
                F-35 aircraft of the 5th generation or not, if the 5th, then it must be compared with the Su-57 and F-22.

                in battle, who will compare?
                there will be no subtleties
                Quote: Good_Anonymous
                You have every right to believe that the F-35 with a take-off weight of almost 32 tons is a light platform, and the Su-35 with 35 tons is a heavy platform.

                1. from where "almost"?
                Max takeoff weight = Maximum design takeoff weight (MDTOW) = Maximum certified estimated take-off weight for take-off brakes and maximum weight for which compliance with the requirements of relevant design and engineering requirements was demonstrated by the manufacturer.
                With such weight, probably, after certification, no one flies.
                and this is for the F-35C
                2. write
                With a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000lb (27,000 kg), the Lightning II is significantly heavier than the lightweight fighters it replaces.

                3. I think they consider it easy:
                due to one engine
                -because of the "useful" load
                1. Avior
                  Avior 18 December 2019 10: 44
                  +1
                  Yes, as it were, 9100 for the F-35 is a considerable payload
                  Su-35 or Su-57 not far gone
                  anyway, they don’t load at full
                  1. opus
                    opus 18 December 2019 15: 02
                    -2
                    Quote: Avior
                    Yes, as it were, 9100 for the F-35 is a considerable payload

                    Well, I don’t know then.
                    F-like a fighter (although if you look at the 117th ..)
                    light or not. still easy, maybe according to the program
                    Quote: opus
                    With a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 lb (27,000 kg), the Lightning II is significantly heavier than the lightweight fighters it replaces.

                    F-15 they will definitely not be replaced
                    Light is easy wink(if so do Lightand)
                2. Good_Anonymous
                  Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 10: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: opus
                  . from where "almost"?


                  "Almost" - because 31750kg.

                  Quote: opus
                  With such weight, probably, after certification, no one flies.


                  Does this apply to Su-35?

                  Quote: opus
                  I think they consider it easy:


                  I don’t remember anyone else considering the F-35 light.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 18 December 2019 11: 08
                    +1
                    Will these fit?
                    The F-35 was designed as a light single engine multirole platform without a specialization - and with significantly limitations in its air to air combat capabilities due to its low speed, operational altitude, manoeuvrability and weapons payload.

                    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/turkey-says-it-could-look-for-alternatives-to-the-f-35-what-are-its-other-options-for-a-new-fighter
                    1. Good_Anonymous
                      Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 11: 31
                      -2
                      These are better than nothing, but I would like closer to the US DoD or the development of the aircraft.
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 18 December 2019 11: 59
                        +1
                        you will not please you smile
                        I admit that there is simply no official graduation, so there will be no official papers
                        according to official terminology, the F-35 is neither light nor heavy, it is "one", Joint Strike Fighter
                  2. opus
                    opus 18 December 2019 15: 06
                    -1
                    Quote: Good_Anonymous
                    "Almost" - because 31750kg.

                    I meant something else, namely
                    1.
                    Quote: opus
                    With a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 lb (27,000 kg)

                    2.31800 to
                    Quote: opus
                    this is for the f-35c

                    and we know why
                    Quote: Good_Anonymous
                    Does this apply to Su-35?

                    100%
                    Quote: Good_Anonymous
                    I do not remember

                    repeat
                    Quote: opus
                    the Lightning II is significantly heavier than the lightweight fighters it replaces.
                    to replace light, then light.

                    generally light / medium / heavy - everything is conditional, literary
                    1. Good_Anonymous
                      Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 20: 58
                      -1
                      Quote: opus
                      to replace light, then light.


                      Unconvincing. It replaces the light F-16, but also F / A-18, which is not called light, F-111 which is also not light.

                      Quote: opus
                      generally light / medium / heavy - everything is conditional, literary


                      Perhaps, but to call the F-35 light (doubting its belonging to the 5th generation) in one article with the Su-35 is at least illogical.
  7. opus
    opus 18 December 2019 09: 56
    0
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    Although the Su-35S fighter is one of the best in the world, it is hardly possible to equip the equipment of the MIDS system. The MIDS system is a tactical communications system of NATO, combining various types of information platforms into a common tactical data network equipment Link 16 standard.

    I think you're wrong.
    1.SU-35S
    Aircraft electronic equipment complex with open architecture, managed by a single information management system built using redundant multiprocessor systems and high-speed data exchange channels.


    the eighth item of the "features"
    2. Open architecture - the architecture of a computer, a peripheral device or software, to which specifications are published, which allows other manufacturers to develop additional devices to systems with this architecture.
    3. The principles of organization of architecture of the avionics complex:

    4. Example of SU-30SM:
    A fundamentally new approach has been developed for this aircraft - the so-called open architecture, when we could connect any number of systems to the central computer - weapon control, flight-navigation, protective. And all the systems on this plane were first made digital

    she allowed to set on export options of the Irkutsk Su-30 system of foreign productionwhen requested by the customer.

    5. The IMA ideology, I think on the SU-35S it is definitely implemented at 100%
    -open architecture through the use of network technologies (based on AFDX and Fiber Channel) through the rapid reallocation of resources and unification of avionics modules and their design;
    - scalability, allowing without changing the structure of avionics
    and / or adapt avionics to a specific type of aircraft.
    - software is designed as a hierarchical system of independent
    modules with unified software interfaces
    /
    I suppose that "connect"
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/MIDS_principle.jpg
    not difficult
    Technical specifications of the MIDS terminal are specified in STANAG 4175, STANAG 5516 Ed. 4 “Tactical Data Exchange - Link 16”.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    whether the Turks will go to this, hardly. then you're right
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 09: 57
      +2
      Quote: opus
      I think you're wrong.

      Anton, you want to say that the avionics Su-35SK can easily be integrated into Link 16?
      1. opus
        opus 18 December 2019 16: 29
        -2
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        that the avionics Su-35SK can be easily integrated into Link 16?

        I think this is not so difficult.
        1.Our easily integrated Thales and other foreign combat entrails and even the Indian BCVM in the SU-30SM
        2. Any Polish, German, Czech MIG-29 and others there fly in NATO space (fly) and get what is required
        3. Open architecture for that and open.
        4. That the USSR / RF Ministry of Defense on ADA, that the Pentagon wrote protocols and drivers in the AD language
        5.Dads / mothers in modern should be the same
        1. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 18 December 2019 21: 36
          0
          Quote: opus
          .What the USSR / RF Ministry of Defense on ADA


          Do you have links to any materials on using Ada in the Ministry of Defense of the USSR or the Russian Federation?
          1. opus
            opus 18 December 2019 22: 16
            -2
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            You have links

            "The language of the Pentagon is the enemy of the world. The language of Ada is the voice of a thermonuclear hell ... In the language of Ada, one can hear a curse on the human race."
            The system does not allow to publish:

            Keep it like this:
            1. Good_Anonymous
              Good_Anonymous 19 December 2019 01: 28
              +1
              I see. Thanks.
        2. Gosh 60
          Gosh 60 19 December 2019 02: 30
          0
          Quote: opus

          4. That the USSR / RF Ministry of Defense on ADA, that the Pentagon wrote protocols and drivers in the AD language
          5. Dad / mom in modern should be the same

          Horror! This is nonsense! Must, but not required.
  8. Avior
    Avior 18 December 2019 10: 12
    +3
    The service life of the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 EEP engine installed on the Turkish F-16C Block 50+ is 6000 hours.

    it is not so
    6000 not hours, but the so-called cycles, where the Americans actually include take-off-flight-landing, or close to it
    If the average flight is a little over an hour, this means that for 8000 hours of the assigned resource of the F-16 airframe, 1 (one!) Engine is needed
    In reality, there are replacements, of course, however, in general, the cost of the engine - and this is one of the important costs of operating the aircraft - for the F16
    For comparison.
    For the same 8000 (I don’t know how much the glider’s resource is installed in the Su-35), the Su-35 requires at least 4 engines.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 December 2019 11: 39
      0
      About 8000 hours, thanks have amused.
  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 December 2019 11: 29
    -2
    There is no particular doubt that our top leadership can easily authorize the sending of the most advanced military equipment and weapons to the North Atlantic Alliance, even if in the future this could damage Russia's defense capabilities.


    Or maybe we will not write nonsense? S-400, for example, in the series since 2007.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 11: 33
      +4
      Quote: EvilLion
      Or maybe we will not write nonsense? S-400, for example, in the series since 2007.

      So do not write. fool Maybe we have something newer in service?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2019 11: 38
        -2
        And you are a specialist in air defense systems, do you know what exactly you sold to the Turks, how much have your competitors advanced in recent years?
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 11: 49
          +3
          Quote: EvilLion
          And you are a specialist in air defense systems, do you know what exactly you sold to the Turks, how much have your competitors advanced in recent years?

          Me not. But I doubt that the Turks were sold products that are fundamentally different from those that are in service with us. But since you have asked such a question, you, as a "specialist", can be wrong to tell you where I am mistaken. I am also very interested in your opinion as to whether the sale of the S-300 to the United States caused in the early 90s, despite the fact that this complex has been in service since 1979.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 18 December 2019 12: 04
            0
            S-300s were very different, however, the Americans get some great progress from access to what they sold, did not receive.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 18 December 2019 12: 38
              +3
              Quote: EvilLion
              S-300s were very different ...

              That's exactly what is different. The S-300PT was removed from service several years ago, the S-300PS was our main air defense system until recently and is still used in the Russian Air Force and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and the S-300V is the only mobile missile defense system.
              Quote: EvilLion
              Americans make some great progress from access to what they sold, did not receive.

              Is that what you decided? Unfortunately, it is not. No. After studying various modifications of the S-300, new EW systems appeared on American aircraft. The study of radar systems made it possible to improve aircraft with low radar visibility and to develop tactics for combating the S-300. Do you think that the pilots of NATO and Israel, from nothing to do, are training on the Greek, Slovak and Bulgarian S-300s, and this has not done any harm to our defenses?
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 27 February 2020 08: 48
                0
                I do not think that you have at least some idea of ​​American electronic warfare, simply because the info about real TTX is extremely secret. And for 20 years, something new will appear regardless of the presence or absence of access to an aging Soviet air defense system.
  10. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 18 December 2019 13: 56
    +2
    Of course, we are interested in "knocking out" Turkey from NATO, but it is worth calculating the situation - it is possible that all this will happen by itself, and in our usual desire to do everything "as soon as possible" - we will again squander resources and technologies.
    At the same time, you should keep your finger on the pulse, as they say, because some of our other "friends" are actively promoting their J-20 and can intercept the potential interest of the buyer.
  11. Operator
    Operator 18 December 2019 14: 12
    +2
    "Of course, we can deservedly be proud of the best Russian fighters in the world, but in the long term, are we interested in having NATO military experts thoroughly familiarize themselves with them in the near future?"

    And who said that in the long run, the best fighter in the world will be the Su-57, and not the Su-67? laughing
  12. svp67
    svp67 18 December 2019 17: 26
    +2
    In the future, the F-16 were to be supplemented by F-35A Lightning II fighters. First of all, it was planned to replace the decommissioned F-4E fighter-bombers with Lightnings. According to the Turkish military, this machine with a maximum flight speed of 1930 km / h, a maximum take-off mass of 29 kg, a combat radius without refueling and a PTB of 000 km is more suitable for performing attack missions than for intercepting and maneuverable air combat.
    And then why do they need the Su-35, they would be better off offering the MiG-35 or the Su-30 ...
    According to information published in open sources, two AL-35F41S bypass turbojet engines with a service life of 1 hours are installed on the combatant Su-4000S. The service life of the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 EEP engine installed on the Turkish F-16C Block 50+ is 6000 hours.
    Forgive me, but now I do not understand. Quite recently, one of the "Belarusian experts" broadcast that the F-16 engine serves the entire flight cycle of the aircraft ...
    In general, once again we are faced with the problem of the lack of a modern lightweight single-engine fighter
  13. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 18 December 2019 19: 46
    0
    It is interesting - where did the data come from, that the American engine has an assigned resource of 6 hours, and that of Lyulkovsky has 000 hours. What super technologies are applied? Again, the author does not mention the price of engines, and that it is necessary to have a certain reserve of engines for urgent replacements in case of emergency situations.
    1. opus
      opus 18 December 2019 23: 32
      -1
      Quote: TermNachTER
      and Lyulkovsky has 4 hours.

      Today, the AL-41F1S serial engine has take-off thrust on afterburner of 14500 kgf and 8800 kgf without it, and at the same time, its initial designated resource reached 4000 hours, the resource before the 1st control and repair repair (CWR) and overhaul - 1500 kgf, but this is still to be confirmed in conditions of wide flight operation.

      all refer to:


      AL-31FM1 more significant link
      Therefore, the AL-31FM1 engine has not only an increased thrust per ton, but also an overhaul life increased to 1000 hours with an assigned resource of 2000 hours, while AL-31F serial engines have an overhaul life of 500 hours with an assigned resource of 1500 hours


      PRESS CONFERENCE HEAD OF MMPP "SALUT" YU.ELISEEVA


      F100-PW-229 has 6000 cycles since 2010
      The development of the PW-229 EEP was initiated to increase the engine depot inspection interval from 4,300 to 6,000 cycles while maintaining the 29,100 pound thrust rating. This increase is equivalent to extending the depot maintenance interval from seven years to 10 years, a 30 percent life cycle cost reduction over the life of a PW-229 EEP engine


      hence
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 19 December 2019 21: 44
        0
        About Lyulkovsky engine is more or less clear, you can explain about mattress - how are such fabulous parameters?
        1. opus
          opus 19 December 2019 22: 23
          0
          Quote: TermNachTER
          where such fabulous parameters come from?

          ?
          I explained, from here:

          +
          can find warranty in contracts.
          / can not, say: I’ll swing /
          Why is it fabulous?
          My Mercedes W124 300D ran 467 km and was like new. And sold to Muscovites: they grumbled: "why did the run wind up"
          My VAZ -2109 (Night Light) RE-Export began to crumble after 97000km.
          So it was Made in UdSSR (Bosch-generator and wiring, Michelin tires, Vaico sunroof (not leaky), AGB disks, well, and figs the Germans poked tma
          You hope not a local supporter rustic Top Varovskogo malosholnogo Gosha60 (Gosha66), which already has: 4 th (I see) reincarnation?
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 19 December 2019 22: 58
            0
            About how mattresses can draw beautiful numbers, I know. The first to know about this Israeli pilots during the next Arab - Israeli war, when it became clear that the real acceleration characteristics of the F - 16, are very different from those written in the operating instructions. She will endure the paper, I would like some real facts. I still work at the engine-building plant, although not an engineer or designer, but there is some knowledge of turbofan engines. So vague doubts torment me ...
            1. opus
              opus 19 December 2019 23: 11
              0
              Quote: TermNachTER
              About how mattresses can draw beautiful numbers, I know.

              about how our people are able to draw even more beautiful figures, I also know.
              So what?
              final truth: manufacturer data.
              The chief designer of the MiG Design Bureau Rostislav Belyakov at Farnborough-88 said the best thing about this:
              If we hadyl so reliable and high-torque an engine like Pratt & Whitney we would have designed without a doubt single engineth plane

              and it says about the F100-PW-200
              Quote: TermNachTER
              . The first to know about this Israeli pilots

              I don’t know what the Israeli pilots learned there ... but the account of the shot down speaks for itself, and the results of the Arab-Israeli wars.
              The F-16 pivot speed reaches -21,5 ° / s., It is gaining a height of -294 m / s.
              F-16 has at its disposal the largest range of weapons, capable of using guided and unguided bombs and anti-radar missiles. Electronics, placed in an additional container, makes it possible to point the use of weapons. In terms of carrying capacity, the net loss: in the MiG-29 this figure is 2200 kg, in the F-16 - up to 7,5 tons. (second engine! still plays a role)
              Quote: TermNachTER
              I would like some real facts

              If so interesting, wait for the next July, I'll be in Turkey, there ... I'll try to pull something
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 21 December 2019 10: 52
                0
                You know, I've heard this quote many times, but I never saw it in the original. The single-engine MiG - 23 was also not bad. By the way, the Israeli pilots said: "if the" flogger "shifted the plane to maximum sweep and turned on the afterburner, then that's all - it's not worth chasing." As for the results, I can argue that everything depended not only on the planes, there were other equally important reasons. So, I think the choice of a twin-engine scheme for the 29th is not due to bad engines, but other considerations. Again - "what does 6 cycles mean"? Launched the engine - muffled it?
                1. opus
                  opus 22 December 2019 18: 08
                  +2
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  So, I think the choice of a twin-engine scheme for the 29th is due not to bad engines, but to other considerations

                  Well these are not my words, I gave a quote.
                  But if you think about it, everything except to some degree of survivability is worse.
                  logistics. the cost of the life cycle, spare parts, repair, net weight
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  Again - "what does 6 cycles mean"?

                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 22 December 2019 20: 27
                    0
                    In battle, a slightly greater margin of vitality means you will live or music will play loudly in your house, but you will not hear it. The term cycle all the same is not clear. Everything is clear with our engines - the number of hours. Moreover, as one pilot said, the clock can also be considered in any way. An hour on warming up or 6 times for 10 minutes on afterburner, engine wear is completely different. How much is a cycle? Half an hour, an hour and a half? Again, the pilot told me that if in flight, not necessarily combat, the engine was brought to the limit modes - the engine and the rembase must be removed from the plane for a very thoughtful inspection and fault detection.
                    1. opus
                      opus 22 December 2019 21: 49
                      +2
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      In battle, a slightly greater survivability means you will

                      So the F-16 is a completely failed project.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      Everything is clear with our engines - the number of hours.

                      we have the same cycles
                      Markov designed the Tu-104 for 25 flight hours and 000 take-off and landing cycles


                      PS-90A engine flight cycle (cycle) shall be considered the full cycle of voltage and temperature changes of engine parts from start to stop with at least one exit to the airplane take-off mode under normal operation in MGA units

                      Manual for the technical operation of the PS-90A engine Book1 sect. 072.00.00 p. 11 »

                      The engine’s flight cycle ... is considered the complete cycle of changing the voltages and temperatures of engine parts from start to stop with at least one exit to the airplane take-off mode under normal operation.
                      1. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 23 December 2019 21: 13
                        0
                        If the twin-engine scheme is so bad, then why did the F - 15, F - 18? About the cycles. Starting the engine + warming up + entering take-off mode + turn off the engine + let it cool at a temperature of -30 centigrade. Total 30 - 40 min. 6000 cycles is about 4000 hours. Or did I count it wrong?
                    2. EvilLion
                      EvilLion 27 February 2020 08: 25
                      0
                      Nobody will take anything off, the ultimate ones are regular ones. Now, if beyond.
  14. Whalebone
    Whalebone 15 February 2020 21: 36
    0
    It is more difficult for NATO to supply something more difficult than a Kalash - to bury a time bomb under the security of the Russian Federation. Do not try to capitalize on your own safety by arming potential opponents. Turks certainly cannot be called "friends forever".
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 February 2020 08: 23
      0
      And the NATO people themselves can’t arm themselves at all.
  15. EvilLion
    EvilLion 27 February 2020 08: 22
    0
    Now, Perdogan will be awakening in Idlib, and the Turks will eventually be left without a nuclear power plant, and without gas, and without spare parts for the S-400, and without any chance of buying at least some high-tech in Russia.
  16. ochakow703
    ochakow703 29 February 2020 08: 04
    0
    In the light of today's events, the Turks do not even need to sell slingshots.
  17. rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 10 March 2020 14: 18
    0
    To arm your opponent is a very tricky plan