Military Review

Deep modernization. F-35 close to F-22 Raptor

163

Quality and quantity



There is no doubt that the F-35 took off as a combat aircraft. Back in May 2018, the F-35 was first used in a combat situation: it was the Israel Defense Forces vehicles. In 2019, the Jewish state continued striking targets using the F-35. On April 30, 2019, the US Air Force first used F-35A fighters in hostilities: the aircraft attacked ground targets using guided aviation JDAM bombs.

More importantly, as of July 2020, 530, more than 35 F-35 aircraft of different versions were built, with a declared total number of more than three thousand units. The F-XNUMX has become the world's most massive fifth-generation fighter, and with a high degree of probability it will be the only new-generation mass aircraft in general.

Recall that the Americans stopped producing the F-22 long ago and will not start production again. Russia has not yet adopted a single serial Su-57, and the Chinese J-20 is seen an attempt by the PRC to jump over its head, although it is too early to draw concrete conclusions.


In this regard, it is logical that for the Americans (as well as a number of their allies) the F-35 has become the main military project of our time. And they will develop it at any cost. I must say, there is room for growth: so far the plane is far from the capabilities that, say, the above-mentioned F-22 has. This applies, in particular, to the composition of weapons. They want to rectify the situation in the next ten years.

Modernization plan


In July, Aviation Week spoke about a ten-year plan to modernize the F-35. As noted, the F-35 Joint Programming Office (JPO) has identified the first 66 hardware and software upgrades listed in the Block 4 Subsequent Upgrades section of the May 2019 report to Congress. The first eight updates were supposed to go into service back in 2019, but due to unforeseen complications and related later equipment deliveries, only one of them (automatic ground collision avoidance system) was released on time. Others should be operational in the foreseeable future.

According to the plans, the Joint Programming Office decided to use the Block 4 agile development concept. Updates are organized in four main phases: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. In addition, minor improvements will be introduced to minimize risks.

Avionics. The next significant step forward in the Block 4 program will take place in 2023. The block 4.2 configuration will be the first to include the hardware for Technical Update 3 (TR-3). As part of the Tech Refresh 3 update, the aircraft will receive a new processor with increased processing power, a panoramic display for the cockpit and an expanded memory unit.


In practice, this should enable the pilot to receive more complete information from other friendly air, land and sea units. Which will ultimately make the plane even more dangerous. In addition, the F-35 can receive advanced electronic warfare capabilities, which theoretically will effectively block enemy signals. It is worth saying that the TR-3 is facing problems that could have been predicted. JPO is now seeking to increase spending on TR-3 in FY2021 by $ 42 million to offset the higher technical complexity.

Armament. One of the main difficulties of the F-35 is its armament. Currently, the aircraft in its internal compartments can carry no more than four medium-range air-to-air missiles of the AIM-120 AMRAAM type. This should be enough for low-intensity conflicts, but by the standards of 2020 this weapon yet it cannot be considered "ultimatum". It is pertinent to say that the "old" F-22 can carry six AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and two AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles in its internal compartments. The Russian Su-57 is likely to carry four R-77 medium-range air-to-air missiles in the main compartments and another short-range R-73/74 missile each in two side compartments.


The US is well aware that the F-35 does not look like the best air fighter of our day. Of course, the fighter, like its counterparts, is capable of carrying weapons on external holders, but this largely negates its stealth. Therefore, another major update will be the new Sidekick missile launch system. Thanks to it, the Block 4 aircraft will be able to carry six AMRAAM missiles. Ultimately, the F-35 will also be capable of carrying a new, longer-range AIM-260 missile in development, as well as a new anti-radar missile. Only the F-35A and F-35C will receive increased ammunition: on the version with a short takeoff and vertical landing of the F-35B, the Sidekick cannot be used due to the large fan located behind the cockpit.

Future improvements


This, of course, does not end with the modernization of the F-35. In the future, the Israeli Air Force may equip its F-35I Adir with conformal fuel tanks, which will dramatically increase the vehicle's combat range while maintaining stealth at the same level. At the same time, the idea to equip the car with additional outboard fuel tanks (PTB) has not gone anywhere. Recall that Israel wants the plane to be able to carry two PTBs with a volume of 2700 liters each, although this option will undoubtedly affect stealth.

The Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), which involves the development of a three-circuit adaptive engine, can enhance the capabilities of the F-35. It is estimated that the engine will use about 25% less fuel and deliver 10% more thrust than current similar power plants.

Developed under the AETP program by Pratt & Whitney, the XA-101 is a deep redesign of the F135 engine that powers the F-35. It is important to say that the resulting technologies Pratt & Whitney can be used to upgrade other power plants. “Installation of a third circuit on an engine of this size is possible, but it is not easy given the additional weight and complexity of this engine. Using some advanced systems - mechanics, power and temperature management, controls, compressor and turbine, in addition to the three-loop architecture, we can use this technology to upgrade the F100 or F119. So I'm delighted with it, ”said Matthew Bromberg, President of Military Engines at Pratt & Whitney in 2020.


Among other possible improvements to the F-35 is the introduction into the complex of the ability to control unmanned slaves. It is pertinent to say that the US Air Force recently selected four companies to develop such UAVs under the Skyborg program. Kratos, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Atomics were chosen from eighteen companies. The unmanned wingman can be adopted already in the first half of the 2020s.
Author:
163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 28 July 2020 18: 09 New
    12
    M, yes ... they are trying to take not only quantity, but also quality ...
    1. figwam
      figwam 28 July 2020 21: 19 New
      +1
      There is no doubt that the F-35 took off as a combat aircraft. Back in May 2018, the F-35 was first used in a combat situation: it was the Israel Defense Forces vehicles.

      How little it takes for a modern aircraft to just fire rockets or drop bombs, it's good that I could)
      Quote: svp67
      M, yes ... they are trying to take not only quantity, but also quality ...

      Quality !?
      In July, Aviation Week spoke about a ten-year plan to modernize the F-35.

      A quality aircraft has already been prescribed treatment for 10 years)
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 29 July 2020 07: 58 New
        0
        Quote: figvam
        How little it takes for a modern aircraft to just fire rockets or drop bombs, it's good that I could)

        Yes OK. And what other new aircraft have successfully operated in the air defense zone, albeit not the best?
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 29 July 2020 07: 56 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      trying to take not only quantity, but also quality ...

      Who, USAF / Israel Air Force?

      Did this idea occur to you just now?
  2. fider
    fider 28 July 2020 18: 11 New
    +4
    "There is no doubt that the F-35 took off as a combat aircraft."
    And not so long ago they mocked him. If it goes on like this, they will soon admire him. laughing
    1. Shuttle
      Shuttle 28 July 2020 19: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: fider
      "There is no doubt that the F-35 took off as a combat aircraft."
      And not so long ago they mocked him. If it goes on like this, they will soon admire him. laughing

      PR, progmatic and ruthless. This is the trump card of the entire JSF program.
      Image is everything!
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 29 July 2020 06: 13 New
      -2
      "There is no doubt that the F-35 took off as a combat aircraft."
      And not so long ago they mocked him. If this goes on, they will soon admire him

      Well, among fans of the American military-industrial complex, he already causes admiration. And who is more or less in the subject, he understands the absolute groundlessness of this
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 02 New
      -3
      Quote: fider
      And not so long ago they mocked him

      It was mostly internet experts who scoffed at him, who suddenly found out how the planes were delivered, and were very surprised at this. More adequate people saw a new Phantom appear.

      What the Americans and Jews are doing to him is truly the next generation. And this is not some kind of "dad", which is the Raptor, but a massive combat aircraft.

      Quote: Ka-52
      And who is more or less in the subject, he understands the absolute groundlessness of this

      Uh-huh, here's another one.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 29 July 2020 08: 24 New
        +1
        He was bullied mainly by internet experts

        I wonder where this "dick" gets its knowledge from:
        More adequate people

        Are Lockheed Martin employees allowed to sit on VO and sprinkle comments in the sweat of their brow? belay
        that a new Phantom appears

        an aircraft appears with average flight characteristics, good avionics and no concept. And all your snot and tears of affection are understandable - idolatry is such lol
  3. polpot
    polpot 28 July 2020 18: 14 New
    -9
    Another cut of the budget at the start
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 28 July 2020 18: 29 New
      +5
      Not a start for a long time
      1. bar
        bar 28 July 2020 21: 02 New
        0
        But the cut continues at full speed. A good project has been muddied, it will last for a long time laughing
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 29 July 2020 08: 43 New
          0
          The main thing is that we do not fly, as in the Crimean company. We will have less Su35S.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 29 July 2020 18: 55 New
            +1
            Quote: Zaurbek
            The main thing is that we do not fly, as in the Crimean company.

            This is when a coalition of several superpower empires of the time captured a couple of cities on the outskirts of the country?
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 29 July 2020 19: 07 New
              -1
              This was when two European countries were superior technically and militarily to the RI, which was lagging behind at that time. And they landed and defeated the Russian army.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 29 July 2020 21: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: Zaurbek
                This was when two European countries were superior technically and militarily to the RI, which was lagging behind at that time. And landed and defeated

                garrison of Sevastopol. Most of the RI army was not even planned to be sent to Crimea, because it covered the European part of RI.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 30 July 2020 03: 44 New
                  0
                  So, we have provided for such an option.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 30 July 2020 19: 17 New
                    0
                    That is, the reason for the defeat was the enemy's superiority in resources.
            2. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 29 July 2020 20: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Dart2027
              Quote: Zaurbek
              The main thing is that we do not fly, as in the Crimean company.

              This is when a coalition of several superpower empires of the time captured a couple of cities on the outskirts of the country?

              What are these superpowers?
              France? Which was very bad at the time?
              Turkey? Which Nakhimov destroyed the entire fleet?
              England - yes, it was very strong ...

              But the most powerful power in the middle of the 19th century in Europe was precisely Russia!

              And the result of that war was the ban on the Russian fleet on the Black Sea - do you know?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 29 July 2020 21: 21 New
                0
                Quote: SovAr238A
                France? Which was very bad at the time?

                Poorly? It was several years before the defeat by the Germans, so everything was fine.
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Turkey? Which Nakhimov destroyed the entire fleet?
                England - yes, it was very strong ...

                And also Germany and Austria-Hungary, whose threat of invasion distracted most of the army.
                Quote: SovAr238A
                And the result of that war was the ban on the Russian fleet on the Black Sea

                Which in fact did not exist at that time, despite the fact that there was just a transition from sailing to a steam fleet, which means that the construction of new ships required a serious modernization of shipyards. So this ban did not really matter, and when the hands of the Black Sea Fleet reached the Republic of Ingushetia, it was simply sent.
              2. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 29 July 2020 22: 37 New
                -1
                Quote: SovAr238A
                But the most powerful power in the middle of the 19th century in Europe was precisely Russia!

                And the result of that war was the ban on the Russian fleet on the Black Sea - do you know?

                It is useless to explain to them. It feels like Russia is running on a rake. Only Napoleon was defeated, the most powerful army in Europe, but the technical revolution was the beginning of the rearmament of Europe, we have laughter and bravado, a disaster in the Crimea. They rearmed themselves, abolished serfdom, victory in the next Russian-Turkish, but again a technical revolution, laughter and bravado in the country, defeat in the First World War, the collapse of the empire. We won the Second World War, one of the 2 most powerful armies in the world, the information revolution, the transition to hybrid wars, we have laughter and bravado, the collapse of the USSR.
                Now another technical revolution has taken place, there is laughter and bravado in the country, I wonder how all this will end?
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 30 July 2020 03: 46 New
                  0
                  The West, at that time, quickly rearmed itself both technically and tactically. Steamships, rifled guns and small arms appeared.
                  1. Grazdanin
                    Grazdanin 30 July 2020 08: 03 New
                    -1
                    The same thing is happening now. After 23-24 years, the complete rearmament of the air and space forces of the United States and the "West" will begin. By these years, all major weapons testing programs will be completed and a procurement plan can be drawn up.
  4. Ham
    Ham 28 July 2020 18: 22 New
    -4
    "we are upgrading the f-35 to the level of f-22")))
    ... and we resume production of f-15!;)
    oh yeah, the wunderwaffle F-35 definitely "took place" ... especially taking into account the invested funds (and this is far from the end!)
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 28 July 2020 19: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Ham
      "we are upgrading the f-35 to the level of f-22")))
      ... and we resume production of f-15!;)


      Yes, it's enchanting .....

      The Russian Su-57 is likely to carry four R-77 medium-range air-to-air missiles in the main compartments

      Will the author have proof that 4 missiles and not 6?
      And then there are models with 6 RVV SD. The proof is certainly not ice clear, but I have not seen photos of the compartments either ...


      Here's another photoshop seems to be ..
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 30 July 2020 03: 47 New
        0
        Leaks start small ....
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 28 July 2020 19: 18 New
      +6
      Quote: Ham
      "we are upgrading the f-35 to the level of f-22")))

      So I'm very interested in how a single-engine under-attack aircraft was going to become a two-engine fighter to gain air supremacy, given the lack of non-afterburner supersonic, shitty maneuverability and very controversial stealth.
      1. figwam
        figwam 28 July 2020 21: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        So I'm very curious

        And the author sees it that way)
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 09 New
        -2
        Quote: NEXUS
        So I'm very interested in how a single-engine sub-attack aircraft was going to become a two-engine fighter to gain air supremacy

        This refers to the unification of electronics and software. Moreover, the work goes not only with the penguin, but, of course, with the raptor. The Raptor is currently flying the 40th unit, EMNIP.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 30 July 2020 03: 51 New
        0
        They also wrote to you, the main points of the strategy: powerful AFAR, data exchange with the F-35, 22, 16, 15 group, AWACS, Patriot, ships ... a large ammunition load of medium-range missiles (increased in new missiles) ... , Stealth characteristics, a large number of the F-35 themselves.
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 06 New
      0
      Quote: Ham
      ... and we resume production of f-15

      And F-18. Coincidentally, both aircraft are manufactured by Boeing, which is now in trouble.

      Yes, the American military-industrial complex is so peculiar.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 29 July 2020 08: 33 New
        +3
        FA-18E / F Super Hornet All the same, FA-18 Hornet is a different aircraft. F35 originally went to replace the A10, F16, FA-18, Harrier. F-15EX, F-18E / F were planned to be purchased for a long time, they are going according to plan.
        Quote: Octopus
        Boeing, which is now in trouble.

        Problems with the civilian unit, military and space units in chocolate. And civilians' problems are exaggerated, they are firing unnecessary ones, they have it easy.
      2. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 30 August 2020 18: 15 New
        0
        The Navy did not want to resume production and purchase of the FA-18.
  5. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 28 July 2020 18: 24 New
    -1
    Therefore, another major update will be the new Sidekick missile launch system. Thanks to it, the Block 4 aircraft will be able to carry six AMRAAM missiles.


    Someone convinced me that 6 MSDM missiles would not fit in the compartments. Which are 6-8 times smaller than the AIM 120.
  6. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 28 July 2020 18: 28 New
    11
    Quote: svp67
    M, yes ... they are trying to take not only quantity, but also quality ...

    Well, the F - 35 has yet to be upgraded and modernized. Su-27 has been in the ranks for 40 years, but it is quite an efficient machine.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 28 July 2020 18: 32 New
      +3
      I read the history of the teenage series F, every plane was also greeted, stupid, super-expensive, worse than the 3rd generation, and so on. People do not change.
    2. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 28 July 2020 18: 50 New
      -4
      Its derivatives did you mean
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 11 New
        -3
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        Its derivatives did you mean

        No, the Su-27 itself, with and without letters. There are more than 100 of them in the videoconferencing, + in various other places.
  7. Alien From
    Alien From 28 July 2020 18: 35 New
    -1
    You can't just take and write off 530 already produced aircraft. We need to do ours faster!
  8. ares1988
    ares1988 28 July 2020 18: 41 New
    0
    "The Russian Su-57 is probably capable of carrying four R-77 medium-range air-to-air missiles in the main compartments and another short-range R-73/74 missile each in two side compartments." - Does the SU-57 have side armament bays?
    1. AML
      AML 28 July 2020 18: 56 New
      +3
      Uh-huh. Did you see the rush near the air intakes? It is the most.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 28 July 2020 19: 00 New
        0
        https://mobile.twitter.com/vko_russia/status/1062071058046615552?lang=pl
        These compartments?
      2. ares1988
        ares1988 28 July 2020 19: 08 New
        +1
        That's it, I understand what kind of influxes you are talking about. Thank.
  9. Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 28 July 2020 18: 48 New
    -1
    Penguins in the north live. Penguins don't smoke or drink ... I remember there was such a song. But seriously: the USSR died at the peak of its military power. Wish America more upgrades.
  10. CommanderDIVA
    CommanderDIVA 28 July 2020 18: 59 New
    11
    Probably the first non-captive article regarding the "penguin", whatever you say, but the Americans were the first to create a unified and fairly universal 5th generation aircraft with excellent commercial prospects, in a possible confrontation we can oppose the F-35 with our air defense systems and unmanned aerial platforms, superior f-35
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 29 July 2020 06: 18 New
      +1
      but the Americans were the first to create a unified and fairly universal

      that is his problem, not his advantage. Americans have always had better target vehicles than universal ones.
      5th generation aircraft

      well, it's only you and the head of Lockheed Martin that count laughing
      with excellent commercial prospects

      Well, let's write it down - Lightning is primarily a commodity, not a combat fighter designed to defend the country. Bag type of radish
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: CommanderDIVA
      confrontation, we can oppose the f-35 with our air defense systems and unmanned aerial platforms, superior to the f-35

      Are your unmanned platforms superior - is it from your couch?
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 29 July 2020 20: 57 New
      0
      Quote: CommanderDIVA
      Probably the first non-captive article regarding the "penguin", whatever you say, but the Americans were the first to create a unified and fairly universal 5th generation aircraft with excellent commercial prospects, in a possible confrontation we can oppose the F-35 with our air defense systems and unmanned aerial platforms, superior f-35


      If you only know what is in one unmanned platform. we do not have a comparable 30-year-old enemy, and the next 10 years will not.
      And you need to know this, so as not to dream like that ...
      And yes. There won't be a hunter.
  11. AML
    AML 28 July 2020 19: 02 New
    0
    Quote: ares1988
    https://mobile.twitter.com/vko_russia/status/1062071058046615552?lang=pl
    These compartments?

    These are 2 onboard. One more on the wings.
  12. AML
    AML 28 July 2020 19: 17 New
    +4
    Quote: sim232
    Quote: Arthur 85
    But seriously: the USSR died at the peak of its military power.

    This is when you could not defeat Afghanistan?

    And the USSR fought with Afghanistan?
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 29 July 2020 20: 59 New
      0
      Quote: AML
      Quote: sim232
      Quote: Arthur 85
      But seriously: the USSR died at the peak of its military power.

      This is when you could not defeat Afghanistan?

      And the USSR fought with Afghanistan?


      Is not it so? With whom then did our military contingent fight, and why did 15 thousand soldiers and officers die?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 30 July 2020 03: 56 New
        +1
        They died, mainly, during the performance of functions unusual for the army ... patrolling, escorting their own columns, when attacking garrisons. At the same time, the Soviet army was still building peaceful objects and roads. And it was not engaged in the destruction of civilians. And all the battles were won. Now the Americans and the Russian Federation have transferred most of the non-military functions of PMCs, which carry out these functions and also suffer losses that do not fall into the statistics of the Army's losses. Something like this.
  13. Dart2027
    Dart2027 28 July 2020 19: 36 New
    +1
    I didn't understand something. The F35 is a new aircraft. The F22 is an old plane.
    But at the same time the 35th is brought to the level of the 22nd?
    1. Gnefredov
      Gnefredov 28 July 2020 22: 03 New
      +4
      Ok. I'll explain now. The F-22 is so cool (realistically) that even the United States, with the presence of a printing press, overwhelmed to produce it in series.
      The F-35 is a different bird. At first, we thought to make it “like the F-22, well, maybe worse,” but the unexpected happened. Computers have become more powerful and “block A” has gotten to include computing equipment no, not two, sixteen times more with the same power consumption and less weight and dimensions. Not bad?
      Well, the F-22 became a monument to the human genius in the design of gliders, and the future belongs to the F-35 as a computer with wings.

      That something like this.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 28 July 2020 22: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: Gnefredov
        The F-22 is a monument to the human genius in glider design, and the future belongs to the F-35 as a computer with wings.

        And in the USA, for so long (20 years) while working on the project, have they not come up with such a simple thing? Kind of weird.
        1. Gnefredov
          Gnefredov 28 July 2020 22: 27 New
          +1
          Of course. The USSR collapsed, why should they strain?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 29 July 2020 18: 53 New
            0
            Quote: Gnefredov
            The USSR collapsed, why should they strain?

            Maybe, but then it turns out that the 35th is a continuous marriage.
      2. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 28 July 2020 22: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Gnefredov
        The F-35 is like a computer with wings.

        F16 is a computer with wings, F35 is a Server Cluster smile
        1. Gnefredov
          Gnefredov 28 July 2020 22: 36 New
          0
          laughing here you pushed me good
          Ah ha ha !!! Super!
          Thank you!
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 30 July 2020 03: 59 New
          0
          a bunch of sensors were added to F35, which are present in the form of containers in the 4th generation. And on the F35 they are built-in, like the "brains" for processing them and finding targets in the data from them. Against the background of the earth, this is difficult to do. In fact, the pilot and the ground sensors were replaced.
  14. Shuttle
    Shuttle 28 July 2020 21: 02 New
    0
    Is it already recommended for him to fly in supersonic? In the sense that before that it was recommended not to fly, because the stealth coating deteriorates. Have you already decided how?
    (just asked)
    1. Gnefredov
      Gnefredov 28 July 2020 21: 27 New
      +2
      Hello!
      Our “colleagues” focused on ultra-low altitudes. Almost 920 kilometers per hour at an altitude of forty (+ 3 / -2) meters (without GPS, by the way).
      "Supersonic" for an airplane is great. But rockets are faster. Therefore, it is hopeless ... The future belongs to computing power for both the sword and the shield.
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 28 July 2020 22: 18 New
        -1
        Quote: Gnefredov
        Hello!
        Our “colleagues” focused on ultra-low altitudes. Almost 920 kilometers per hour at an altitude of forty (+ 3 / -2) meters (without GPS, by the way).
        "Supersonic" for an airplane is great. But rockets are faster. Therefore, it is hopeless ... The future belongs to computing power for both the sword and the shield.

        Those. Enough of an unexpected obstacle 4-5 meters high and kirdyk to the plane for somersault with a tugrik libertine ?! O-la-la, as the ancient Irish used to say in such cases. It turns out that planes can be caught on high volleyball nets.
        Yes, this is just some kind of holiday - two or three meters at a speed of 920 km / h.
        You, my dear, have you deigned to drive anything faster and heavier than a tricycle? How are you with inertia?
        1. Gnefredov
          Gnefredov 28 July 2020 22: 53 New
          +2
          "Those. An unexpected obstacle with a height of 4-5 meters and kirdyk to the plane is enough. ”- Yes. Enough.
          The only question is, where are we flying from?
          For China - the Himalayas.
          For America, the North Pole.
          There are no downstream obstacles.

          -

          “You, my dear, did you deign to drive anything faster and heavier than a tricycle? How are you doing with inertia? "

          Yes of course. If at least once flew a TU-154, TU-204 as a passenger, then they flew on my wings;)
          This is "civilian". And the three-wheeled bike remained far, far away, somewhere in the middle of the last century.
          1. Shuttle
            Shuttle 29 July 2020 07: 26 New
            -3
            Quote: Gnefredov
            "Those. An unexpected obstacle with a height of 4-5 meters and kirdyk to the plane is enough. ”- Yes. Enough.
            The only question is, where are we flying from?
            For China - the Himalayas.
            For America, the North Pole.
            There are no downstream obstacles.

            -

            “You, my dear, did you deign to drive anything faster and heavier than a tricycle? How are you doing with inertia? "

            Yes of course. If at least once flew a TU-154, TU-204 as a passenger, then they flew on my wings;)
            This is "civilian". And the three-wheeled bike remained far, far away, somewhere in the middle of the last century.

            It is wonderful that you are so closely connected with aviation that the wings of the aircraft you named are literally yours. But what about inertia? After all, even a small cessna flying at a couple of hundred km / h cannot bend around the terrain at 2-3 meters. And here is a combat (not plywood) device and 920 km / h. How is common sense there?
            1. military_cat
              military_cat 29 July 2020 08: 15 New
              0
              Quote: Shuttle
              at 2-3 meters
              You read it crookedly. Try again:
              at an altitude of forty (+ 3 / -2) meters
              1. Gnefredov
                Gnefredov 29 July 2020 09: 44 New
                0
                Right. Shuttle finally figured out that terrain and obstacles are not the same thing.
                Are you attentive :)
            2. Octopus
              Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: Shuttle
              bend around the terrain at 2-3 meters.

              Quote: Gnefredov
              Almost 920 kilometers per hour at an altitude of forty (+ 3 / -2) meters

              What part of the phrase "forty meters" is not clear to you?
              1. Shuttle
                Shuttle 29 July 2020 10: 17 New
                -1
                It turns out that they initially wrote about the deviation from forty meters.
                Well, let's see how it will come out at a speed of 920 km / h to maneuver in a corridor 40 meters from the surface on a piece of iron weighing several tens of tons. Interesting.
            3. Gnefredov
              Gnefredov 29 July 2020 10: 51 New
              0
              Such a "laurel wreath" was never worn on my head even in my best years. Thanks of course. So to appreciate the modest contribution of the spacer between the helm and the glider controls, one must have the talent.
              By the way, tell us about the aircraft's maneuverability at ultra-low altitudes, depending on the density of the environment and temperature, provided that the area of ​​the ailerons should not exceed 7% of the wing area and the mass of the associated equipment (hydraulic cylinders, pumps for their operation, etc.) should not "eat up fuel »More than 0,22% of the total weight of the product.

              Will you solve this problem? I'll give you a credit. In the end, why are you worse than a student of the late 70s, who "playfully" solved this question with two formulas.
        2. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 29 July 2020 21: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: Shuttle

          You, my dear, have you deigned to drive anything faster and heavier than a tricycle? How are you with inertia?


          Those. Are you so weak from a military-technical point of view that you don't even know about automatic flight systems in terrain bend mode?

          “The second time F-111A aircraft returned to the skies of Vietnam at the very end of the war. They were used from September 1972 to February 1973.
          During this period, combat operations with their participation were more successful. In total, the aircraft made more than 4 thousand flights.
          More than 98% of all combat sorties of these bombers took place at low altitude (60-75 meters at a flight speed of Mach 0,9) in the terrain enveloping mode. American pilots called this flight "cross-country skiing." The aircraft's tactics and capabilities justified themselves.

          The F-111A was used to strike targets in North Vietnam (in the area with the strongest air defense system), as well as in Laos, and again, as in 1968, flew autonomously - without cover and air refueling. "

          A very reliable system already existed 50 years ago.
          0.9M is 1100km / hour.

          Please do not write more such nonsense, with such aplomb, especially where you have never read anything ...
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 30 July 2020 04: 01 New
        0
        This reduces visibility in the IR spectrum and, in combination with the STELS coating and shapes, reduces visibility on radars.
  15. bar
    bar 28 July 2020 21: 06 New
    +1
    There are problems with the placement of weapons, and with the range, and with the speed, and "the air fighter is not the best." And with all this "the project was a success." Either I don't understand something, or all the luck lies in the length of the budget cut. This really works out well. laughing
  16. Gnefredov
    Gnefredov 28 July 2020 21: 12 New
    +1
    And they will do it. There is no fantasy here. One involuntarily recalls a phrase that is hard-edged in memory: "Science begins where statistics was born."
    Systematic, systematic work on a project will certainly yield results. MIG-31 of this concept is a good example.
    The F-35 is testing the technology of the future. The military future. The F-35 is a robot. Well, almost, already a robot. I believe that already in this decade we will see this product in a new role, namely, as an element of a synthetic system capable of making independent decisions.

    No politics. Already existing computing power allows an ordinary door from the house to make such maneuvers (just screw the box with the "brains" and sprinkle it) that I, as a dinosaur of the 80's systems technology, can only groan and gasp.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 28 July 2020 21: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: Gnefredov
      The military future. F-35 - robot

      I disagree. Mobile control center and decision making, yes. Computing power and a man on board will allow you to control the swarm of UAVs that will do the main work.
      1. Gnefredov
        Gnefredov 28 July 2020 21: 40 New
        +4
        I will object. The control center (even mobile) can be calculated and, accordingly, measures can be taken to eliminate it. Parallel computing systems (when each product has an equally powerful computing complex) are free from this drawback. You can deactivate 9 out of ten objects, the tenth will solve the problem.

        The design approach has been conceptually changed. This is what I caught and I want to convey. There will be no unified decision-making center in the future (like the "red button").
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 28 July 2020 22: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Gnefredov
          The design approach has been conceptually changed.

          I agree completely. While there is a dispute about the US agility and super-maneuverability, it moves to another level. When all the dangerous work is done by drones.

          [
          Quote: Gnefredov
          Parallel computing systems (when each product has an equally powerful computing complex) are free from this drawback.

          It is expensive, very expensive. It is clear that the F35s will exchange information and work together as a single network, but I'm talking about something else.
          The F35 and F15EX will be the control centers for the slave UAVs. The conditional F35 controls the conditional 3 "medium" XQ-58, 6 "easy" UTAP-22. They carry the main armament, a radar emitter, reconnaissance means, self-defense means, electronic warfare, decoys, etc. everything that the F35 can give. Receives information from all drones and issues tasks, of course in automatic mode, the pilot issues general commands and orders to open fire.
          A link of 4 F35s are united into a common network, as a result we get 36 aircraft at the price of four F35s + 4 leading ones. The UAV is not a pity to lose, you can safely exchange 3 Drones for 1 manned fighter.
          To destroy 40 aircraft, 60-80 missiles are needed in a narrow area, who can provide this?
          Quote: Gnefredov
          The control center (even mobile) can be calculated and, accordingly, measures can be taken to eliminate it.

          This is very difficult to do quickly, electronic intelligence systems will not help, the system I have described is self-contained, all this happens at a low altitude, without communication or with a very short communication with the command center.
          1. Gnefredov
            Gnefredov 28 July 2020 22: 22 New
            0
            Complete the phrase “F35 and F15EX will be the control centers for the slave UAVs” with the words - no pilots. And you perfectly described the concept of the future military confrontation.

            Although, of course, I can't help but complain about myself: one thermonuclear "thing" of ten megatons will zero all computer stacks at once, within a radius of 120 miles.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 28 July 2020 22: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: Gnefredov
              Complete the phrase “F35 and F15EX will be the control centers for the slave UAVs” with the words - no pilots.

              It is not yet possible, you need to work out the system that I described, collect statistics, process, teach. And all projects to convert manned aircraft into unmanned aircraft are not very successful.
              You are talking about a 6th generation fighter, conditional F60, in my scenario we change 3 F35 to F60 in unmanned execution, leave one F60 in manned and everything works even better.

              Quote: Gnefredov
              one ten megaton thermonuclear "thing" will zero all computer stacks at once, within a radius of 120 miles.

              EMP has a much smaller radius and how it will be protected from it is clear for a very long time.
              1. Gnefredov
                Gnefredov 28 July 2020 23: 12 New
                +2
                You have touched upon a very delicate topic. I'm a little confused;) Let's do this:
                1) 95% agree with your concept (and approach)
                2) I do not have the opportunity to continue the dialogue, as much as I would not like it.
                -
                In general, catch a plus. I really like your approach to topics (not only in this thread) because it is logical and reasonable, and does not depend on the "political wind".
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 28 July 2020 23: 21 New
                  +1
                  1. Naturally, various variations are possible, I described the schemes lying on the surface, in the western sites they say more about them.
                  2. That's what the forum is for, to write when it's convenient
                  Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate it very much, it was pleasant to talk to, you rarely meet such an adequate interlocutor.
                  1. Gnefredov
                    Gnefredov 28 July 2020 23: 26 New
                    0
                    This is mutual. Thank.
            2. onstar9
              onstar9 8 August 2020 05: 22 New
              0
              Something seems to me that in the sky for a cube of 120 miles there will not be so many airplanes ... You can't get enough of thermonuclear "pieces" ...
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 29 July 2020 06: 30 New
      -2
      The F-35 is testing the technology of the future. The military future. The F-35 is a robot. Well, almost, already a robot.

      The main problem of civilian "experts" is that you think in one category - if you take a cart and smear it with devices, armor and weapons without measure, then it will defeat any opponent. The problem is that she will remain a wagon. Air combat is not a wall-to-wall battle. Read at least for an example, "Combat control of aviation" (under the editors of Postnov, Pankov and Zaburaev). At least get an idea of ​​the nature of the conditions that arise during an EO.
      1. Gnefredov
        Gnefredov 29 July 2020 12: 11 New
        0
        You shouldn't "run into" me. In principle, I understand you. We are talking about the same thing only in different words.
        For you - the steering wheel, and for me - the automatic throttle. You mean maneuverability, but for me - weight and dimensions.
        This dialogue can be continued indefinitely. Moreover, we will both be right.
        Let's close this discussion. Already too far from the topic (I promise you will still fray your nerves at the opportunity). drinks
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 29 July 2020 12: 17 New
          0
          laughing drinks good luck to you too hi
  17. lopvlad
    lopvlad 28 July 2020 21: 35 New
    +2
    F-35 close to F-22 Raptor


    easier and cheaper to build from scratch.
  18. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 28 July 2020 21: 44 New
    -2
    There is no doubt that the F-35 took off as a combat aircraft

    You can not read further.
  19. gvozdan
    gvozdan 28 July 2020 21: 48 New
    -2
    Objectively - the plane G. Against the background of the thrown in money, there is even more G. Given the fact that there is nothing new and breakthrough in it, after the F-22 it is even sadder.

    What is the F-35 the first and the best in the world?
    here is the main question.
    By price? by the number of pieces? This doesn't say anything especially in the US.
    By stealth? which is objectively and for certain not known to anyone (except for a handful of specialists who conducted the testing).
    And it turns out that nothing. And experts (foreign) unanimously, from the first day either very strongly doubt him or frankly spit.

    A simple question, what prevented the F-35A and F-35C instead of the F-22A (land) and F-22C (naval ejection) ??? So that then f35 does not reach the level of f22. And only leave the vertical line Ф35В.

    If F35 really has some kind of breakthrough stealth technology or electronics, what made it difficult to integrate them into the existing F-22?

    The F-35 is one of the most striking cases when marketing won over common sense.
    1. Gnefredov
      Gnefredov 28 July 2020 22: 24 New
      +1
      F-35 - platform. Maybe as an airplane and a glider in the usual sense, it is not outstanding, but as a test bench ... Above any praise.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 28 July 2020 22: 35 New
        -1
        Quote: Gnefredov
        Maybe as an airplane and a glider in the usual sense, he is not outstanding

        It is approximately equal to F16, like an airplane, in some parameters it is better, in some it is slightly worse.
        1. Gnefredov
          Gnefredov 29 July 2020 00: 19 New
          +2
          F-16 at> 450 - "ax". There was a variation with “VERY LARGE” flaps, but the whole project came to a head after the death of Smith.Anderson (a cool pilot, by the way). So, the following idea was put into the F-16 "short landing": "very large flaps" - 45% of the wing area,
          In general, it looked scary. F-16 with half wing.
          Everything was hard and dull. When approaching the glide path, the glider entered the runway. Having already touched the chassis, the glider spun and the cockpit crashed into the runway

          Anderson was killed. After this test, the F-16s with "large flaps" were stopped, as time has shown forever.
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 29 July 2020 06: 45 New
          0
          It is approximately equal to F16, like an airplane, in some parameters it is better, in some it is slightly worse.

          this is a very bad comparison because The F-16 is definitely not the most outstanding aircraft issued to the mountain by the American military-industrial complex.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 26 New
            -3
            Quote: Ka-52
            The F-16 is definitely not the most outstanding aircraft issued to the mountain by the American military-industrial complex.

            )))
            But the USSR, let alone the Russian Federation, could not repeat it. F-15 somehow managed, F-16 no longer exists. This engine was not enough.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 29 July 2020 08: 35 New
              +1
              But the USSR, let alone the Russian Federation, could not repeat it. F-15 somehow managed, F-16 no longer exists. This engine was not enough.

              Well, yes, it’s easy to blurt out about "not shmagli", but to think that Falcon is a light single-engine fighter and to compare it with the main Soviet-Russian twin-engine aircraft is not correct - already the RAM does not allow.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 29 July 2020 10: 05 New
                -1
                Quote: Ka-52
                comparing it with the Soviet-Russian main twin-engine aircraft is not correct

                What exactly is incorrect? What to put on the Mig one engine were afraid?
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 29 July 2020 10: 49 New
                  +2
                  What exactly is incorrect? What to put on the Mig one engine were afraid?

                  the tradition of the two-motor circuit. There are significant benefits. First, the total thrust is higher than that of one. Reliability. Spaced propulsion systems increase maneuverability.
                  1. Gnefredov
                    Gnefredov 29 July 2020 11: 23 New
                    0
                    Spaced propulsion systems increase maneuverability.
                    -
                    Decrease.
                    1. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 29 July 2020 11: 46 New
                      0
                      Decrease.

                      the farther from the X-axis the control planes, the higher the aircraft roll speed. Here, a special role is played by UHT - the farther they are from each other, the more influence is exerted by the differential deflection of the nozzle flaps, especially when the aircraft rotates around the longitudinal axis (OX).
                      1. Gnefredov
                        Gnefredov 29 July 2020 11: 53 New
                        0
                        Right. And the single-engine circuit is proof of that.
                      2. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 29 July 2020 12: 14 New
                        0
                        Right. And the single-engine circuit is proof of that.

                        what is true and what is confirmed? Single-engine aircraft have one plus - a good moment of inertia, due to the fact that the mass is located close to the longitudinal axis. This has a positive effect on maneuverability. But not as effective. It is not for nothing that all air fighters are made according to a two-engine scheme: F-22, F-18, Sukhoi line.
                      3. Gnefredov
                        Gnefredov 29 July 2020 12: 33 New
                        0
                        No, not in vain. Because the thrust of "one propeller" is not enough. So we put two. It's a bad idea, though.
                        You see, if you have a motor with a thrust of 2,5 from a pair, well agree, put yourself in the shoes of a designer. What do you choose?
                      4. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 29 July 2020 12: 45 New
                        0
                        No, not in vain. Because the thrust of "one propeller" is not enough. So we put two. It's a bad idea, though.

                        you are not correctly comparing and not correctly drawing conclusions. Let me remind you once again that the Americans followed the path of creating a light and cheap (not so cheap as it turned out later) fighter in the face of the F-16. For the sake of this, they resigned themselves to a small radius of action (which had to fence a garden with PTB and conformal tanks). Ours initially repelled from an aircraft with a greater mass (and therefore with a large volume of internal TB), which gave an increased combat radius. Seabiscuit's thrust-to-weight ratio is higher than Flanker's, and that's a fact.
                        Now the situation with the F-35 is very similar. Single engine unit with small internal volume of fuel tanks. Performance characteristics are pretty mediocre. The F-22 had two engines giving thrust, which brought it to the NW cruising flight. The single-engine F-35 does not. Its acceleration characteristics do not allow it to reach maximum aerodynamic quality with the existing S-planes and fuselage geometry
                      5. Gnefredov
                        Gnefredov 29 July 2020 12: 56 New
                        -1
                        It is clear that the thrust-to-weight ratio is higher with two motors. But the consumption of fuels and lubricants is also higher. And much more ...
                        No, the single-engine circuit is cooler. One axle, half a ton of hydraulics (not a ton), there are many advantages.
                        Although the "inquisitive devil" will ask: what will happen if you put two engines on your "piece"?
                      6. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 29 July 2020 12: 59 New
                        0
                        Although the "inquisitive devil" will ask: what will happen if you put two engines on your "piece"?

                        Americans don't need that. Because they designed an airplane for trade, for business, for this, the cost price is important to them on the airplane, not the performance characteristics. They have super hornets for war.
                      7. Gnefredov
                        Gnefredov 29 July 2020 14: 41 New
                        0
                        OffTop.
                        We cannot drink together.
        3. Zloyxirurg
          Zloyxirurg 1 August 2020 21: 26 New
          0
          And then suddenly an aviation technician specialist fell into a trouble.
  20. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 29 July 2020 11: 18 New
    0
    They were not afraid to bet. The single-engine MiG-23/27 flew, DEMONSTRATING In the 80s, a lower accident rate than the MiG-29. The power of the available engines at the end of the 70s made it possible to create a 4-generation single-engine aircraft with the tactical characteristics of the MiG-29. But something went wrong. (from.)

    For clarity, we look at the performance characteristics of the F-16 engine in the MIDDLE 80s,
    F100-PW-220
    Maximum thrust: 6618 kgf
    Afterburner Thrust: 10778 kgf
    Weight: 1470 kg ..

    Motor Al-31
    Max thrust: 7630 kgf
    Afterburner Thrust: 12500 kgf
    Weight: 1530 kg
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 29 July 2020 12: 38 New
      -1
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      But something went wrong. (with.)

      Uh-huh.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 29 July 2020 09: 09 New
    -4
    The F-16 really has not the best performance characteristics. But it is not important. The F16 is the most popular aircraft, the MiG 29 is the most downed aircraft of the 4th generation. Real conditions differ from training ones.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 29 July 2020 10: 58 New
      0
      The F-16 really has not the best performance characteristics. But it is not important. The F16 is the most popular aircraft, the MiG 29 is the most downed aircraft of the 4th generation. Real conditions differ from training ones.

      although the minus is not mine, but I disagree. The massiveness of the F-16 has the same roots as the massiveness of the F-35 - let's pay tribute to the LM marketers and their lobbies. Well, something, but they know how to sell.
      The incapacity of the MiG29, like any other Soviet-Russian technology, in the hands of the 3rd world countries, not in the aircraft themselves, but in securing their database management. And inadequate flight training of pilots.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 29 July 2020 11: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Grazdanin
      MiG 29 is the most downed aircraft of the 4th generation. Real conditions differ from training ones.

      The reasons for this indecency depend on the properties of the aircraft to a minimum. Put in all known situations when the MiG-29 got lost - F-16, Eurofight or Hornet for example. Everything would have ended the same way.
      The reasons are as follows, as your opponent rightly points out to you.
      The downsizing of the MiG29, like any other Soviet-Russian technology, is in the hands of the 3rd world countries not in the aircraft themselves, but in ensuring that they maintain a database.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 29 July 2020 11: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        The reasons for this indecency depend on the properties of the aircraft to a minimum.

        That's it. The entire aviation complex is important, support, reconnaissance, support, information systems, etc. "Dog dump", in modern conditions, will only be in exercises.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 29 July 2020 12: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Grazdanin
          "Dog dump", in modern conditions, will only be on the exercises.

          There is no reason to believe that this will not happen during air battles. It should be understood that there have been no air battles since the first Gulf War. Downed by fighters were in the conditions of colossal air supremacy on one side. And there are no fights. Besides the legend of the battles in Eritrea ..
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 29 July 2020 12: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Grazdanin
              And yes they will fight in conditions of quantitative and qualitative superiority, why should they refuse this?


              Are you serious about this? In a "normal large-scale air-land-sea battle", at least partially comparable forces will not work out that way (even without the use of tactical nuclear weapons), not to mention that quantitative and qualitative approaches apply exclusively to the United States and partly to Israel, moreover, exclusively in their region. And actually nobody else can pull it.
            2. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 29 July 2020 12: 31 New
              0
              Absolutely. The United States will fight with complete air superiority. Otherwise, they just won't fight smile
            3. Octopus
              Octopus 29 July 2020 12: 36 New
              -1
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              approaches exclusively to the United States and partly to Israel, moreover, exclusively in its region. And actually nobody else can pull it.

              What are you talking about? If about the Penguin, then this is the plane of Israel, NATO and the Japanese with the Koreans, and it was for such a battle that it was invented - under AWACS. If the fact that some Libyans are better off with the MiG-29 is probably better, only against the mentioned chances there is still no chance, and in local disassembly planes are not really needed.
            4. Ka-52
              Ka-52 29 July 2020 13: 52 New
              +1
              then this is an Israeli plane

              I have only one version of why the Jews need this plane - in case of a war with Iran, provided that the Russian Federation supplies it with S-400 complexes. There are no more arguments.
              and in local disassembly planes are not very much needed.

              that's really not true. Both Syria and Libya show that the side with the aircraft has an undeniable advantage. With proper use
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 29 July 2020 13: 48 New
          +1
          There are grounds. "Western" pilots will move away from close combat, their regulations are not ordered to approach.

          firstly, this is already excellent, since an enemy attack thwarted as a result of interception is already a victory
          secondly, they will not be able to leave close combat in all cases. At some point, they either cannot or will not have time
        3. chingachguc
          chingachguc 29 July 2020 17: 10 New
          0
          if you move away from close combat, air domination cannot be seen as your ears
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 29 July 2020 18: 46 New
    0
    Yes, read col.Higby. Ariel combat BWR. 2005. What the US Air Force basically thinks about air combat ...
  • Gnefredov
    Gnefredov 29 July 2020 11: 24 New
    0
    You are correct (yes, I read the comments below). You're right.
  • Zloyxirurg
    Zloyxirurg 1 August 2020 21: 25 New
    0
    You blurted out something nonsense. Considering that at the time when F16 was just being developed, in the USSR and a bunch of other countries a couple of decades had already flown Thousands and thousands of massive, high-speed, battle-tested, quite maneuverable ONE-ENGINE MiG-21 fighters.
    If memory serves, the most massive jet combat aircraft. And what do you think, the USSR has suddenly forgotten how to produce such engines, after almost 30 years of producing world-famous "balalaikas"?
    Strange.

    The concept of abandoning a single-engine aircraft was a conscious technical vector for the development of combat aviation in the USSR.
    So stop saying weird things. Those who know how to design good engines can do anything for any aircraft. Time, those holes, money. That's all it takes. It was all in the USSR.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 1 August 2020 22: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Zloyxirurg
      quite maneuverable SINGLE-ENGINE MiG-21 fighters.

      Well, if you have a MiG-21 - an analogue of the F-16, then OK.
      Quote: Zloyxirurg
      Those who know how to design good engines can do anything for any aircraft.

      Ugums.
      But the problem is that the USSR always lagged behind in engines, and in the mid-70s, the AL-31 was not equal to the F110 to such an extent that even the fearless, frankly, Soviet defense industry was afraid of it.
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 29 July 2020 06: 35 New
    0
    Maybe as an airplane and a glider in the usual sense, he is not outstanding

    structurally, a glider is a part of an aircraft. It's like saying: "Ivan Ivanovich as a person and as a body with arms and legs in the usual sense is not outstanding." laughing

    but as a test bench ... Above all praise.

    what nonsense .... Let me remind you that on the F-35 program the Americans spent more than 50 billion (!!!!!!!) dollars and plus the same amount was spent on the production of more than 500 cars. Do you have enough money "for the test bench"? belay For example, I will say that the cost of this "stand" is approximately equal to the cost of 6 (!) Such giants as the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 29 July 2020 21: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Ka-52
      Let me remind you that the Americans spent more than 35 billion (!!!!!!!) dollars on the F-50 program, plus the same amount was spent on the production of more than 500 cars. Do you have enough money "for the test bench"? belay For example, I will say that the cost of this "stand" is approximately equal to the cost of 6 (!) such giants as the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford


      stop counting the costs of R&D, preparation of production from the assembler and 5000 suppliers, completely new BAO support, new hangars, retraining of pilots, technicians, the salaries of these same pilots and technicians, all fuel spent - as the cost of aircraft.

      They use the term "program cost" - in which everything, everything, everything of the above is included ...


      And we have - the cost of one aircraft "paid to the assembly plant" ...
      Because all other factories, enterprises. educational institutions, fuel companies, etc. - go to separate, other items of expenditure. And they are not "software". It is much easier to smear the layer of caviar this way ... it turns out imperceptibly for those who don't consider it necessary to see the difference.

      Have you ever considered the cost of buying a car, and the cost of owning it?
      I have a control fleet of 140 cars .. and 400 drivers for them.
      I can assure you that with a mileage of 150 thousand kilometers a year, the cost of buying a car becomes extremely insignificant ..
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 30 July 2020 04: 33 New
        0
        stop counting the costs of R&D, preparation of production from the assembler and 5000 suppliers, completely new BAO support, new hangars, retraining of pilots, technicians, the salaries of these same pilots and technicians, all fuel spent - as the cost of aircraft.

        what kind of stupidity did you write now? belay
        My opponent said above that the F-35 as a plane is so-so, but how test bench wonderful thing. To which I objected that it was too expensive for the American taxpayer to create "test bench"... It's like the story with Zumwalt - 22 mldr plunged into something incomprehensible, and now they don't know where to attach it. And the statements about the Zumwalts as an experimental laboratory raise a lot of questions - was the "laboratory" too expensive? For example, this is in 55 times morethat is invested in the Musk program - SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon. Is it getting there or not?
        And you have suffered some kind of fierce delirium about
        Have you ever considered the cost of buying a car, and the cost of owning it?
        I have a control fleet of 140 cars .. and 400 drivers for them.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 29 July 2020 08: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: gvozdan
    stealth? which is objectively and for certain not known to anyone (except for a handful of specialists who conducted the testing).

    And what's wrong with that?
    Quote: gvozdan
    experts (foreign) unanimously, from the first day either very strongly doubt him or openly spit.

    Those that are translated for you into Russian. Basically, these are "experts" of the cult Russian magazine in the American language "National Interest".
    Quote: gvozdan
    to make an F-22A and an F-22C?

    But why?
    Quote: gvozdan
    f35 does not reach the level of f22

    Nobody is going to "hold out" it, these are different planes with different functions.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 30 August 2020 18: 05 New
    0
    Quote: gvozdan
    A simple question, what prevented the F-35A and F-35C instead of the F-22A (land) and F-22C (naval ejection) ???


    The Navy needs a strike aircraft, not an air superiority fighter.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 29 July 2020 00: 26 New
    0
    You are all right.
    Oh, those headlines.

    In fact, it describes the usual modernization of the aircraft - electronics, engine, suspension.
    All of this has been served in our country more than once.

    And about a year ago, they wrote here that, on the contrary, outdated electronics from F22 will be changed to F 35
  • 123456789
    123456789 29 July 2020 08: 20 New
    -2
    Born to crawl can not fly
  • Alexander Terentyev
    Alexander Terentyev 29 July 2020 10: 25 New
    -2
    There has not yet been a single F-35 air battle with potential enemy aircraft.
    And versions, hypotheses and praises - the sea! Let them drag their miracle to Alabino - our pilots will show what it is worth. Even without turning on the radar.
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 29 July 2020 12: 47 New
      +1
      When the war starts to be justified, too, will you be that they are not fighting in Alabino?
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 30 August 2020 17: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Alexander Terentyev
      There has not yet been a single F-35 air battle with potential enemy aircraft.


      So what? The same can be said about the Su-57 and the Su-35.
  • Operator
    Operator 29 July 2020 12: 29 New
    -5
    African-Americans with their "Penguin" shod the Israelis like pedal suckers - therefore the latter breed mountains of waste paper about what a formidable weapon the "Penguin" is about to become.

    Even judging by the next advertising article, the "Penguin" will forever remain with a shabby stealth coating (and therefore radio-visible at a distance of up to 500 km) and an engine without UVP (and therefore shot down by explosive missiles at a distance twice as long as the SU-57 and F-22).

    Especially amused by the statement of the Israelis about allegedly stealth overhead fuel tanks for the "Penguin" laughing
  • vgbdffg
    vgbdffg 29 July 2020 13: 04 New
    +3
    They will finalize, get an excellent plane.
  • AML
    AML 29 July 2020 23: 31 New
    0
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Quote: AML
    Quote: sim232
    Quote: Arthur 85
    But seriously: the USSR died at the peak of its military power.

    This is when you could not defeat Afghanistan?

    And the USSR fought with Afghanistan?


    Is not it so? With whom then did our military contingent fight, and why did 15 thousand soldiers and officers die?


    The USSR fought against bandit formations raised and trained by Western partners. They do not hide it. Why did you fight? A couple of hundred Pershing that NATO decided to place in Europe was a lot, but also a crowd of armed bandits at hand is just too much. Did the events of 79 resemble the preparations for the war between NATO and the USSR? More than.

    The USSR suffered great losses? Big ones. But if he had not intervened, he would have carried much more. By the way, in Russia, about 70 thousand people die from drug addiction every year. Where does the main drug traffic come from?
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 30 July 2020 00: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: AML
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Quote: AML
      Quote: sim232
      Quote: Arthur 85
      But seriously: the USSR died at the peak of its military power.

      This is when you could not defeat Afghanistan?

      And the USSR fought with Afghanistan?


      Is not it so? With whom then did our military contingent fight, and why did 15 thousand soldiers and officers die?


      The USSR fought against bandit formations raised and trained by Western partners. They do not hide it. Why did you fight? A couple of hundred Pershing that NATO decided to place in Europe was a lot, but also a crowd of armed bandits at hand is just too much. Did the events of 79 resemble the preparations for the war between NATO and the USSR? More than.

      The USSR suffered great losses? Big ones. But if he had not intervened, he would have carried much more. By the way, in Russia, about 70 thousand people die from drug addiction every year. Where does the main drug traffic come from?


      Where are you bringing this from?
      I was born in 1971, and I perfectly remember all the politics from TV, and the whole truth from those who served.
      These are the dekhans, who do not tolerate anyone's power over themselves, or were they raised?

      there wars have been going on, are going on and will go on, just because of tribal differences ...


      Afghans, specifically Afghans, invaded at least one country?
      They are fighting among themselves.
      Under what side, what danger could they carry for the Soviet Union?

      Stop carrying this rabid propaganda, as if you returned 40 years ago
      1. AML
        AML 30 July 2020 01: 15 New
        -1
        Quote: SovAr238A

        Where are you bringing this from?
        ....
        These are the dekhans, who do not tolerate anyone's power over themselves, or were they raised?

        there wars have been going on, are going on and will go on, just because of tribal differences ...
        Under what side, what danger could they carry for the Soviet Union?
        ....
        Stop carrying this rabid propaganda, as if you returned 40 years ago


        - Was there an armed coup attempt in 79? With whose money and under whose leadership?
        - Wars over disagreements began after who got in there?

        Che there about dekhanes, who do not tolerate anyone's power over themselves, perhaps they were raised? About Pakistan next to generally keep quiet - propaganda and all that. I understand, I understand.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 30 August 2020 17: 12 New
          0
          Quote: AML
          Was there an armed coup attempt in 79?


          Yes. Moreover, successful. Operation Alpha and Pennant was included in the textbooks.
          1. AML
            AML 30 August 2020 20: 54 New
            0
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            Quote: AML
            Was there an armed coup attempt in 79?


            Yes. Moreover, successful. Operation Alpha and Pennant was included in the textbooks.


            It was a rhetorical question.
            It meant a coup attempt that the United States tried to pull off at the beginning of 79, even before the contingent entered. The pennant was later.
  • times
    times 31 July 2020 13: 04 New
    0
    The F-35 is not a 5th generation aircraft - there is no supersonic cruise. When it appears, then it will be possible to count.
  • Afotin
    Afotin 3 August 2020 07: 16 New
    0
    This miracle of hostile technology is already at the price of a cast-iron bridge apiece, and they also decided to start modernization. However, this is not surprising. The plane is damp, the F-15 alone won't make much of it, but it is vital to solve the problem. Otherwise, even China will be able to crush them militarily.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 4 August 2020 20: 16 New
    0
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Quote: CommanderDIVA
    Probably the first non-captive article regarding the "penguin", whatever you say, but the Americans were the first to create a unified and fairly universal 5th generation aircraft with excellent commercial prospects, in a possible confrontation we can oppose the F-35 with our air defense systems and unmanned aerial platforms, superior f-35


    If you only know what is in one unmanned platform. we do not have a comparable 30-year-old enemy, and the next 10 years will not.
    And you need to know this, so as not to dream like that ...
    And yes. There won't be a hunter.


    Where does the information come from? OBS? Read what they experience in Syria ... laughing
  • onstar9
    onstar9 8 August 2020 05: 55 New
    0
    After reading all the comments here about the F-35, I made a radical conclusion. I realized that this is a bad plane ... In any case, it is worse than Russian and is not at all a fifth generation aircraft. Wasted money ... The paradox is that if you compare the aircraft industry in Russia and the United States, and the two countries themselves, then two things are clearly visible. The Americans spent $ 60 billion on development and made a bad plane. Russian costs for fighters are certainly an order of magnitude less, but our fighters are better. Better, despite the massive embezzlement of the budget, and the presence of all these Usmanovs with the Millers and Sechins, with the world's most expensive yachts. And all this with a continuous reduction in the education budget, the outflow of specialists abroad and a complete blockade of the country in the form of sanctions on all modern components, equipment and materials. There can only be one conclusion - our developers are ten times more talented and smarter than all these American developers. There is simply no other explanation ...