Military Review

In China: carrier-based fighter J-31 will be the only competitor for the American F-35B

104
In China: carrier-based fighter J-31 will be the only competitor for the American F-35B

Photo: Chinese Ministry of Defense



In China, it is reported that active work continues on the creation of the second type of Chinese new generation fighters - the J-31. According to the Chinese classification, it belongs to the 4th generation, which corresponds to the international version of the fifth generation of fighters.

According to the latest information, Chinese specialists are busy solving the problem of increasing the thrust of the J-31 engine - with bringing the thrust indicators to those parameters that would provide not only super-maneuverability, but also the ability to take off from the deck of aircraft carriers without problems. It is recalled that starting with Type 003, the PLA Navy's aircraft carriers will have a flat deck. It is for this variant that the newest Chinese fighter J-31 is being created.

In China, the emphasis is on the following thesis: the carrier-based J-31 "will become the only competitor" for the American 5th generation F-35В fighter in the medium term. Other states, including Russia, do not have their own 5th generation carrier-based fighters. The Russian Su-57 is not positioned (at the moment) as a platform for creating a new-generation carrier-based aircraft, and even with aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy, everything is still difficult.

By and large, there is no new generation carrier-based fighter at the moment in China itself. However, according to tradition, the Chinese media are running ahead and already announcing the J-31 as ready to enter service with the PLA Navy.

It is also difficult to understand the statement that the J-31 will "become the only competitor" for the F-35B. A competitor in the sky, for example, over the South China Sea - perhaps. But not in the arms market, exactly. NATO countries during fleets which have aircraft carriers, clearly will not be interested in the Chinese J-31. India does not belong to China's military-technical partners. Russia is still thinking about resolving issues with the development of the aircraft carrier fleet as such.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of China
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 29 August 2020 09: 12 New
    +9
    It's a pity all the same Yak-141 ...
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 29 August 2020 09: 21 New
      -10
      Quote: Victor_B
      It's a pity all the same Yak-141 ...

      Not a damn thing. Until now, the F-35 cannot be brought to mind
      1. FenH
        FenH 29 August 2020 09: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Vadivak
        Yak-141 ...

        So F-22, as it were, and not with vertical takeoff repeat
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 29 August 2020 09: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: FenH
          So F-22, as it were, and not with vertical takeoff

          F-35 essno sorry
          1. FenH
            FenH 29 August 2020 09: 29 New
            0
            Quote: Vadivak
            Quote: FenH
            So F-22, as it were, and not with vertical takeoff

            F-35 essno sorry

            drinks hi
          2. dauria
            dauria 29 August 2020 10: 31 New
            +2
            F-35 essno sorry


            The F-35 was originally designed as a "three-in-one" in land, sea for aircraft carriers and VTOL aircraft with a lifting fan behind the cockpit and a drive from the main engine gearbox. With a compatibility of parts under 70%.
            Such were the ambitions of the Americans: to replace the Harrier, F-18, F-16. And to save money It turned out kind of bearable.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2020 10: 53 New
              +5
              Quote: dauria
              Replace Harrier, F-18, F-16. And save

              Yes, there were such plans
              Quote: dauria
              It turned out kind of bearable.

              It didn't work at all. The requirements for VTOL aircraft severely limited the capabilities of A and C, while the cost of development skyrocketed. As a result, the Americans received less effective aircraft than if they had developed separately VTOL aircraft and separately ground and ejection modifications - but more expensive than they could have.
              There is an achievement - their F-35V is definitely more like a combat aircraft than a Harrier or Yak-38. But this is ... such an achievement.
              1. dauria
                dauria 29 August 2020 11: 26 New
                +2
                But this is ... such an achievement.

                But fact is fact. They are in the market with a decent product in all three niches without competitors yet. A lot of countries are involved in production,
                a huge fleet of aircraft will provide the Americans with a maintenance market for a long time.
                I only agree that versatility is not good for performance. Perhaps even the Chinese will be able to benefit from the twin-engine version for the deck. But the market has already floated away. And for myself in a small batch - well, there are a lot of Chinese, the people will not even notice the increase in price. It's a pity, Russia is no longer given this ...
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 29 August 2020 13: 42 New
                  +2
                  Quote: dauria
                  Perhaps even the Chinese will be able to benefit from the twin-engine version for the deck. But the market has already floated away.

                  Was this market? India and Europe will not buy Chinese equipment, and no one really has any more aircraft carriers.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2020 23: 36 New
                  +1
                  Quote: dauria
                  But fact is fact. They are on the market with a decent product in all three niches without competitors yet

                  In fact, there are enough competitors. How bad things are with the F-35 is evidenced by the fact that the US Navy continues to order the F-18 ...
                  Quote: dauria
                  a huge fleet of aircraft will provide the Americans with a maintenance market for a long time.

                  Are we now talking about the art of marketing, or about combat effectiveness? :))))
                  1. dauria
                    dauria 30 August 2020 00: 01 New
                    +1
                    How bad things are with the F-35 is evidenced by the fact that the US Navy continues to order the F-18.


                    Doesn't say anything. The F-35 conveyor is fully loaded.
                    Remember how the F-18 appeared in the fleet? He lost the competition in the Air Force to a competitor F-16 (then still "Condor"). And the fleet needed to replace the hodgepodge of Phantoms, Skyhawks, Intruders, Corsairs 2 and other "attack aircraft". Decided - two engines, you can make it heavier and stronger. Let him work together with F-14.
                    Now they will simply make a hodgepodge of F-18, F-35 and gradually replace them.
                    Are we talking about the art of marketing, or combat effectiveness?

                    Marketing is marketing, but there is a queue for a decent product. I understand that it is not very pleasant to swallow dust after a leader. So they wasted time, twenty years wasted. And they did not just stand, but ruined entire industries.
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 30 August 2020 01: 05 New
                      0
                      Quote: dauria
                      Now they will simply make a hodgepodge of F-18, F-35 and gradually replace them.

                      There are F / A-18E / F Super Hornet and F / A-18C / D Hornet. Despite their similarity, these are different fighters. Everything is different for them: glider, engine, avionics.
                      The F35С was created to replace the F / A-18C / D Hornet, only it. It does not concern the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet; a new twin-engine aircraft based on the F35C is planned to replace it.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 07: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: dauria
                      Doesn't say anything. The F-35 conveyor is fully loaded.

                      He says, and how. The Navy now does not need a mass of aircraft to buy Supers instead of the F-35
                      Quote: dauria
                      Remember how the F-18 appeared in the fleet?

                      I remember, but what does it have to do with it? The Navy wanted 3 types of aircraft - pure fighter, attack aircraft, and fighter-bomber. Hornet became a fighter-bomber, and the development of the rest was curtailed with the collapse of the USSR. You write
                      Quote: dauria
                      Let him work together with F-14.

                      But these are aircraft of different classes, and the F-35 and F-18 are of one
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 29 August 2020 12: 24 New
                +4
                "but more expensive than it could be." ////
                ----
                This is not true. No matter how expensive the development of the F-35 was, it was still cheaper.
                than three separate developments of different combat aircraft.
                And of course, three separate developments would never have allowed
                the price on the conveyor is up to 80 million per piece.
                As a result, three modifications of the F-35 come off the assembly line like hot cakes.
                Of these, several combat squadrons are formed per year.
                The US and NATO received a massive 5-generation aircraft, a workhorse.
                And "extremely efficient" aircraft: one-off assembly, price of $ 100 million.
                Spare parts are not produced. One squadron is formed for several years.
                1. Thrifty
                  Thrifty 29 August 2020 12: 29 New
                  0
                  Warrior-f35 in any modification is not a 5th generation aircraft, due to the lack of afterburner supersonic. And the Chinese craft does not have its own normal engines at all! !!
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2020 23: 40 New
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  This is not true

                  It's right
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  No matter how expensive the development of the F-35 was, it was still cheaper.
                  than three separate developments of different combat aircraft.

                  Not three, but two. VTOL and conventional aircraft including deck modification
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  As a result, three modifications of the F-35 come off the assembly line like hot cakes.

                  Only the filling ... to put it mildly, smells of these pies :))))))
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  And of course, three separate developments would never have allowed
                  the price on the conveyor is up to 80 million per piece.

                  Not to lower, but to lift. Warrior, I understand your admiration for US technology, but the bottom line is that the F-35 is a series of fairly good avionics (not always ideal, but still) put on a completely miserable glider with a very so-so engine.
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Of these, several combat squadrons are formed per year.

                  "Combat" - it is still quite loudly said. And not about the F-35. Limitedly suitable for some, not too difficult tasks, if possible - without active opposition from the enemy.
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  The US and NATO received a massive 5-generation aircraft, a workhorse.

                  no, did not receive
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 29 August 2020 23: 50 New
                    +2
                    You, unfortunately, are very common captives,
                    but completely misconceptions about the F-35.
                    And about the glider, and about the engine, and, accordingly, about the possibilities.
                    F-35 is used just for particularly difficult tasks in
                    conditions of strong opposition from air defense and electronic warfare.
                    When it is dangerous to send outdated 4th generation aircraft.
                    I will no longer persuade you. F-35 will gradually become the most
                    the most common combat aircraft in the world (F-16 are leaving).
                    And there will be many more combat examples.
                    1. dauria
                      dauria 30 August 2020 00: 27 New
                      0
                      F-35 will gradually become the most
                      the most common combat aircraft in the world


                      Well, not so enthusiastic, namesake. It's just a good modern fighter-bomber. And if there is no real war, it will become the most massive. Sometimes some innovations dramatically change all the rest of the "hardware" and even the depth of the front and methods of combat operations. laughing It is possible that the same cheap unmanned Valkyrie will become the basis for infantry support. And the F-35 will be bought by lovers of museum values. wassat
                      1. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 30 August 2020 00: 37 New
                        +1
                        Where is my delight? I did not write that the F-35 is the best.
                        I wrote that it will become the most common.
                        Among the manned vehicles, it is necessary to clarify.
                        With the release of 16 pieces per month (excluding Italy and Japan), this is inevitable.
                        Jet drones will of course also proliferate.
                        And it is the F-16 that will become their "shepherds". Because in F-35 you don't need to
                        alter-do nothing.
                      2. dauria
                        dauria 30 August 2020 00: 50 New
                        +1
                        And it is the F-16 that will become their "shepherds".


                        Hmm ... Well, there are 10 years for "shepherding". Not more. And then with manned aviation it will be like with cavalrymen - only for parades. However, maybe not 10 years, but less - if suddenly the Chinese stir up the Third World War with the Americans. These guys will become. Collided in earnest.
                        By the way, these narrow-eyed ones have grown plants on the far side of the moon! The first in the world ....
                3. Outsider
                  Outsider 30 August 2020 00: 09 New
                  0
                  The F-35 is a series of fairly good avionics (not always ideal, but still) put on a completely miserable glider with a very so-so engine.

                  - What the citizen is talking about - he probably doesn't understand ... Why is the glider bad ?? An overload of 9 units for the F-35A, what else is needed? Frontal RCS (according to the latest data) is less than that of the F-22. Aerodynamic quality is more than 10. Combat radius (without PTB) - 1239 km. The cruiser supersonic 11M (1.2 kilometers) can hold for 234 minutes without afterburner.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 August 2020 09: 36 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Outsider
                    - What the citizen is carrying - he probably does not understand himself ... Why is the glider bad ??

                    Well, let's see who and what does not understand here.
                    Quote: Outsider
                    An overload of 9 units for the F-35A, what else is needed?

                    For a log it can be much higher - which does not make it a good glider
                    Quote: Outsider
                    Aerodynamic quality is more than 10.

                    And where did you get this, may I ask? I don't see something on the link. Which modification? And yes, "more than 10" is at the level of the first MiG-29 series.
                    Quote: Outsider
                    Combat radius (without PTB) - 1239 km. The cruiser supersonic 11M (1.2 kilometers) can hold for 234 minutes without afterburner.

                    This is how IT has to do with the glider - I won't even ask. Especially the combat radius. I'm wondering - do you even think about what you read? According to your link, the flight range of the F-35A = 2200 km, the combat radius without PTB and refueling = 1239 km. The fact that this is physically impossible does not bother you.
                    But what it has is the indicator of the load on the wing - and it is colossally superior to even the F / A-35 in the F-18A. In the F-35S, this indicator is better due to the larger wing area, but it also merges outright for the same Rafal and the MiG-29KR
                    1. Outsider
                      Outsider 31 August 2020 10: 49 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Outsider
                      Aerodynamic quality is more than 10.

                      And where did you get this, may I ask?

                      - If you only knew a little bit of aerodynamics ... laughing lol
                      I don't see something on the link. Which modification?

                      - At A и B, of course! Have C it is clearly not less than 12! (The wing is one and a half times larger!)
                      And yes, "more than 10" is at the level of the first MiG-29 series.

                      - Shit! Already the aerodynamics of the MiG-29 is no good ?! Lived! Then, as in the BVB, he makes the Su-27 "as he wants"! laughing
                      Quote: Outsider
                      Combat radius (without PTB) - 1239 km. The cruiser supersonic 11M (1.2 kilometers) can hold for 234 minutes without afterburner.

                      This is how IT has to do with the glider - I won't even ask. Especially the combat radius.

                      - The relationship is the most direct and direct. It is the glider... Its great layout, the ability to carry two huge bombs inside, plus two long-range missiles, plus over 8 tons of fuel (A and C) - which is why its glider is just fine.
                      I'm wondering - do you even think about what you read? According to your link, the flight range of the F-35A = 2200 km, the combat radius without PTB and refueling = 1239 km. The fact that this is physically impossible does not bother you.

                      - Check with other sources, compare with modifications B (935 km) and C (1,241 km). It can be seen, after all, that the plaque is from a more solid source. And with the range, someone sealed up there, it happens ...
                      But what it has is the indicator of the load on the wing - and it is colossally superior to even the F / A-35 in the F-18A. In the F-35S, this indicator is better due to the larger wing area, but it also merges outright for the same Rafal and the MiG-29KR

                      - And it surprises you ?! And you don't understand - why is that?! Not even funny! am Compare stealth aircraft with conventional aircraft. And you try to Rafal (an excellent aircraft in itself) to put two bombs on a ton plus two rockets into his belly, and put 8,278 kg of fuel into it - and see what kind of aerobatic he will be and how far he will fly ??
                      Not even funny ...
                4. 3danimal
                  3danimal 30 August 2020 05: 14 New
                  +1
                  deck modification

                  It's not just about installing a brake hook and reinforcing the landing gear, though.
                5. 3danimal
                  3danimal 30 August 2020 05: 18 New
                  0
                  put on a completely miserable glider with a very so-so engine.

                  Are there grounds for such statements? Poor in comparison with what? F-18, with which the same maneuverability?
                  And what's wrong with the engine? Production model, offer an analogue with the same power-to-weight ratio.
                  Or do you consider the lifting fan in version "B" less successful?
                  "Combat" - it is still quite loudly said. And not about the F-35. Limitedly suitable for some, not too difficult tasks, if possible - without active opposition from the enemy.

                  It is worth being objective: the Israeli Air Force has experience in operating this aircraft and the opinion about the aircraft drawn up there is more expert (confirmed by practice, and not by hearsay and "eye").
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 August 2020 09: 51 New
                    -1
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Are there grounds for such statements? Poor in comparison with what? F-18, with which the same maneuverability?

                    About the same, yes. But here's the question - F / A-18, in fact, is far from being the leader of mobile combat among its generation. According to two extremely important indicators - specific wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio, the F-35 loses to the Rafal
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    And what's wrong with the engine? Production model, offer an analogue with the same power-to-weight ratio.

                    The engine itself is good, but its thrust is insufficient for an F-35 aircraft of any modification.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    It is worth being objective: the Israeli Air Force has experience in operating this aircraft and the opinion about the aircraft drawn up there is more expert

                    That's just unknown to the general public. Because the official delight is one thing (Israel just physically cannot declare that the plane is about anything, it will be an epic setup on its part), but real reports are quite another.
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 31 August 2020 10: 04 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Because the official delight is one thing (Israel simply cannot physically declare that the plane is about anything, it will be an epic setup on its part)

                      The delights of all other pilots of the countries using the F-35 (the British, Norwegians, Italians, Japanese and others) who have something to compare, having the most advanced examples of 4th generation aircraft are part of this world conspiracy, which is immediately visible to the keen eye of experts from the VO forum ...
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      real reports are different.

                      With which you will no doubt immediately familiarize us and disgrace the official raptures of the Air Force of a dozen of the richest and most developed countries in the world
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 August 2020 10: 11 New
                      -3
                      Quote: Liam
                      The delights of all other pilots of the countries using the F-35 (British, Norwegians, Italians, Japanese and others

                      so far, mostly in your imagination. The reality is that the US Navy continues to buy superhornets.
                      Quote: Liam
                      With which you will undoubtedly familiarize us immediately

                      That is, read the phrase
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That's just unknown to the general public.

                      You failed
                    3. Liam
                      Liam 31 August 2020 10: 22 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Your imagination

                      And at the airfields of the World Bank, Japan, Norway, Italy, Holland, Israel, Australia (and probably missed someone else)
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That is, read the phrase
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That's just unknown to the general public.

                      You failed

                      Well, I see, I am the general public and these real negative the reports are unknown, but you special from narrow circles of the informed and these real reports are available to you and therefore with such aplomb you broadcast about them ... otherwise the balobol turns out .. do you agree?
                    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 August 2020 11: 22 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Liam
                      And at the airfields of the World Bank, Japan, Norway, Italy, Holland, Israel, Australia (and probably missed someone else)

                      Yeah
                      Michael Gilmore, the now-retired Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, i.e. Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (retired)
                      "If used in combat, the F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage availability."
                      “When used in combat, the F-35 will need support to detect and prevent modern ground-based threat radars, detect targets and engage enemy fighter groups due to unresolved performance gaps and limited weapon availability. ... "
                      And then - reports and pilots report
                      Overall, the F-35's sensors, computers, and software problems, including decoys and reporting inaccurate locations, were so severe that test teams at Edwards Air Force Base rated them as "red," meaning they could not fight. expected tasks from them ....
                      One of the systems, the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), was noted by pilots as inferior in resolution and range to systems currently used on older aircraft .... The report says the problem is so serious that F-35 pilots, they may have to fly so close to lock on to the target, and they will have to maneuver to gain the distance needed to fire a guided weapon. Thus, the system's limitations could force the attacking F-35 to compromise the surprise, allowing the enemy to maneuver using the first shot opportunity.
                      ... The test pilots also had difficulties with the helmet during some important tests of the accuracy of the delivery of weapons. Several of the pilots described the displays in the helmet as "unusable and potentially unsafe" due to the "character mess" obscuring ground targets.
                      ... But due to problems with excessive decoys, unstable shaky images, and information overload, pilots are turning off some sensor and computer inputs and relying instead on simplified displays or more traditional dashboards.
                      ... While trying to test AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missile fire on targets, the pilots reported that their view of the target was blocked by the symbols displayed on their helmet visors. The pilots also reported that the characters were unstable when they tried to track targets ...
                      .... And as bad as a single plane problem is, it's much worse when multiple planes are trying to communicate over the network. The F-35 has a Multi-Functional Advanced Data Link (MADL) that allows the aircraft to communicate with other F-35s to give all pilots an overall picture of the combat space. To do this, it takes all the data generated by each plan and integrates it into a single overall view of the world.
                      But this system also creates erroneous or split images of targets. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the system also sometimes dumps target images entirely, causing confusion within the cockpit as to what is there and what is not ....
                      .... The disadvantages of the F-35 as an air-to-air fighter are already well documented.
                      It is known to have lost out in simulated aerial combat within range of sight (WVR), where its radar stealth has no advantage, over the F-16 in early 2015, one of the aircraft the F-35 is to replace as an air fighter. The F-35 lost several times when maneuvering air-to-air, despite the fact that the test was conducted in its favor, since the F-16 used was a heavier two-seat version and was additionally loaded with heavy, drag-causing external fuel. tanks to make it difficult to maneuver ....
                      And all this - with links to relevant reports https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for-aircraft -carriers-c6e36763574b
                      Quote: Liam
                      Well, I understand. I am the general public and these real negative reports are unknown to me. But you are a special one from narrow circles of the informed and these real reports are available to you and therefore with such aplomb you broadcast to us about them ... otherwise the balobol turns out .. do you agree?

                      Liam, I'm not going to claim the laurels that deservedly belong to you - I do not know where you dug up the artifact "+100500 to gibberish", but since then it has served you faithfully. I pointed out that Israel simply cannot officially give any other assessment of the F-35 except for "10+" on a five-point scale. What reports "secretly known to me" can be here?
                    5. Liam
                      Liam 31 August 2020 11: 33 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Yeah
                      Michael Gilmore

                      Learn the language)
                      https://breakingdefense.com/tag/michael-gilmore/
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I pointed out that Israel simply cannot officially give any other assessment of the F-35 except for "10+" on a five-point scale. What reports "secretly known to me" can be here?

                      This is a masterpiece of idle talk
                    6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 August 2020 11: 46 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Liam
                      Learn the language)
                      https://breakingdefense.com/tag/michael-gilmore/

                      Agas. Officially. Where is the victory of the F-35 over the fighters of the previous generation - 15: 1 (that is, a deliberate fantasy) But Gilmore retires and says ... something completely different.
                      Quote: Liam
                      This is a masterpiece of idle talk

                      For a person who is piously sure that foreigners always tell the truth, and nothing but the truth - certainly
                    7. Liam
                      Liam 31 August 2020 17: 38 New
                      +1
                      South Korea doubles the number of purchased F-35 fighters
                      Today, 15: 31
                      27


                      Urgently share your ingenious guesses with the South Koreans. They don't know what the poor are doing)
                    8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 09: 36 New
                      0
                      Quote: Liam
                      Urgently share your ingenious guesses with the South Koreans. They don't know what the poor are doing)

                      They just know - firstly, the North Koreans are frankly weak in the air, so they will have to fight mainly with ground-based air defense, which the F-35 can do relatively well. Secondly, the South Koreans want carrier-based aircraft without a full-fledged AB, that is, for them the F-35V has no alternative.
                  2. 3danimal
                    3danimal 31 August 2020 18: 56 New
                    0
                    Where is the victory of the F-35 over the previous generation fighters - 15: 1 (that is, deliberate fantasy)

                    You forget about the conditions in which the battles were fought. From a long distance, where the advantages of the F-35 in terms of stealth (oddly enough smile ) and radar are most pronounced.
                    In reality, you will also not be allowed into close combat without loss. But if at the start 15 versus 15, 5 versus 14 came to the close, then the chances are zero. They will shoot.
                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 07: 41 New
                    -1
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    You forget about the conditions in which the battles were fought.

                    Me not. And I can assure you - the conditions are obviously preferential for the F-35
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    In reality, you will also not be allowed into close combat without loss. But if at the start 15 versus 15, 5 versus 14 came to the close, then the chances are zero.

                    Now let's just remember the statistics of REAL long-range battles. And we understand that until now, DVB is just a small introduction to the BVB. Even in conditions of absolute information dominance (Iraq, Yugoslavia), the Americans quite often came close to the sidewinder distance.
                    DVB is not yet the main type of air combat. And yes, if you play off planes of different generations without information support (ground radar, AWACS, etc.), keep track of the defeat by radar illumination and electronic launches, then it is quite possible to pull out 15: 1. But it will have nothing to do with a real battle.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 31 August 2020 17: 58 New
          0
          The reality is that the US Navy continues to buy superhornets.

          Version C is late, but planes are needed now.

          We can say the same about the A version, referring to the orders of the latest F-15 versions (with new engines and radar with AFAR).
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 07: 36 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Version C is late, but planes are needed now.

          To whom and why? Mass AB is now in a joke
          Quote: 3danimal
          We can say the same about the A version, referring to the orders of the latest F-15 versions (with new engines and radar with AFAR).

          Not really - these are planes of different classes. But the F-35 and 18 - one
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 1 September 2020 07: 59 New
          0
          To whom and why? Mass AB is now in a joke

          No matter. Air wings are required to be equipped with modern aircraft. Conduct trainings with them.
          Not really - these are planes of different classes. But the F-35 and 18 - one

          Deliberately exaggerated. There was an article here where the order of the F-15 was used as an argument against the F-35A.
          You say that the order for the F-18e / f speaks of the failure of the F-35s, which I think is incorrect.
        5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 08: 43 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          No matter. Air wings are required to be equipped with modern aircraft. Conduct trainings with them.

          It’s just important. The Air Force also needs to train, but I don't see the bulk purchases of F-16
        6. 3danimal
          3danimal 1 September 2020 09: 01 New
          +1
          Error again. The F-35A is being delivered in large quantities and their formations have long been operational.
          You just ask how many and what modifications have been made.

          https://f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/F35FastFacts8_2020.pdf
        7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 09: 31 New
          -1
          Quote: 3danimal
          Error again. The F-35A is being delivered in large quantities and their formations have long been operational.

          don't see the numbers in the USAF. In general, they have about 200 F-35A
          The most interesting question is why the Air Force has more than 200 aircraft, while the Navy has only 28? What, the Air Force bypassed the fleet? :) Something I doubt it. Apparently, the reason is precisely that the fleet does not seek to switch to the F-35.
        8. 3danimal
          3danimal 1 September 2020 10: 26 New
          0
          The production of the F-35s was launched later than everyone else. Several years will pass and the picture will be seen better.
        9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 11: 53 New
          -1
          Quote: 3danimal
          Several years will pass and the picture will be seen better.

          This picture does not negate the fact of purchasing the F-18
  2. Liam
    Liam 1 September 2020 09: 45 New
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Not really - these are planes of different classes. But the F-35 and 18 - one

    Is it difficult to read the rearmament programs of the Americans themselves? Who told you that the F-35 S was supposed to replace ALL F-18 models in the Navy? The F-35 C replaces only the F-35 C / D, but not the F-18E / F. The E / F and the Growlers will be replacing another F / A-XX program by the mid-30s. In anticipation of this new model, new F-18 E / F is being purchased. No one is buying C / D models.
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 09: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Liam
    Is it difficult to read the rearmament programs of the Americans themselves?

    And after reading these programs - is it difficult to think about what you read?
    Quote: Liam
    Who told you that the F-35 S was supposed to replace ALL F-18 models in the Navy? The F-35 C replaces only the F-35 C / D, but not the F-18E / F. models E / F and Growlers will replace another aircraft-program F / A-XX

    Did you understand what you wrote? The Americans wanted to replace the early F-18s with the F-35s, and the supers with a new aircraft. As a result ... they buy supers :))) This does not fit into the program a little, if you don't understand
  4. Liam
    Liam 1 September 2020 10: 00 New
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    And after reading these programs - is it difficult to think about what you read?

    I read them, unlike you.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You understood yourself

    It is also understandable for a schoolchild if he is not busy pulling an owl onto a nlobus. The C / D models are being replaced by the F-35C and nobody changed these plans. The E / F models are replaced by another aircraft under the FF-XX program (and this was decided back in 2008), and while waiting for the XX, the Americans are replacing some of the older E / Fs with new ones. And this does not in any way apply to the F-35.
  5. Outsider
    Outsider 31 August 2020 11: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    And what's wrong with the engine? Production model, offer an analogue with the same power-to-weight ratio.

    The engine itself is good, but its thrust is insufficient for an F-35 aircraft of any modification.

    -? Who told you such nonsense ?! Not enough - in what sense?? For what need? What can't he do with this craving? The creators believe that it is. But, of course, the engines promised to bring the F135 thrust at full afterburner to 21.5 tons. Someday..... Nobody seems to rush them ...
    Quote: 3danimal
    It is worth being objective: the Israeli Air Force has experience in operating this aircraft and the opinion about the aircraft drawn up there is more expert

    That's just unknown to the general public.

    - The aircraft is very successfully operated and, in accordance with its functions, smashes the IRGC in Syria throughout its area, right up to the most remote corners "in the tail and in the mane" - what else?
    Because the official delight is one thing (Israel just physically cannot declare that the plane is about anything)

    - Only complete imbeciles can say that "the F-35 is an aircraft" about nothing ""
    ... that would be an epic set-up on his part, but real-world reports would be something else entirely.

    - Do you have any secrets of information that the plane is somehow not coping with its official duties? General Konashenkov said that?
    The shortcomings of the F-35 are revealed during operation and from series to series are eliminated - for new ones immediately, and for previously released ones - you have to redo something... This is common for a new car. This is normal. The main thing is that there are no fundamental "punctures".
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 07: 55 New
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    The aircraft is very successfully operated and, in accordance with its functions, smashes the IRGC in Syria throughout its entire area, up to the most remote corners "in the tail and in the mane" - what else?

    Did you understand what you wrote? "smashes" whom? Military experts, and not air defense shnikov. The air defense of Syria is completely outdated, in addition, there is a problem with local personnel.
    This is if the IRGC were at all in the places attacked by the F-35.
    In general, today the use of the F-35 in Syria can be classified as "in conditions close to combat" - no more
    Quote: Outsider
    ? Who told you such nonsense ?! Not enough - in what sense ??

    Look at the speed of the plane. The lack of supersonic cruising. Well, take valerian, or something :)))
    Quote: Outsider
    - Only complete imbeciles can declare that "the F-35 is an aircraft" about nothing ""

    Do you seriously think that such a kindergarten can hurt me? :))))
    "My dear Ripat! You forget that from the height of my origin, the difference between you and the king is completely invisible."
    Quote: Outsider
    - Do you have any secrets of information that the plane is somehow not coping with its official duties?

    And I even brought them above. A person in a high rank leaves the program - and begins to talk about blurring the flaws of the aircraft. As soon as the Turks purchased the S-400, the United States fainted, canceling the supply of the F-35. The US Navy continues to purchase F / A-18 ....
    But in general, the point is different - given the general situation around the F-35, Israel's official negative speech would be a rare political mistake.
  7. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 10: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Outsider
    The aircraft is very successfully operated and, in accordance with its functions, smashes the IRGC in Syria throughout its entire area, up to the most remote corners "in the tail and in the mane" - what else?

    Did you understand what you wrote? "smashes" whom? Military experts, and not air defense shnikov. The air defense of Syria is completely outdated, in addition, there is a problem with local personnel.

    - You don't even know that Shoigu handed over to the Syrians at least a couple of S-300 divisions ?! Or are they completely out of date ?? And what, then, is the basis of Russia's air defense today ?! lol
    This is if the IRGC were at all in the places attacked by the F-35.

    - Of course there were. Their corpses are then transported in bags to their native Iran. But sometimes the Syrians come across - if they behave badly.
    In general, today the use of the F-35 in Syria can be classified as "in conditions close to combat" - no more

    - Generally speaking, the use of Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft in Syria can be classified as work in range conditions, did you want to say that? laughing lol Right...
    Quote: Outsider

    ? Who told you such nonsense ?! Not enough - in what sense ??

    Look at the speed of the plane.

    - What for drummer too high speed ?? Its ground targets never run fast. Therefore, the maximum 1.67M is "above the roof" for him. And at such a speed, it is unlikely that he will ever need to fly. Here is the F-22, a frontline fighter and interceptor. He has a maximum speed of 2.42M (limited to 2M in peacetime). This is consistent with its functions and tasks. And for the F-35, this one was also considered excellent. If anything, the F-22 will cover it ... wink
    The lack of supersonic cruising.

    - I already said above: 11 minutes without afterburner cruising supersonic at 1.2M, it covers 234 kilometers during this time.
    Quote: Outsider

    - Only complete imbeciles can declare that "the F-35 is an aircraft" about nothing ""

    Do you seriously think that such a kindergarten can hurt me?

    - What can hurt a complete imbecile? (50> IQ> 30) Only if they call him an idiot ... (30> IQ) lol
    Quote: Outsider
    - Do you have any secrets of information that the plane is somehow not coping with its official duties?

    And I even brought them above. A person in a high rank leaves the program - and begins to talk about blurring the flaws of the aircraft.

    - Perfectionists are always and everywhere, they always think the product is not perfect enough. Therefore, more responsible comrades are forced to hold them "by the ears"... But in fact, "there is no perfection in the world," "and there are spots on the Sun," etc.
    Only an absolutely illiterate "teapot" can call the F-35 program "unsuccessful". Although what you can't spit out of anger ... laughing lol
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 10: 39 New
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    Don't you even know that Shoigu handed over to the Syrians at least a couple of S-300 divisions ?! Or are they completely out of date ??

    Firstly, it is not enough to convey the complex, it is still necessary to teach how to apply. Secondly, where in Syria were the battles of the IRGC on the S-300 against the F-35? :)))
    Quote: Outsider
    Of course there were. Their corpses are then transported in bags to their native Iran.

    Will you extend the link?
    Quote: Outsider
    Generally speaking, the use of Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft in Syria can be classified as work in range conditions, did you mean to say that?

    Yes. In conditions close to combat.
    Quote: Outsider
    Why does the drummer need too high a speed ?? Its ground targets never run fast.

    It is a pity that the Americans are not aware of your brilliant insights and for some reason they made 4-1,8M for their multifunctional light and medium fighters of the 2th generation. It is also a pity that they have no idea that the F-35 is a pure drummer, and for some reason they are constantly testing it for the possibility of air combat.
    Quote: Outsider
    What can hurt a complete imbecile? (50> IQ> 30) Only if they call him an idiot ... (30> IQ)

    You obviously know better :)))))) But a person with an IQ> 140 cannot be touched by these calculations, just as manure, accidentally stuck to the sole, cannot touch.
    Quote: Outsider
    Only an absolutely illiterate "teapot" can call the F-35 program "unsuccessful".

    How many do not say "halva" ...
  9. 3danimal
    3danimal 31 August 2020 18: 31 New
    0
    According to two extremely important indicators - specific wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio, the F-35 loses to the Rafal

    Raphael, Eurofiter, and all modern twin-engine fighters.
    But with F-16, Gripen - the differences are small.
  10. 3danimal
    3danimal 31 August 2020 19: 16 New
    0
    But here's the question - F / A-18, in fact, is far from being the leader of mobile combat among its generation.

    True, among the leaders are F-16, Eurofighter, Rafal. But a lot depends on the chosen tactics.
  11. Outsider
    Outsider 31 August 2020 20: 14 New
    -1
    But here's the question - F / A-18, in fact, is far from being the leader of mobile combat among its generation.

    - The era of maneuverable air battles ended, if not in June 1982, then in January 1991 - for sure. Dogfights went not even to second or third place, but to 7th to 10th ...
    According to two extremely important indicators - specific wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio, the F-35 loses to the Rafal

    - It was designed so that to get the winnings in the same combat radius. What did you think? wink
    The engine itself is good, but its thrust is insufficient for an F-35 aircraft of any modification.

    - "Nonsense in vegetable oil". His engine is made for this particular aircraft... It's a shame not to understand this.
  12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 07: 57 New
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    - The era of maneuverable air battles ended, if not in June 1982, then in January 1991 - for sure. Dogfights went not even to second or third place, but to 7th to 10th ...

    laughing fool
    See statistics of sorties. DVB is just an easy prelude. Even in Yugoslavia, sidewinders were often brought down, you are our unbridled dreamer
    Quote: Outsider
    - It was designed in such a way in order to get a win in the same combat radius. What did you think?

    Do not write nonsense, please. The F-35 has no gain in combat radius
    Quote: Outsider
    - "Nonsense in vegetable oil". Its engine is made for this particular aircraft. It's a shame not to understand this.

    It's a shame - seeing a modern airplane with a speed of 1,6M without cruising supersonic sound squeal "has no analogs in the world"!
  13. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 09: 43 New
    -1
    See statistics of sorties. DVB is just an easy prelude. Even in Yugoslavia, sidewinders were often brought down, you are our unbridled dreamer

    - But I was not too lazy, took it, and looked, you are our disinformer:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_victories_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War#Operation_Allied_Force_(1999)
    Main article: NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
    March 24, 1999 - A McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle (Serial Number: 86-0156) shot down two Mikoyan MiG-29 aircraft using an AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. The F-15 was piloted by Captain Jeff Hwang. [46]
    March 24, 1999 - A McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle (Serial Number: 86-0159) shot down a Mikoyan MiG-29 aircraft using an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. The F-15 was piloted by Captain Mike Shower. [47]
    March 24, 1999 - A McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle (Serial Number: 86-0169) shot down a Mikoyan MiG-29 aircraft using an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. The F-15 was piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Cesar Rodriguez. [48]
    May 4, 1999 - A General Dynamics F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number: 91-0353) shot down a Mikoyan MiG-29 aircraft using an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. The F-16 was piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Michael Geczy. [49]
    But if I haven't finished writing something - provide the appropriate link?
    Quote: Outsider
    - It was designed in such a way in order to get a win in the same combat radius. What did you think?

    Do not write nonsense, please. The F-35 has no gain in combat radius

    - If the F-35 would have made a wing of a larger area (reducing the specific load on the wing) - the combat radius would undoubtedly decrease - due to an increase in the washed wing area and, accordingly, friction resistance. At the same time, it was impossible to increase the aspect ratio of the wing - then the speed would inevitably be lost.
    If two engines were installed on the F-35, it would complicate and increase the cost of the design, and a more powerful engine is always less economical.
    You just don't understand what you're trying to talk about, you illiterate "sofa expert". You have never seriously studied either aerodynamics or the theory of jet engines (you probably do not know at all, that it is).
    Quote: Outsider
    - "Nonsense in vegetable oil". Its engine is made for this particular aircraft. It's a shame not to understand this.

    It's a shame - seeing a modern airplane with a speed of 1,6M without cruising supersonic sound squeal "has no analogs in the world"!

    - How, they forgot to tell you again ?! The F-35 has the ability to fly in non-afterburner cruising supersonic for 11 (eleven) minutes, at a speed of 1.2M, flying 234 kilometers during this time. Then you need to clean up the speed from the maximum to the nominal.
    1.2M is certainly not 1.72M for the F-22, but nevertheless, there is a non-afterburner cruising supersonic sound. laughing
  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 10: 16 New
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    But if I haven't finished writing something - provide the appropriate link?

    OK, in the evening.
    Quote: Outsider
    - If the F-35 would have made a wing of a larger area (by reducing the specific load on the wing) - the combat radius would undoubtedly decrease

    Really? :)))))
    Quote: Outsider
    You just don't understand what you're trying to talk about, you illiterate "sofa expert".

    Come on, just me. Alas, the Americans themselves are universally illiterate and sofa - here at this link https://f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/F35FastFacts8_2020.pdf, for example. they indicate in the performance characteristics the wing area of ​​the F-35S is one and a half times larger than that of the F-35A, but at the same time - a surprise! - combat radius for the F-35 1093 km and for the F-35 - 1100 km :)))))
    Well, Americans are not familiar with your "brilliant" calculations.
    Quote: Outsider
    How, they forgot to tell you again ?! The F-35 has the ability to fly in non-afterburner cruising supersonic for 11 (eleven) minutes,

    This is called the absence of cruising supersonic. Because ANY plane can fly for a certain amount of time at trans- or supersonic speed. But cruising speed also means fuel consumption, which provides an appropriate combat radius.
    In general, you do not know the materiel from the word "in general".
  15. Liam
    Liam 1 September 2020 10: 24 New
    -3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    This is called the absence of cruising supersonic. Because ANY plane can fly for a certain amount of time at trans- or supersonic speed. But cruising speed also means fuel consumption, which provides an appropriate combat radius.
    In general, you do not know the materiel from the word "in general".

    And you still have a reputation here an expert)
    Any (supersonic) aircraft will be able to fly supersonic for some time, but not everyone will do it without turning on the afterburner.
  16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 10: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Liam
    Any (supersonic) aircraft will be able to fly supersonic for some time, but not everyone will do it without turning on the afterburner.

    Have I refuted this somewhere? :)) Indicate where. Liam, are you talking to yourself again?
  17. Liam
    Liam 1 September 2020 10: 35 New
    -1
    The F-35 can do it (without afterburner). And the rest do not. It flies on supersonic without afterburner without consuming a lot of fuel and not glowing like a Christmas tree in IR mode. This is the real cruise supersonic. In the rest (except for the F-22), cruising supersonic is achieved only by afterburner, and this is a fiction already.
  18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 11: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Liam
    ))). Here the F-35 can do it (without afterburner). And the rest do not

    Liam, the F-35 can do this for 11 minutes, so for him it's a short-term exit - period. Accordingly, it would be correct to say that the F-35 may not go out supersonic without afterburner - but, due to the fact that it can be there for 11 minutes, this is not a cruising supersonic mode
  19. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 11: 32 New
    -2
    - And who has it more, if 11 minutes is NOT enough for you ?? laughing Name such a wonderful type of aircraft and its engines, it is the happiness of providing?
  20. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 12: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Outsider
    Name such a wonderful type of aircraft and its engines that provide happiness?

    F-22, TRDDF Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100. Concorde TRDF Rolls-Royce / SNECMA "Olympus" 593 - these had no afterburner cruising supersonic speed. If we talk about afterburner supersonic (there is almost no difference in the afterburner and subsonic range), then these are the MiG-25 and Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, MiG-31 and Tu-144
    Perhaps it can be the Su-35 and PAK FA with stage 1 engines (that is, those that are now) can provide non-afterburning supersonic, but I have no exact information about this, so there is nothing to talk about yet
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 11: 36 New
    -1
    - He (and anyone else) can hardly go to supersonic without afterburner, and it is energetically extremely unprofitable - both F-22, F-35, and Eurofighter go to the required supersonic afterburner - because it's fast, and then the afterburner is turned off and fly at maximum.
  23. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 10: 45 New
    -2
    Quote: Outsider
    You just don't understand what you're trying to talk about, you illiterate "sofa expert".

    Come on, just me. Alas, the Americans themselves are universally illiterate and sofa - here at this link https://f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/F35FastFacts8_2020.pdf, for example. they indicate in the performance characteristics the wing area of ​​the F-35S is one and a half times larger than that of the F-35A, but at the same time - a surprise! - combat radius for the F-35 1093 km and for the F-35 - 1100 km :)))))
    Well, Americans are not familiar with your "brilliant" calculations.

    - And in fact: these designers Lockheed Martin: would they take and make a wing for the F-35A and B like the F-35C ?! Decided to save a little ?! wink laughing
    Quote: Outsider

    How, they forgot to tell you again ?! The F-35 has the ability to fly in non-afterburner cruising supersonic for 11 (eleven) minutes,

    This is called the absence of cruising supersonic.

    - No, well, you can't please! 1.2M and 234 km is not enough! And the F-22 - 1.72 and 185 km - is that a lot or a little ??
    Because ANY plane can fly a certain amount of time at trans or supersonic speed.

    - But "fuck on the snout"! Eurofighter can fly for some time at 1.2M, but - only with four AIM-120 missiles, half-sunk into the fuselage. More load - no, no! And the F-35 does it with two bombs, one ton each, plus two missiles! There is a difference?
    But cruising speed also means fuel consumption, which provides an appropriate combat radius.

    - And what cretin told you that the same F-22 has a minimum kilometer fuel consumption in non-afterburner cruising mode ?? He's like this:
    M = 0,8 N = 9000m 3.4 kg / km
    M = 0,9 N = 9000m - 3.65 kg / km
    M = 0,9 N = 12000m - 3.22 kg / km
    M = 0,9 N = 15000m - 2,91 kg / km.

    Supersonic without afterburner:
    M = 1,5 N = 9000m - 11,6 kg / km.
    M = 1,5 N = 12000m - 7,2 kg / km
    M = 1,5 N = 13500m - 6,12 kg / km
    M = 1,5 N = 15000m - 5.2 kg / km

    F-22 at maximum speed:
    near the ground M = 1.05
    H = 7000m M = 1.35
    H = 9000m M = 1.6
    H = 12000 M = 1.73 is the maximum speed
    H ~ 15000m M = 1.5-1.52
    In general, you do not know the materiel from the word "in general".

    - Do not tell me: I am, after all, a professional military pilot, plus a teacher - and all these 22 years (1973-95) in your cranky Chelyabinsk VVAKUSH ... laughing I already managed to forget what you never knew in your life ... lol
  24. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 12: 20 New
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    And what cretin told you that the same F-22 in non-afterburning cruising mode has a minimum kilometer consumption ??

    And what cretin managed to read in my phrase
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Because ANY plane can fly a certain amount of time at trans- or supersonic speeds. But cruising speed also means fuel consumption, which provides an appropriate combat radius.

    MINIMUM kilometers consumption?
    Quote: Outsider
    I already managed to forget what you never knew in your life ...

    About forgetting - very similar :))))
    Quote: Outsider
    Don't make me laugh: I am, after all, a professional military pilot, plus a teacher - and all these 22 years (1973-95) in your cousin Chelyabinsk VVAKUSH ...

    Judging by the tone - they taught the history of the Communist Party :)))
    Quote: Outsider
    - But "fuck on the snout"! Eurofighter can fly for some time at 1.2M, but - only with four AIM-120 missiles, half-sunk into the fuselage. More load - no, no! And the F-35 does it with two bombs, one ton each, plus two missiles! There is a difference?

    There is. And the fact is that, according to unconfirmed reports, at 1,2M Rafale comes out in your recommended load WITHOUT afterburner
    Quote: Outsider
    - No, well, you can't please! 1.2M and 234 km is not enough! And the F-22 - 1.72 and 185 km - is that a lot or a little ??

    And who told you that a raptor can only 185 km on cruising supersonic? Vicki? :)))) So, maybe at least read it correctly?
  25. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 12: 34 New
    0
    There is. And the fact is that, according to unconfirmed reports, at 1,2M Rafale comes out in your recommended load WITHOUT afterburner

    - It turns out that it comes out, but you were too lazy to read the link on the engines of "Concorde", but what I said before was completely overlooked, you will have to return:
    Despite the fact that the "Concorde" could overcome the sound barrier and reach cruising speed without the use of engine boost, afterburner was also used to accelerate from transonic speeds to a speed corresponding to M = 1,7. The reason for this was that without the use of afterburner, such acceleration would be very slow, and the total amount of fuel used for this maneuver would be too much.

    Quote: Outsider
    - No, well, you can't please! 1.2M and 234 km is not enough! And the F-22 - 1.72 and 185 km - is that a lot or a little ??

    And who told you that a raptor can only 185 km on cruising supersonic? Vicki? :)))) So, maybe at least read it correctly?

    - For the F-22 everywhere, the combat radius (760 km) is given taking into account the fact that it travels 100 nautical miles (185.2 km) on non-afterburner Krey supersonic (without the original PTB). Nowhere is it said about the combat radius, where the non-afterburning cruising supersonic is used over a greater length of the route. It's obvious that "it's not without reason" ... lol Give a link where the F-22 spits in a similar mode for longer and more?
    IMHO: this is due, like the F-35, to a limited engine running time at maximum. Overheating, probably ...
  26. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 13: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: Outsider
    It turns out that it comes out, but you were too lazy to read the link on the engines of "Concorde", but what I said before was completely missed, you will have to return:

    Returned And where is the refutation of the fact that the Concorde did not have an afterburner cruising supersonic? I need to explain that the quote describes the process of EXIT to supersonic, and not flying on it, oh well-informed "teacher"?
    Quote: Outsider
    For the F-22, everywhere and everywhere the combat radius (760 km) is given taking into account the fact that it travels 100 nautical miles (185.2 km) on non-afterburner Krey supersonic (without the original PTB). Nowhere is it said about the combat radius, where the non-afterburning cruising supersonic is used over a greater length of the route. Obviously, "it's not without reason" ..

    Obviously, this "zhu-zhu" comes directly from the English. And there they indicated the radius of action in which PART OF THE TIME the plane goes on cruising supersonic. You, as a teacher, even of socialist sciences, should know that the "combat radius" indicator is extremely specific and is calculated for different combat loads, flight modes, etc. etc. So, the fact that in this case such a combination of flight modes was used, in which 185 km of the F-22 goes at cruising supersonic, cannot say anything at all about the maximum flight time at cruising supersonic in principle.
    Quote: Outsider
    IMHO: this is due, like the F-35, to a limited engine running time at maximum. Overheating, probably ...

    IMHO, in fact, everything is much simpler - cruising supersonic in the non-afterburner version still loses in efficiency to subsonic, therefore it is used to a limited extent.
  27. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 14: 19 New
    -2
    Quote: Outsider
    For the F-22, everywhere and everywhere the combat radius (760 km) is given taking into account the fact that it travels 100 nautical miles (185.2 km) on non-afterburner Krey supersonic (without the original PTB). Nowhere is it said about the combat radius, where the non-afterburning cruising supersonic is used over a greater length of the route. Obviously, "it's not without reason" ..

    Obviously, this "zhu-zhu" comes directly from the English. And there they indicated the radius of action in which PART OF THE TIME the plane goes on cruising supersonic. You, as a teacher, even of socialist sciences, should know that the "combat radius" indicator is extremely specific and is calculated for different combat loads, flight modes, etc. etc.

    - Just don't "la-la", - the number of combat radii for one aircraft is a whole bunch, but in all performance characteristics one flight profile is given: hi-hi-hi - at maximum altitude there and back, plus five minutes above the battlefield. And this combat radius will be the maximum.
    So, the fact that in this case such a combination of flight modes was used, in which 185 km of the F-22 goes at cruising supersonic, cannot say anything at all about the maximum flight time at cruising supersonic in principle.

    - You just don't understand what you are talking about, see above.
    Quote: Outsider
    IMHO: this is due, like the F-35, to a limited engine running time at maximum. Overheating, probably ...

    IMHO, in fact, everything is much simpler - cruising supersonic in the non-afterburner version still loses in efficiency to subsonic, therefore it is used to a limited extent.

    - Once again: since you are an amateurish layman, you do not understand that if your thesis was close to something, no one would ever be given "11 minutes on non-afterburner cruising supersonic "for the F-35, never at all"185 km on it for the F-22 ". You are like specific trifles you just “don’t take it into your head” ... You don’t understand in any way that “it’s not without reason” ... lol
  28. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 11: 48 New
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    But if I haven't finished writing something - provide the appropriate link?

    "Promises and Reality - Out of Visibility Air Combat"
    written by Lt. Col. Patrick Higby in 2005
    English version - http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf
    In Russian translation - https://yacc11.livejournal.com/10504.html
    So, before Desert Storm (Vietnam, Yom Kippur War, War in Lebanon), missiles with PARGSN (that is, medium-range) shot down 14% of the total number of shot down, missiles with IGSN (short-range) - 58%, cannons - 27%. Another 1% came from other reasons
    At the same time, the war in Lebanon in 1982 showed similar values ​​- out of 77 shot down Arab vehicles, only 12 were shot down by missiles from the PARGSN. But the catch is that if they fired a medium-range missile, this does not mean at all that the enemy was shot down in the DVB. They were regularly used in the BVB, which is why of the 12 aircraft shot down by the PARGSN, only 1 (ONE) plane was shot down in the DVB. ONE in 77, Karl!
    Quote: Outsider
    disinformer you are our

    Yes, indeed, he misinformed. In Yugoslavia, they didn’t bring down “sidewinders” - they didn’t bring down sidewinders from a distance. In front of an adequate opponent, I would even apologize for misinformation (after all, for me this is not a profile, I wrote from memory) but, of course, I will not.
    In Desert Storm, out of 36 downed aircraft (4 more - crashed themselves, 1 case of involuntary ejection) 2 were shot down from guns, 10 - UR with IGSN and 24 - UR with PARGSN. But the question is that out of 24 targets shot down by PARGSN, only 16 were shot down in DVB (the rest - in BVB), respectively, 44,5%. Moreover, the figure of 16 goals is calculated, and may be incorrect. In fact, only FIVE cases of the destruction of Iraqi aircraft in the DVB are absolutely reliably known, Higby's word: "However, there are guaranteed 5 victories in long-range missile combat: one at a range of 16 miles and at night, the second at a range of 8.5 miles at night and three with range of 13 miles.
    By the way, 16 nautical miles is 29 km. Well, a very long-range air battle :))))))))
    Well, that's not bad for DVB statistics, but here's the thing - Higby points directly to the reasons for such a high performance. In addition to AWACS and the "friend or foe" identification system, he writes
    Another additional factor that increased the effectiveness of attacks with PARGSN missiles in long-range missile combat was the fact that the Iraqi pilots did not make defensive deflection maneuvers after the attacking aircraft's radar took them for escort. This may indicate either insufficient pilot training, equipment failures (radar exposure warning devices), or a combination of the two.

    That is, they shot like ducks while hunting.
    As for Yugoslavia, Higby points out
    For example, during Operation No-Fly Zone in Yugoslavia, there were four aerial victories attributed to two F-16Cs of the US Air Force: February 28, 1994 - three victories were achieved with AIM-9 missiles and one with AIM-120 AMRAAM (more perfect replacement for the AIM-7 rocket). It is unlikely that the AIM-120 AMRAAM was launched in a long-range missile battle, since four enemy aircraft were also simultaneously attacked by AIM-9 melee air missiles. In addition, the F-16C are not equipped with the NCTR system to make reliable identification in addition to the "friend or foe" system so as not to ask for permission from AWACS aircraft.

    There is no data on the rest of the victories achieved with the help of AMRAAM - it is not known from what distance they were used.
    And here's another use of medium-range missile launchers
    In the even more recent Operation Southern Observation in Iraq on January 5, 1999, a dogfight occurred after two Iraqi MiG-25s crossed the southern no-fly zone, which was monitored by two F-15C's long-range radars. The F-15C responded by launching three AIM-7 and one AIM-120 missiles. All four missiles did not hit targets. Then two F-14 Navy fired two AIM-54 "Phoenix" on the same two Mig-25. Despite the fact that the AIM-54 was a more expensive missile and seemingly more capable of hitting targets of any air-to-air missile ever made, both missiles failed to hit targets again.

    That's something like
  29. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 11: 57 New
    -1
    - The "trick" is that the F-22 (if the organizers of the exercises did not introduce additional obstacles to it) 98% won victories in the DVB, long-range missiles. The "victims" did not even see or hear when and how they were shot down, they only received a command from the central command post: "You are shot down!" ... And so - throughout all 15 years of its operation. The trend is more than clear.

    So when my gracious opponents start shaking with super-maneuverability "like a written bag" (but the Americans don't have it!) - I'm very funny. Or offer through super-maneuverability dodge air-to-air missiles, confusing it with maneuverability - which is a completely different thing ...
  30. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 September 2020 12: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Outsider
    The "trick" is that the F-22 (if the organizers of the exercises did not introduce additional obstacles to it) won 98% of the victories in the DVB with long-range missiles.

    What characterizes the "quality" of the exercise, not the quality of the aircraft.
    Quote: Outsider
    The victims "did not even see or hear when and how they were shot down

    Of course - after all, if the targets were allowed to include at least banal STRs, then 98% will no longer be received
  31. Outsider
    Outsider 1 September 2020 12: 53 New
    0
    What characterizes the "quality" of the exercise, not the quality of the aircraft.

    Quote: Outsider
    The victims "did not even see or hear when and how they were shot down

    Of course - after all, if the targets were allowed to include at least banal STRs, then 98% will no longer be received

    - You would really be up to such banal vulgarities: "they lie to FSE!" И "FSE they have rigged just to cut down the loot!" - did not go down. Somehow frivolous and undignified ...
  • bobba94
    bobba94 29 August 2020 23: 50 New
    +1
    You look at a Chinese lighter ... everything sparkles, shimmers, a compass, a pencil, a flashlight, and a knife are built into it ......., but you look closely ... the steel at the knife is roofing, the flashlight shines half a meter , the compass is lying, everything is one-time, everything is junk. So it turns out such a perdimonocle when they shove three in one ...
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 30 August 2020 00: 15 New
      0
      - China is a huge galaxy. And there are firms of dozens of different levels. Yes, they make shit and sell it at the market in Uryupinsk. And there is - they make units for the US Air Force. Very different firms in terms of quality. And, of course, the price ...
      Here I have on my table a wonderful Chinese flashlight, tiny, with a little finger. It works - great! ..
  • Wwk7260
    Wwk7260 29 August 2020 09: 23 New
    +4
    after his death, the sinful Yak141 went to heaven and was transformed into the righteous F35. bully
  • Sniper
    Sniper 29 August 2020 10: 00 New
    10
    "carrier-based fighter J-31 will be the only competitor for the American F-35В"
    - will become and become .. this is a long evolutionary path. from an unkilled bear, the skin is not removed.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 29 August 2020 09: 37 New
    +3
    Let them dream. They (Chinese engineers) do not have engine technology yet. Meeting their own requirements for a modern fighter. And the Internet will not tolerate that ...
    1. strelokmira
      strelokmira 29 August 2020 09: 59 New
      +2
      No, it will be like this, it's just a matter of time
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 29 August 2020 10: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: strelokmira
        No, it will be like this, it's just a matter of time

        So they try. Get it. Only long ago they saw through. They are no longer even accepted in our engine-building centers. Moreover, in the western-private ... the last attempt (in time) was with MotorSich, the Americans prevented, and the Chinese did not even realize that there is no new technology in Zaporozhye ... they will not develop it for another twenty years for sure ...
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 29 August 2020 10: 43 New
        +2
        Someday in the beautiful far away, they may make an analogue for the resource Al-41 ...
        Realistically, at least 15 years.
    2. Outsider
      Outsider 30 August 2020 00: 18 New
      0
      - Lagging behind reality: the Chinese have built a plant for the serial production of WS-15 engines for the J-20 aircraft for a year already, - 300 out of 500 aircraft will be equipped with such engines, with a thrust of 18 tons:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_WS-15
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 03: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Outsider
        Lagging behind reality: the Chinese have built a plant for the serial production of WS-15 engines for the J-20 aircraft for a year

        You do not understand this. They can build 10 factories. But without new technologies for the production of turbine and compressor blades, these engines cannot have the corresponding parameters of specific power and resource ... It's just that the geometry in these types of engines is not enough. The blades themselves are monocrystalline, and even with a multilayer coating ...
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 30 August 2020 08: 10 New
          0
          - And who told you that China itself no longer develops and produces technologies? That it sticks out at the same technological level? China is moving forward at an accelerating pace, and sofa hamsters live 40-year-old ideas about it. This is absurd ...
          1. Mountain shooter
            Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 08: 39 New
            -1
            Quote: Outsider
            And who told you that China itself no longer develops and produces technologies?

            Because I am just dealing with these technologies. And I do not know the level of "eastern competitors" from the Internet ... But much more specifically.
            1. Outsider
              Outsider 30 August 2020 08: 43 New
              0
              - Then tell us why China made two stealth fighters, and Russia - none? Why have airborne radar systems with AFAR been mass-produced in China for a long time, but not in Russia? (Unless, of course, you are engaged in dumplings production technologies?)
              1. Mountain shooter
                Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 08: 54 New
                0
                Quote: Outsider
                Then tell us why China made two stealth fighters

                Do you really believe he did stealth fighters? On our Al-31F engines? They keep buying them. For combatant fighters. For many years now, although they announced the release of their own "replacements" ... The stealth of their fighters is declared ONLY by themselves. Nobody really tested them. And so on. I know for sure about the engines. Their resource is small. Precisely because they do not have coating technology. And it won't be for a long time. This technology is not being bought. No way. Not in Ufa, not in Perm, not in Moscow, not in Rybinsk.
                1. Outsider
                  Outsider 30 August 2020 09: 04 New
                  -1
                  Do you really believe he did stealth fighters?

                  - Sure. The CIA believed ... lol
                  On our Al-31F engines?

                  - Put the AL-31F on the F-22 instead of the F119, - the speed will decrease, even by 500 km / h, but the plane itself - Will it become fundamentally worse in terms of its combat capabilities, in terms of combat effectiveness ?! NO.
                  They keep buying them.

                  - Why not, if they are cheap and the resource is still higher than that of their own? They buy and will buy as long as it is profitable. The whole world does it.
                  For many years, although they announced the release of their "replacements" ...

                  - They have had "their own to replace" for a long time. Slightly less resource.
                  The stealth of their fighters is declared ONLY by themselves. Nobody really tested them.

                  - EVERY COUNTRY HAS INTELLIGENCE SERVICES.
                  I know for sure about the engines. Their resource is small. Precisely because they do not have coating technology. And it won't be for a long time. This technology is not being bought. No way. Not in Ufa, not in Perm, not in Moscow, not in Rybinsk.

                  - Steals from the back door, from the back porch. And the Chinese are in first place in the world in this regard. And their financial level has long been able to implement any technological chains, the most modern, the most perfect ones. Money money...
                  1. Mountain shooter
                    Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 09: 16 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Outsider
                    And their financial level has long been able to implement any technological chains, the most modern, the most perfect

                    You are most important, believe ... China is ahead of the rest of the world ... and our FSB "flaps its ears" and "protects business" ...
                    CIA intelligence in China? Probably. I'm not an expert here. But knowing how Chinese high-tech works, doubts overwhelm me. Last year, at an exhibition in Shanghai, I talked with their specialists, and they brought them around to their firms. Their level of secrecy is even steeper than ours. In short, if you want details - write in a personal. If you don't want to, you can continue to believe the "tapes" and "merchants".
                    1. Outsider
                      Outsider 30 August 2020 11: 00 New
                      0
                      You are the main thing, believe ... China is ahead of the whole planet ...

                      - Actually, the Chinese are going to land on the moon soon enough ... wink
                      and our FSB is "flapping its ears" and "covering up business" ...

                      - Business covers - it is 146%, but about "banging ears", probably somewhere and clap in places.
                      CIA intelligence in China?

                      - Where are we without her, darling ?! Works naturally ...
                      But knowing how Chinese high-tech works, doubts overwhelm me.

                      - Do you know how ALL Chinese high-tech works ?? Or just how the microscopic part of it works?
                      Last year, at an exhibition in Shanghai, I talked with their specialists, and they brought them around to their firms. Their level of secrecy is even steeper than ours.

                      - Then why did you decide that "you know how Chinese hi-tech works" ?!
                      In short, if you want details - write in a personal.

                      - I don’t want to bore you and I don’t consider you an authoritative researcher of Chinese high-tech, excuse me! laughing
                      If you don't want to, you can continue to believe the "tapes" and "merchants".

                      - I believe in the Chinese space exploration program, I believe in the Chinese aircraft carriers built and under construction, I believe in the achievements of the Chinese in the field of aviation and missile technology, but most importantly, I believe in China's iron control system and its financial power, compare the gross domestic product:
                      UNITED STATES:
                      $ 19.49 trillion (2017 est.)
                      $ 19.06 trillion (2016 est.)
                      $ 18.77 trillion (2015 est.)
                      note: data are in 2017 dollars
                      country comparison to the world: 2
                      ....................
                      CHINA:
                      $ 25.36 trillion (2018)
                      $ 23.21 trillion (2017 est.)
                      $ 21.72 trillion (2016 est.)
                      note: data are in 2017 dollars
                      country comparison to the world: 1
              2. Mountain shooter
                Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 08: 59 New
                0
                Quote: Outsider
                Unless, of course, you are engaged in dumplings production technologies?)

                No, not dumplings. On my avatar is a photo of a working ion source, exactly an element from this technology. To prepare the surface of the blades for coating ... The same.
                1. Outsider
                  Outsider 30 August 2020 11: 04 New
                  -1
                  - Are you absolutely sure that your company is the only one where you can get these technologies for money, even "through the back porch"? And anything that money cannot buy can be bought for a lot of money. And the rest - you can "scratch" ... (with - Vladimir Putin) lol
                  1. Mountain shooter
                    Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 11: 24 New
                    0
                    Quote: Outsider
                    Are you absolutely sure that your company is the only one where you can get these technologies for money, even "through the back porch"?

                    The Chinese cannot. And other firms that have such technologies - I know. You can't go there either. And there are not so many of them in the world. By the way, the Germans are still making installations for these technologies. The Chinese are not sold.
                    But you don't seem to be interested ... the delight of the Chinese achievements - where is it from? Take a trip to China. Take a closer look at how and what people live there. Very likely you will NOT LIKE it there ...
                    1. Outsider
                      Outsider 30 August 2020 11: 36 New
                      -1
                      The Chinese cannot. And other firms that have such technologies - I know. You can't go there either. And there are not so many of them in the world. By the way, the Germans are still making installations for these technologies. The Chinese are not sold.

                      - You know that the Americans did not even think of selling their first atomic bomb to the USSR. But Stalin ordered to copy it down to the smallest detail - and this was done. The Chinese special services are considered one of the strongest in the world, and (I repeat for the tenth time) China's gigantic financial capabilities make it possible to solve the most insoluble problems.
                      But you do not seem to be interested ... the delight of the Chinese achievements - where is it from?

                      - This, dear comrade, is not "delight". This is fear and horror. belay
                      Take a trip to China. Take a closer look at how and what people live there. Very likely you will NOT LIKE it there ...

                      - I know as masses of people live in China. I know the ecology nightmares in many places. But this does not prevent me from assessing as objectively as possible the capabilities of China, the dynamics of its science and technology, and the prospects for its development.
                      In the same way as I absolutely hate the Nazism of Hitlerite Germany - at the same time, I can quite calmly assess their achievements during the preparation and conduct of WWII. "Flies - separately, cutlets - separately."
                      And your disdain for the technological capabilities of China - I don't even know which causes more - the desire to laugh or cry? Rather cry all the same ... crying
                      1. Mountain shooter
                        Mountain shooter 30 August 2020 11: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: Outsider
                        And your disdain for the technological capabilities of China - I don't even know which causes more - the desire to laugh or cry? Rather cry all the same ...

                        Well, you don't communicate with them! And they don't buy anything from you ... You don't read their scientific publications. Therefore, you cannot know their problems. And they are there. And money cannot compensate them.
                      2. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 31 August 2020 01: 04 New
                        +1
                        Are these problems that money, time and people cannot solve? If so, what are the problems?
                      3. Mountain shooter
                        Mountain shooter 31 August 2020 06: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: Eye of the Crying
                        Are these problems that money, time and people cannot solve?

                        The problem is people. In their mentality. In the reinforced concrete chain of command in their research teams. The rule - "I am the boss - you" is executed there LONELY. And if the boss doesn't understand how to solve the problem, then ... you yourself understand. There are also problems with terminology. Technical ... Language features. One and the same term is called differently in different provinces, and even the hieroglyph for it is DIFFERENT. While communicating with you, different groups of specialists periodically make pauses, a day long, and arrange a briefing, at which they collectively establish what exactly they were told - or rather, what they understood. And then the first rule leads to amazing results. The boss said - that's it !!! The result, you know ...
                      4. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 31 August 2020 09: 44 New
                        -1
                        I see. Thanks.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 22: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: Outsider
    Lagging behind reality: the Chinese have built a plant for the serial production of WS-15 engines for the J-20 aircraft for a year already, - 300 out of 500 aircraft will be equipped with such engines, with a thrust of 18 tons:


    Don't you just don't understand her. They will release it. Maybe someday. Only now the resource is unlikely to be more than 100-200 hours and it will not give out the required power. Unless, of course, the Americans sold the license and started production. Which is unlikely.
    In reality, the WS-10 never reached the actual resource of 1000 hours. Rumored to be no more than 900 hours. That of course progress. 12-13 years ago, this engine had a resource of 250-300 hours.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 31 August 2020 00: 35 New
      0
      - On the third and fourth year of the Barnaul Air Force Academy, in 1972-73, I flew the Il-28. The resource of the then VK-1 engines, new, Soviet, was 100 (one hundred) hours. After a major overhaul at a plant in Poland (and there were most of these engines) - 50 (fifty) hours. Every Saturday, in the morning, we, the cadets of this unit, plus the technician of this aircraft, where the engine should be changed, plus the technician of this unit, went to the airfield after breakfast. And before lunch, we, about 12 people, "sweaty" twisted the nuts on the hoods and fenders with special keys to disassemble the wing half - the Il-28 was wonderful for its time, but changing the engine on it was horror-horror! belay

      Therefore, 1000 hours, and the engine changes relatively easily - everyone got rid of the mistakes of the past long ago - this is sheer nonsense. And the fact that a modern Chinese engine has a resource of 100-200 hours is unlikely. At least 500 hours. And this, if the Chinese are working, are "seeds"! lol
  • Split
    Split 29 August 2020 10: 11 New
    +1
    Each sandpiper praises his swamp (c) They constantly accuse us that we are like living on Soviet developments .... And as already mentioned .... they still have an engine, in fact, on the same Soviet ones.

    ZY It's strange that they didn't mention who gave birth to the news in China ... a plow or a rake
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 29 August 2020 10: 20 New
    +1
    Let's count the countries with aviks. Who are they going to sell to? Apparently only to ourselves and to us.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 29 August 2020 11: 38 New
    0
    This is for a long time.
    But the designers are in business, they gain experience.
  • Coconut
    Coconut 29 August 2020 12: 14 New
    0
    Looks like a Raptor ... licked off once again ... sad