Military Review

Sea Strike: Is F / A-18 Still Cool and Relevant?

119

Eric Tegler of Popular Mechanics has done a pretty good job trying to explain to everyone why the F / A-18 is still the main attack aircraft of the maritime aviation and will be relevant for a long time in this role.


Why the F / A-18 Is Such a Badass Plane.

A bold move considering the F / A-18 has been in service since 1983. That is, soon 40 years.

To begin with, the aircraft has only two official victories during its long service: over the Iraqi MiG-21s during the first Gulf War, in Operation Desert Storm. Two F / A-18Cs in the bomber version, that is, armed with MK 84 bombs and Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, when they were intercepted by two Iraqi MiG-21s, successfully shot down both interceptors.

We'll talk about losses at the end. Let's fix the fact that the plane is combat and toothy, because this was the first and so far the only case when a bomber successfully fought off interceptors.

The Hornet (Hornet) is a multi-faceted aircraft. Based on the abbreviation of the name - fighter-attack aircraft, fighter attack. The fruit of the US Navy's long deliberations on what a universal sea-based aircraft should be.


In general, история The F / A-18 wasn't easy. The plane, having made its first flight in 1974, turned out to be of no use to anyone, having miserably lost the competition for a fighter role in the F-16 Air Force, and at sea did not gain an understanding of the essence either. The Navy preferred the modernized F-14 to him, and only the intervention of Defense Secretary James Schlesinger himself made them "change their minds."

In general, the US Navy dreamed of an aircraft that could be based both on aircraft carriers and on coastal airfields. The dream of unifying the Air Force fleet and the Marine Corps was very real and useful at the same time.

In addition, the new aircraft could replace two outdated models at once: the F-4 fighter and the A-7 attack aircraft.

But the main thing was that it had to be both a simple and inexpensive aircraft capable of solving the tasks of a fighter and an attack aircraft at the same time.

Actually, this practice is not new for the US Navy and the ILC. Back in World War II, F6F Hellcat F4U Corsair fighters could carry bomb loads as heavy as the dive bombers of the time, successfully combining fighter and strike capabilities in one aircraft.

Of course, jet aircraft turned out to be faster and more efficient than piston aircraft, but the principle of application remained. More precisely, the American naval command continued to want the aircraft to combine both functions of a fighter and an attack aircraft.

The legendary F-4 Phantom demonstrated the potential of a fighter / attack aircraft during the Vietnam War. However, the Navy's concern for air superiority and the protection of its aircraft carriers from enemy aircraft led the Navy to order the F-14 Tomcat in 1969.

The Tomcat was a very good aircraft, but too expensive. And the price ultimately sentenced him, and the naval command set off in search of a miracle, that is, a better and cheaper plane.

The choice was rather limited: either the prototype of the single-engine General Dynamics YF-16, or the twin-engine Northrop YF-17.

The YF-16 will enter service with the Air Force as the F-16 Battle Falcon. The Navy, however, preferred the aircraft's two engines. After Northrop merged with McDonnell Douglas, the two defense companies jointly unveiled a heavily redesigned version of the YF-17 for the Navy. The aircraft was named F-18.

Initially, the aircraft was to be produced in three models:
- single F-18 to replace the F-4;
- single A-18 to replace the A-7 Corsair;
- double training TF-18, which could play the role of a fighter.

However, the manufacturers took the path of maximum simplification and combined the single-seat variants into one F / A-18A, and the two-seater were renamed F / A-18B.

Sea Strike: Is F / A-18 Still Cool and Relevant?

The aircraft had to be qualitatively redesigned for new tasks. The fuel reserve was significantly increased, despite this, the range was only 10% more than that of the A-7 and very slightly better than that of the F-4.

The new aircraft, now officially called the Hornet, took off for the first time in November 1978. The tests revealed many problems: excessive take-off speed and take-off roll. They had to be quickly resolved by changing the size of the horizontal stabilizers. Insufficient transonic acceleration was also found. Engine modifications solved the problem somewhat, but not completely. And the combat radius of the strike fighter of 460 miles was, as mentioned above, slightly better than that of its predecessors.

However, none of these shortcomings were enough for the fleet to abandon aircraft. The first F / A-18A entered service with Marine Corps VMFA-314 Squadron at MCAS "El Toro".

The F / A-18 was immediately appreciated not only for its strike accuracy and reliability, but also for the fact that the aircraft required no more than half the hours of maintenance for the F-14A and A-6E.

Later, another serious drawback manifested itself: when flying at high angles of attack, deformations and cracks in the tail began. By then, McDonell-Douglas and Northrop had parted ways, and the liquidation fell on McDonell. The company developed special repair kits that could fix the problem.

The Hornet received universal recognition after participating in Operation Eldorado Canyon against Libya in 1986.

The success was not that deafening, but such that orders immediately fell on the Hornet, and by 1989 the plane was in service with the Air Forces of Canada, Australia, Spain, Kuwait and Switzerland.


Complaints about insufficient flight range did not stop. To solve this problem and make the aircraft a more efficient night and all-weather aircraft, McDonnell-Douglas developed and introduced the F / A-18C and the two-seater F / A-18D in 1987.

The C / D included upgraded radar, new avionics and air-to-air / surface missiles AIM-120 AMRAAM, AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Added new generation infrared night cameras, which increased the combat capabilities of the aircraft. Plus, they installed new F404-GE-402 engines, which produced at least 10% more thrust.

The F / A-18 naval fighter / attack aircraft took part in several military conflicts.

In addition to Operation Eldorado Canyon in Libya in April 1986 and the Gulf War (liberation of Kuwait) in 1991, the Hornet fought in Yugoslavia in 1995 as part of Operation Deliberate Force, in Operation Desert Fox. (bomb strikes on military targets in Iraq, 1998), took part in the military operation in Afghanistan (from 2001 to the present day), in the Iraqi war (operation to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime) in 2003-2010, in the operation "The Return of Odyssey" (bombing targets in Libya, 2011).

It cannot be said that the life of "Hornet" was strewn with roses. In the same war with Iraq, the irrecoverable losses of the F / A-18 amounted to 5 vehicles. One plane was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25, one S-75 air defense system, two planes collided in the air, one crashed due to engine failure.

During the operation of the F / A-18, 235 aircraft were lost for various reasons. Out of about 1500 issued - a bit too much.

Yes, the Hornet shone during the Gulf War with its precision and high combat readiness. And in other operations "Hornet" showed itself in exactly the same way. But nothing is eternal, and more than forty years of service is pretty much. There are few aircraft in the world capable of boasting such a career.


While the Hornet dominated the skies, the fleet began looking for a replacement. The 1980s program to replace the A-6 strike aircraft led to the creation of the McDonell-Douglas A-12 Avenger, a fairly stealth aircraft with advanced radar capable of carrying high-precision weapon.

Separately, the Navy sought to replace the F-14 with a variant of the F-22 Raptor, convenient for aircraft carriers. Meanwhile, Grumman has offered upgraded versions of the F-14.

Alas, the plans were not destined to come true. Humanly, the Raptor did not fly, and the price rose to the skies. The USSR collapsed, and there were no rivals at the new level. Therefore, the F-22 was abandoned altogether, and later Defense Secretary Richard Cheney also sentenced the F-14 improvement program.

And "Hornet" continued its service as if nothing had happened.


What explains such a high demand for the F / A-18 family, which, as of December 2017, exceeded the milestone of 10 million flight hours? There are several reasons.

The simplicity of design made the aircraft easier to manufacture and maintain. Hence the potential for improvement. The high reliability of the machine made it possible to calmly develop new upgrades. Quite radical, such as the "Super Hornet", which used plastic fuel tanks, stealth elements and a weapon container made using "stealth" technology.

It is worth noting the fact that the special versions of the "Hornet" turned out to be simpler and better than on the basis of the same F-22. The same EA-18G "Growler", an electronic warfare aircraft based on the F / A-18, turned out to be a very serious machine. All in all, instead of a gun, they installed a powerful computing unit - and the effect is obvious.

The two-seater version proved to be useful in solving problems associated with increased workload on the pilot. For example, long flights followed by strikes against multiple targets.

And, of course, a wide selection of weapons. Air-to-air missiles, winged, anti-ship, guided bombs, and more.


As a result, the F / A-18 became the main attack aircraft of the US Navy and ILC, quite deservedly. In the combat composition of the ship's air wings, it accounts for 60-70% of the total.

F / A-18s are not in production, but there are no plans to remove them from service. Considering that not all is well with the F-35B / C either, it is safe to say that the Hornets will fly to the point of exhaustion.
Author:
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 5 October 2020 18: 15
    -17 qualifying.
    Universalism is good, up to a point. But then the problems begin. Deck attack aircraft / carrier-based fighter / electronic warfare aircraft - all in one bottle))))
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 October 2020 18: 25
      +4
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Deck attack aircraft / carrier-based fighter / electronic warfare aircraft - all in one bottle

      + tanker
    2. vch62388
      vch62388 5 October 2020 18: 28
      22
      It is for deck vehicles that universalism is fully justified. Although specialized and have separate advantages (each in its own segment), however, the questions of those are removed on the ship. maintenance, spare parts, consumables, etc.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 5 October 2020 18: 31
        -26 qualifying.
        So far, mattress deck aircraft have not faced a strong enemy. When this happens, then we will see how universalization has justified itself.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 5 October 2020 18: 49
          +6
          ... mattress deck aviation did not face a strong enemy ...

          It looks like F18 is not destiny to meet him ..
          Russian Su-33s lost their only floating airfield for ... time. And the Chinese decks are still very far from competing with the US augs. Until they "mature", they will have to meet not with the F18, but with the F35.
          1. KCA
            KCA 5 October 2020 19: 13
            -14 qualifying.
            If the Chinese feel a real threat, they will not hesitate to order the SU-33, while there are show-offs from both sides, can you build your own deck, if it presses down, will the SU-33 come down when they launch the third aircraft carrier there? In 2022, we are waiting for orders for the SU-33, or the MiG-29K, and the F-35 will not be allowed close to China, there is a risk of a real air battle, mattresses will not want to disgrace themselves
            1. WapentakeLokki
              WapentakeLokki 5 October 2020 20: 35
              10
              ... even if US NAVY has not met with a real enemy over the ocean for a LONG time (it is possible to argue how formidable Zero and the entire Yamato fleet were ...), but in the whole world, ANYONE (well, except that the RAF is an ally of the states) THERE IS NO THIS .. EXPERIENCE .. (.. and the trip to Syria Kuzi .. well, let's not talk about sad things .. just state that Russia does not have carrier-based aircraft !!!) .. but China does not have it either) .. then, according to the experience of the Korean War in the distant 50th, Chinese pilots showed themselves not so hot (the lion's share of the MiG-15 losses falls on the Chinese), regularly losing in battles with USA pilots ... you think since then EVERYTHING has changed and the air Shao Lin has grown capable of bending pilots with almost a century of experience in operating it is carrier-based aircraft ??? .. and, by the way, the quality of aircraft (and let me remind you that the PLA Air Force is entirely either licensed (or not licensed) aircraft .. its .. well, perhaps a compilation from the above. .) is not yet the main thing .. the order beats the class .. well, there is a place to be minded here (.. and for a long time these are the sons of the Sredinna steel such nym ??? this is after a thousand years of history of CONTINUOUS defeats and occupations ... of all who managed to swim there ..) .. of course there are still descendants of samurai ALREADY otrohali AV (modestly calling it a helicopter carrier but with the possibility of basing F-35 verticals.). and these are then they can ... but they are allies of the USA ... alas, so who is real today CAN CHALLENGE the USA aircraft carrier group ??? .. what do you think ...
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 6 October 2020 03: 49
              +2
              To restart the Su-33 is to restart it. The price of the plane will be good if it is 2 times higher than the standard drying. Saying "I want" and being able to do are two different things.
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 06: 20
              10
              Quote: KCA
              If the Chinese feel a real threat, they will not hesitate to order the SU-33

              Forget the Su-33. A long ago outdated plane, despite the fact that there is no production capacity for it.
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 6 October 2020 10: 11
                0
                Of course, not a particularly big specialist in aviation, but as far as I understand, the Su-33 is a modification of the 27th, what prevents it from being put back on the conveyor, in an updated version?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 14: 29
                  +1
                  I'm not a very big specialist either, but this is the case.
                  The Su-33 defeated the MiG29K because it was a minimally modernized Su-27 adapted for flight from the deck. This level of the Su-27SM is good if. Accordingly, there were no problems with its production in the 90s, but with the MiG-29K, which was made on the basis of the still unfinished MiG-29M, that is, not a combatant, but a modernized aircraft, there were.
                  Now, to bring the Su-33 up to date, everything must be changed: both the engines and the avionics. And this is a huge and long-term work, according to the results of which even a glider will not remain from the Su-33. If the Su-35 had an acceptable weight, it would have been easier to spoil it, probably.
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 6 October 2020 18: 27
                    0
                    And what about the Su - 33, are there any fundamentally different engines? And avionics should be changed anyway, because it is outdated
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 18: 42
                      0
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And what about the Su - 33, are there any fundamentally different engines?

                      Sure. It can be loaded with what was put on the Su-27, but not on the Su-30 and, moreover, the Su-35
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And avionics should be changed anyway, because it is outdated

                      But in order to replace it with something that is not completely outdated and requires cardinal changes in everything up to and including the glider. Even the Bars will not fit into the Su-33, let alone the Irbis
                      1. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 7 October 2020 09: 58
                        -1
                        As far as I understand, the Su - 33, Su - 27 glider differs only in strength and chassis. For a more rigid landing on the deck, and a jerk of the aerofiner. The first time I hear that there were some unique engines. Rearrangement of the bow? If a Su-27 was made from the Su-34, then it is possible, especially since such cardinal alterations will not be required.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 10: 18
                        +2
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        As far as I understand, the Su - 33, Su - 27 glider differs only in strength and chassis.

                        In general, it is different and pretty decent. The same glider with PGO, for example
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The first time I hear that there were some unique engines.

                        Special naval modification
                        In fact, this is five minutes before the last engine for the Su-27 family. Then there was a small revolution - the Su-30 received a dvigun with an UHT, that is, with a deflected nozzle.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Rearrangement of the bow? If the Su-27 made the Su-34, then it is possible

                        Nobody made the Su-27 from the Su-34 - the Su-27 was taken as a base for the Su-34. And it took the USSR 4 years to roll out the prototype, and the first plane similar to the truth appeared only 7 years after the start of work on it. And then it was about experimental aircraft.
                        With the modernization of the Su-33 it will be about the same
                      3. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 7 October 2020 12: 42
                        0
                        Well, you can upgrade the existing 33, you get two squadrons. It will be possible to have a combined Su-33 and MiG-29 air group
                  2. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 7 October 2020 10: 01
                    0
                    P.S. I read in the net that in 2016 they began production of engines for them. As far as I understand, this is AL - 41, some kind of naval modification.
      2. Phoenix
        Phoenix 6 October 2020 10: 56
        0
        Potential skirmishes will not necessarily take place at sea, against enemy decks. The US Navy attacks coastal states around the planet and carrier-based aircraft have repeatedly faced an enemy based on land. Examples - Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Serbia, Panama ... The enemy is certainly not equal, but not deck-based at all. There were also losses.
  2. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 October 2020 18: 45
    15
    Quote: vch62388
    Although specialized and have separate advantages (each in its own segment), however, the questions of those are removed on the ship. maintenance, spare parts, consumables, etc.

    Not only. A single deck vehicle removes the main operational question: in what proportion to equip an air group with fighters, attack aircraft, tankers, etc.
    Before the introduction of a single deck vehicle, AB had 2-3 variants of the composition of the aircraft wings, which they were equipped with depending on the task at hand. But, as Sprague's experience shows, tasks can change right during the operation: they sent you to bomb and storm the coast - and then suddenly the enemy's fleet falls out on you. smile
    The Yankees even made a deck tanker on the basis of a deck drummer: when working at a large radius, he refills the drummers, and at a small radius, he removes the OPAZ and retrains as a drummer.
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 5 October 2020 18: 49
      +1
      Totally agree with you.
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 6 October 2020 10: 16
      0
      How much kerosene can such a tanker transfer? The performance of the functions of an attack aircraft assumes at least some, minimal booking of the cockpit, fuel tanks, engines, since the likelihood of meeting air defense and simply shelling from the ground with a shooter increases significantly.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 14: 31
        +1
        The Americans do not set such assault tasks for the hornet :))
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 6 October 2020 18: 25
          0
          Do Americans in Washington know in advance what will happen in Afghanistan in 5 years?))))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 18: 35
            +2
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Do Americans in Washington know in advance what will happen in Afghanistan in 5 years?))))

            The Americans were never going to use "hornets" on the tactics of the Su-25 :))) Their naval attack aircraft were, in fact, bombers - the same A-6 was all-weather, could operate at night, had very good sighting equipment, and armor not delivered :))))
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 5 October 2020 18: 53
    0
    What's so bad about him? Loads, speeds and range if the same - there is no problem to perform all functions with one glider.
  • Avior
    Avior 5 October 2020 20: 36
    +3
    For decks, versatility is especially important.
    If according to the current conditions and tasks you need fighters, and instead of that you have half of them - attack aircraft, then you will have nowhere to replace in the sea.
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 5 October 2020 18: 33
    +2
    Yet Hornet and Super Hornet are different machines. The glider, engines, avionics are different. If we accept that this is one car, then you need to add F5 to them. YF-17 deep processing of F5.
    In the 2030s, the Super Hornets will just start to write off, according to the F / A-XX program, it is planned to create a replacement F / A-18 E / F only by these years.
  • KCA
    KCA 5 October 2020 18: 49
    -17 qualifying.
    In principle, aerodynamic concepts are similar to those of the SU-33, but why is the F / A so ugly compared to the SU-XNUMX?
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 5 October 2020 18: 54
      15
      The beauty factor is purely subjective. As for me, the American is very much even nothing.
      1. KCA
        KCA 5 October 2020 19: 03
        -1
        Oh, and I realized that he reminds me - YAK-50/52, in the 3rd photo, where the spark is, externally, of course, are completely different, but, as if one designer drew
        1. Kostya Lavinyukov
          Kostya Lavinyukov 5 October 2020 19: 54
          +1
          He reminds me of the F-5 late modification. Long nose, tapering fuselage and straight trailing edge of the wing.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 5 October 2020 19: 57
            +1
            Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
            He reminds me of the F-5 late modification.

            F18 is the F5 rework.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 October 2020 18: 56
      +1
      The Su-27 and its descendants are, in principle, the most beautiful aircraft for my taste. On the whole, Soviet cars are prettier. F18 for more American norms.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 5 October 2020 19: 09
        +5
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Su 27 and its descendants are the most beautiful aircraft in principle, ...

        The plane should not be spectacular, but effective.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 October 2020 19: 11
          -1
          Su-27 not effective? belay
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 5 October 2020 19: 16
            +4
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Su-27 not effective?

            It depends on what you compare it to.
            I do not remember the "combat" use of the Su-27.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 5 October 2020 19: 23
              +4
              Quote: Bez 310
              It depends on what you compare it to.
              I do not remember the "combat" use of the Su-27.

              Ethiopia, maybe.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 5 October 2020 19: 27
                -3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Ethiopia except

                In general, no conclusions can be drawn yet.
                about the combat effectiveness of the aircraft.
              2. KCA
                KCA 5 October 2020 19: 45
                -4
                Let's wait until Egypt flies to bomb the dam, Ethiopia still has SU-27s in the state, but on the wing, are they?
                1. Bagatur
                  Bagatur 5 October 2020 20: 43
                  -1
                  We must bomb now, before the reservoir is filled. Then it will be too late. The wave sweeps away everything along the way. Sudan and Egypt will show little ...
                  1. KCA
                    KCA 5 October 2020 20: 58
                    -1
                    No, it's all fairy tales, that's just to demolish the entire dam, it is necessary to lay more than one thousand charges, to blow up at the same time, the dam is not the genital organ of a dog, you just can't tear it off, the bombs are like that, on trifles, maximum, well, they pierced one shield, water will quietly flow , they will bomb to scare the workers, and it is necessary to damage it with ammunition, and the dam does not consist of one wall, at least 2, both must be blown up, otherwise the shield will fall and block the water
            2. Garris199
              Garris199 5 October 2020 23: 31
              +1
              The combat use of the F-18 is also not an indicator. Victories over the obsolete MiG-21, etc., are still not saying anything.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 6 October 2020 07: 07
                -2
                The F-18 is not only a fighter, but rather not so much ...
                In general, this plane also showed itself in work on the ground.
                Everything is written in the article, and it's silly to argue with the author, this
                the plane is well established, and there are opportunities for modernization.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 08: 26
                  -1
                  F-fighter
                  A-attack aircraft
                  It is originally designed as 2 in 1.
              2. Hexenmeister
                Hexenmeister 6 October 2020 09: 51
                +1
                Victories over the obsolete MiG-21, etc., are still not saying anything.
                This is for sure, and if we also add that:
                One plane was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25, one S-75 air defense system
                , that is, the ancient air defense system with a mass of unmasking factors and a primitive guidance method, which should not have knocked anyone out of the "modern" at that time ...
              3. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 6 October 2020 19: 30
                +1
                In 2017, an F-18 shot down a Syrian Su-22 in eastern Syria
                missile AMRRAM
                "New details of the Su-22 and F-18 combat in Syria have become known."
                Channel Star.
                1. Garris199
                  Garris199 6 October 2020 22: 07
                  0
                  Come on, come on. The SU-22 is a good car, but it was relevant in the 70s of the last century.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 14: 31
      0
      Quite different
  • ares1988
    ares1988 5 October 2020 19: 02
    +3
    Why is it not produced:
    In March 2019, the US Navy and Boeing signed a contract to supply 78 new F / A-18 Block III Super Hornet fighters until 2022.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 5 October 2020 20: 40
      +2
      "Hornet" is TOO good and versatile aircraft with enough potential to consider it obsolete and unnecessary even after 40 years.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 5 October 2020 19: 05
    +6
    The plane turned out to be very good.
    They know how ...
  • Alien From
    Alien From 5 October 2020 19: 26
    +3
    Timely car. The acquired competencies and money do their job.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 5 October 2020 20: 22
    +5
    Eh and with whom to compare? In other states, during the operation of the f-18, carrier-based aircraft either completely died or is in its infancy. In terms of combat effectiveness, there is also no one close, because no one fights as much as the United States. In terms of capabilities, the deck raphal is close and even superior, but there the carrier is constantly being repaired, and the number is minimum compared to the hornet. The super hornet will be the main one for a long time, and even when the f-35 becomes the main one, it will not completely replace it. The competition has already been announced for a new tender.

    I have nothing against Hornet, but most of the articles about it are clearly an order from Boeing, which carries only one message. The F-35 still needs to be finished, 18 is ready and tested, buy ours better.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 October 2020 20: 29
      -1
      Quote: Choi
      Eh and with whom to compare?

      MiG-29 / 29K / 35 direct analog. Hornets are available in land modification. But the comparison is not in favor of the MiG-29, to put it mildly.
      Quote: Choi
      The super hornet will be the main one for a long time, and even when the f-35 becomes the main one, it will not completely replace it.

      F35С was created to replace the F / A-18C / D, to replace the F / A-18E / F there will be a new aircraft according to the F / A-XX project
      Quote: Choi
      about him is clearly an order from Boeing, which carries only one message.

      There is such a moment. F / A-18E / F and F35 very often compete in contracts.
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 5 October 2020 23: 30
        0
        MiG-29 / 29K / 35 direct analog. Hornets are available in land modification. But the comparison is not in favor of the MiG-29, to put it mildly.


        There is such a thing in the 29th and 33rd decks, as it were. And when there was that combat missions in the same Syria there was a minimum. We worked with Khmeimima. I am aware of the land version, but it is only worth comparing the marine versions in this context. And what is funny about this story is that no aircraft of this type has a combat path and capabilities. Because there are no aircraft carriers comparable to them.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 06: 22
        0
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        MiG-29 / 29K / 35 direct analog. Hornets are available in land modification. But the comparison is not in favor of the MiG-29, to put it mildly.

        You think so in vain
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 08: 25
          +1
          Sorry statistics. I hardly believe in bravade.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 11: 34
            +1
            Well, give statistics :)
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 6 October 2020 08: 57
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You think so in vain

          ))
          Yes, I remember your enthusiasm for MiG products.

          By the way, we will soon have a deadline for the MiG-35. A very tense IV quarter is ahead, as I understand it.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 11: 35
            +1
            Remind me, what do you mean by the deadline?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 6 October 2020 11: 57
              +4
              Well, what about
              RF CCS for 2020 g inclusive should have:
              PAK FA - 12 pcs. These will be machines for trial operation in the troops, so it is hardly worth considering them in the total quantity.
              Su-35C - 98 machines are tentative. The contract for 48 machines has already been executed, now the second one is being executed, on 50 aircraft until the end of 2020.
              Su-30 M2 / CM - according to rumors, it is planned to bring to 180 machines to 2020.
              Su-33 - not clear, let's leave 14 machines.
              Su-27 CM / CM3 - 61 machine. In general, they initially said that at least 100 machines would be upgraded, but recently something has not been heard about Su-27CM3. Perhaps the program is minimized?
              MiG-35 - 30 machines
              MiG-29MT - 44 machines
              MiG-29UBT - 8 machines
              MiG-29KR - 19 machines
              MiG-29KUBR - 4 machines
              MiG-31 - 113 upgraded to 2020.
              In addition, an estimated number of un-upgraded vehicles will remain as part of the Russian Air Force: 78 Su-27, 69 MiG-31 and 120 MiG-29.


              I then latched onto the MiG-35s, which were pure nonsense, but you rejected my insinuations with great fervor. So we are waiting, sir))) And not only MiGs.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2020 13: 37
                -1
                This is about which I wrote in the article you cited
                It is too early to talk about the purchase of the MiG-35 (although the military does not exclude such a possibility). The aircraft will be able to go into production from 14-16 years. - will have time to put a few dozen. But will Poghosyan's "lobby" make it possible? Question…

                Oh well:)
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 6 October 2020 19: 25
                  +4
                  Something you frighten me.

                  I am citing a 2017 article.

                  https://topwar.ru/130894-rossiya-protiv-nato-sootnoshenie-sil-taktichekoy-aviacii.html

                  You are the work of 2013

                  https://topwar.ru/25204-primernyy-kolichestvennyy-sostav-vvs-rf-k-2020-godu.html

                  Which doesn't seem to be yours at all. So no, your position in 2017 was slightly different.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 21: 11
                    +2
                    I read the comments. Yes. Andrey's comments about MiG35 and F35 are straight facepalm negative It is interesting to recalculate the predicted amount of equipment in the article and the real one for today.
                  2. Liam
                    Liam 6 October 2020 21: 52
                    +2
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    not yours

                    User: Bronis


                    Group Member
                    Was online on 6 October 2020


                    What a coincidence. Last comment is a year ago.
                  3. Liam
                    Liam 6 October 2020 22: 16
                    +3
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Your position in 2017 was slightly different.

                    I read it now ... about 30 MiG-35s and the F-2020 that are not ready for 35 ... Epic)
                    And then AiCh gets offended why I don't take his writing seriously
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 22: 50
                      +2
                      Quote: Liam
                      about 30 MiG-35 and non-ready by 2020 F-35 ... Epic)

                      Okay, I wrote and wrote, so he still argues, proves something. Old news about Armata is just as fun to read.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 6 October 2020 22: 52
                        +4
                        After the appearance of Klimov with Timokhin and their revelations, he stopped writing about the Navy)
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 7 October 2020 07: 42
                      +3
                      )))
                      Well, he cut Andrey's haters))

                      In principle, the position on penguins is clear. And the bet on the DVB has not played quite well in history, and the Americans have never had complicated and non-working things. Another thing is that time, of course, will put everything in its place.

                      Now, for example, the case of Switzerland, penguins or superhornets is important. It will be very interesting to see both the solution and the reasoning.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 7 October 2020 09: 25
                        +3
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Andrew

                        A colleague is a polemist with experience. Now he will disassemble himself into quotes and prove that in the third post, the second paragraph from the top from the second comma to the third word before the exclamation mark, he was right .. here you have a bite)
                      2. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 7 October 2020 10: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Liam
                        Now he will disassemble himself into quotes and prove that in the third post, the second paragraph from the top from the second comma to the third word before the exclamation mark, he was right .. here, take a bite)

                        Indeed, they correctly predicted. laughing
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 7 October 2020 13: 32
                        +3
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik

                        Indeed, they correctly predicted.

                        I know my chickens)
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 07: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Liam
                  I read it now ... about 30 MiG-35s and the F-2020 that are not ready for 35 ... Epic)

                  I didn’t even doubt that you would come running with it :))) And, as always, by.
                  As I wrote about the European F-35
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Basically, there are plans to write off under F-35 which are not there and will not be in commercial quantities in Europe until 2020

                  I do not think that these aircraft will be ready for 2020


                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Further - well, let's say a miracle happened and the F-36 by the 18th year is absolutely and completely ready. How will it be purchased in Europe? Take Turkey - According to Lockheed Martin, in 2018 the Turkish Air Force will receive the first two F-35s ordered as part of the 11th initial production batch (LRIP-10). The second order for four vehicles will be completed as part of the production batch of LRIP-11, starting in 2019, and the next vehicles will go after 2021. by 2020, the Turks will have several of these aircraft in trial operation. You will understand that after a plane is declared combat-ready, it often spends years in elite units, which reveal its full capabilities.
                  Italy? Two planes, and so far nothing is heard of the rest. Norway? Plans to declare initial combat readiness by 2020, complete - by 2025, the Netherlands? 35 fighters in the period 2019 -2023, that is, they will not be combat-ready in 2020
                  That’s actually the answer to why I don’t think it makes sense to count the F-35 in Europe.

                  And which of what I said was not confirmed?
                  Deliveries to Turkey deflated, Britain received 18 aircraft and
                  In December 2018, it was announced that the F-35B fleet of the British Air Force had achieved initial readiness status for combat use from land. It is planned to achieve initial readiness for combat use from the sea in December 2020 after the delivery of 21 aircraft.
                  Norway
                  On November 6, 2019, the Norwegian Air Force announced that its fleet of F-35A Lightning-2 fighters had reached a state of initial readiness for combat use. The Air Force command plans to announce the full readiness of the aircraft for combat use in 2025.
                  etc. So where was I wrong?
                  I wrote about American F-35s in an article
                  F-35, which, most likely, as of 2020, will remain in a semi-operational state

                  And about
                  Quote: Liam
                  And then AiCh gets offended why I don't take his writing seriously

                  I can say that this is just some kind of nonsense. I wrote to you just the opposite - I can be upset by your praise, not your censure. Since, if you praise me, then I was very wrong somewhere :)))
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 7 October 2020 08: 52
                    +3
                    Do not be offended, you yourself admit that you write according to the principle I am an artist as I see it).And the numbers and facts in this case are of secondary importance. By the way. For 2020 (in reality) there are almost as many "European" F-35s as there are Su-35s in Russia)
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 09: 41
                    0
                    Quote: Liam
                    Don't be offended

                    That is, in essence, as usual, there are no objections.
                    Quote: Liam
                    For 2020 (in reality) the "European" F-35 is almost the same as the Su-35 in Russia)

                    HERE only they have big problems with combat readiness. Unlike the Su-35
                  3. Liam
                    Liam 7 October 2020 11: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    HERE only they have big problems with combat readiness. Unlike the Su-35

                    Fear God. Su-35s are delivered to the entire army a year by a teaspoon. In emergency mode, under New Year's glasses, as is customary. In 2019, exactly 6 (six) pieces. Pole squadrons. This is also planned. The combat-ready, fully equipped, trained and well-knit squadrons on the Su-35 can be counted on the fingers of one hand. About the regiments, you can generally remain silent. The links scattered here and there are a filkin certificate and not combat readiness
                  4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 11: 59
                    +1
                    Quote: Liam
                    Fear God. Su-35s are supplied to the entire army a year by a teaspoon.

                    There were 88 teaspoons last year
                    Quote: Liam
                    In emergency mode, under New Year's wine glasses, as is customary.

                    Again, a mistake - in the military-industrial complex, the delivery of finished products usually takes place at the end of the year, this is due to the peculiarities of the conclusion of contracts
                    Quote: Liam
                    In 2019, there are exactly 6 (six) field squadrons.

                    Actually, this year it is planned to deliver 10 aircraft, the second contract is being closed (the first one was for 48, has already been fulfilled, the second - for 50). In 2019, the same amount was delivered. In general, the second contract provided for the supply of 10 Su-35s every year, starting in 2016
                    Quote: Liam
                    The combat-ready, fully equipped, trained and well-knit squadrons on the Su-35 can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

                    ESCADRILY - no longer :)))) At the beginning of 2020, there were about 70 vehicles in the Aerospace Forces (not in the run-in, not in the elite units, namely in ordinary combatant units)
                    Quote: Liam
                    The links scattered here and there are filkin's letters and not combat readiness

                    It's very funny to read all of you here. That is, 18 F-35V England, which have not reached combat readiness for operations at sea and only the initial combat from ground airfields - stunned, which are combat-ready. And 88 Su-35s, which have completely passed the state, which have been supplied to the Aerospace Forces since the beginning of the 10s, are, well, never combat-ready.
                  5. Liam
                    Liam 7 October 2020 12: 17
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In fact, 10 aircraft are planned to be delivered this year.

                    Of which 4 are for acrobats. In linear parts, 6 are.
                    This is 2019 year
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In fact, 10 aircraft are planned to be delivered this year.

                    Exactly the same garbage. 4 acrobats (handed over a couple of months ago) 6 (which are not yet) -in the unit. Declare them already combat-ready. You will become
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    At the beginning of 2020, there were about 70 vehicles in the Aerospace Forces (not on the run-in, not in the elite units, namely in the ordinary combatant units)

                    That's it. Combat vehicles -70. For 12 years of serial production. 6 vehicles per year.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    ESCADRILY - no longer :))))

                    How many full-fledged squadrons of the regular strength were formed from these 70 aircraft and how many regiments)
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    That is, 18 F-35s in England

                    People do not deal with phony literacy, but declare real ready-made manned units ready for combat.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    A 88 Su-35

                    Do you even understand the difference between a single aircraft released from the factory and a combat-ready squadron / regiment?
                  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 13: 00
                    0
                    Quote: Liam
                    Of which 4 are for acrobats. In linear parts, 6 are.

                    And there is.
                    Quote: Liam
                    That's it. Combat vehicles -70. For 12 years of serial production. 6 vehicles per year.

                    I will not even ask how from 2011 or even 2012, when mass production began and 2020 years have passed until the beginning of 12. And yes, 88 cars were produced a little like that - because a dozen of them were made for the Knights, it's a little ridiculous not to count them in serial production.
                    Quote: Liam
                    Exactly the same garbage. 4 acrobats (handed over a couple of months ago) 6 (which are not yet) -in the unit. Declare them already combat-ready. You will become

                    Oddly enough, they are highly likely to be combat-ready, since the pilots have already been trained for them. However, I am ready to admit that this is not so, and that it will take several months to fine-tune the aircraft.
                    Quote: Liam
                    How many full-fledged squadrons of the regular strength were formed from these 70 aircraft and how many regiments)

                    Given that the squadron is 12 aircraft, no less than six. But rather more, I think that now incomplete squadrons are being formed, pilots are trained, and then, as the Su-35 is ready, they are transferred to everything ready.
                    Quote: Liam
                    People do not deal with phony literacy, but declare real ready-made manned units ready for combat.

                    And they did NOT declare the F-35V as such. What does not prevent you from counting differently
                    Quote: Liam
                    Do you even understand the difference between a single aircraft released from the factory and a combat-ready squadron / regiment?

                    I do. You only remember this difference when it comes to Russian aircraft
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 10: 47
            +1
            Quote: Liam
            You are so. You yourself admit that you write according to the principle I am an artist, as I see it). And numbers and facts in this case are secondary.

            By the way, for once, you gave me a good idea. It will be necessary in 2021 in a separate article to knock out the actual state of affairs in relation to my forecasts for 2017
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 7 October 2020 09: 17
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So where was I wrong?

          I wasn't going to be rude, but you are wrong in cheating.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          How will it be purchased in Europe?

          European countries with a non-+/- zero number of penguins - Italy, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          On November 6, 2019, the Norwegian Air Force announced that its fleet of F-35A Lightning-2 fighters had reached a state of initial readiness for combat use. The Air Force command plans to announce the full readiness of the aircraft for combat use in 2025.

          The Western classification of readiness is irrelevant. In the work cited above, you included in the combat-ready for 2020 (and 70% of the combat-ready of the payroll) vehicles, which in 2017 existed in the form of more or less running mock-ups. And now, frankly, they exist in exactly the same form.

          Yes, the key aspect of the combat readiness of the fives is working in the network, with AWACS or other flying and non-flying searchlights (including the fives themselves according to the light / damage scheme). It's not for you to shoot down a Su-30 from a cannon. Small countries, which, in addition, have only NATO-wide AWACS and not their own, to achieve such combat readiness is not easy. But others, others, to work out such combat readiness has not even begun.
        4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 10: 01
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Wasn't going to be rude

          Come on :)))) Gathered
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          European countries with a non-+/- zero number of penguins - Italy, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway.

          What I wrote about. And he even quoted himself, beloved :))) Who said that the planes will be, there will be no combat readiness. What is the problem?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The Western classification of readiness is irrelevant.

          Brilliantly! The whole world needs to urgently determine the combat readiness of the F-35 by the standards of the Cherry Nine
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Yes, the key aspect of the combat readiness of the fives is working in the network, with AWACS or other flying and non-flying searchlights (including the fives themselves according to the light / damage scheme). It's not for you to shoot down a Su-30 from a cannon.

          In fact, networking is the normal mode of the Su-35. On Sukhoi's website we read
          Possibility of group actions in the air up to 16 Su-35 aircraft with automated information exchange and target allocation, incl. in the networks of the aviation terminal (AT).

          EMNIP even the Su-30 could do it, but here I could be wrong
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          In the work cited above, you included in the combat-ready for 2020 (and 70% of the combat-ready of the payroll) vehicles, which in 2017 existed in the form of more or less running mock-ups.

          What are they? Tell me, please.
        5. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 7 October 2020 20: 21
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          What are these?

          If we compare the total estimated number of the most modern aircraft of the Russian Federation (Su-35/30, MiG-35 / 29SMT / K), which, even without taking into account the modernized MiG-31BM, by 2020 there should be about 383 machines with the most modern NATO machines (440 "Eurofighter" maximum, plus 159 "Rafale", and a total of 599 cars), it turns out that the European NATO countries have more than a half-fold advantage. But if we compare the number of combat-ready vehicles (at 70% for the Russian Aerospace Forces and even 50% for NATO), we get 268 versus 299, i.e. almost parity.

          No plane catches your eye?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In fact, networking is the normal mode of the Su-35. On Sukhoi's website we read

          Lord God, you are back for your own. A lot is written on Sukhoi's website. I remember that someone was telling me about the artificial Soviet intelligence that Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev introduced on Granit rockets 50 years ago.

          In real life, partners have already turned gray, debugging software on airplanes. Since nothing is known about Sukhoi's torment, I personally conclude that they are not doing this at all.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Brilliantly! The whole world needs to urgently determine the combat readiness of the F-35

          The whole world can define combat readiness in any way, but in the same way, I find it strange that this has to be explained. And if there we count on those transferred by the industry to the troops, and then upon reaching a state that is poorly understood by you (how many Su-35s are ready for use from an aircraft carrier? Why does such readiness matter for you in the case of British aircraft?) - no, we do not need such hockey ...
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          the planes will be, there will be no combat readiness. What is the problem?

          The problem is that in the European part of Russia there are one and a half Su-35S regiments, the 159th and a little 790th + Kubinka. The partners in the 4 national air forces have a number of fives comparable to the 159 regiment. And then you need to very carefully clarify what combat readiness is in Hotilovo and Orland and what is in Kholilovo, which is so lacking in Orland.

          And I'll tell you what is not in Hotilovo, but Orlanda is.



          Against this background, you know, the question "whether the Russian Aerospace Forces have any chances against the Norwegian Air Force" is much more acute than the outcome of your imaginary conflict with NATO as a whole.
        6. Liam
          Liam 7 October 2020 20: 39
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          the total estimated number of the most modern aircraft of the Russian Federation (Su-35/30, MiG-35 / 29SMT / K), of which, even without taking into account the modernized MiG-31BM, by 2020 there should be about 383 machines

          Su-35 for 2020 -70 units in service
          Su-30 cm -91
          Su-30cm2-20
          MiG-35-let's not shoot at the red cross.
          Up to the sought 383 navanovanny aircraft lacking about 200 pieces. Is it really that many MiG-29 SMT / K produced in 10 years
        7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 07: 52
          0
          Quote: Liam
          Su-35 for 2020 -70 units in service

          Uh-huh. For 2019, transferred to the RF Armed Forces - 88, of which 12 - to knights
          Quote: Liam
          Su-30 cm -91

          Uh-huh. For 2019 - 114, of which 8 - to the knights, but it is possible that with the delivery of the Su-35 they were returned to the troops. I don't know for sure, however
          Quote: Liam
          Su-30cm2-20

          At least I managed to indicate something correctly, congratulations!
          Quote: Liam
          MiG-35-let's not shoot at the red cross.

          2 units
          Quote: Liam
          Up to the required 383 navanovanny aircraft are missing about 200 pieces.

          Until the desired 383 aircraft are missing 159 units if you count with the Russian knights and 175 units if you count without them.
          We add 42 MiG-29SMT, 8 MiG-29UB, 24 MiG-29K / KUB, for a total of 74 vehicles. In total, we have a deviation of 85-101 cars.
          We remember that we did not take into account the deliveries of 2020 ...
        8. Liam
          Liam 8 October 2020 10: 05
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yeah


          20: 28, 21 February 2020

          Disclosed the number of Russian Su-35S


          Currently, the Russian Armed Forces include about 70 fighters of the fourth generation Su-35S, Rostec reported on Facebook.

          The state corporation noted that the first such aircraft took off 12 years ago
          .
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Uh-huh. For 2019 - 114,

          I assume you counted them the same way as the 88 Su-35s.Creatively
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          2 units

          Count the flight simulators ... once there was such a booze ...
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          if you count with the Russian knights

          Considering acrobats as combat-ready air force lines is a manifestation severe Chelyabinsk humor)
        9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 11: 43
          0
          Quote: Liam
          Currently, the Armed Forces of Russia are about 70 fourth-generation fighter Su-35S, said Rostec on Facebook.

          And here is the table of Su-35S receipts from the bmpd blog https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3907389.html
          88 units, of which 12 are in the knights, respectively, 76 aircraft in the Air Force. By the way, 76 units may well be interpreted as "about 70", because the concept "about" implies a deviation in the meaning of "approximately", and not in the meaning of "less".
          Quote: Liam
          I guess you counted them the same way as 88 Su-35s.

          Alas and ah, you are wrong again
          Quote: Liam
          Count the flight simulators ... once there was such a booze ...

          I count planes. By the way, there should be 20 more cars in the 4th
          Quote: Liam
          Considering acrobats as combat-ready linear air forces is a manifestation of the harsh Chelyabinsk humor)

          I consider combat-ready aircraft, put up with it :)))
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 06: 59
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    No plane catches your eye?

    You wrote
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In the work cited above, you included in the combat-ready for 2020 (with 70% of the combat-ready of the listed number) vehicles, which in 2017 existed in the form of more or less running mock-ups

    Cars. And it turns out that we are talking about a machine called the MiG-35? :)
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In real life, partners have already turned gray, debugging software on airplanes. Since nothing is known about Sukhoi's torment, I personally conclude that they are not doing this at all.

    Revealing the next military secret
    The Russian Aerospace Forces conducted an experiment on the use of a "flock" of Su-35 fighters under the control of a 5th generation Su-57 aircraft in real combat conditions.
    According to a TASS source in the military-industrial complex, a group of Su-35 fighters was involved in the "pack", the role of the command-staff aircraft was played by the Su-57. "The experiment was carried out in real combat conditions," he added.
    Another source confirmed the nature of the tests and explained that in a battle formation, which pilots call a flock or swarm, information exchange between fighters is carried out in real time: the information and control system of each aircraft automatically processes data from both its own sensors and sensors from other aircraft.

    In general, the automatic exchange of information between airplanes and airplanes and the ground point was worked out on the good old MiG-31
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The whole world can define combat readiness in any way, but in the same way, I find it strange that this has to be explained. And if there we count on those transferred by the industry to the troops, and then upon reaching a state that is poorly understood by you

    You don't understand it well. The Su-35 has completed state tests and is fully operational. The F-35, with its initial stages of readiness, sits somewhere where the Su-35 was in 2013-2014. That is, technically, our aircraft is combat-ready, the F-35 is not. It was from here that I counted the number of combat-ready aircraft. And you are now talking about the readiness of the formations to use these aircraft, well, the F-35 is much farther to them than the Su-35, because the F-35 is fully ready only months after the technical readiness is reached.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And I'll tell you what is not in Hotilovo, but Orlanda is.

    The transfer of the A-50 to the desired direction is, in fact, a regular thing. It was even done in the first Chechen
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 October 2020 08: 17
    +3
    Facepalm zhpg

    Andrey, you are not able to maintain a discussion in the style of Samsonov's fans. You don't have enough stubbornness Perhaps blow up in the future, but so far it is rather weak.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    it turns out, we are talking about a machine called the MiG-35? :)

    You have already been told that it is not the MiG, but all the numbers in the quoted fragment are sucked from the finger. In terms of quantity, first of all, it was not the MiGs that were knocked down, but "according to rumors" 180 Su-30SM. I am generally totally LGBT friendly, but not in this case.

    You asked a specific question: where is it written about 70% of the MiG's combat readiness. I answered you.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    According to a TASS source in the military-industrial complex

    Like, just recently they discussed lies, but everything is not for the future. I'm already tired of writing that the phrase "source of TASS / RIA / Zvezda / Interfax in the military-industrial complex / MO" means, translated into Russian, "state official anonymously leaked state publication of stamped information. "What, let's say, is somehow strange to believe. It seems to me that it is simply offensive to pass such statements off as something deserving of attention. It is insulting to the interlocutor.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    automatic exchange of information between airplanes and airplanes and the ground point was worked out on the good old MiG-31

    On the Su-9. Are you kidding me?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Su-35 has completed state tests and is fully operational

    And then you start cheating again. On the one hand, you write about the combat capability of the vehicle, on the other hand, about the combat readiness of the specific units that received the vehicle, pretending that one is equal to the other.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    sits somewhere where the Su-35 was located in 2013-2014.

    Where the Penguin was in 2013-2014, the Su-35 has never been and never will be. Because its operators have no need to account to anyone for its condition.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It was from here that I counted the number of combat-ready aircraft. And you are now talking about the readiness of the formations to use these aircraft

    It seems that someone is too impudent.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In December 2018, it was announced that the F-35B fleet of the British Air Force had achieved initial readiness status for combat use from land. It is planned to achieve initial readiness for combat use from the sea in December 2020 after the delivery of 21 aircraft.
    Norway
    On November 6, 2019, the Norwegian Air Force announced that its fleet of F-35A Lightning-2 fighters had reached a state of initial readiness for combat use. The Air Force command plans to announce the full readiness of the aircraft for combat use in 2025.

    Who's that smart here?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The transfer of the A-50 to the desired direction is, in fact, a regular thing.

    No, It is Immpossible. That is, there are aircraft operating from the same base and created to work together, here opportunity the transfer of the board from Ivanovo to the "desired direction", but there is no difference, combat readiness as it is. Clearly understood.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 11: 38
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    You have already been told that it is not the MiG, but all the numbers in the quoted passage have been sucked out of your finger.

    A touching double standard. You reproach me with cheating (and - undeservedly), but you allow yourself to be completely.
    You wrote to me
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In the work cited above, you included in the combat readiness for 2020 (moreover, 70% of the combat readiness of the payroll) cars that in 2017 existed in the form of more or less running models

    I asked a question - what machines existed in the form of more or less running models? The answer was - MiG-35. When I point out that the MiG-35 is a machine, not a machine, you start telling me about the number of aircraft. I'm sorry, but quantity is one issue, and existence in the form of layouts is a little different. And you just changed one question for another
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In terms of quantity, first of all, it was not MiGs that were knocked down, but "according to rumors" 180 Su-30SM

    Yes. About which in the article it was directly said "according to rumors", however, I assumed that these rumors are quite similar to the truth, and there will be no curtailment of the production of the Su-30. As it turned out, I did not guess only that the next contract for the supply of the Su-30 was concluded later, and there was a gap in the supply.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    It seems that just recently they discussed lies, but everything is not for the future. I'm already tired of writing that the phrase "source of TASS / RIA / Zvezda / Interfax in the military-industrial complex / MO" means, translated into Russian, "a state official anonymously leaked stamped information to the state publication." What, let's say, is somehow strange to believe.

    Well, do not believe, who is forcing you? You have the belief that if the F-35 has not yet been mastered, then this is impossible for us. I have sources for TASS and so on, which sometimes lie.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    On the Su-9. Are you kidding me?

    no, I only urge to teach materiel.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And then you start cheating again. On the one hand, you write about the combat capability of the vehicle, on the other hand, about the combat readiness of the specific units that received the vehicle, pretending that one is equal to the other.

    Yes, I'm not cheating, but you. I took a clear criterion - the combat capability of the machine in the technical part, that is, by passing the state tests. To refute me you have to play around - "but some machines are at the acrobats, but some machines are not mastered in parts."
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Where the Penguin was in 2013-2014, the Su-35 has never been and never will be.

    Questions of faith are sacred to me
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    It seems that someone is too impudent.

    Rather, you are losing your temper. So why are you trying to argue if you cannot control yourself?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Who's that smart here?

    My quote confirms what I have said. What's your problem this time?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    No, It is Immpossible. That is, there are aircraft operating from the same base and created to work together, there is the possibility of transferring the board from Ivanovo to the "desired direction", but there is no difference, combat readiness as it is. Clearly understood.

    No, this is impossible :))) As for the E-3 photo, 18 planes were at the disposal of the European command of NATO, with a deployment at the Geilenkirchen airbase :)))) And in Norway they happen ... well, about the same as A- 50 if necessary in the desired direction
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 October 2020 15: 33
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And in Norway they are ... well, just like the A-50, if necessary, in the right direction

    And these people forbid me to pick my nose! (from)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98rland_Main_Air_Station

    About Yes. Like in Petrozavodsk, where there is 159 GvIAP.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    What's your problem this time?

    My problem? Perhaps it consists in the fact that I am trying to communicate with a person who ascribes to me his own cheating. In particular, he talks about the combat readiness of an aircraft that has been participating in hostilities for 2 years, relying on statements by the Norwegian Air Force about the state of a specific 332 skv
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Rather, you lose your temper

    For old reasons, I do not perceive you as an analogue of the Operator. I will work on myself.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    on the technical side, that is, on the delivery of state tests.

    Jews and Americans are sending on missions an airplane that "has not passed the state tests" or what? By the way, I have questions about Russian state tests, after the allegedly Su-57 was put into service.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    F-35 has not yet been mastered

    Yes, that's really a matter of faith.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    TASS and so on, which sometimes lie

    Sometimes?!!
    belay
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You just changed one question for another

    Seriously? As a matter of fact, I spent half of that thread specifically on the MiG-35. And yes, cars, 30 pieces.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 October 2020 07: 23
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And these people forbid me to pick my nose! (from)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98rland_Main_Air_Station

    So what? There is exactly what is written. The E-3 is not part of the Norwegian Air Force, but the airfield is used to host NATO aircraft, including the E-3, which arrive there as needed.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    My problem? Perhaps it consists in the fact that I am trying to communicate with a person who ascribes to me his own cheating. In particular, he talks about the combat readiness of an aircraft that has been participating in hostilities for 2 years, relying on statements by the Norwegian Air Force about the state of a specific 332 skv

    He does not participate in hostilities. It is used in conditions close to combat (like our aircraft in Syria).
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Jews and Americans are sending on missions an airplane that "has not passed the state tests" or what?

    Exactly. And I am simply delighted with your double standards: the Su-57 was in Syria, but you are writing about it
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    By the way, I have questions about Russian state tests, after the allegedly Su-57 was put into service.

    I'm just milling with you :)))) Both the F-35 and the Su-57 did not complete the state tests in full, both of these aircraft were used in Syria. But the American one is ready to go, and the Russian one is so-so toffee :)))
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yes, that's really a matter of faith.

    Is it okay that I agree with your statement? However, it really was not worth taking your word for it
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Sometimes?!!

    Agas. And the more I communicate with you, the more often it comes to mind that in this they differ favorably from you, excuse me.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In fact, I spent half of that thread specifically on the MiG-35. And yes, cars, 30 pieces.

    I kept waiting for you to cling to this straw :))))) Alas, again by. You wrote
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In the work cited above, you included in the combat-ready for 2020 (and 70% of the combat-ready of the payroll) vehicles, which in 2017 existed in the form of more or less running mock-ups.

    And what, did you mean that 30 MiG-35s existed in 2017 in the form of running models? :))))
    Lord, well, they would have said that they had made a mistake, formulated the proposal incorrectly - everything, all questions would have disappeared. But no, you will stand your ground to the last :)
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 9 October 2020 07: 36
    0
    Okay, I'm tired of arguing with you about the use of endings A and Y and other things that are important (suddenly) for you. If in 2017 you were smart enough not to remember at least the Su-57 in your hands, now it has already come to it.

    We will wait for your analysis, so to speak, which you announced.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 October 2020 08: 41
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Okay I'm tired of bickering

    "I'm tired, I'm leaving ..." :)
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    If in 2017 you were smart enough not to remember at least the Su-57 in your hands, now it has already come to it.

    Nice person, you wrote about the Su-57 :)))) I didn't count it among the combat-ready ones either then or now, but I'm amused by the fact that the Su-57, on which, unlike the F-35, network-centric actions were already practiced and which, like the F-35, flew in conditions close to combat, you have absolutely no readiness, and "questions for state tests", and the F-35 is completely combat-ready and there are no questions to it :)))
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Let's wait for your analysis, so to speak

    Yes please. But - already next year, in order to know exactly what was transferred to the Armed Forces in 2020
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 9 October 2020 08: 59
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    already next year

    Naturally.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 October 2020 09: 01
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Naturally.

    OK, agreed
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 07: 32
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    You are the work of 2013

    AND! Thanks for the fix. It's not very convenient to search from the phone, the error came out.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    So no, your position in 2017 was slightly different.

    Yeah, I watched the discussion.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I then hooked on the MiG-35, which were pure nonsense, but you rejected my insinuations with great fervor.

    Let's clarify :))))
    I believed that 30 MiG-35s in service by 2020 may well be. The reason for this was the words of Borisov
    "the expenditure of the State Armaments Program for the period up to 2020 includes the purchase of 30 MiG-35 aircraft"

    And I wrote
    That is, money is planned for it. Another question is that any program can undergo changes, and if you have data that the MiG-35 was removed from the GPV ... well, if you had, you would have brought

    You did not provide such data, from which it follows that in 2017 there was no reason for deleting the MiG-35.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 7 October 2020 07: 52
      +3
      Of course, until 2017, we were never lied to. This is a very recent phenomenon. If I don't confuse you, your thoughts that something is not being told to us appeared after unexpected, let's say, interim results of the programs on the fleet, relatively recently.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 08: 56
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Of course, until 2017, we were never lied to

        They lied. But there was no reason to ignore Borisov at that time.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        If I don’t confuse you, the idea that something is not being told to us appeared after the unexpected, let's say, interim results of the programs on the fleet, relatively recently.

        Even if you look at the publications - in 2016, when I started the cycle "Program of shipbuilding of the Russian Navy or a very bad feeling." Realistically, of course, much earlier.
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 7 October 2020 11: 11
        -1
        Yes, there is a dispute for the sake of dispute. Nothing new or interesting.
        in 2017, there was no reason to delete the MiG-35.

        Personally, I read a dozen messages in that article with grounds for deletion.
        Back in the 29s, it became clear to everyone that the MiG 27 was a dead-end branch, it did not have any important advantages over the Su-30 (35/29) branch, and those that are not relevant, but the disadvantages are critical for Russia. Price 35/30 is 27% cheaper. The statistics of air battles against Western fighters and our Su XNUMXs confirms this, it is catastrophically not in favor of the MiG.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 11: 52
        0
        You are mistaken in almost everything.
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Price 29/35 is 30% cheaper.

        Uh-huh. 24 Su-35s were sold to the Chinese for 2,5 billion dollars. 50 MiG-35s to the Egyptians - for 2 billion dollars. This is, in fact, the main advantage.
        The F-16 against the F-15 is also not particularly strong in air combat, but the Americans did not refuse from the F-16
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The statistics of air battles against Western fighters and our Su 27s confirms this, it is catastrophically not in favor of the MiG.

        Well, yes, when in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the first modifications were brought down, acting almost alone against the US Air Force system with its AWACS, RTR and so on, piloted by trained pilots - this, of course, is an indicator of such an indicator :)))
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 8 October 2020 12: 16
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        50 MiG-35 to the Egyptians - for $ 2 billion

        Is there any confirmation of this contract from official sources? Apart from junk sites like The National Interest and avia.pro?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The F-16 against the F-15 is also not particularly strong in air combat, but the Americans did not refuse from the F-16

        The F16 is significantly cheaper to purchase and operate thanks to its single engine design. In the TK for a moment 29, initially there was a wrong decision, the use of two engines instead of one.
      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 12: 41
        0
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Is there any confirmation of this contract from official sources?

        I do not have. Are you suggesting to ignore this contract? No question, let's ignore it. I can give you these figures
        It is known that according to the State Arms Program for 2011-2020, it was planned to purchase 37 production MiG-35S fighters for the Russian Air Force (VKS) worth about 37 billion rubles.

        This is bmpd. At the same time, it was originally planned to order flashes in 2013. And the cheapest Su-35s of the 2009 contract were 66 billion for 48 units.
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The F16 is significantly cheaper to purchase and operate thanks to its single engine design.

        I will not argue with that, you are largely right here, but let's still deal with the price of thirty-fifths
      7. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 8 October 2020 13: 39
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I do not have. Are you suggesting to ignore this contract?

        A very murky contract. It is not clear whether it exists and what kind of aircraft are there.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but let's still deal with the price of thirty-fifths

        Let's. Interest Ask.
        Su 35
        The contract of 2009, 48 pieces for 66 billion rubles, 1,375 billion per unit, the dollar exchange rate is on average 32 rubles, the price in dollars is 43 million.
        Contract in 2015, 48 pieces for 100 billion rubles. 2.08 billion per unit, the dollar exchange rate is on average 63 rubles, the price in dollars is 33 million.
        Mig 35
        State Program in 2011, 37 pieces for 37 billion rubles, 1 billion per unit, the dollar exchange rate in 2011 is around 30 rubles, the price in dollars is 33,3 million dollars.

        What we see. It is most correct to compare the moment of 2011 and Su 2009. In rubles, the difference is 37,5%, in dollars, the difference is 32%. You can also play with the exchange rates, but the order of the numbers is approximately clear.
        The main thing that goes beyond the price of 4 MiG-35, you can buy 3 Su-35. Quantitatively, the difference is small, but qualitatively, the difference is huge. All the more so for Russia, with our spaces. Where the MiG-29/35 is really needed is the Baltic theater of operations, where the advantages of the MiG can be overloaded. But making an airplane for the sake of one theater of operations is strange, so Mig 29/35 is a dead-end branch. It needs to be done even cheaper, but it is possible using 1 engine.
      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 14: 12
        0
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        A very murky contract. It is not clear whether it exists and what kind of aircraft are there.

        I agree. I dug a little here, it is possible that there NI generally confused the MiG-35 with the MiG-29M2
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Let's. Interest Ask.

        Your calculation method is clear to me. It is logical, but it does not take into account some of the nuances. The fact is that the price of military products is formed not on the basis of the dollar exchange rate, but on the basis of official data on inflation. We know the value of the contract from 2009 for certain - 66 billion rubles, and we know that the contract should have been executed until 2015 inclusive. At the same time, the contract for the MiG, planned in 2011, was to be signed no earlier than 2013, and it was evidently executed later, that is, already in the second half of the GPV. Accordingly, the time difference between these contracts takes place, and the rubles for which the MiG-35 were going to be purchased is significantly cheaper than those for which the Su-35 was actually purchased. That is, the cost ratio will be even greater than 1,375 to 1
      9. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 8 October 2020 14: 26
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        That is, the cost ratio will be even greater than 1,375 to 1

        Hardly. The logic of recent years confirms this. Su 30/35 are purchased, MiGs are not. Moreover, they are sold out and written off from our Air Force. MiGs were sent to India from the presence of the Air Force.
      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 October 2020 14: 40
        0
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Hardly.

        As a person working at an enterprise that implements the state defense order, I answer for pricing questions :))))
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The logic of recent years confirms this. Su 30/35 are purchased, MiGs are not.

        I would not boil it down to just the financial component. The nuance is that the Su-30/35 is a very interesting offer in the segment of heavy fighters, where they have few competitors - perhaps only the F-15, and it can fight the 35th only in the Silent variant. which is very expensive. But the MiG-35 has a dime a dozen competitors, despite the fact that until recently it never entered service with the Russian Aerospace Forces (which is very bad for marketing), plus a decent radar has not yet been presented for it.
        And so - Egypt still bought the MiG-29M2 for fifty dollars
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Moreover, they are sold out and written off from our Air Force.

        74 minutes within the framework of GPV 2011-2020. Of these, 24 are naval aviation for Kuznetsov, and 36 MiG-29SMT (not counting those 28 that are under the Algerian contract), 8 land twin.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 October 2020 14: 19
    0
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    In the TK for a moment 29, initially there was a wrong decision, the use of two engines instead of one.

    Not a fact.

    AL-31 passed state registration only in 85th. Putting it alone on a plane was just scary. The level of enemy engine building is somewhat different, after all.
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 8 October 2020 14: 31
    -1
    MiG 23 / Su 17 flew and were not the most emergency in the Air Force. The engines of the "teenage series" F were also unreliable, they were modified already in the 90s. The F14 was never finished.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 October 2020 14: 56
    0
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    The engines of the "teenage series" F were also unreliable, they were modified already in the 90s

    How unreliable compared to?
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    MiG 23 / Su 17 flew and were not the most emergency in the Air Force.

    Do you suggest leaving the engine from the MiG-23? The 15/16 counter was in exactly the same engine.
  • Gippo
    Gippo 5 October 2020 22: 22
    +1
    Relevant. Quite.
  • _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 5 October 2020 23: 17
    +2
    when the bomber successfully fought off the interceptors
    Well, yes, a bomber and an interceptor, only one is not a bomber at all, and the other is not an interceptor, but an extremely outdated fighter, but when a real MiG-10 interceptor (one!) came out on a group of 25 Hornets, then one of the F / A-18 was shot down, the pilot was killed, becoming the first victim in Operation Desert Storm, and the moment he returned to base
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 5 October 2020 23: 17
    0
    Everything is correct. We also have SUs of various modifications flying and nothing. They upgrade from time to time and that's it ...
    The deadline has not been worked out, only jingoistic patriots whistle from time to time ...
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 6 October 2020 03: 28
      +2
      And what was the "hurray patriots" whistling to you?
      By the way, I can't understand why the Americans think that everything that America and the Americans do is good for the whole world, this is normal, but the Russians who think the same about their country are "hurray patriots", "zakidayki" hat, etc.?
      1. Aleks2000
        Aleks2000 6 October 2020 22: 45
        +1
        You just got it wrong. Ali Are you a hurray-patriot and are you offended?

        Those just recently managed to write down everything less than 5 generations - in old rusty iron.
        Like, the Americans, since they produce 4 ++ cars, and so on, and so on ..
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 6 October 2020 03: 58
    +1
    The Su-27 family is also being made for 40 years.
    For example, the Irkutsk aircraft plant raised the first aircraft - I-14, I think, in 1936. Su-27UB in the 86th. It turns out that the plant produces dryers for almost half of its life.
    In the previous 40 years, 15 aircraft were accommodated. There were no lots, but they were large.
    These are the realities of everyone.
  • g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 6 October 2020 09: 57
    -2
    As an answer to the headline, yes. It will be relevant for some time, since it is cheaper than the same F-35.
    There is no competition on the high seas yet. To land where the enemy has something to threaten the spread of "democracies" without a solid ground and air safety net, a separate AUG will not stick, and against the partisans it is too expensive.
    IMHO, F-35s and drones will complement the AUG air wings, but the main flight load will still be carried by F / A-18s of varying degrees of modernization. Exactly until the moment when the superiority of technology appears (is it?). While the "workhorse" is coping with the garden, there is no need for a robotic tractor.
  • Selevc
    Selevc 6 October 2020 10: 09
    -4
    And that both wars in the Gulf are an objective indicator of the effectiveness of NATO-vskaya aviation ??? The USA in the 20th century after the war with Japan is constantly at war with various Neanderthal countries around the world - compared to the economy and the US army in the Stone Age !!! Countries like Cambodia, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Congo !!! And even in these battles between Goliath and David, the United States did not always win adequately !!! And in cases such as Somalia and Vietnam, they simply openly and shamefully fled from the BD theater !!!

    But there were also other wars of the NATO countries, and they include both the Gulf Wars and the Libyan adventure !!! These are the US wars with an adversary at the level of feudalism in comparison with the American development of the economy and armaments !!! These opponents of the United States were at least able to purchase some foreign weapons and somehow use them. So, these same wars of the 2nd type were not waged by the United States alone, but were hammered together international coalitions of states - in order to attack one in a crowd and win guaranteed !!!
    Therefore, all the talk about the great Abrams or the invincible Hornets in both companies in Iraq is just a propaganda fake lie that has nothing to do with reality !!!
    1. iouris
      iouris 6 October 2020 11: 07
      -1
      Quote: Selevc
      The USA in the 20th century after the war with Japan is constantly at war with various Neanderthal countries

      Patamushta non-Neanderthal countries surrender. As in 1991.