"Expensive and unreliable": the British edition criticized the American fifth generation fighter F-35

125

The American company Lockheed Martin can feel joy - its F-35 fighters are massively purchased by NATO member states. However, this only makes a profit for the United States, since the plane is expensive and unreliable, writes the author of an article for the British edition of The Spectator.

Andrew Coburn criticized the American fighter jet that the United States is forcing to buy its European partners. Seven European countries have ordered a total of 297 F-35 fighters for a total of $ 35,4 billion, he said. And if you take into account the very expensive maintenance, then a bunch of billions more will fall into the US pocket.



The author emphasizes that after 20 years of development, the F-35 is still not certified, even in the Pentagon's own test bureau. To date, 871 "unresolved deficiencies" have been found on the aircraft, 10 of which are recognized as life-threatening. The plane is so sophisticated that it is considered unreliable. It takes time and money to fix the deficiencies, but instead, the US is trying to sell the fighter to as many countries as possible, thereby trying to get the maximum benefit.

Coburn writes that the F-35, according to military experts, is inferior in efficiency even to the F-16, which, according to the Pentagon's plans, was supposed to be replaced. Moreover, it is expensive and will "eat up a hole" in the budgets of those countries to whom it was imposed. As an example, the author cites Denmark, which has signed a contract for 27 F-35 fighters. Taking into account the operational costs of maintenance, the purchase of these fighters will cost Denmark $ 13 billion, which is two and a half times the defense budget of this country.

The author especially criticizes the British military, who made the F-35 the main fighter of the Navy, and even built aircraft carriers for it, which other aircraft cannot carry. At the same time, the lead aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth went to "confront China" with the American F-35s of the US Marine Corps.

To summarize, Coburn writes that he does not understand the submissiveness with which NATO countries buy this fighter, even if the Pentagon and Congress call it a "disaster."
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    125 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +17
      19 June 2021 14: 42
      Well, you can criticize ....... but you can hardly refuse to buy ...
      1. +9
        19 June 2021 14: 50
        The guarantor of supplies is AUG
      2. -6
        19 June 2021 14: 50
        Quote: Mouse
        Well, you can criticize ....... but you can hardly refuse to buy ...

        And what is this edition? How influential is it? Who is this aator?
        1. +17
          19 June 2021 15: 09
          The Spectator
          A weekly British conservative magazine specializing in the publication and analysis of news from the fields of politics and culture. It was first published on July 6, 1828, making it the oldest of all (never out of print) journals in English. The editorial outlook is usually similar to the views of the Conservative Party, but those who hold different views are regular employees of the publication. The journal stands for Atlanticism and moderate Euroscepticism, advocating close ties with the United States. Also supports Israel. The Spectator opposes Scottish independence.
        2. +14
          19 June 2021 15: 14
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Quote: Mouse
          Well, you can criticize ....... but you can hardly refuse to buy ...

          And what is this edition? How influential is it? Who is this aator?

          https://spectatorworld.com/topic/f-35-fail-jets-nato-deficient/
          Tests so far show that his cannon cannot shoot straight; it cannot take off 25 miles from a thunderstorm or in a strong crosswind; it flies on average once every three days (a serious obstacle to pilot training as well as timely arrival over the battlefield), and the afterburner tends to melt its tail at supersonic speeds.
          ))))))))))))))))))))
          1. -12
            19 June 2021 15: 43
            A link to these statements is possible? Only not from the yellow editions, please.
            1. +5
              19 June 2021 15: 46
              Quote: Slobodskoy
              A link to these statements is possible? Only not from the yellow editions, please.

              so she is above the "statements"
              1. -13
                19 June 2021 15: 58
                This is in the sense of an article by this very "expert" journalist? Good link :)))
            2. 0
              19 June 2021 17: 15
              Quote: Slobodskoy
              Not from the yellow editions, please.

              And we have no others ... request
              1. 0
                19 June 2021 17: 54
                Quote: Mouse
                Quote: Slobodskoy
                Not from the yellow editions, please.

                And we have no others ... request

                ) but this is not with us
                1. +1
                  19 June 2021 17: 59
                  And where is this blessed place without yellowness? belay
                  1. 0
                    19 June 2021 18: 02
                    Quote: Mouse
                    And where is this blessed place without yellowness? belay

                    well, yellowness is a subjective concept, here is a comment on Forbes just below the link
                    1. -1
                      19 June 2021 18: 11
                      And who said that Forbes is objective? ...
                      For me personally, not an indicator ...
                      1. +6
                        19 June 2021 18: 20
                        Quote: Mouse
                        For me personally, not an indicator ...

                        So the exile is not for you. You can offer Slobodskaya (Anatoly) directly to the mattresses to make a request to Congress and so that they quickly rush after the docks until he imposed sanctions on them. At the same time he will share it with you.
            3. +3
              19 June 2021 17: 51
              Quote: Slobodskoy
              A link to these statements is possible? Only not from the yellow editions, please.

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/25/after-20-years-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-is-still-stuck-in-testing/ Так хватит? Или будете утверждать, что Forbes на их родном языке - это желтая пресса?
              1. -13
                19 June 2021 18: 37
                There, jaundice is also with the head, and this is no exception.
                1. +7
                  19 June 2021 18: 45
                  Quote: Slobodskoy
                  and this is no exception.

                  I can say the same about your writing. Some slogans, nothing unconfirmed statements (Israel has a completely different plane with the same name), in general - another blah blah blah. Is there evidence of your writing, or in English, get off the topic, like many other no-names?
            4. -2
              20 June 2021 09: 11
              Blue will do laughing
        3. +4
          19 June 2021 17: 02
          Aron, but in fact they are right, the plane came out too expensive and complicated, and instead of solving problems, it is literally being snatched by the whole world! I will not be happy if sanctions are imposed against Russia for the lack of F35 in service, despite the ban on selling it to us. ...
          1. -8
            19 June 2021 17: 11
            Quote: Thrifty
            Aron, but in fact they are right, the plane came out too expensive and complicated, and instead of solving problems, it is literally being snatched by the whole world! I will not be happy if sanctions are imposed against Russia for the lack of F35 in service, despite the ban on selling it to us. ...

            Dear? Yes, it seems like no. Complicated? Well, Armata next to the T-90 is also one level more difficult. This is a trend. In general, it seems to me that the car is not worse than the F-16, of course, at a new stage in the development of the Air Force.
            1. +1
              20 June 2021 13: 41
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              Dear? Yes, it seems like no.

              Aaron, reading your comments about F35, remembered an anecdote about a Jew and partisans.
              a Jew came to the partisan detachment. you need to check if he is a provocateur ... they gave him anti-fascist leaflets and sent him to distribute. there is no Jew for a week, two, three ... we decided that everything, failed. caught. four weeks later he comes back and says "don't give me these pieces of paper anymore! The Germans buy very badly." laughing
        4. -2
          20 June 2021 02: 17
          Well, as I understand it, this is nonsense of a foreign journalist, because everything that is written there is initially considered nonsense
        5. -1
          20 June 2021 07: 16

          Aron Zaawi (Aron)
          Yesterday, 14: 50
          NEW

          -6
          Quote: Mouse
          Well, you can criticize ....... but you can hardly refuse to buy ...

          And what is this edition? How influential is it? Who is this aator?

          poorly look in the Internet? or only Jewish and Merikatos do you trust))? laughing tongue wassat

          Label
          political orientation conservative
          circulation 91.200 (2019)
          frequency weekly on Thursdays
          number of views 1.000.000 - 5.000.000
          types of electronic payments partially paid content
          editorial office London, UK
          publisher / Press Holdings
          geography of distribution nationwide
          year of foundation 1828
          Address 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
          phone 0044 20 7961 0200
          e-mail [email protected]
          Twitter @spectator
        6. -3
          20 June 2021 09: 10
          Vasya Pupkin is the author, and he brought the goose from articles of other newspapers - where they write from one pattern - which someone once laid out somewhere.
        7. +1
          20 June 2021 09: 43
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          And what is this edition?

          https://inosmi.ru/military/20210618/249946764.html
          Article
          The Spectator (UK): Putin's Secret Weapon? F-35
          18.06.2021
          Andrew Cockburn
          Original
          https://www.spectator.co.uk/coffee-house
          I have not found such an article, maybe someone will be lucky
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Who is this aator?

          Andrew Cockburn
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cockburn
      3. -1
        20 June 2021 07: 30
        To date, 871 "unresolved deficiencies" have been found on the aircraft, 10 of which are recognized as life-threatening.


        wondering what these disadvantages are?
        1. +2
          20 June 2021 09: 48
          Quote: Bar1
          wondering what these disadvantages are?

          If you know Naglitsky or at least have a translator, you can read https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for -aircraft-carriers-c6e36763574b
          Michael Gilbor's report, at the time of writing, was Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation.
          1. -1
            20 June 2021 12: 16
            Quote: kot423
            If you speak Naglitsky or at least have a translator -


            yok ma, translate into Russian.
            1. +1
              20 June 2021 12: 33
              Quote: Bar1
              yok ma, translate into Russian.

              Your problems, I will not print such a sheet of text here. I gave you a link to the original source (almost, the report itself in its original form only at the Congress and the Pentagon), if you are too lazy, then all the jambs about which various media have published are taken from there.
      4. 0
        20 June 2021 08: 44
        The US Department of Defense in 2022 will not purchase fifth-generation F-35 fighters from the Lockheed Martin company - the American edition of Defense News.
        1. -1
          20 June 2021 09: 51
          Quote: knn54
          The United States in 2022 will not purchase fifth-generation F-35 fighters from the Lockheed Martin company - the American edition of Defense News.

          According to the theses prepared for the Chief of Staff, General Charles K. Brown. Junior, the Air Force plans to request 48 F-35s in fiscal 2022, but only 43 aircraft per year from fiscal 2023 to 2026. As a result, 220 aircraft will be purchased in five years, compared to 240 according to the previous plan.
          https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-to-cut-f-35-buy-in-future-years-defense-plan/
      5. +1
        20 June 2021 09: 34
        excellent article, balanced, professional, I like it.
        smiled:
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        And what is this edition? How influential is it? Who is this aator?

        Quote: Slobodskoy
        A link to these statements is possible? Only not from the yellow editions, please.

        Quote: Revival
        Well, I understand that this is nonsense of a foreign journalist ...
    2. -3
      19 June 2021 14: 50
      Typical journalist! Dear? Compared to what? With a spitfire? laughing would give an example of the cost and operating costs of Raphael for example, which is 4 ++.
    3. +4
      19 June 2021 14: 51
      The American company Lockheed Martin can feel joy - its F-35 fighters are massively purchased by NATO member states. However, this only makes a profit for the United States, since the plane is expensive and unreliable, writes the author of an article for the British edition of The Spectator.
      ... Why is this all of a sudden ???
      This pepelats, all pepelats, pepelats!
      1. +6
        19 June 2021 15: 06
        Quote: rocket757
        This pepelats, all pepelats, pepelats!

        Denmark needs 5 pieces on the wing, spread the rest with a thick layer of petroleum jelly and shove it into the hangar, the savings will be ...
        1. +2
          19 June 2021 17: 22
          If you want to ride with a "hill", please pay for the sleigh, the track inspector and much, much more.
          That's when they made you pay for natural snow, it's cool!
    4. -18
      19 June 2021 15: 01
      A British Journalist with 1000 hours of flight time on the F35 criticized him. He also often broke down - it turned out to be unreliable.

      ps
      The next time a British journalist, before buying a fighter, should consult with specialists from VO, Sina, or at worst from Sohu.
      There they will tell you what to choose .. Will not be mistaken.
    5. -20
      19 June 2021 15: 01
      It's only when Turkey was thrown out of the program, they never cease to seek to return to it. And what does it mean, expensive? It is already cheaper than some of the 4th generation. Another "expert." But in general, of course, it's understandable - you need to squeeze another note about nowhere not a fit penguin.
      1. +6
        19 June 2021 15: 47
        Turkey could easily cheat, wait for the arrival of the F-35 in the troops, and then buy the S-400, but for some reason did not postpone the purchase of the S-400, I understand perfectly well how this could turn out.

        And in my opinion, Turkey deliberately bought the S-400 in order to get a reason for refusing to purchase the F-35.

        Turkey has no urgent need to buy long-range air defense systems right now. Nobody threatens them.

        And the F-35 may be a good fighter-bomber, but not for that kind of money. The F-16 can perform the same tasks, but low visibility is not seen to be a very important factor against modern air defense systems and fighters.
        1. -13
          19 June 2021 15: 52
          What “that kind of money”? It costs already cheaper than, for example, Rafal. About Turkey is generally stupid. Has invested billions in the program in order to refuse later? It’s not funny yourself? At the same time, it continues to stubbornly seek to return.
          1. +7
            19 June 2021 17: 21
            It is already cheaper than, for example, Rafal.

            Give the numbers on which to draw conclusions, please. hi
            1. -11
              19 June 2021 17: 34
              Is it difficult to Google it yourself ?? Or look at the official sites ??
            2. -13
              19 June 2021 18: 39
              Today, the base F-35 costs about 80 million, and now ask about the price of the same Raphael.
              1. +2
                19 June 2021 18: 40
                Today, the basic F-35 costs about $ 80 million.

                How much do you think Rafale is worth? wink
                You made a statement, I ask you to confirm it if it's not difficult for you.
                1. -6
                  20 June 2021 00: 18
                  More than 100 million
                  1. +3
                    20 June 2021 00: 26
                    Today, the base F-35 costs about $ 80 million.

                    Wrong.

                    85 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - $ 12 billion

                    https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2638711/the-department-of-defense-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-defense-budg/
                    F-35, on average, for the budget of 2022 costs more than 140 million $.
                    In FY2020 prices, the model breakdown was as follows:
                    As a result, according to the findings of POGO (Project on government oversight, "Project on government oversight"), in the 2020 financial year (started on October 1, 2019), the cost of purchasing one F-35A still exceeds $ 100 million. US Navy documents show that the acquisition of the F-35C fighter is now costing the Navy $ 123 million, and each F-35B for the Marine Corps is worth $ 166 million.

                    https://xn--b1aga5aadd.xn--p1ai/2019/%D0%A1%D1%88%D0%B0290/
                    That's it. hi
                    1. -7
                      20 June 2021 07: 54
                      It depends on how you count - if you shove in there maintenance, supply of spare parts, etc., then yes. But under the same conditions, both Rafal and Eurofighter will still be more expensive.
                      1. +1
                        20 June 2021 11: 50
                        If you want to believe that the F-35 is much cheaper, that's your right. hi
                        1. -2
                          20 June 2021 12: 31
                          If you want to believe that the F-35 is super expensive compared to its competitors, that's your right.
                        2. 0
                          20 June 2021 12: 32
                          I put you a plus. wink
                          My opinion is about on par with the most expensive of the 4 ++ Rafal. Exclusively due to the issued quantity.
                          But the cost of ownership is higher for the F-35.
        2. 0
          19 June 2021 22: 38
          And in my opinion, Turkey deliberately bought the S-400 in order to get a reason for refusing to purchase the F-35.

          The sultan bought the C-400 in order to hedge against a second coup, and he just wants to control his own sky. IMHO, of course.
          He needs the F-35B badly.
          The aircraft carrier was built, and there is nothing to land on it.
          Nobody else has a modern SUVVP. hi
          1. +1
            20 June 2021 11: 06
            The sultan bought the C-400 in order to hedge against a second coup, and he just wants to control his own sky. IMHO, of course.
            He needs the F-35B badly.
            The aircraft carrier was built, and there is nothing to land on it.


            How can the S-400 guarantee rescue from a coup? Where is the confidence that, on the contrary, the S-400 operators will not obey the conspirators and, for example, will not close the sky for Erdogan's side or even shoot him down?

            In addition, long-range air defense systems can be purchased not only from Russia.

            Why did Turkey have to go into conflict with the United States right now? Well, they would have bought the S-400 air defense system in 3 years after they received the F-35 and would have been with planes and air defense systems, but you see that they don’t need the F-35 for nothing.

            And Turkey did not build an aircraft carrier, but a UDC, the strike wing there will consist of helicopters, so they did not lose much with the abandonment of the F-35B.
            1. +1
              20 June 2021 11: 35
              I'll try to answer how it looks "from my bell tower".
              Where is the confidence that, on the contrary, the S-400 operators will not obey the conspirators and, for example, will not close the sky for Erdogan's side or even shoot him down?

              Confidence is difficult, but the pilots in the States studied, but the S-400 operators did not.
              Then you can write a lot: and that it is easier to control operators on the ground than pilots in the air, etc., etc. It's a matter of taste and point of view ... smile

              In addition, long-range air defense systems can be purchased not only from Russia.

              "Patriots" will not help against NATO aircraft.
              The Turks have already thrown China with the tender, and the quality is worse there.

              Why did Turkey have to go into conflict with the United States right now?

              What I know about the coup attempt suggests that Erdogan was not going to be overthrown, but simply killed. Therefore, special forces followed him, so small forces were taken out into the streets, etc., and so on.
              I can only guess how a person who miraculously escaped thanks to the call to VVP feels. I guess he didn't want to wait 3 years.

              And Turkey did not build an aircraft carrier, but a UDC, the strike wing there will consist of helicopters, so they did not lose much with the abandonment of the F-35B.


              March 15, 2021, AviaStat.ru - The formation of the wing of the light aircraft carrier Anadolu faced a number of obstacles. This ship with a displacement of about 27 thousand tons was originally built as a carrier of the fifth generation F-35 sea-based fighters.
              At the moment, due to US sanctions, the receipt of such fighters is blocked. In addition, Turkey does not have the ability to train combat aviation pilots, as it previously happened in the United States.

              https://www.aex.ru/news/2021/3/15/224955/
              Again a matter of taste and point of view. hi
              The Turkish website writes:
              The first Turkish-made aircraft carrier in the Anadolu lenses
              The multipurpose amphibious landing ship TCG Anadolu is being built at a shipyard in the Tuzla area near Istanbul

              https://www.aa.com.tr/ru/pg/%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%8F/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%86-%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%85-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83-
      2. +2
        19 June 2021 16: 25
        And by what methods does Turkey seek to return to the program? Chtol writes letters?
        1. -9
          19 June 2021 18: 41
          He continues to try to come to an agreement with the Americans, the commission to find out that the S-400 will not be dangerous for NATO, or something else. But he is still asking, demanding, convincing, etc.
          1. +3
            19 June 2021 19: 24
            Well, yes, that is, in words, but in deeds 0. That is, she needs the F-35 so much that the C-400 turned out to be more important.
            1. -4
              20 June 2021 00: 21
              In fact, 0, because the Americans kicked them out. But he continues to beg and hopes.
              1. -4
                20 June 2021 08: 07
                In fact, Erdogan simply miscalculated. He thought that he would buy the S-400, but he would come to an agreement with the Americans, but it didn’t work. And now you can’t lose face, and without the plane, in which billions have been invested, there’s no way either. So he continues to beg, persuade, and assure. that it will not in any way interfere with NATO's defenses.
    6. +2
      19 June 2021 15: 05
      Coburn writes that he does not understand the submissiveness with which NATO countries buy this fighter,
      well, how bae ...
      Even in the fundamental NATO documents it is written that the main task of the bloc is to ensure the interests of the United States.
      So they provide.
      1. +8
        19 June 2021 15: 24
        The mice pricked, cried, but continued to gnaw the cactus ...
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        does not understand obedience
      2. -1
        20 June 2021 03: 18
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Even in the fundamental NATO documents it is written that the main task of the bloc is to ensure the interests of the United States.

        As the first NATO Secretary General Lord Ismay said, the main task of the bloc is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Unfortunately, the translation looks awkward: “to prevent the USSR from entering Europe, to ensure the American presence in it and to contain Germany,” but linguistics is the case.
    7. +3
      19 June 2021 15: 09
      The main thing is dear. On this mattress and made a bet. laughing
    8. 0
      19 June 2021 15: 18
      Dear? European Rafale and Eurofighter are even more expensive
      Especially the author criticizes the British military, who made the F-35 the main fighter of the Navy.

      Well, there are no catapults on the new aircraft carriers, so the F-35B was made the main one.
    9. +5
      19 June 2021 15: 23
      The author emphasizes that after 20 years of development, the F-35 is still not certified even by the Pentagon's own test bureau. To date, 871 "unresolved deficiencies" have been found on the aircraft, 10 of which are recognized as life-threatening.

      I would like to ask the numerous defenders of this aircraft - did the author lie about this?
      1. -11
        19 June 2021 15: 47
        In this, the author simply reprints nothing particularly confirmed articles in various, mainly yellow, editions. The fact is that we have not yet heard complaints from operators. As far as is known, Israel, for example, uses them quite actively and seems to be very satisfied.
        1. +3
          19 June 2021 17: 38
          Quote: Slobodskoy
          The fact is that we haven't heard any complaints from the operators so far.

          Quote: Dart2027
          To date, 871 "unresolved deficiencies" have been found on the aircraft, 10 of which are recognized as life-threatening.
          1. -9
            19 June 2021 18: 43
            Are you repeating yourself? I have already written - these are reprints of "revelations" from the yellow editions.
            1. +1
              19 June 2021 19: 48
              Quote: Slobodskoy
              I have already written - these are reprints of "revelations" from the yellow editions.

              And where is it written in "serious" publications that all the shortcomings have been eliminated?
              1. -4
                20 June 2021 00: 24
                You first find these "900 flaws", especially "critical", in serious publications.
                1. 0
                  20 June 2021 06: 27
                  Quote: Slobodskoy
                  You first find these "900 flaws", especially "critical", in serious publications.

                  That is not.
      2. -3
        19 June 2021 15: 53
        The Pentagon has two military vehicle statuses:
        1) primary combat readiness
        2) full combat readiness.
        Both of these statuses allow military equipment to participate in wars.
        But: with the status of "primary combat readiness" the law does not allow
        The Pentagon will purchase equipment in large batches (lots).
        The F-35 has a status of primary combat readiness.
        Full combat readiness does not allow you to receive absence
        computer training center for simulation of mass participation
        F-35 in a nuclear war. The task turned out to be too difficult:
        a private firm (not Lockheed) did not do the job.
        But the Pentagon's demand has not been withdrawn.
        And the Pentagon continues to purchase the F-35 in small batches (120-140 cars each)
        for a year or two ahead.
        1. +1
          19 June 2021 17: 37
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Full combat readiness does not allow you to receive absence
          computer training center for simulation of mass participation
          F-35 in a nuclear war. The task turned out to be too difficult:
          a private firm (not Lockheed) did not do the job.

          Quote: Dart2027
          To date, the aircraft has 871 "unresolved deficiencies", 10 of which are recognized as life-threatening
        2. 0
          19 June 2021 18: 21
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Full combat readiness does not allow you to receive absence
          computer training center for simulation of mass participation
          F-35 in a nuclear war.

          ) this is written in Forbes, and also that this program has been trying to write for 11 years
        3. -2
          20 June 2021 02: 24
          "And the Pentagon continues to purchase the F-35 in small batches (120-140 vehicles each)
          for a year or two ahead. "

          Well this is what the parties of sous 57 are called then?
        4. -1
          20 June 2021 09: 24
          And what version do you have-A-B-C?
      3. 0
        19 June 2021 21: 09
        Quote: Dart2027
        The author emphasizes that after 20 years of development, the F-35 is still not certified even by the Pentagon's own test bureau. To date, 871 "unresolved deficiencies" have been found on the aircraft, 10 of which are recognized as life-threatening.

        I would like to ask the numerous defenders of this aircraft - did the author lie about this?


        No, I didn't lie. But the point is not in the defense of the aircraft, but in the underestimation of the enemy. It is impossible to imagine that there are only crazy degenerates. Grunting leads to bad consequences. I hope I haven't offended anyone.
        1. 0
          20 June 2021 13: 57
          Quote: smoltish
          It is impossible to imagine that there are only crazy degenerates.

          specify where? in the Pentagon in charge of security or in the LM who have deployed a great deal of commerce on this project?
          1. 0
            22 June 2021 19: 52
            Quote: SanichSan
            Quote: smoltish
            It is impossible to imagine that there are only crazy degenerates.

            specify where? in the Pentagon in charge of security or in the LM who have deployed a great deal of commerce on this project?

            Here and there. If, without jokes and banter, you justify what is in LM, it will be curious. Honestly and seriously.
            1. 0
              22 June 2021 22: 46
              Quote: smoltish
              If, without jokes and banter, you justify what is in LM, it will be curious.

              hmm ... puzzled by your phrase. if it is not clear what LM is, I apologize, I will decipher. this is Lockheed Martin. everything is fine with them. with their lobbyists, they pushed through an excellent project in the Pentagon for a lot of money, attracted investors from allied countries. everything seems to be fine.
              now about the pentagon. at the beginning of the century, when, in fact, the project was started, everything is fine too. The USSR collapsed, then no one expected that China would start to progress like that either. great meanness on the part of China laughing that is, the United States is the only superpower, and around the Papuans against whom these F-35s are really ultimatums. everything seems to be good, but something has changed, but the US aviation has not changed. development stopped at the F-35. we do not take into account the modernization of the old, the new was not created. for a world in which one hegemon is the United States and all the necessary resources can be obtained from the colonies, and disgruntled Papuans work quickly because they have nothing to oppose, everything is fine! good but... bully
              what is the result? the United States has an aircraft that was planned to be used for special operations against the Papuan, but for confronting a comparable enemy in a high-intensity conflict, it is completely unsuitable and even at headquarters it is difficult to imagine where it belongs in battle. there is no own full production cycle of this aircraft. attempts to import substitution did not end very well (2 planes crashed on their counterfeit parts). supply chains are stretched all over the world, and partners who seemed reliable at the beginning of the century are now almost enemies (Turkey). the colonies are bullish, they do not want to cough up the required amounts and become impudent like the Germans, and to bring democracy to them, according to old memory, is already dangerous because, in addition to the United States, there is now the Russian Federation and China, and such an attempt may end badly. at the same time, you have to invest money in this dubious project due to the fact that there is nothing more recent and it is not known when it will be, and the budget is bursting not only from the new but also to the old hardly enough.
              1. 0
                23 June 2021 21: 53
                "I'm sorry, I'll decode. This is Lockheed Martin" - thanks. Why did you decide that I did not decrypt? Is it really so difficult or what?))) Or are you being clever ???)))

                "The United States has a plane that was planned to be used for special operations against the Papuan," - I fundamentally disagree with you. It is with the Papuans that the Americans are going to play network-centric wars ??? Why such an opinion ?? High-tech product, many innovations, and everything for the Papuans ?? I do not understand you, decipher.
                They wrote a lot, but did not answer the question. About crazy degenerates.

                Yes, I agree, the F-35 has a lot of problems. But the creators, or their military, cannot be called stupid. The concept of using the F-35 may be controversial, but the answer can only be given in war, and not with the Papuans. If you are familiar with the new concepts of the US Air Force, it’s strange that they make you think of "crazy degenerates."
                Here in the research institute, the military take the F-35 very seriously. They study, look for means of counteraction. They do not consider them crazy, have not heard from them.

                "completely unsuitable in a conflict of high intensity" - why such conclusions? With the fact that the combat readiness ratio is not very good? (and, by the way, what do you know from ours? - after all, they don't write about this, unlike the Western media). Or for some other reason? One gets the impression that they are not familiar with the tactics of the US Air Force. The F-35 will not be used by itself separately from the others, everything in the complex will work, various types of aviation. And so, excuse me, to reason primitively, well ...

                With logistics and production, of course, they were smart. But there are quite understandable reasons for this. These are the terms of the program partners. Dig deeper and it will become clearer. Have you studied documents in English? There is a lot of information there, you will not find it on the sites of "VO", Zen, etc. There is in highly specialized literature (only crumbs of it can be found in the internet, the rest in research institutes, and in a couple of libraries in Moscow). So having studied, or at least familiarized yourself with this literature, it would become more understandable. Although I agree that there are absolutely incomprehensible jambs. But not everything is so simple. Difficult questions cannot be answered with simple answers. You can't really write here. This is a lot of information. Do not rewrite here a heap of information, measured in hundreds of pages. So this is only what is unclassified and is available (I mean in English), plus the analyzes of our research institute specialists, and not journalists, even if professional ones with aviation education. Have you read calculations with dozens of pages and a bunch of formulas? By tactics, by technical. data, for example, radar: what is it good for, what technical innovations, methods
                and algorithms for processing the received information, ways to increase the speed of receiving and processing information with calculations and comparisons with our radar, ways of using it in the radar as electronic warfare. After that, I would have listened to you about the Papuans and so on. The plane is very interesting. I read and was amazed at how far technical progress has gone. This is not only the avionics of the aircraft. New weapons with completely new methods of application, never seen before (yes, tests are still underway, but they are constantly being improved), completely new materials, nanotechnologies (they are not written about in "VO"). Yes, even in all sorts of "little things" that are rarely mentioned, for example, the power supply system of the aircraft, even there are a lot of innovations.
                And how many interesting things are still going to be applied there. The one that will go on to the 6th generation in the future. Damn, sorry, you can't list everything, write a lot. So many interesting things. And here, damn it, according to your "plane for the Papuans." Yeah...
                Do not underestimate the enemy, this can lead to sad consequences.
                1. -1
                  23 June 2021 22: 06
                  // here, damn it, according to your "plane for the Papuans". Yeah...//
                  Well, what can you do, such an audience. Such accents on the site.
                  The joker-propagandist-patriots united, as it were, and it doesn't matter whether there is something there, or there is no bad thing for a long time, what has been corrected, what has not.
                  Such is the soup of speculation and semi-information.
                  Yes, it doesn't matter, I think the main thing here is that this fighter is just a real competitor. And the rest, well, emotions.
                2. 0
                  2 July 2021 17: 26
                  Quote: smoltish
                  "The United States has a plane that was planned to be used for special operations against the Papuan," - I fundamentally disagree with you. It is with the Papuans that the Americans are going to play network-centric wars ??? Why such an opinion ?? High-tech product, many innovations, and everything for the Papuans ?? I do not understand you, decipher.

                  you missed the chronology of events. again, carefully, re-read my post. wink when was the F35 project started and implemented? at this point in time on our planet there are the USA and the Papuans, and for the solution of these tasks it was done request great plane for 2006, but not for 2021.
                  Quote: smoltish
                  They wrote a lot, but did not answer the question. About crazy degenerates.

                  specify where I wrote about "crazy degenerates"? what to answer then?
                  Quote: smoltish
                  Here in the research institute, the military take the F-35 very seriously. They study, look for means of counteraction. They do not consider them crazy, have not heard from them.

                  um ... duc this is one of the offensive means on which NATO has high hopes. it is only natural that research institutes in the Russian Federation and China are studying the most effective ways to combat this threat. what is unnatural in this? if you do not study the enemy thoughtfully and seriously, then it may not come out cleverly, as with the United States in Vietnam. a good example of the fact that technical superiority does not guarantee victory. it's good that our military learned this lesson good
                  Quote: smoltish
                  "completely unsuitable in a conflict of high intensity" - why such conclusions? With the fact that the combat readiness ratio is not very good?
                  we reread what I wrote about logistics and the lack of a full production cycle in the USA. high intensity conflict = large losses. this plane is not for heavy casualties. the fact that this plane was not built for a big war is evident in every exercise. everyone cannot decide whether it should be in the first line or in the second ... by the way, don't you think it's a strange situation when the military has a large number of aircraft that it is not clear how to use?
                  Quote: smoltish
                  One gets the impression that they are not familiar with the tactics of the US Air Force. The F-35 will not be used by itself separately from the others, everything in the complex will work, various types of aviation. And so, excuse me, to reason primitively, well ...

                  you fell out of chronology again wink Let me remind you that until 2016-2017, the issue of the goals and application of F35 was not raised at all. at the Pentagon it was obvious to everyone that the F35 could solve all the tasks assigned to it and should even replace the F-15,16,18, but something went wrong and now the F-18 is being removed from storage, the F-15 continues to be purchased and created new modifications.
                  dancing with the "tactics of the US Air Force" began when it became clear that the United States is no longer the only superpower in the world and will have to deal not with the Papuans, but with an equal, possibly superior, enemy. and before that, it was actually assumed that F35 can do everything by themselves. wink
                  Quote: smoltish
                  Do not underestimate the enemy, this can lead to sad consequences.

                  the enemy needs objectively rate! Remember the SDI stories? wink
                  Or are you lobbying for the idea that our "urapatriots", and in general, everyone who writes that "F35 does not really need to be believed", but their fairy tales on "EPR 0.0001" need to be believed unconditionally because they cannot be underestimated?
                  1. 0
                    3 July 2021 15: 27
                    1) "carefully, re-read my post. Wink when was the F35 project started and implemented? At this point in time there are the USA and the Papuans on our planet, and they did it for solving these problems. An excellent plane for 2006, but not for 2021" and your second quote "and disgruntled Papuans work quickly because they have nothing to oppose, everything is fine!" - well, you fucking give. Excuse me, not a schoolboy writing to me ??? High-tech aircraft for the United States and NATO allies made for the Papuans ???? At that time and before there were Papuans. All planes only against the poor Papuans did America))) ??? "for the solution of these tasks it was done" - explain under what? According to the text, there is a direct connection with the wild tribes of Oceania)). Well, nonsense. At the time of its creation and to this day, the main rivals of the United States are Russia and China. Or a trillion dollars for the Papuans ??? Read the US doctrines in the original, well, or their short version (periodically published in the Foreign Military Review). Che is not about that at all. And from Lockheed Martin with a computer in the original read about the F-35. It was created for a prospect later than 2021. Network-centric wars are only in perspective. Not for "dog dumps" like WWII or Vietnam War. Check it out.

                    2) "specify where I wrote about the" crazy degenerates "? What to answer then?" - Well, look at the photo.

                    You yourself inserted my text about crazy degenerates and wrote your comment. Or was it again about the Papuans ????))
                    1. 0
                      4 July 2021 01: 20
                      Quote: smoltish
                      It was created for a prospect later than 2021. Network-centric wars are only in perspective. Not for "dog dumps" like WWII or Vietnam War. Check it out.

                      dooo Yes wassat finally face the facts. all the same F-15, 16, 18. where are these mythical network-centric F35s? on the exercises? already 15 years old? belay F-35 is an excellent commercial project for the LM and the Pentagon, who are sawing money on this.
                      Quote: smoltish
                      You yourself inserted my text about crazy degenerates and wrote your comment. Or was it again about the Papuans ????))

                      so I wrote there that the loot is sawing wink from a commercial point of view, the project is quite self-sufficient, especially when there are a lot of those who can turn off the gas if they do not take laughing
                      1. 0
                        4 July 2021 06: 03
                        "dooo look at the facts in the eyes. All the same F-15, 16, 18. are fighting" - well, there is such a fact. I agree. So what. The Americans not only cherished the F-35 in the history of their Air Force. So this fact doesn't really prove anything. The Israelis have already tried it. In fact, there is no enemy against whom to use. Against weak opponents, aircraft of the 4th generation are quite sufficient, they are quite good combat vehicles for a long time to come.
                  2. 0
                    3 July 2021 15: 32
                    3) "um ... duc this is one of the offensive means on which NATO has high hopes. It is quite natural that research institutes in the Russian Federation and China are studying the most effective ways to combat this threat. What is unnatural in this?" - yes, absolutely nothing. But carefully read the text that you are commenting on. Don't just study. I take and study SERIOUSLY. No one there considers him bad, outdated, for the Papuans and so on. They are treated with due respect.
                    1. 0
                      4 July 2021 01: 23
                      Quote: smoltish
                      Don't just study. I take and study SERIOUSLY. No one there considers him bad, outdated, for the Papuans and so on. They are treated with due respect.

                      again, nothing surprising. a monkey with a grenade is dangerous, but here the F35, which is much more serious than a grenade, is inadequate, which put a big bolt on international law.
                      1. 0
                        4 July 2021 05: 58
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        Quote: smoltish
                        Don't just study. I take and study SERIOUSLY. No one there considers him bad, outdated, for the Papuans and so on. They are treated with due respect.

                        again, nothing surprising. a monkey with a grenade is dangerous, but here the F35, which is much more serious than a grenade, is inadequate, which put a big bolt on international law.

                        You twist a lot. You have a good sense of humor. But you understand what I wanted to say.
                  3. 0
                    3 July 2021 15: 42
                    4) "you again dropped out of the wink chronology, let me remind you that until 2016-2017, the question of the goals and application of F35 was not raised at all" - well, sorry, again nonsense. Do you think a combat aircraft is made to fly just like that ??? For beauty??? When developing a combat aircraft, the question of goals and application is not raised ????? Questions are being raised not only for 2016-17, but also for all years of the proposed operation.
                    5) "but something went wrong and now the F-18 is being removed from storage, the F-15 continues to be purchased and new modifications are created" - yes, not everything is going smoothly, there are indeed a lot of problems. But no one denies this. And they are not going to abandon the F-35, despite the re-entry.
                    6) "F-15s continue to purchase and create new modifications" - and what's the big deal? These are completely different aircraft for different tasks and situations. The new modification of the F-15 carries a lot more weapons than the F-35 can afford. But 35 has a different task. F-15 will be more difficult to overcome air defense - it is not made according to "stealth" technologies. Read the proposed tactics of application and everything will be clear. Much has been written there, many tens of pages. Then maybe it will be clearer to you. There (both in our documents and in the American ones, there are also open access) formulas, calculations and other useful things. You can learn a lot. After all, this is a very difficult question to write in two lines.
                    1. 0
                      4 July 2021 02: 16
                      Quote: smoltish
                      Do you think a combat aircraft is made to fly just like that ???

                      just??? and sell the plane? and sell spare parts? and sell service? what about a commercial novelty selling software updates?!? belay this is not at all just like that, but for a solid piece of the military budget wink

                      Quote: smoltish
                      And they are not going to abandon the F-35, despite the re-entry.

                      only the size of the purchased series is constantly decreasing. probably because the plane is too good and the United States is afraid to upset the balance of the world laughing
                      Quote: smoltish
                      But 35 has a different task.

                      intrigued! and which one? It cannot overcome modern air defense as well as the F-15, despite the fact that the flight is much more expensive than that of the F-15, and the load is much less. so what is F35 for? only chase the Papuans. you probably decided that by the Papuans I mean something like Afghanistan or Somalia? not only, they are also American partners in NATO, for example, colonies like Japan or Germany. against these countries F35 is quite effective. they have nothing to stop him with. and if they are still forced to buy F35, then against the United States they will not only have air defense, but also aviation. conveniently. how good it was with Iraq, which air defense on the GPS was attached. so far, only the Turks have grasped what was happening, but there the Sultan's cock pecked robustly, it is known where. however, this is already a precedent and they are not the last.
                      1. 0
                        4 July 2021 06: 35
                        "just like that ??? and sell the plane? and sell spare parts?" - You are jerking again. You understand what I mean. Naturally, selling is the right thing to do. But do you think they did it only for this? Not serious.
                        In the picture about close combat, this is just a misunderstanding that it is for another completely new type of war. The F-35 is not considered for close combat. I wrote to you, read about the new concept. It's understandable, though.
                        "only the sizes of the purchased series are constantly decreasing" - well, they are decreasing, so what. The F-22 has significantly reduced the series, this does not mean that it is bad. Our Su-57 has a funny series of 76 pieces. This is not enough for our country. This does not mean the quality of the aircraft. But I agree that there is a delay in serial production and procurement for 2022 due to the stocks of the F-35, of which there are really a lot.

                        "It cannot overcome modern air defense as well as the F-15" - the F-35 still has much more chances to overcome than the F-15. But is there an ideal plane (no matter in which country) that can 100 percent overcome air defense? And there is no need to idealize the capabilities of our air defense. Our air defense is by far the best in the world, no doubt about it. But in general, with the massive use of aviation with the use of electronic warfare means, the task of hitting air attack weapons is not an easy one. I talked with the S-300 airborne troops, they say a lot of interesting things and they do not idealize the situation at all. Our aircraft are constantly checking our S-300, S-400, MiG-31. And you know, even the third generation Su-3M aircraft (well, not at all stealth, which is still in service) breaks through the air defense, and this despite the fact that often the air defense officers know that they will be checked. And the pilot of the Su-24M told how you can deceive the MiG-24. After all, everything is very difficult and complicated. Nobody canceled the tactics of overcoming air defense means. And then many in Wikipedia read the performance characteristics of the air defense system and think that everything is very simple. And what is behind these numbers and other technical and tactical aspects of them are not written in Wikipedia.
                        For example, when an old B-52 flies in the Baltic Sea and includes electronic warfare equipment, the task of air defense shniks becomes much more complicated. The stations just go blind and see nothing. And stealth technologies nevertheless objectively also complicate the task (no one claims that they are indestructible). Some in the comments about stealth have some jokes, like a useless thing. But if so, then why did we take the same path ????
                        Yes, when using the F-35 against strong air defense, UAV traps will be massively used, which imitate attacking aircraft, thereby greatly hampering the work of air defense. Moreover, they can still be used as anti-radar weapons and as means of electronic warfare. With all due respect to our air defense, we simply cannot physically cope with such a massive use of air attack weapons and flying traps, even with a 100 percent hit by each missile. However, there are no such missiles and complexes (ideal) in nature.
                  4. 0
                    3 July 2021 15: 48
                    7) "dancing with the" tactics of the US Air Force "began when it became clear that the United States was no longer the only superpower in the world and would have to deal not with the Papuans, but with an equal, possibly superior, enemy." Yes, there were no dances. I repeat once again - read the American documents. Their armed forces were always built for a serious enemy, even if along the way they had to resolve issues with such weak countries as Afghanistan (and even then, if you think about it, then in Afghanistan it was not so much a military task as a political one, but all sorts of messages about the use of aviation and other types of the Armed Forces are more for American cooks, no one was going to conduct full-scale military operations there. And why are they there, read the experts)
                    1. 0
                      4 July 2021 02: 26
                      Quote: smoltish
                      Yes, there were no dances.

                      exactly? are you sure? but in my opinion there is the same story as with the Zamvolts, which are either with a reelgano, or instead of a reelgano, a supergun, then we remove the supergun, we put the missiles, then we do not put the missiles, but wait for the super missiles ... the same with the LCS. Judging by the fact that the military budget is adopted by civilian lobbyists in Congress, and not by generals who will have to fight, the United States has long adopted the practice of transferring weapons adopted by Congress, for commercial reasons, to the army, and you yourself have to figure out what to do with it.
                      1. 0
                        4 July 2021 05: 55
                        "exactly? are you sure? but in my opinion there is the same story as with the Zamwolts" - I am not in this sense that some particular questions have changed. Globally. Their army was always built on a STRONG enemy, and not on the Tumba-Yumba tribes.
                  5. 0
                    3 July 2021 15: 58
                    8) "the enemy must be objectively assessed" - I agree with you 100 percent. But you, excuse me, are biased (this is the question of the Papuans). Many of the innovations that are used in the F-35 are poorly covered (even more so on this site and on Zen, etc.), so I disagree with your conclusions. It is difficult to find information, because you need to know what to look for (but in fact there is a lot of it on highly specialized sites, English-language sites). Military experts have already sorted out the available information on the bones, and this is not an easy reading. So they are very respectful of the F-35. Yes, there are really a lot of flaws on the 35th (and there are very stupid and strange ones) and they like to write about them mostly, but they don't write the main thing. It's easier to scold and moan.
                  6. 0
                    3 July 2021 16: 12
                    9) "or you are lobbying for the idea that our" urapatriots "" - I am not lobbying anything, since no one pays me for propaganda and so on. I just could not help but write (excuse me) in very childish babble (for example, about the Papuans). I do not consider myself not a "urapatriot" (this is not patriotism at all), nor an admirer of everything Western. I just draw conclusions not from articles on "VO", Zen or "professional" publications like "Military Watch" and others like them (those imported publications that like to reprint on this site and the articles of these magazines sometimes cause laughter).
                    With any type of military equipment (even with the simplest machine gun, not to mention complex aviation systems, complexes, aircraft, etc.), not everything is so simple to describe in two lines. And to read "in-depth" analyzes that the F-35 does not belong to the 5th generation aircraft according to three criteria (which are the criteria for generations, by the way, no one officially approved anywhere and they can differ in different countries) is somehow cool ... One and the same for all.
                    And underestimating the enemy is very bad. Still, there are no fools.
                    1. 0
                      4 July 2021 03: 25
                      Quote: smoltish
                      And to read "in-depth" analyzes that the F-35 does not belong to the 5th generation aircraft according to three criteria (which are the criteria for generations, by the way, no one officially approved anywhere and they can differ in different countries) is somehow cool ...

                      well, how did no one assert? approved without fail! it's like a technical specification for an airplane. and yes, in accordance with the American TZ F35, this is the 5th generation by the fact that they so approved, and according to the TZ of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, it does not pull for 5th generation. but for the USA, yes, 5th generation.
                      so there the Swedes like the 6th generation are going to do it, but the Ukrainians and the 10th generation can! wassat
                      Quote: smoltish
                      And underestimating the enemy is very bad. Still, there are no fools.

                      I agree with that drinks but judging by what is happening, they are not fools in commerce. that's good for us. the heavier the US budget, the less the likelihood of war.
                      1. 0
                        4 July 2021 05: 53
                        "approved without fail! it's like a technical specification for an airplane" - I agree about the technical specification. But there has never been a document of exactly what a 5th generation aircraft (or 4th, 3rd, etc.) is. And if the F-35 does not possess, for example, super-maneuverability, this does not mean that it does not "pull." It's just a completely different application concept. Completely different, different goals in contrast to the Su-57, therefore the requirements are different. This does not mean that the Americans cannot make a super-maneuverable aircraft.
                  7. 0
                    3 July 2021 16: 17
                    10) "but their fairy tales on" EPR 0.0001 "must be believed unconditionally, because they cannot be underestimated" - and the military is carefully trying to find out the EPR of all aircraft in our country with the help of reconnaissance, modeling, calculations and other other things.
                    And by the way, the developer itself indicated the EPR 0,0001 ?? Or is it from "VO", "Military Watch", from propaganda for American scouts, schoolchildren and cooks ???? What is voiced for such press (even by the American military), well ... no comment.
    10. +1
      19 June 2021 15: 26
      To summarize, Coburn writes that he does not understand the submissiveness with which NATO countries buy this fighter, even if the Pentagon and Congress call it a "disaster."


      Coburn is lying, he understands everything, Europe fell under the United States and Britain as well.
      1. +1
        19 June 2021 15: 44
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        To summarize, Coburn writes that he does not understand the submissiveness with which NATO countries buy this fighter, even if the Pentagon and Congress call it a "disaster."


        Coburn is lying, he understands everything, Europe fell under the United States and Britain as well.

        in original article ends
        "At least Vladimir Putin should sleep better." ))))))))))))))
      2. -6
        19 June 2021 15: 49
        So it is being imposed, then why is Turkey persistently seeking to return to the program?
        1. +2
          19 June 2021 16: 27
          Of course they do. Not everyone has the independence to say no to these gypsies.
          1. -4
            19 June 2021 18: 44
            So why, then, is Turkey persistently demanding a return to the program? Turkey seems to have enough independence, but no - it wants the F-35 and that's it.
            1. +1
              19 June 2021 19: 25
              If I wanted to, I would have made concessions with the air defense.
              1. -2
                20 June 2021 00: 28
                Yes, the sultan just climbed a tall tree and now does not know how to get down. Otherwise, he would not have continued to moan at the Americans.
            2. 0
              19 June 2021 23: 23
              Quote: Slobodskoy
              So why, then, Turkey persistently demands a return to the program? ... But no - it wants the F-35 and that's it.

              Probably because Turkey has already passed this story with pressure - and caved in: a tender for the purchase of attack helicopters as an example. And also because participation in the program as a partner producing for the program gives a lot of bonuses: first of all, access to technologies, which the Turks are actively looking for. I would like to eat both the fish and leave the C400 for myself: it is not permissible to lose face
              1. 0
                20 June 2021 00: 30
                Well, right, what we are talking about - a hall on a tall tree, and now he does not know how to get down.
    11. +6
      19 June 2021 15: 49
      It seems that the Fu-35 enjoys the greatest popularity and reputation among VO visitors ... well, some :)
    12. +2
      19 June 2021 16: 45
      Quote: Slobodskoy
      In this, the author simply reprints nothing particularly confirmed articles in various, mainly yellow, editions. The fact is that we have not yet heard complaints from operators. As far as is known, Israel, for example, uses them quite actively and seems to be very satisfied.

      Operators apparently personally report (to you). Do you quickly refer all the critics of this "miracle" to the yellow editions?)) Nothing has been heard about its superiority in operation either.
      And where did this semblance of an airplane manage to prove itself and give reason to think that it coped with the task better than the rest?
      1. +5
        19 June 2021 16: 53
        Quote: Tagan
        And where did this semblance of an airplane manage to prove itself and give reason to think that it coped with the task better than the rest?

        How could you go to the "holy" so to speak? wassat Now they will write to you here that the inhabitants of the promised one cannot get enough of it, modestly keeping silent that the "chosen ones" cannot even fly up to the borders of the bombarded country, despite the fact that only the name remains of the mattress, starting from the pot on the pilot's head and ending firmware ...
      2. -3
        20 June 2021 12: 52
        Well, for example, I know that the Israelis are actively exploiting, using in combat missions and are very happy with “this likeness.” But the widely promoted “not likeness” exists in Russia in the amount of 1 (one) copy against over 500 “penguins” and how it will behave in real conditions, is still unknown.
    13. +1
      19 June 2021 16: 57
      Andrew Coburn criticized the American fighter

      Some wrong British journalist, maybe hesitated not a fresh "newbie"?
    14. +3
      19 June 2021 17: 00
      Quote: kot423

      How could you go to the "holy" so to speak? wassat Now they will write to you here that the inhabitants of the promised one cannot get enough of it, modestly keeping silent that the "chosen ones" cannot even fly up to the borders of the bombarded country, despite the fact that only the name remains of the mattress, starting from the pot on the pilot's head and ending firmware ...

      What they gave on the order for that and rejoice.)))
    15. +2
      19 June 2021 18: 12
      As for the difficulties associated with the operation of the main rivals of the Su-57, the problems of the competitors of the Russian machine are that none of the fifth generation fighters, including Chinese, Japanese and American, fits into the concept of a universal machine for modern warfare. It cannot be ruled out that the pioneers of the fifth generation, the American military, may need a completely new aircraft to bring their own aviation to such indicators in the near future.
      F firebox laughing
      1. +4
        19 June 2021 20: 47
        Evil tongues from Popular Mechanics say that it was already required. They probably lie, they work for China lol
        https://www.discred.ru/2021/02/28/v-vvs-ssha-issyakla-vera-v-f-35/
    16. +1
      20 June 2021 07: 09
      "Expensive and unreliable":
      Briefly, succinctly, and most importantly - PARAVDA !!! good I was not afraid of the merciatos ally to give a very REAL assessment of the piece of iron. good Howl and snot from there laughing - sure proof of the truth lol
    17. +1
      20 June 2021 08: 11
      Struggling for budgets ... otherwise how can you justify the development of the British 5th generation?
    18. sen
      +1
      20 June 2021 08: 50
      One of the disadvantages of the F-35 is the current polymer coatings of stealth aircraft, which have limitations - for example, they can flake off the side, thereby opening it up for scanning enemy radars. The United States is creating a new material that aims to remove these restrictions and make stealth aircraft truly invisible. In addition, he will change their shape and can affect other features of the aircraft.
      The new ceramic coating will provide better protection for stealth aircraft and bombers. It will also change their shape and help increase their speed.
      The innovation is still in its infancy, but laboratory tests have shown that the spray can absorb more than 90% of the radar energy, while modern materials absorb only up to 80%.
      Scientists at the University of North Carolina have taken all the constraints into account to develop a solution that can be applied to any ship. The end product is a waterproof and durable ceramic coating that can withstand harsh conditions. New material can also
      maintain its radio-absorbing characteristics at temperatures from -100 to 1800 ° C.
      The ceramic is sprayed onto the aircraft. After it is exposed to air, a series of chemical reactions take place that transform the liquid spraying into a durable ceramic coating. The whole process takes one to two days.
      The new coating improves not only the "invisible" component. Scientists believe that the future generation of stealth aircraft will become faster and more maneuverable, and will also change their design in favor of technical characteristics (in particular, it will be possible to eliminate exhaust nozzles).
      The scientists have now received funding that will allow them to produce and test samples much larger than what they are currently working on. Ultimately, they hope to create a completely new generation of stealth aircraft.
      https://zoom.cnews.ru/rnd/article/item/kak_novyj_material_izmenit_formu_samoletovnevidimok
      1. +2
        20 June 2021 10: 06
        "current polymer coatings for stealth aircraft, which have limitations - for example, they can flake off the side" ///
        ----
        In the F-35, the stealth coating cracks at the joints of the fuselage with the wings from vibrations at sharp
        bends. And it deteriorates on the trailing edges of the tail from overheating in the afterburner.
        Have to "tint" smile
        There are no other detachments. The F-22 had detachments until the coating was changed.

        In future stealth coatings, sensor chips will be mixed. It will become
        active dynamic.
    19. -3
      20 June 2021 09: 02
      Probably all the employees of this publication tried to fly on the F35 and then made conclusions.
    20. DMi
      +3
      20 June 2021 12: 04
      Anyone who criticizes F35 is a sofa expert, putinoid, kremlebot and tabloids. This is an axiom) sacred cows should not be touched. This is an insult to the feelings of believers).
      1. +1
        20 June 2021 14: 04
        Quote: DMi
        This is an insult to the feelings of believers).

        smartly formulated! good
        Quote: DMi
        sacred cows must not be touched.

        aircraft carriers need to be added to this list. Yes
    21. 0
      20 June 2021 13: 37
      So I'm wondering if our electronic warfare has worked out the forced ejection of the F35 pilots.
    22. +2
      20 June 2021 13: 40
      If we exclude everything compulsory from US military exports, then American exports are at the level of Honduras.
    23. +2
      20 June 2021 16: 08
      Quote: Slobodskoy
      Well, for example, I know that the Israelis are actively exploiting, using in combat missions and are very happy with “this likeness.” But the widely promoted “not likeness” exists in Russia in the amount of 1 (one) copy against over 500 “penguins” and how it will behave in real conditions, is still unknown.


      When no one threatens them, and far from being the result of stealth, this is called "combat missions." But is the iron ready to withstand even fourth-generation aircraft? How irons behave in real conditions, as it seems to me, no one knows either. While these similar aircraft were in greenhouse conditions, and with all this, the level of their combat readiness leaves much to be desired. The available information just suggests that this device is not ready for active use.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"