Why is the F-35 such a two-in-one Nescafe?

213
Why is the F-35 such a two-in-one Nescafe?

In June of this year, as part of the Red Flag exercise, a large number of aircraft from the US Air Force, Royal Air Force of Great Britain and the Australian Air Force practiced many joint tasks, including breaking through the layered air defense of a potential enemy.

Representatives of the Air Force took part in F-16, F-15, Eurofighter “Typhoons”, E-8 were the control aircraft, F-22 and F-35 played the role of covert escort. Almost the entire NATO set.



The enemy was represented by long- and medium-range air defense systems and fighters structurally similar to the Su-30. That is, the most powerful enemy was simulated.

In the end, the F-35s effectively decided the outcome by destroying air defense networks and transmitting data to missile-laden fighters like the F-16s, which completed the rout of the enemy on the ground and in the air.

That the F-35 can fly at speeds up to Mach 1,6 and can carry four payloads weapons in the internal compartments - this is not the most important thing. In fact, it is not the firepower that is important, but the processing power of the F-35. This is why the F-35 has become known as the "quarterback in the sky" or "the computer that flies."


“There has never been an aircraft that provides situational awareness like the F-35. In combat, situational awareness is worth its weight in gold."
- Major Justin "Hazard" Lee, US Air Force F-35 instructor pilot.

But for quite some time, many have debated whether the F-35 was a game-changing platform or an example of a Pentagon weapons acquisition that didn't make sense.

It turns out that it’s both.


The aircraft we know today as the F-35 was built to serve multiple components of the military with one high-performance, versatile aircraft.

Having a long list of requirements from the US Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and subsequently the UK and Canada, the Joint Strike Fighter program already in 1997 organized a competitive selection of two prototypes: the X-35 from Lockheed Martin and the X-32 from Boeing " And the developers had to work hard: The Joint Strike Fighter needed to replace at least five different aircraft in different branches of the armed forces, including the F-14 Tomcat high-speed interceptor and the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft at least partially.

While replacing all of these aircraft with one aircraft would (in theory) save money, the long list of requirements resulted in an avalanche of costly complications. In fact, while the X-35 was still vying for a contract, many were unsure that such an aircraft could be built in production.

Designed from the ground up with low observability as a priority, the F-35 may be the stealthiest fighter jet today. It uses a single F135 engine, with an afterburner thrust of 19 kgf, capable of accelerating the fighter to speeds of up to Mach 500.

The aircraft can carry four missiles or bombs inside the weapons compartment and six more on external nodes, but this will be to the detriment of stealth. Plus a four-barreled 25mm cannon.


The standard payload of all three F-35 variants includes two AIM-120C/D air-to-air missiles and two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, allowing the F-35 to engage both air and ground targets. In addition, Lockheed Martin has developed a new internal weapons carriage that will eventually allow the aircraft to carry an additional two missiles within the bay.

The F-35's cockpit eschews the array of sensors and screens found on previous generations of fighter jets in favor of large touchscreens and a helmet-mounted display system that allows the pilot to see information in real time. The helmet also allows the pilot to see straight through the aircraft, thanks to the F-35's Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and a set of six infrared cameras mounted in a circular pattern on the aircraft's fuselage.



"If you went back to 2000 and someone said, 'I can build an airplane that is stealthy, has VTOL capability and can go supersonic,' most people in the industry would have said it was impossible."
" said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's general manager for the JSF program from 2000 to 2013.
“The technology to bring all of this together into a single platform was not available to industry at the time.”

While the X-32 and X-35 prototypes performed well, the deciding factor in the competition may have been the F-35's short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) flight. Since the US Marine Corps intended to use this new aircraft as a replacement for the AV-8B "Harrier II", the new American stealth fighter would serve the same vertical landing and short takeoff role.

Boeing's X-32 prototypes were more unusual-looking than its X-35 competitors and were in many ways less advanced.


Boeing saw this as a selling point for its design because the less innovative systems used in its design were cheaper to maintain. The aircraft used a forward thrust vectoring system for vertical landing, similar to that of the Harrier. In fact, Boeing engineers simply redirected the plane's engine thrust downward to take off, making it less stable than the X-35 in testing.

But Boeing's biggest mistake may have been its decision to field two prototypes: one capable of supersonic flight and one capable of vertical landing. The decision has Pentagon officials worried about Boeing's ability to fly one plane with all those capabilities.

The lift-fan design used in the X-35 connected an engine at the rear of the aircraft to a drive shaft that drove a large fan mounted in the aircraft's fuselage behind the pilot. When the F-35 hovered, air flow from the top of the plane would descend through the fan and exit the bottom, creating two balanced sources of thrust that made the plane much more stable.


Unsurprisingly, the F-35 ended up winning.

“You can look at a Lockheed Martin airplane and say it looks like what you would expect from a modern, high-performance, high-powered fighter jet.”
, says Lockheed Martin engineer Rick Rezebeck -
"You look at a Boeing airplane and the general reaction is, 'I don't understand.'


Ultimately, Lockheed Martin defeated the unusual Boeing X-32 prototype in October 2001. The future looked bright for the prototype, called the F-35.

Deciding to start with the least complex iteration of the new fighter, Lockheed Skunk Works began designing the F-35A to be used by the USAF as a traditional runway fighter like the F-16 Fighting Falcon. After the F-35A was completed, the engineering team moved on to the more complex F-35B intended for use by the US Marine Corps, and then finally to the F-35C intended for carrier duty.

There was only one problem - fitting all the necessary equipment for different variants into one fuselage turned out to be extremely difficult. By the time Lockheed Martin completed design work on the F-35A and began work on the B version, they realized that the weight estimates they had set when designing the Air Force variant would result in the aircraft being nearly a ton heavier. . This miscalculation led to a significant rollback in development - the first, but not the last.

It can be difficult for the casual observer to spot the differences between each F-35 variant, and for good reason. The only real differences between each iteration of the aircraft relate to basing requirements. In other words, the most noticeable differences are in the way the fighter takes off and lands, but this has virtually no effect on the appearance of the machine.

F-35A



Intended for use by the US Air Force and allied countries, the F-35A is a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant. This aircraft is designed to operate on traditional runways and is the only version of the F-35 equipped with a 25mm integral cannon, allowing it to replace both the F-16 multi-role fighter and the A-10 Thunderbolt II "flying gun". .

F-35B



The F-35B was purpose-built for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations and was designed to meet the needs of the United States Marine Corps. While the F-35B can still operate off traditional runways, the STOVL capabilities offered by the F-35B allow Marines to fly these aircraft from short runways or from the decks of amphibious assault ships, often referred to as " lightning carriers" (from Lightning - "lightning").

F-35C



The F-35C is the first stealth fighter ever developed for US Navy aircraft carriers. It boasts larger wings than its peers, allowing for slower approach speeds when landing on an aircraft carrier. A stronger landing gear helps with hard landings on the deck of an aircraft carrier, and this version has a larger fuel capacity (9 kg compared to the F-111A's 8 kg) for longer-range missions. The C is also the only F-300 equipped with folding wings, allowing them to be stored in the hull of the ships.

“It turns out that when you combine the requirements of three different armies, you end up with an F-35, which is an aircraft that in many ways is suboptimal for what each service really wants.”
, Todd Harrison, an aerospace expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in 2019.

The expert’s rather frank statement actually carries a sound message: a universal machine will never be a full-fledged replacement for specialized ones. A universal combat aircraft can replace an attack aircraft or an interceptor, but we are not talking about a full-fledged replacement.

The Lockheed Martin team ultimately works out the intricacies of each individual modification, but executing this engineering trick has led to a series of delays and cost overruns.

Lockheed Martin's poor weight class arithmetic delayed initial development by 18 months and cost a daunting $6,2 billion, but it was only the first of many problems facing the new Joint Strike Fighter. It wasn't until February 2006, five years after Lockheed won the contract, that the first F-35A would roll off the assembly line. But these early F-35s weren't even ready for combat because the Pentagon decided to start production before they had completed testing.


In general, this is normal practice in the world: to begin serial production of an aircraft before testing is completed. Tests are underway, the planes are being assembled. If testing reveals something that needs to be corrected/reworked, it usually does not cause much of a problem in the plant environment. Of course, if the shortcomings are not critical. But if a significant flaw was discovered, then all previously produced aircraft would have to be returned for major repairs. That is, everything is as always: time plus money.

By 2010, nine years after Lockheed Martin was awarded the JSF contract, the cost of a single F-35 had risen more than 89% over original estimates. It would be another eight years before the first operational F-35s entered combat.

So what really sets the expensive F-35 apart from the fighters that came before it? Two words: Data management.

Today's pilots have to manage a huge amount of information while flying, and that means dividing your time and attention between traveling at the speed of sound and the barrage of information from screens and sensors that often scream for your attention. Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35 uses a combination of head-up display and helmet-mounted augmented reality to keep important information directly in the pilot's field of view.


Each Gen III helmet is customized to fit the wearer's head to prevent slippage during flight and ensure the displays appear in the correct locations. To do this, technicians scan each pilot's head, mapping each feature and configuring the helmet's inner lining to fit the head.

Previously, pilots had to switch to night vision attachments when flying in the dark. The Gen III projects environmental night vision readings directly onto the visor when the pilot activates the system.

The shell is made of carbon fiber, which gives it its characteristic checkered pattern. A spool of patch cables extends from the back of the helmet to connect it to the plane, Matrix-style. When the user turns their head in a certain direction, the wires feed the corresponding camera frames to the helmet.

The communication system has active noise reduction. The speakers produce sound that minimizes wind noise and the low-frequency drone of jet engines so pilots can hear clearly.

“In the F-16, each sensor was tied to a different screen/dial... often the sensors showed conflicting information.”
, Lee says in an interview with Popular Mechanics.

“The F-35 integrates everything into a green dot if it's a good guy and a red dot if it's a bad guy—it's very pilot-friendly. All information is displayed on the panoramic cockpit display, which is essentially two giant iPads.”


It's not just about how the information gets to the pilot, but also how it is collected. The F-35 is capable of collecting information from a wide range of sensors located on the aircraft and from information received from ground surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles, other aircraft and nearby ships. It collects all this information, as well as network data about targets and nearby threats, and spits it all out into a single interface that the pilot can easily control while flying.

With a divine view of the terrain, F-35 pilots can coordinate with fourth-generation aircraft, making them more lethal in the process.

“In the F-35, we are the quarterback of the battlefield—our job is to make everyone around us better.”
, says Lee.
“Fourth generation fighters like the F-16 and F-15 will be with us at least until the late 2040s. Since there are many more of them than us, our job is to use our unique assets to shape the battlefield and make it more survivable for them."
.

All of this information may seem daunting, but for old-time fighter pilots faced with the complex task of gathering information from dozens of different screens and sensors, the F-35's user interface is nothing short of a miracle.


Tony "Brick" Wilson, who served in the US Navy for 25 years before joining Lockheed Martin as a test pilot, has flown more than 20 different aircraft, from helicopters to a U-2 spy plane and even a Russian MiG. 15. He says the F-35 is by far the easiest aircraft he has encountered to fly.

“As we moved into fourth-generation fighters like the F-16, we moved from pilots to sensor managers.”
, says Wilson.
“The F-35 has a sensor processing system that allows us to take some of the control headaches away from the pilot, allowing us to be true tacticians.”
.

In May 2018, the Israel Defense Forces became the first country to send the F-35 into combat, conducting two airstrikes with the F-35A in the Middle East. By September of that year, the US Marine Corps sent its first F-35Bs to hit ground targets in Afghanistan, and then the US Air Force used its F-35As for airstrikes in Iraq in April 2019.

Today, more than 500 F-35 Lighting II aircraft have been delivered to nine countries and operate at 23 air bases around the world. This is larger than Russia's fifth-generation Su-57 fleet and China's J-20 fleet combined. With literally thousands of orders, the F-35 promises to become the backbone of the US Air Force.

And unlike previous generations of fighter jets, the F-35's capabilities are expected to keep up with the times. Thanks to a software architecture designed to allow the F-35 to receive frequent updates, the aircraft's shape has remained the same, but its function has already changed radically.

More about the F-35


“The plane that first flew in 2006 may have looked identical on the outside, but it was a very different plane than the one we fly today.”
, says Wilson.
“And the F-35 flying in ten years will be very different from the one we fly today.”



The F-35 will also serve as a test bed for technologies that will become commonplace in the next generation of jets. Flying in coordination with artificial intelligence-enabled drones will be a staple of any sixth-generation fighter, and these new fighter tricks will likely come first in the form of the F-35.

“I look at the most capable, most connected, most survivable aircraft on the planet and what we can achieve with it today.”
, says Wilson.
“I can only imagine what tomorrow’s F-35 will be capable of.”
.

However, “tomorrow” is a very vague concept.


The F-35 Lightning II is the most sophisticated program ever developed and implemented in the United States. The American military wanted not just a fighter, but a kind of universal aircraft, so that it would not only function as a fighter and bomber, but also push the boundaries of new technologies, including stealth, sensors and networks on the battlefield.

Today, 20 years after the F-35 program launched and 500 aircraft were delivered, an outside observer would be forgiven for thinking that the F-35 is already in full production. But that's not entirely true: the aircraft is actually in low-rate initial production (LRIP).

Under a system known as the aforementioned “parallelism,” Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon agreed that they would order smaller quantities of the aircraft while continuing to refine their features. Once the F-35 is considered "ready", the company will - ideally - go back and upgrade all of the older aircraft to the new standard. The idea was to get the planes into the hands of pilots as early as possible.

And the economic part of the idea is to make the F-35 cheaper. It is known that the larger the batch of aircraft, the lower the cost in the end. And yes, the plane is really getting cheaper. The price of one F-35A under the 2019 series contract is $89,2 million (5,4% lower than in the previous batch of the 2018 contract - 94,3 million). The price of the F-35B has been reduced to 115,5 million (from 122,4 million), the F-35C to 107,7 million (from 121,2 million). The goal is to reduce the cost of one F-35A to $80 million. And this is normal from an economic point of view.

But what is not normal is another indicator.


An F-35 flight hour cost $2011 thousand in 30,7, which is comparable to that of the fourth-generation F-15 fighter. And by 2017, the cost of combat use of the vehicle increased to 44 thousand dollars per hour. In January 2020, it was announced that the cost of maintaining one aircraft continued to decline for the fourth year in a row (by 2015% since 35). But if you calculate the total cost of creating and maintaining the aircraft before disposal (this is about 8 hours of flight time per aircraft), it will be about 000 million dollars, which is much more expensive than a mass of gold equal to the weight of the aircraft.

As a result, we have this situation (voiced by the Americans themselves):
- The F-35 is the quintessence of the American aircraft industry. It is truly an advanced aircraft in many aspects;
- The F-35 is truly versatile and capable of performing many missions on the battlefield. Perhaps - to perform well, despite its universality;
- The F-35 is a very expensive aircraft. Not comparable to the F-22, but still;
- The F-35 is a very expensive aircraft in the future, since modifications and further upgrades require not only time, but also huge sums of money;
- all story Operation of the F-35 will go hand in hand with a history of multi-million dollar costs.

Therefore, indeed, the F-35 is “Two in one”: both a very advanced and promising aircraft, and a huge financial headache at the same time. The aircraft is more expensive than gold, but capable of performing the combat missions assigned to it.
213 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -13
    18 September 2023 04: 00
    Well, according to Skoromokhov, it turns out that once the “quarterback” is damaged/shot down/stunned by electronic warfare, the entire Western/NATO/aviation armada will become a herd of motley sheep
    1. +11
      18 September 2023 05: 07
      Quote: Guran33 Sergey
      Well, according to Skoromokhov, it turns out that once the “quarterback” is damaged/shot down/stunned by electronic warfare, the entire Western/NATO/aviation armada will become a herd of motley sheep

      First, it must be noticed, and the F-35 is by definition stealthy, especially in frontal view.
      Secondly, you need to hit it, and the capabilities of the missile’s seeker radar are not at all the same as those of ground-based systems, and the F-35 is, by definition, stealthy.
      Thirdly, the F-35 probably won’t fly alone on a mission to coordinate a whole bunch of aircraft, and damaging/shooting/stunning electronic warfare on one F-35 doesn’t mean that no one will intercept its functions.
      1. +7
        18 September 2023 05: 17
        revolver\ Yes! The Challenger was also indestructible for 30 years... until the front hit the New Front...
        1. +19
          18 September 2023 06: 01
          Well, as if the T-90M, judging by the articles on VO, was an indestructible machine. But this also turned out not to be the case. So what are we talking about then?
          1. +22
            18 September 2023 08: 38
            The author needs to use more up-to-date information, because the F-35 is already approaching the 900 aircraft mark, 500 was a long time ago.
            As for the cost of the world's most advanced aircraft, the F-35, it is comparable to the cost of our even outdated Su-35. And most importantly, the F-35 is part of the Air Force system, which has the required number of AWACS aircraft, RTR aircraft and UAVs, patrol aircraft, but we do not have such a system, just as there is no flying analogue of the F-35, although a light multirole fighter is the main fighter in all The world's air forces except ours.

            In general, in fact, despite Konashenkov’s reports, the Ukrainian Air Force has not only not been destroyed in one and a half years of air defense, but also strikes at us, despite the fact that it consists of forty-year-old MiG-29s and Su-24s. And this speaks to the inability of our Aerospace Forces to suppress either the old and small enemy aircraft or air defense. But the Americans coped with this task both in Iraq and Yugoslavia, and we need to learn from them in order to win ourselves and not write opuses about their supposed stupidity and backwardness
            1. -5
              18 September 2023 11: 19
              [quote][/But the Americans coped with this task in both Iraq and Yugoslaviaquote]
              Did you write this in all seriousness? Maybe you can analyze what these countries contrasted with the states and come down to earth a little.
              1. -4
                18 September 2023 19: 39
                At one time, the Americans attached the “super” prefix to their F-117 stealth bomber. Until this miracle of technology was dismantled for parts by an old Soviet air defense system with a meter-range radar, on which this “super” stealth caught the eye like an advertisement for a brothel on the doors of a kindergarten ! Therefore, I will neither criticize nor praise the F-35 as if it were a dead man! Until the results of the first real battle with a real opponent! Although, several years ago, the Syrians claimed that they had broken an Israeli “invisibility” missile with an S-200 missile, and the Jews fought off these claims with their hands and feet, claiming that their “Atalef” collided with a bird! But the plane damaged by the bird took a long time to heal.
                1. -2
                  18 September 2023 21: 50
                  Quote: Vicontas
                  At one time, the Americans attached the “super” prefix to their F-117 stealth bomber. Until this miracle of technology was dismantled for parts by an old Soviet air defense system with a meter-range radar, on which this “super” stealth caught the eye like an advertisement for a brothel on the doors of a kindergarten !

                  The F-117 was not shot down by the crew, who was on duty, spotted the F-117 and shot it down, and they took care of it even before it even flew into Serbian airspace, since they knew the course and time. In order to shoot it down along its path, they set up a radar to catch the radar waves reflected by the fuselage, raised the Mig29 and eventually shot it down with the help of the radar when it descended below the clouds. The Serbs received the information from the Russian military attache to NATO, who in turn was told the information by a French officer at regular gatherings. This story has not been a secret for a long time, you can read it and not write any more nonsense about how ancient air defenses shoot down stealth systems. In total, the F-117 flew more than 800 combat missions and was shot down only once at the very beginning of its mission. Why weren’t they shot down later? It’s stories like the ones about the S-200 and F-117 that are becoming familiar to some.
                  1. +4
                    19 September 2023 06: 25
                    Quote: karabas-barabas
                    It’s stories like the ones about the S-200 and F-117 that are becoming familiar to some.

                    Don't embarrass yourself with your own stories. The F-117 was shot down by an old Soviet S-125 air defense system operating from ambush - constantly changing positions and setting up false positions with old machines and microwave magnetrons turned on (imitation of side-lobe radar radiation). The Serbs received target designation for targets entering their affected area from Russian ships in the Mediterranean Sea. The surveillance radar did not work in standby mode; it was turned on only when the target had already entered the zone, in order to lock on the target with the guidance radar. After each such salvo/activation, the division changed position, leaving decoys in the same place in the form of old cars and imitation antennas.
                    Quote: karabas-barabas
                    In order to shoot him down along the way, they installed a radar,

                    fool The radar's standby assets were knocked out during the early days of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia. Throughout the subsequent period, Yugoslav air defense systems operated from ambushes, turning on only to launch missiles, and guided by data from visual observation posts and data from the radar of Russian ships.
                    Quote: karabas-barabas
                    set up the radar to catch the radar waves reflected by the fuselage,

                    The radar is probably so junk for Yugoslavia that they can be “set up” in a couple of hours and turned on (!! fool ) in standby mode... The continuation of the phrase is generally a masterpiece.
                    Quote: karabas-barabas
                    picked up Mig29 and eventually shot it down with the help of OLS

                    Do not confuse the sinful with the righteous - in Yugoslavia there was no such case, and all MiG-29s taking off from underground bases were shot down by US and NATO fighters on takeoff according to the target designation of AWACS.
                    But a similar incident is reported during Desert Storm - in Iraq. Iraq received a small batch of MiG-29s from the USSR shortly before the war. Already on the very eve of the start of the "Storm" at night, the latest OLS and RVV BD missiles with laser target designation from the pilot's helmet and RVV SD were delivered to Iraq by An-12 transport. I know about this because I personally escorted him (during my duty).
                    The Americans denied the losses of their F-117s, incl. and lost in Yugoslavia. So far the Serbs have not shown its wreckage. Soon these aircraft were withdrawn from service.
                    Quote: karabas-barabas
                    the information was divulged by a French officer at regular gatherings.

                    You should write books... but apparently you yourself have read... nonsense.
                    1. +3
                      19 September 2023 10: 33
                      Quote: bayard
                      The F-117 was shot down by an old Soviet S-125 air defense system operating from ambush - constantly changing positions and setting up false positions with old machines and microwave magnetrons turned on (imitation of side-lobe radar radiation).

                      A little different - the C-125 division was deployed in the direction of the most likely flight of the Lame Goblin. The Yankees were let down by the template - the Serbs managed to open one of the standard “invisibility” routes and ambush the missile defense system.
                      Quote: bayard
                      The surveillance radar did not work in standby mode; it was turned on only when the target had already entered the zone, in order to lock on the target with the guidance radar.

                      It worked - the target was detected by the OVC radar. And then began the reason why the Yankees focused on stealth in the frequency range of divisional radars: the RTV can see the target, but on the UNK indicators there are only vague marks that cannot be shot at even in manual mode. He sees the eye, but the tooth is numb. ©
                      And only from 13 km it was possible to obtain a stable grip and launch. Despite the fact that the launch range of the S-125 is 17-22 km, and the capture range is even greater.
                      Quote: bayard
                      Throughout the subsequent period, Yugoslav air defense systems operated from ambushes, turning on only to launch missiles, and guided by data from visual observation posts and data from the radar of Russian ships.

                      That is, they worked in normal mode: according to external target designation, radar for an equivalent, upon receiving a command - a quick search in the specified sector, detection, capture, launch - and legs, legs, legs. smile
                      1. +1
                        19 September 2023 12: 43
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        That is, they worked in normal mode: according to external target designation, radar for an equivalent, upon receiving a command - a quick search in the specified sector, detection, capture, launch - and legs, legs, legs.

                        Well, in general, yes - in normal wartime mode. lol
                        I watched several interviews with the commander of that air defense division.
                        And about how we set up ambushes on American planes in Vietnam, and how many times before the first salvo we had to change positions, my former division commander told me - he won two assignments there. And at the end of his life he was chairman of the Russian-Vietnamese Friendship Society. hi
                      2. -1
                        19 September 2023 19: 31
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        A little different - the C-125 division was deployed in the direction of the most likely flight of the Lame Goblin. The Yankees were let down by the template - the Serbs managed to open one of the standard “invisibility” routes and ambush the missile defense system.

                        What kind of stereotype failed? So you yourself say that the Serbs knew the route in advance and set up an ambush. And they knew this route not from the stereotypes of the Americans, but from specific sources, otherwise there would not have been more than 800 sorties and only one loss. But then a comrade quite seriously talks about the fact that the S-200 crew on duty took direction and shot down an F-117.
                      3. +1
                        20 September 2023 00: 09
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        The Yankees were let down by the template - the Serbs managed to open one of the standard “invisibility” routes and ambush the missile defense system.
                        And they knew this route not because the Americans were stereotyped...
                        My colleague put it very diplomatically stereotyped, in fact, outright laziness. From personal conversations with Amer’s OBU officers, all conceivable tactical rules were violated: they flew according to the same pattern for several days. The Serbs eventually placed the 125th air defense system on the route and... to the museum. As a consolation, the amers claimed that the Neva was modified by the French, which was no longer important
                    2. -3
                      19 September 2023 19: 22
                      Quote: bayard
                      You should write books... but apparently you yourself have read... nonsense.

                      Don't talk nonsense and don't make things up. A whole sheet of empty chatter was written. It is clear that there are probably the majority of you like you, who love delusional fairy tales. I may not have written exactly the chronology, because it’s from memory, but in general this is exactly how it happened, the F-118 was attacked by Mog21 with R80 missiles, and later they also covered the missile defense system. The information was from French leaks. This can be checked.

                      So that in the future they do not disgrace themselves, I will send you a link to this case. True in German (find someone to translate), written for the internal military newspaper of Switzerland "Swiss Soldier", from Sivetrt Kai Gunar in 2000. I think this link will be more serious than empty chatter and nonsense that has no connection with reality.
                      https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=sol-004:2000:75::741

                      Quote: bayard
                      The Americans denied the loss of their F-117s

                      Just our own F-117s, in the plural? And how many of them were shot down and when did the Americans deny the loss of the F-117, when it immediately appeared in the press? And why has it never been possible to shoot down a single F-117, although they made more than 800 sorties, and 90% of them were after the incident? Something doesn’t add up with your stories that an F-117 shot down an S-200 crew on duty. So that you understand once and for all what happened there, read the link and you won’t have to embarrass yourself anymore, the whole chronology is there down to the smallest detail.
                      1. +2
                        20 September 2023 06: 21
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        Don't talk nonsense and don't make things up.

                        And right there:
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        F-118 was attacked by Mog21 with R80 missiles

                        what
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=sol-004:2000:75::741

                        Unfortunately, I don’t speak German, but I’ll try to find a translator. But I haven’t forgotten how to read numbers, dates and maps... You submitted a document for... 20.09.2023/XNUMX/XNUMX??? Although these days have just begun? Or are you a guest from the future?
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        I may not have written exactly the chronology, because it’s from memory, but in general this is exactly how it happened, the F-118 was attacked by Mog21 with R80 missiles, and later they also covered the missile defense system.

                        Do you even understand what you wrote?
                        In your opinion, it turns out that the “Lame Goblin” survived a missile hit from a fighter (??), survived, and then the missile defense system also worked on it? belay And this is with its controllability?
                        I'm not even talking about such gems as:
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        F-117 shot down S-200 crew

                        I wrote about the S-125 air defense system. And he worked from an ambush. Those. turned on only at the moment of target acquisition according to external target designation. In this case, target designation could also come from visual observation posts placed along the Goblin’s route.
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        So that you understand once and for all what happened there, read the link and you won’t have to embarrass yourself anymore, the whole chronology is there down to the smallest detail.

                        Of course, I will try to read it... but how should I treat this document if it is dated today (!!) and the day has just begun? On my watch it is 5.55 September 20.09.2023, 19.22. And since “the devil is in the details,” I already have serious suspicions in advance about its authenticity. Moreover, you sent your post at 19.09.2023 on September XNUMX, XNUMX. winked And how to understand this?
                        Do you live in the opposite direction?
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        written for Switzerland's internal military newspaper "Swiss Soldier", by Sivetrt Kai Gunar in 2000. I think this link will be more serious than empty chatter and nonsense that has no connection with reality.

                        Of course, I’m also writing from memory, because everything happened a long time ago, but we also had a lot of analytics on the topic of the Yugoslav War and Desert Storm. This experience was very seriously studied, discussed, and of course about the first applications of the F-117. Therefore, when I read in several publications of that time that during Desert Storm at least one Goblin was also shot down using the MiG-29 OLS, which these aircraft were equipped with just the day before, I immediately remembered that night when An An-12 proceeded through our area of ​​responsibility to Baghdad, and the operational duty officer of our formation (then the chief of aviation of the formation was on duty) loudly announced to the entire command post that this plane was being taken to Baghdad. So if I had not witnessed this transfer myself, I might have doubted it. But I was still then an officer in the combat control of an air defense formation on the section of the USSR border adjacent to that theater of operations. And not only that, he served as part of the RIC (intelligence and information center).
                        There were rumors that another Goblin was shot down over Iraq in that company, but this time the Strela-10 air defense system was shot down using an optical channel... and that they even managed to dig through the wreckage... It turned out that the Goblin “no radar... we received samples of the casing and some instruments... But I can’t be 100% sure of this.
                        So is it surprising that soon after the war in Yugoslavia, the Goblin was removed from service. request This is how earthly glory passes.
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        The information was from French leaks. This can be checked.

                        And how can this be checked?
                        According to those French?
                        Or from the words of those who knew these French?
                        Or from the words of those who heard that there were some French?
                        And how did these French know about the exact route of the “Goblin” on a specific day and at a specific time, with a clear route layout?
                        How was it possible to obtain this knowledge and transfer it to the Serbs so quickly that they also had time to install air defense systems on the route and place visual posts?
                        lol And you’re also talking about some fighter that beat and beat this “Goblin” but didn’t finish it off what . Miracles, however... Your owl is chattering on the globe and howling pitifully from all the tensions, constrictions and inconsistencies.
                        The version of the Serbs and the commander of that division itself is much more logical. He said that they marked all the flight routes of NATO aviation, and where the enemy relaxed from a feeling of impunity and began to follow one route, they tried to catch him. And they caught not only “Goblin”. But "Goblin" was the most difficult, most tricky target. But still it became a museum exhibit.
                        Quote: karabas-barabas
                        Quote: bayard
                        The Americans denied the loss of their F-117s

                        Just our own F-117s, in the plural?

                        I wrote above that in addition to the Yugoslav “Goblin” there were one or two more that were shot down over Iraq. There, after Desert Storm, there was no one left to organize museums. So no one provided material evidence. Officially.
                        But I understand your pain.
              2. -2
                18 September 2023 21: 52
                Did you write this in all seriousness? Maybe you can analyze what these countries contrasted with the states and come down to earth a little.

                Let's start with the fact that in 1991 the States themselves had only generation 4 aircraft, and the Iraqi Air Force had MiG-29 aircraft of the same generation, although the basis of the Iraqi Air Force was the previous generation MiG-23 aircraft with Mirages and the MiG-25, a serious interceptor for those times.
                Our Aerospace Forces have a significant advantage over the Ukrainian Air Force, and the Ukrainian Air Force does not have aircraft of the level of the Su-35 or even the Su-30SM, therefore, in terms of the air force, the North Military District is comparable to the Gulf War in 1991.
                It's the same with air defense. Yes, Iraq’s air defense consisted of outdated systems, but Ukraine’s air defense also consisted of Soviet air defense systems from forty years ago, so the air defense systems that we and the Americans had to fight were also comparable.

                The difference between the Gulf War in 1991 and the NWO is that the Americans clearly set the goal of capturing Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, but our leadership did not and does not have clear goals, and therefore the NWO is proceeding accordingly.
                Could the SVO have gone differently? Yes it could. If the leader of the country himself had decided what he wanted and had set clear goals and objectives for our army and entrusted the planning and conduct of the SVO not to idiots in stripes but to professionals, then the SVO would have ended last year.
                1. +2
                  19 September 2023 07: 11
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  The difference between the Gulf War in 1991 and the NWO is that the Americans clearly set the goal of capturing Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, while our leadership did not and does not have clear goals,

                  The Russian Federation and the Ground Army did not have it for such an operation. It just didn't exist in nature. 280 thousand for the Ground Forces is not even enough to cover the borders with our geography. Moreover, to wage a war with the largest army in Europe on the territory of the largest state in Europe (not counting Russia itself).
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  Could the SVO have gone differently? Yes it could. If the leader of the country himself decided what he wanted and set clear goals and objectives for our army

                  To do this, a couple of years before the Northern Military District, it was necessary to call up/hire (they now really like to hire) a group of 300 - 350 thousand troops and mobilize into the corps of the Donbass republics AHEAD.
                  This is exactly what the Armed Forces of Ukraine did, increasing their strength to 250 thousand regular forces + 100 thousand in territorial defense battalions and brigades. In addition, for 8 years they had very well developed mobilization measures and had a very serious reserve that was trained and fired at in the ATO.
                  What the towers did was not even bungling, or blatant stupidity... it was much worse.
                  Did you believe your godfather?
                  Kum was under house arrest for a year and under the full control of the SBU and MI6. And these special services outplayed the towers like the US State Department of Saddam Hussein, provoking him to attack Kuwait.
                  Truly, a smart person learns from the mistakes of others... But we didn’t have such people.
                  And now there is only one way - abandoning the concept of a Small Army (almost without ground forces) and building a Big Army during the war. This is what we are seeing now. And although it is crooked, often foolish, the process has begun. Will they think of betting on professionals...
              3. -1
                19 September 2023 03: 07
                For all this time, only one F 117 aircraft was shot down
            2. -1
              18 September 2023 14: 21
              The F-35 at today's rate is 2 times more expensive than the Su-35. It's even more expensive per flight hour. But they can afford it, the whole world pays for it through UST.
            3. +3
              18 September 2023 20: 12
              Quote: ramzay21
              The author needs to use more up-to-date information

              Important note. Therefore, let me add a fly in the ointment to a huge barrel of honey.
              1. The F-35 repeatedly had problems with the software when the avionics failed due to the fact that it vulgarly failed the test. I didn’t invent it, the enemy’s media wrote it;
              2. the oxygen system suffocated a couple of pilots and destroyed 4 planes;
              3. The “invisibility” coating turns out to be afraid of... rain! and after it - frost! And how to fight on it in autumn and winter?
              4. due to the fact that the radio-absorbing coating “peels off” from the fuselage at supersonic conditions, the Penguin was prohibited from flying at supersonic speeds for more than 20 minutes... And how can 1,6M be fully used?
              5. Undoubtedly, Penguin is strong with its avionics and connection with the E-3C, etc. Therefore, by messing with the VZOI system, you can “infect” its computers with a virus or plant a worm that will eat all the software.
              6. The higher the technical level of the vehicle, the more dependent it is on ground services. Especially IPs... So you need to hit them with something “heavy”, like a Dagger, Onyx or some other crap. And everything will freeze until BAO’s technical readiness is restored. A penguin at the airport is not like in the air. A very convenient target...
              IMHO.
          2. +10
            18 September 2023 08: 40
            Quote from Nesvoy
            Well, as if the T-90M, judging by the articles on VO, was an indestructible machine

            “Indestructible” is advertising, propaganda, nothing more. It is not enough to design a weapon; you also need to be able to produce it in commercial quantities, and be able to competently operate it in close interaction with other systems. Considering the same F35 as something “incomprehensible” or a “superweapon” is initially wrong. And just more often than not, any discussion falls into some kind of brink. And from well-known facts it is known: 1. F35 is capable of being produced in commercial quantities 2. its cost is falling rather than growing 3. the enemy is trying to work out the creation of a unified combat information system (with the obligatory inclusion of F35), 4. 35 is superior in its capabilities the main machines of the previous generation F16/18, 5. The 35th will inevitably become the basis of NATO fighter aircraft (and not only), which will in the future help offset the huge costs of its creation...
            1. -15
              18 September 2023 11: 29
              Quote: Doccor18
              The 35th will inevitably become the backbone of NATO fighter aircraft

              We will not fly to bomb a NATO country on a plane. We will launch missiles at pre-reconnaissance coordinates. And the reason for this will not be hordes of F-35s, but ground-based air defense systems.
              The fighter has long lost its value. Can the F-35 detect and shoot down Caliber? NO
              So let the Americans continue to churn out their F-35s. There is no need to copy them.
              Imagine that our tank builders began to copy Leopards, which are undoubtedly better than the T-90 and the Leopard will most likely win in a head-on battle. Cases of oncoming tank battles are rare, but many tanks are needed. Our tank is significantly lighter, cheaper and more technologically advanced and cleans the crew quite well.
              With airplanes the opposite happened. Trying to copy foreign aircraft has led us to a dead end.
              1. +7
                18 September 2023 14: 35
                Quote: ism_ek
                Can the F-35 detect and shoot down Caliber? NO

                Beaver... exhale! A subsonic non-maneuvering target without means of reducing radar and infrared signature - for a modern fighter this is a target at a shooting range.
                1. -9
                  18 September 2023 16: 16
                  Quote from: Barmaglot_07
                  A subsonic non-maneuvering target without means of reducing radar and infrared signature - for a modern fighter this is a target at a shooting range.

                  Why reduce visibility? The caliber flies at low altitude. It is not visible against the background of the earth. The engine does not get hotter than a conventional wood stove. The reflected radio signal from a regular car will be many times stronger.
                  If the plane descends to the missile's flight altitude, its viewing radius will sharply decrease.
                  And what to shoot down with? Remember how the Ukrainian moment tried to knock down the geranium.
                  Well, the fact that our aviation is powerless in the face of Storm Shadow is proof of this.
                  1. +5
                    18 September 2023 16: 55
                    Quote: ism_ek
                    The caliber flies at low altitude. It is not visible against the background of the earth.

                    In fact, radars taught us to see targets against the background of the earth back in the 70s.
                    Quote: ism_ek
                    The engine does not get hotter than a conventional wood stove.

                    450 kilograms of thrust - no idea you have wood stoves!
                    Quote: ism_ek
                    The reflected radio signal from a regular car will be many times stronger.

                    Only an ordinary car does not travel at a speed of 900-1000 km/h.
                    Quote: ism_ek
                    If the plane descends to the missile's flight altitude, its viewing radius will sharply decrease.

                    Why should he go down? It will hit the AIM-9X and fly on.
                    Quote: ism_ek
                    And what to shoot down with? Remember how the Ukrainian moment tried to knock down the geranium.

                    Comparing the ischium with a finger...
                    Quote: ism_ek
                    Well, the fact that our aviation is powerless in the face of Storm Shadow is proof of this.

                    Your aviation is powerless against many things. This characterizes only your aviation.
                    1. -4
                      19 September 2023 07: 28
                      Quote from: Barmaglot_07
                      It will hit the AIM-9X and fly on.

                      This garbage is like the “sacred Javelin”, which cannot get into the tank. IR-guided missiles at the air defense system have shown complete ineffectiveness when working against targets against the background of the earth's surface.
                      1. -5
                        19 September 2023 11: 31
                        Quote: ism_ek
                        This garbage is like the “sacred Javelin”, which cannot get into the tank.

                        Tell this to those thousands of tankers who burned alive in their cars.

                        Quote: ism_ek
                        IR-guided missiles at the air defense system have shown complete ineffectiveness when working against targets against the background of the earth's surface.

                        IRIS-T is widely used from ground-based launchers, I have not heard any complaints. Low-flying SAM targets attack from above, just against the background of the earth's surface.
                      2. 0
                        19 September 2023 12: 23
                        Quote from: Barmaglot_07
                        I haven't heard any complaints.

                      3. -2
                        19 September 2023 13: 44
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb9aMHt0ENo
                  2. -4
                    18 September 2023 18: 33
                    the storm flies at an altitude of 20-22 kilometers, there are few Mig-35s in the Northern Military District area, so 8 out of 10 French-British aircraft are shot down by air defense missiles
              2. +6
                18 September 2023 16: 51
                Quote: ism_ek
                We will not fly to bomb a NATO country on a plane

                Will they fly? What if they fly?
                Quote: ism_ek
                We will launch missiles at pre-reconnaissance coordinates

                Without gaining air supremacy, victory cannot be achieved, of which there were many examples.
                Quote: ism_ek
                The fighter has long lost its value.

                He won't lose it for a long time. And when AI can effectively replace the pilot, the fighter will become unmanned, but will not disappear.
                Quote: ism_ek
                Can the F-35 detect and shoot down Caliber?

                It's unlikely to be shot down, but who knows...
                Quote: ism_ek
                There is no need to copy them.

                There is no need to copy anyone. You need to focus on your needs and capabilities.
                Quote: ism_ek
                So let the Americans continue to churn out their F-35s.

                They stamp it, bring it to mind - this is what worries me. How will we respond, if anything, to the hundreds of enemy information security forces in the sky...
                Quote: ism_ek
                Trying to copy foreign aircraft has led us to a dead end.

                Are we copying foreign aircraft?
                One close look at the Su-57 and F22/35 is enough to understand the difference in many ways.
                And again, relying on a “super weapon”... But neither Caliber nor the F-35 are such at all. The winner will be the one who can competently use the entire defense/attack system. The F-35 is not as scary as the symbiosis of an experienced headquarters / BIUS / satellite constellation / ground-based radars / AWACS aircraft / PU OTR / artillery systems and MLRS / Air Force wings / AUG / MAPL and SSBNs / air assault divisions and attack / reconnaissance UAVs ...
                1. +1
                  18 September 2023 21: 41
                  The SVO was puzzled by the fact that the videoconferencing is not developing comprehensively, but in a targeted manner! belay we have cool planes, inimitable air defense systems and a wild failure with AWACS, UAVs and a lot of other things, but in the USA the Air Force is developing systematically, this is seriously annoying feel
                  But our targeted successes still fit into a certain strategy, at least depriving the US Air Force of its advantage in support systems bully all of their AWACS and electronic warfare and electronic warfare aircraft are subsonic sheds capable of supporting their aircraft at a distance of up to 500 km, i.e. they will be in the affected area of ​​the S400 and even more so the S500, with a good chance of being shot down by air defense systems bully therefore, it is quite likely that the F35 will have to fight against our layered air defense and Su35 fighters in one person, in such a situation I would not bet on the F35 No.
                  But to help F35, the United States is developing Ryder and stealth UAVs, which should replace all outdated infrastructure and in the near future we will already need to worry about the capabilities of our air defense feel and even today in the USA they resumed production of the F15 as a rocket battery fellow which quite possibly will have to protect AWACS by shooting down anti-aircraft missiles, 2 F15s can, in theory, destroy 40+ missiles, this is a salvo of an entire regiment! belay those. Today, who is who is the big question, but the United States is actively working on the systems of the future, we seem to be doing the same, but how comprehensive and systematic our approach is is tormented by cloudy doubts request
        2. -2
          18 September 2023 06: 23
          Quote: Guran33 Sergey
          revolver\ Yes! The Challenger was also indestructible for 30 years... until the front hit the New Front...
          Well, finally, the first time he went to the front was in 1991, and the Iraqis could not oppose ANYTHING to him. But Arabs are Arabs.
          1. +4
            18 September 2023 07: 19
            , and the “flying gun” A-10 “Thunderbolt II”.
            a little naive
            1. +4
              18 September 2023 12: 38
              Quote: novel xnumx
              a little naive

              More than.
              But the question is rather different. How justified is it now to have an armored battlefield attack aircraft?
              And yes, in one article a month ago, I had a discussion with an opponent about the need for certain qualities of a modern fighter, in particular the mandatory presence of a cannon. My argument is that this weight (1.5 tons offhand) can be used more expediently because Over the past 20 years, it is hardly possible to give an example of the use of a cannon in a real air battle. IB was not convinced. As we can see from the example of the article, the amers are not far from me, the gun is only in the F-35A version laughing
              1. +3
                18 September 2023 19: 51
                GSh-30-1 weighs 50 kg, the projectile for it is ~ 0.85 kg, ammo capacity is 150 rounds. Those. 200 kg total
              2. +5
                19 September 2023 10: 57
                Quote: Adrey
                More than.

                Nope. It’s just that the classic SHA, of which the A-10 is a prominent representative, has long been useless. Until now, it was saved by operations to instill democracy or restore constitutional integrity - because the A-10 (and Su-25) were cheap to use, and the opponents did not have air defense.
                But if the enemy has at least MANPADS in commercial quantities, then the SHA working on the front turns into targets.
                The Yankees have long tried to push through the aviation lobby and replace the A-10 with the F-35. But aviation fans of big guns kept demanding that the F-35 fulfill absolutely all the tasks of the A-10. Even those who in war it won’t, because whoever put them there will immediately be dragged to a military tribunal (like a BShU along the front line - with a cannon and cast iron). But now F-35 supporters have very significant practical arguments in favor of abandoning the BShU and replacing them with the operation of URO and UAB from a distance. And in this case, the F-35 covers the A-10 like a bull covers a sheep.
                1. 0
                  19 September 2023 12: 13
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  It’s just that the classic SHA, of which the A-10 is a prominent representative, has long been useless.

                  That is what was meant.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Until now, it was saved by operations to instill democracy or restore constitutional integrity - because the A-10s were cheap to use, and the opponents did not have air defense.

                  The A-10 is far from cheap to maintain per flight hour. Therefore, forces in the form of “Super-Tucano” are being created to “chase the slippers” without MANPADS. Cheap and cheerful hi
                  1. +1
                    19 September 2023 17: 12
                    Quote: Adrey
                    The A-10 is far from cheap to maintain per flight hour.

                    I forgot to clarify - in comparison with classic MFIs, designed for war, and not for CTO.
                    Based on experience in Afghanistan, the cost of a flight hour for the cheapest F-16 MFI was 30% more than for the A-10.
            2. +4
              19 September 2023 10: 47
              Quote: novel xnumx
              a little naive

              Absolutely not naive. The attack aircraft in the classic form of carrying brrrrrt and other cast iron has been outdated for a large and even medium war for half a century. The saturation of armies' battle formations with air defense systems and autocannons of 30-40 mm caliber forces attack aircraft, even in a regional conflict, to turn into poor MLRS, operating as self-propelled guns from a pitched position with unknown accuracy.
              The only thing that saved “Warthog” until now was that the Yankees did not get involved in wars, preferring to kill the Zusuls. Yes, when working against slippers with air defense from the DShK, the Avenger was beyond competition - and the cost of a flight for the A-10 was low, and the targets were too cheap to spend UAB and URO on them. "To destroy a rusty Toyota, you don't need to drop a Rolls-Royce on it.". © smile
              But even against the armies of the 80s, the “Warthog” was frankly no longer effective. That is why the Yankees long ago decided to abandon the SHA, replacing it with an IBA with guided weapons. Because in a more or less serious conflict, it is cheaper to throw UAB and UR from outside the fire of most of the military air defense than to throw a classic attack aircraft with cast iron at the bayonet point, and even with the non-illusory probability of its loss.
              You can, of course, use the Warthog like this - with standard Mavericks on suspensions. But then why does he need armor and a huge seven-barreled brrrrt if he doesn’t get closer than 10 km to the enemy?
              Until now, they have been held back by finances and the reluctance of a certain part of the Air Force to abandon the Sha. But now the course towards bringing democracy has been corrected - and the Yankees have undertaken to build a normal army for comparable opponents, and not colonial troops.
        3. +3
          18 September 2023 12: 49
          Nobody in their common sense called the Challenger a brilliant machine. A very bad example. And in general, it is not relevant to compare armored vehicles and aircraft.
        4. 0
          19 September 2023 21: 58
          Challenger was also indestructible for 30 years

          They won’t send a couple of planes to the air defense, as you think, they’re not fools. They will first send salvoes of cruise missiles against air defense, only then will they send F16s and F35s with several thousand aircraft, as was the case in Iraq.

          The F-35 represents the quintessence of the American aircraft industry.

          Also, the F-35 is the quintessence of the US financial system, which, due to debt borrowing, including from the Russian Federation and the press, easily creates any amount of dollars, which ensures the maintenance of the F-35 is more expensive than gold by the weight of their aircraft, the Russian Federation does not have such a financial system, in this lies the answer why the SU-57 cannot be put into production. Thus, the Russian Federation is doomed to further lag behind in such complex high-tech industries.

          the entire history of the operation of the F-35 will go side by side with the history of multi-million dollar costs.

          Costs for the budget, but profits for related companies, as well as in R&D and in salaries for engineers and scientists who live in luxury houses with three cars, in contrast to poor Russian scientists and engineers.
          Defense industry costs create a middle class in the states, the costs of which Ryabov wanted to reproach were actually dignity.
      2. +3
        18 September 2023 07: 46
        you have to hit it, and the capabilities of the missile's seeker radar are not at all the same as those of ground-based systems, and the F-35 is, by definition, stealthy

        As you yourself said above, it’s kind of inconspicuous in frontal projection. And as soon as the rocket flies at him not stupidly head-on, but first gains altitude, the problem will become noticeably less.
      3. BAI
        0
        18 September 2023 08: 39
        Firstly, it must be noticed

        A high-altitude nuclear agent does not need to see anything. He will sweep away the entire radio-electronic infrastructure without even looking.
        And then, in the ionized atmosphere, all surviving locators will go on pause for several days
      4. -3
        18 September 2023 11: 11
        Advertising, advertising and more advertising. High-quality translation at the cost of your own meager text. Patriot was also indestructible. And so are all their military developments. While elusive Joe has not interested serious people, he is cool. Otherwise, run...run before you catch him.
      5. -9
        18 September 2023 11: 12
        Quote: Nagan
        First, it must be noticed, and the F-35 is by definition stealthy, especially in frontal view.

        It is inconspicuous for aviation radar. Modern, and not so modern, ground-based radars are an order of magnitude more powerful and smarter.
        The F-35 has no chance against modern air defense. The chance of survival is only at a critically low altitude, but then the function of the aircraft is easily replaced by a cruise missile.
        In a serious war such as SVO, the main characteristic of a weapon is its price. Here the F-35 is a clear outsider.
        Quote: Nagan
        Secondly, you need to hit it, and the capabilities of the missile’s seeker radar are not at all the same as those of ground-based systems, and the F-35 is, by definition, stealthy.

        The experience of the air defense system has shown that if on the way Storm Shadow encounters an air defense complex in which the ammunition has not been used up, the missile has no chance, and the visibility of Storm Shadow is significantly less.
        Quote: Nagan
        Thirdly, the F-35 probably won’t fly alone on a mission to coordinate a whole bunch of aircraft, and damaging/shooting/stunning electronic warfare on one F-35 doesn’t mean that no one will intercept its functions.

        Let's remember the old TV with a kinescope. Where the electron beam runs across the screen. Can you see this beam? Can you see the source of this beam? You see only the picture that this ray painted for you and nothing else. The beam of a modern radar “runs” an order of magnitude faster than the beam of a CRT television. Most of both our and Ukrainian radars were destroyed only after they were visually located using a satellite or UAV. Both our and American anti-radar missiles have shown complete ineffectiveness.
        1. +3
          18 September 2023 13: 04
          The F-35 has no chance against modern air defense.
          The Ukrainian old man has a moment of 29. It's been a year and a half already, the chances are quite good! What are you talking about?
          1. -8
            18 September 2023 13: 17
            Quote: spirit
            The Ukrainian old man has a moment of 29. It's been a year and a half already, the chances are quite good! What are you talking about?

            First, don't take phrases out of context.
            The chance of survival is only at a critically low altitude, but then the function of the aircraft is easily replaced by a cruise missile.

            Secondly, how many Ukrainian MiGs destroyed our air defense systems? ZERO. Those. The score in the battle is approximately 100:0)))
            The problem is that we cannot keep a sufficient number of air defense systems on the LBS due to the actions of enemy UAVs and artillery, but not because of enemy aviation with their HARPs
            1. +8
              18 September 2023 14: 07
              destroyed our air defense systems? ZERO
              who told you that? Konashenkov?)
          2. +1
            18 September 2023 21: 02
            Quote: spirit
            The F-35 has no chance against modern air defense.
            The Ukrainian old man has a moment of 29. It's been a year and a half already, the chances are quite good! What are you talking about?
            You do not understand, this is different! winked
        2. -1
          18 September 2023 14: 43
          In a serious war such as SVO, the main characteristic of a weapon is its price. Here the F-35 is a clear outsider.
          So they won’t fight against us with just one plane, and besides the F35 they have a bunch of 4th and 4+++ generation airplanes, plus drones, a bunch of tamahawks on ships and submarines, plus, according to Pentagon data, 5 thousand. tamahawks for storage in the ass..in the Northern Military District!
          1. -4
            18 September 2023 16: 17
            Quote: lutckroma
            besides f35 they have a ton

            In short, f35 is superfluous
        3. +2
          18 September 2023 15: 47
          The beam of a modern radar “runs” an order of magnitude faster than the beam of a CRT television.

          You are wrong. Much slower. For example, a complete update of information during line-by-line scanning of the SPY-1 radar is 14 seconds. Partial, lower zone - a few seconds.
          The main characteristic of a weapon is its price. Here the F-35 is a clear outsider.

          The plane is not the most expensive even compared to the 4th generation. The same Rafal is more expensive. The price of service is also constantly falling.
          1. 0
            18 September 2023 16: 20
            Quote from solar
            SPY-1 radar

            This is a development from the 70s of the last century
            1. -2
              19 September 2023 09: 53
              The laws of physics have not changed since then.
          2. -1
            18 September 2023 18: 43
            Quote from solar
            The beam of a modern radar “runs” an order of magnitude faster than the beam of a CRT television.

            You are wrong. Much slower. For example, a complete update of information during line-by-line scanning of the SPY-1 radar is 14 seconds. Partial, lower zone - a few seconds.
            The main characteristic of a weapon is its price. Here the F-35 is a clear outsider.

            The plane is not the most expensive even compared to the 4th generation. The same Rafal is more expensive. The price of service is also constantly falling.

            Marketing move... as soon as they sell to Europe the number of aircraft that will be achieved by the design and production of Euro combat aircraft, service will become the main part of payments
        4. +8
          18 September 2023 16: 09
          Quote: ism_ek
          The F-35 has no chance against modern air defense. The chance of survival is only at a critically low altitude, but then the function of the aircraft is easily replaced by a cruise missile.
          In a serious war such as SVO, the main characteristic of a weapon is its price. Here the F-35 is a clear outsider.

          Yes, another sectarian "PvP or wet pants." Why did you decide that the Fu-35 would even enter its coverage area against air defense? I hope you won’t say that he will still be in splendid isolation? Otherwise, this is already a diagnosis from section F.
          Quote: ism_ek
          The experience of the air defense system has shown that if on the way Storm Shadow encounters an air defense complex in which the ammunition has not been used up, the missile has no chance, and the visibility of Storm Shadow is significantly less.

          The experience of the air defense system has shown for the 100th time that there is NO and WILL NOT BE any non-pushable air defense. And spent (or not, most likely not) ammunition is a pathetic excuse.
          Quote: ism_ek
          Let's remember the old TV with a kinescope. Where the electron beam runs across the screen. Can you see this beam? Can you see the source of this beam?

          Let’s accept that you are now admitting that you don’t understand anything about the topic where you’re trying to be clever. Because you've just crap yourself) As I understand it, following your words about the operation of the radar, an aircraft in the air can be destroyed only after it is visually detected? Seriously? Tell this to the creators of the AGM-88 HARM, X-31P, X-58, AIM-120D, etc., which are aimed at the radiation source. I think they will immediately take you as some kind of chief.
  2. -2
    18 September 2023 04: 49
    An advertising brochure, a horror story like: “there is no one better than us, so don’t flutter, worms”...
    But everyone knows that the quality of weapons (any) is tested in battle. And all these words of praise and perfection of technology can only be played out in virtual computer games.
    * * *
    At the same time, no one questions the rule under which the USSR achieved an advantage over the imperialists of the whole world, and no one expects that the bourgeois country, trailing behind the capitalist world, will suddenly cease to be the world's gas station and depend on the dollar exchange rate and the price of oil and gas. .And also, remembering old friends when a roasted rooster breaks your whole ass...And also, forgiving thieves and traitors to Russia, exchanging truth for falsehood and building pantheons for enemies and erecting monuments...
    Then, perhaps, the Su-57 will perform no worse. or maybe better...
    1. +19
      18 September 2023 05: 26
      The F35 is definitely a good plane. Even though the Su-57 is the best aircraft on the planet, but when the Americans have more of these F35s than we have combat aircraft, it becomes uneasy. But there are others there, and not only Americans. S-70s need to be riveted in the hundreds, and hangars in the thousands so that the enemies don’t know where to hit.
      1. -5
        18 September 2023 11: 15
        They write that another “best” invisible plane crashed at an airbase in the USA smile
        1. +4
          18 September 2023 17: 15
          They write that another “best” invisible plane crashed at an air base in the USA

          Comparing the number of flight hours of their pilots and the number of flight hours, it is huge.
    2. +4
      18 September 2023 12: 53
      At the same time, no one questions the rule under which the USSR achieved an advantage over the imperialists of the whole world

      What are the advantages? On the scale of the toilet paper shortage?

      bourgeois country trailing behind the capitalist world


      Are you talking about countries with high HDI?

      will cease to be the world's gas station and depend on the dollar exchange rate and the price of oil and gas


      Have you forgotten how the USSR sat tightly on the oil needle, exchanging oil rubles for a grain in order to feed citizens with bread, because there was no one of its own? Now, by the way, the Russian Federation is one of the main food producers on the planet. What the capitalists have brought the country to, yeah.
    3. 0
      19 September 2023 11: 03
      Quote: ROSS 42
      At the same time, no one questions the rule under which the USSR achieved an advantage over the imperialists of the whole world, and does not expect that the bourgeois country, lagging behind the capitalist world, will suddenly cease to be the world's gas station and depend on the dollar exchange rate and the price of oil and gas.

      Can you remind me who built most of the pipelines through which oil and gas went to the West?
      А advantage over the imperialists of the whole world - this, by the way, is not about purchasing grain from the citadel of imperialism? wink
      Quote: ROSS 42
      And also, to forgive the thieves and traitors of Russia, to exchange truth for falsehood and build pantheons for enemies and erect monuments...

      Pfff... who was the author of the national policy that ultimately led the USSR to the collapse? Who gave away the territories of the RSFSR to the “fraternal republics”? Who forcibly Ukrainized the former Russian regions?
      The main ideologist of this national policy, who theoretically substantiated the second-class status of Russians in the USSR, was not just a monument - they destroyed an entire Mausoleum.
  3. -1
    18 September 2023 05: 00
    I’m not an aviator and for me the question is what? By analogy with the beginning of WWII, is the F-35 the same aircraft, fighter as the Messerschmitt-109? Do we need to catch up with this aircraft constructively or will we make do with the existing fleet of fighters in the existing quality and quantity? For me, the authority is the pilot General Kharchevsky, I would like to listen to him. soldier
    1. +1
      18 September 2023 05: 14
      Quote: V.
      Is the F-35 the same aircraft, fighter as the Messerschmitt-109?

      Do you think that the Messerschmitt 109 was the ideal car? Good, but not perfect...
      1. +5
        18 September 2023 05: 27
        I did not claim that the Messerschmitt -109 was an ideal machine, but at that time it was better than our fighters. And it’s time for us to catch up with the Germans in blood. I didn't want this situation to happen again. soldier
        1. -11
          18 September 2023 06: 57
          Quote: V.
          he was better than our fighters

          Nothing like this. At the Yak level... P.S. The minus is not mine...
          1. +13
            18 September 2023 07: 09
            At the Yak level...

            It’s good that our pilot Kolya, a disabled war veteran, to whom we boys brought fry (we sold it to children in the 60s!), has been gone for a long time. He would pass you off as “on the level”!
            They got along on the Yak-7 with the Bf-109F. The result - the leader - from the first approach, his - from the second. Wood from cannon shells crumbled in the air, and at the age of 19 he was missing two legs.
            1. +5
              18 September 2023 07: 27
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              A piece of wood from cannon shells crumbled in the air, and at the age of 19 he was missing two legs

              We had a teacher at our school who trained IL-2 pilots during the war. Practical training was limited to takeoff and landing и box. And several hours of theory. And the pilot is ready. Next is practice. If the pilot is smart and if he is not shot down in the first battle, he will become a good pilot, and if he is shot down, then... But this was the case until about 1942-1943, then the situation changed - endless flights of cadets and their serious theoretical training. As a result, pilot losses at the front decreased sharply. I think that your acquaintance was simply an untested pilot and was caught like chickens being plucked. Unfortunately, like many others...

              About those you mentioned with such disdain pieces of wood, there is not much difference - aluminum structures would have shattered in the same way if they had been hit by a Messerschmitt cannon...
              1. +2
                18 September 2023 09: 24
                We had a teacher at our school who trained IL-2 pilots during the war. Practical training was limited to takeoff and landing and the box.


                And then the pilot ended up in the ZAP where he was already taught to fight. And after the Germans were knocked off their arrogance, youth training was carried out directly in combat units, temporarily relegating them to the second echelon. No one threw newcomers into battle, this is a stupid loss of an almost ready pilot and aircraft.
              2. +3
                18 September 2023 12: 52
                Quote: Luminman
                I think that your acquaintance was simply an untested pilot and was caught like chickens being plucked. Unfortunately, like many others...

                Everything is correctly noted here.
                Quote: Luminman
                About the pieces of wood you mentioned with such disdain, there is not much difference - aluminum structures would have shattered in the same way if they had been hit by a Messerschmitt cannon...

                But here you are wrong or a little disingenuous. In addition to durability under fire (and it is indeed higher, although not critical), all-metal aircraft are capable of withstanding high overloads and speeds (for example, during a dive when exiting an attack, your snout skin or stabilizer will not fly off), which in battle is much more important than banal “bullet resistance.” " hi
                1. 0
                  18 September 2023 14: 36
                  Quote: Adrey
                  all-metal aircraft are capable of withstanding high overloads and speeds, which in battle is much more important than banal “bullet resistance”

                  In an air battle of that time, it was perhaps more important bullet resistance, the greater the overloads and speeds, especially since at such speeds there were no special overloads. Wooden ribs and spar are no better than aluminum ones. Aluminum structures were probably faster and cheaper to produce than wooden ones, using the simple stamping method...
                  1. +1
                    18 September 2023 16: 24
                    Suddenly, all thoughts were thrown out of my head by a new danger: the plane was madly rushing down, where the ruins of Kharkov could be seen. With all his strength he pulled the control stick towards himself, so much so that through the noise of the engine he heard a crunch in his body and the crack of the plane. My vision darkened from the overload, but I didn’t let go of the handle, realizing that only this would now save me from death. ...
                    It’s unpleasant for a pilot to talk about his failures, and I didn’t tell anyone about this battle over Kharkov. ...
                    But in vain! After me, Alexander Vybornov flew on the same “yak”. The plane immediately lost control on takeoff. How Sasha survived - everyone was surprised. It turns out that the “yak” was so deformed after acrobatics over Kharkov that it was impossible even to repair it. The car was scrapped.

                    Arseny Vasilievich Vorozheikin. Twice Hero of the Soviet Union. About 400 sorties, 52 enemy aircraft shot down personally (6 of them at Khalkhin Gol) and 14 in a group.
                    request hi
              3. 0
                18 September 2023 14: 53
                Quote: Luminman
                As a result, pilot losses at the front decreased sharply.

                The fact that, starting in 43, three-quarters of the Luftwaffe fighters tried to cover the Reich from Allied raids is, of course, irrelevant.
                1. +2
                  18 September 2023 15: 05
                  Quote from: Barmaglot_07
                  The fact that, starting in 43, three-quarters of the Luftwaffe fighters tried to cover the Reich from Allied raids is naturally not relevant

                  Starting in 1943, the Reich began to have the same problems that we had at the beginning of the war - a shortage of fuel and poor training of pilots, and therefore they began to suffer losses incommensurate with the losses at the very beginning of the war. From your point of view, is increasing training hours for our cadets, which significantly increases the professionalism of the pilot and reduces losses, not relevant?
                  1. 0
                    19 September 2023 18: 50
                    Quote: Luminman
                    Starting in 1943, the Reich began to have the same problems that we had at the beginning of the war - fuel shortages and poor pilot training

                    Not quite like that. During the war, all these extraordinary fighter programs on the German side and the relative (relative to themselves) improvement of the situation on the Soviet side led to the fact that the training of new Soviet and new German pilots became, if not the same, then comparable.
                2. 0
                  19 September 2023 11: 09
                  Quote from: Barmaglot_07
                  The fact that, starting in 43, three-quarters of the Luftwaffe fighters tried to cover the Reich from Allied raids is, of course, irrelevant.

                  Here, most likely, it was not the withdrawal of the IA to the Reich’s air defense that had an impact, but a fatal miscalculation of the backlashes, which, for the sake of tactical advantage, killed the training system, pulling out the most important transitional link from it. In 1942, it was decided to transfer the German equivalents of our reserve air regiments to the first line. As a result, Goering reported an increase in the number of Luftwaffe combat forces, and a wave of undertrained pilots entered the squadron.
              4. +1
                18 September 2023 15: 54
                About the pieces of wood you mentioned with such disdain, there is not much difference - aluminum structures would have shattered in the same way if they had been hit by a Messerschmitt cannon...

                The main thing was not resistance to shells, but the strength of the structure, which allowed the Germans to gain high speed during a dive, carry out an attack, and if it failed, immediately exit the battle, using a large reserve of speed and without getting involved in “dog dumps.” Once again I gained altitude - the next attack. This was not available to Yak. This was later used by Pokryshkin and others on the Airacobra.
                1. -1
                  18 September 2023 17: 24
                  Quote from solar
                  structural strength, which allowed the Germans to gain high speed when diving

                  The strength of the structure, as well as local loads on the elements of this structure, is excellently ensured by wood. At least at those speeds. And all the aerodynamic maneuvers for which the Messerschmitts were so famous were ensured by the successful aerodynamics of the aircraft, and not at all by elements of aluminum devices...
                  1. -2
                    19 September 2023 09: 33
                    They didn't provide it. When diving, the Me-109 gained high speed, carried out an attack, and exited the battle if it failed due to its high speed. This required high strength of the entire structure, since at high speed there were large loads on the structure, and what is especially important, large overloads arose when exiting a dive. The strength of the Me-109 ensured this.
                  2. +2
                    19 September 2023 11: 22
                    Quote: Luminman
                    The strength of the structure, as well as local loads on the elements of this structure, is excellently ensured by wood.

                    Well, here are reviews from combat pilots about the all-wood LaGG-3:
                    The safety margin is insufficient, because in the regiment there were six cases of destruction of LaGG-3 aircraft in the air, two of them were completely destroyed, and four had the skin torn off the planes and the ailerons were destroyed, which forced the command to strengthen the planes...
                    © Commander of the 249th IAP, Lieutenant Colonel P.K. Kozachenko, Chief of Staff of the 249th IAP, Major V.F. Maltster
                    When recovering from a dive, it gives a large drawdown; when diving at speeds above 650 km/h, there were several cases of the aircraft being destroyed in the air, which allows enemy aircraft to escape attack in a dive with impunity at high speeds.
                    © Group of pilots of the 249th IAP (senior lieutenant P.I. Shcheblykin, lieutenant N.M. Onopchenko and others, six people in total)
                    1. 0
                      19 September 2023 18: 02
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      and in four the skin was torn off the planes and the ailerons were destroyed

                      This is a problem with all Soviet aircraft with wood-canvas wing coverings. That is, all fighters except Cobra.

                      Although the destruction of a plane at 650 is bad even by Soviet standards.
                  3. +1
                    19 September 2023 18: 47
                    Quote: Luminman
                    and not at all elements of aluminum devices...

                    “Elements of aluminum devices” provided all aircraft with metal skins with a higher dive speed than wood-canvas skins allowed.
              5. +2
                18 September 2023 20: 05
                About the pieces of wood you mentioned with such disdain, there is not much difference - aluminum structures would have shattered in the same way if they had been hit by a Messerschmitt cannon...

                It was indicated not by me, but by Nikolai Nikolaevich, may he rest in heaven!
                In his words, not exactly:
                "The thin ones jumped out from behind a cloud and at the leader (I no longer remember his rank or name). He immediately flared up - and went to the ground. I gave a burst one at a time, but what will happen to him? - holes in the duralumin, and the second one from a turn - at I'm all in pieces. I don't remember how I fell out, they picked up their own. Hospital - amputation - citizen."
                So about survivability, controllability, etc. - everything is here. And the Yak-7 1942 is far from the Yak-3 1944.
            2. -1
              18 September 2023 14: 55
              It’s good that our pilot Kolya, a disabled war veteran, to whom we boys brought fry (we sold it to children in the 60s!), has been gone for a long time. He would pass you off as “on the level”!
              They got along on the Yak-7 with the Bf-109F. The result - the leader - from the first approach, his - from the second. Wood from cannon shells crumbled in the air, and at the age of 19 he was missing two legs.


              Sorry, but you want to lie.
              Firstly, the Yak-7 was of a mixed design.
              Secondly, the Friedrich is no match for the Yak-7.
              Thirdly, a German will never attack the leader before the follower.
              Fourthly, there are big doubts that the 19-ton guy will determine the modification of the aircraft.
              Fifthly, at the age of 19 you can graduate from college but still not go to the front; first you have to fly in the ZAP.
              An excerpt from an old, but therefore true film.
              1. -1
                18 September 2023 20: 09
                Yeah, in 1942 they were recruiting entirely from ZAPs.
                And the school was long-term. However, this was not his first fight. It flew, but as he himself said, “the engine was not changed.”
                As for the type, they were most likely informed about the enemy before the flights. He called these “thin” people “Krauts”.
                1. -1
                  19 September 2023 12: 15
                  Yeah, in 1942 they were recruiting entirely from ZAPs.
                  And the school was long-term. However, this was not his first fight. It flew, but as he himself said, “the engine was not changed.”
                  As for the type, they were most likely informed about the enemy before the flights. He called these “thin” people “Krauts”.


                  Come on, don’t get out of it, it’s clear that you are making a gag, there are too many blunders.
                  1. 0
                    19 September 2023 19: 06
                    There's no way I'm going to try to get out of this! We've seen enough of Kina!
                    Kolya the pilot wouldn’t lie. And why?
                    Of course, sixty years later I might get it wrong, but I fully believe that in the summer of 1942 there was no time for ZAPs. As for the "Krauts", by the way, the nickname was later repeated to me by a former attack aircraft - a safety instructor.
                    As for the Yak-7 - a front-line ersatz, it took many lives.
        2. -2
          18 September 2023 09: 26
          I did not claim that the Messerschmitt -109 was an ideal machine, but at that time it was better than our fighters. And it’s time for us to catch up with the Germans in blood. I didn't want this situation to happen again.


          The best aircraft is not the one that is first in flight characteristics, but the one that is larger. Two LaGG-3s are better than one 109.
          1. 0
            18 September 2023 11: 08
            Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
            Two LaGG-3s are better than one 109

            I read somewhere that the abbreviation LaGG stood for Flying Aviation Guaranteed Coffin...
            1. 0
              18 September 2023 11: 32
              I read somewhere that the abbreviation LaGG stood for Flying Aviation Guaranteed Coffin...


              Moreover, this name appeared already in the Cold War era, when Western propaganda launched a campaign of slander. And we should not forget that the plane soon became La-5, La-7, a nightmare for the Krauts.

              1. +3
                18 September 2023 15: 57
                And we should not forget that the plane soon became La-5, La-7, a nightmare for the Krauts.

                It became a nightmare, not a nightmare, but a headache for the Germans when the La-5FN became available. But LaGG is not La-5FN.
                1. -1
                  18 September 2023 16: 53
                  It became a nightmare, not a nightmare, but a headache for the Germans when the La-5FN became available. But LaGG is not La-5FN.


                  War is not jousting or competition. Therefore, LaGG-3 was quite appropriate, if only because 6500 of it were produced. And its weapons worked quite successfully against both ground targets and bombers.
                  1. +1
                    19 September 2023 11: 19
                    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                    And its weapons worked quite successfully against both ground targets and bombers.

                    The main disadvantages of this type of aircraft are heavy weight, low engine power, lack of protection for the pilot from the front hemisphere, insufficient weapons, limited visibility of the rear hemisphere and engine vulnerability.
                    © Squadron commander of the 790th IAP, Lieutenant P.K. Babaylov
                    The plane has weak weapons to fight against enemy bombers, especially the Xe-111.
                    © Group of pilots of the 249th IAP (senior lieutenant P.I. Shcheblykin, lieutenant N.M. Onopchenko and others, six people in total)
                    The armament of the LaGG-3 is relatively weak.
                    © Commander of the 249th IAP, Lieutenant Colonel P.K. Kozachenko, Chief of Staff of the 249th IAP, Major V.F. Maltster
                    1. 0
                      19 September 2023 12: 26

                      The main disadvantages of this type of aircraft are heavy weight, low engine power, lack of protection for the pilot from the front hemisphere, insufficient weapons, limited visibility of the rear hemisphere and vulnerability of the engine.
                      © Squadron commander of the 790th IAP, Lieutenant P.K. Babaylov
                      The plane has weak weapons to fight against enemy bombers, especially the Xe-111.
                      © Group of pilots of the 249th IAP (senior lieutenant P.I. Shcheblykin, lieutenant N.M. Onopchenko and others, six people in total)
                      The armament of the LaGG-3 is relatively weak.
                      © Commander of the 249th IAP, Lieutenant Colonel P.K. Kozachenko, Chief of Staff of the 249th IAP, Major V.F. Maltster


                      Or maybe it’s still worth looking at the LaGG-3’s weapons?
                      It would be a stretch to call the first episode weak.
                      one 12.7 mm BK machine gun, two 12.7 mm BS machine guns and
                      two 7.62 mm ShKAS

                      If 3 x 12,7 and 2 x 7,62 it is weak.
                      Next
                      one 20 mm cannon, one 12.7 mm BS machine gun and
                      two 7.62 mm ShKAS
                      6 RS-82

                      For comparison, Yak-1
                      one 20-mm SHVAK cannon and two 7.62-mm ShKAS machine guns

                      So you have a mistake.
                      1. +1
                        19 September 2023 18: 41
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        Next
                        one 20 mm cannon, one 12.7 mm BS machine gun and
                        two 7.62 mm ShKAS
                        6 RS-82

                        For comparison, Yak-1
                        one 20-mm SHVAK cannon and two 7.62-mm ShKAS machine guns

                        So you have a mistake.

                        RSs were not used in air combat.

                        Yes you are right. All Soviet fighters except the Cobra were poorly armed. Some are exceptionally bad, like the Yak-9 without letters, some are just bad, like the La-7 or Yak-9U.
                      2. 0
                        19 September 2023 19: 01
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        So you have a mistake.

                        This is not from me, but from the combat pilots of the 229th IAD who flew the LaGG-3. feel
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        Or maybe it’s still worth looking at the LaGG-3’s weapons?
                        It would be a stretch to call the first episode weak.
                        one 12.7 mm BK machine gun, two 12.7 mm BS machine guns and
                        two 7.62 mm ShKAS

                        Let’s all say thank you to Comrade Taubin, who gave up on fine-tuning the MP-6.
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        Next
                        one 20 mm cannon, one 12.7 mm BS machine gun and
                        two 7.62 mm ShKAS
                        6 RS-82

                        Nope. These are intermediate options. In the 29th, 35th and 66th series, the armament of the LAGG-3 was equal to that of the Yak: one ShVAK and one BS. For a three-ton vehicle, especially compared to the La-5 that had already arrived at the front, this was clearly not enough.
              2. 0
                19 September 2023 18: 23
                Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                became La-5, La-7, a nightmare for the Krauts.

                1. LaGG-3 is not La-7. In particular, the La-7 is approximately twice as powerful.
                2. La-7, especially La-5, are very mediocre aircraft for 44-45.
        3. +3
          18 September 2023 11: 20
          Myths again. LEARN HISTORY will come in handy. Messerschmitt Bf 109 (Me 109) by the number of vehicles produced (as of March 1945, only in Germany - about 32 units; total production - taking into account the release in April 500, in Hungary, Romania, Francoist Spain in 1945-1944 and post-war Czechoslovakia in 1958-1945 - exceeds 1948 copies]; there is also information that the total production of aircraft of the Bf.33 family amounted to 000 or even 109 copies) is one of the most popular aircraft in history. The Bf.34 was the best at the beginning of the Second World War.
          In 1942, the Yak-9 appeared in the Soviet army, which could already adequately resist the Messers. Until 1948, about 17 thousand of these winged machines were produced in 18 different variations.
      2. 0
        18 September 2023 06: 39
        Quote: Luminman
        Do you think that the Messerschmitt 109 was the ideal car?

        Until about the beginning of 1944 - ideal, compared to almost everything that they tried to oppose him. But starting from mid-1943, they began to try to adapt the Bf.109 to combat massive raids by heavy bombers, but here it turned out to be rather weakly armed, one 20mm cannon and 2 machine guns were practically useless against the “Fortress”. Strengthening the weapons spoiled the weight and aerodynamics and broke that fragile ideal balance. They tried to compensate by increasing engine power, but this made the plane even heavier. But the opponents did not stand still, and since they did not have the task of killing the indestructible “Fortresses,” they developed in a more balanced manner, so that by the end of the war, the Yak, La, and Spitfire caught up and even surpassed the Bf.109 in some ways.
        1. +3
          18 September 2023 06: 55
          Quote: Nagan
          Until about the beginning of 1944 - ideal, compared to almost everything that they tried to oppose him

          On the western front, where fighting took place at high altitudes, he was a good fighter. I emphasize - good. Approximately at the level of the British Spitfire and Mig-1. On the eastern front, at low altitudes, it was, as it were, not quite there. The YAKs dealt with them very well. But also good...

          P.S. Here we also need to take into account the general training of pilots. In my report I believed that the pilots of all sides had an assessment - good...
          1. +2
            18 September 2023 07: 14
            Quote: Luminman
            On the eastern front, at low altitudes, it was, as it were, not quite there. The YAKs dealt with them very well.

            At low altitudes, Yaks of all models, not counting 3, were inferior in gaining speed and altitude. A little, but they gave way; at any moment, when the German wanted to leave the battle, he turned on the afterburner and left with a set. The Yaks could not keep up. And the ability to get out of a fight when things go wrong is practically the difference between life and death. And above 4000, the Yak noticeably lost in power, while 109 practically did not lose. True, the Cobras were good at these altitudes, but at low altitudes they were bad. Of course, this is the merit not so much of Willy Messerschmitt as of the Daimler-Benz engineers, who created an engine that worked equally well throughout the entire altitude range, but still.
            1. +3
              18 September 2023 07: 32
              Quote: Nagan
              At low altitudes, Yaks of all models, not counting 3, were inferior in gaining speed and altitude

              Airplanes have many other characteristics besides speed and altitude. I'm not saying that YAKs were an ideal machine, they were at the level...

              Quote: Nagan
              And above 4000 Yak noticeably lost power, while 109 practically did not lose

              Agree. But on the Eastern Front, unlike the Western Front, all battles were fought at relatively low altitudes...
            2. -1
              18 September 2023 09: 50
              At low altitudes, Yaks of all models, not counting 3, were inferior in gaining speed and altitude. A little, but they gave way; at any moment, when the German wanted to leave the battle, he turned on the afterburner and left with a set. The Yaks could not keep up. And the ability to get out of a fight when things go wrong is practically the difference between life and death. And above 4000, the Yak noticeably lost in power, while 109 practically did not lose. True, the Cobras were good at these altitudes, but at low altitudes they were bad. Of course, this is the merit not so much of Willy Messerschmitt as of the Daimler-Benz engineers, who created an engine that worked equally well throughout the entire altitude range, but still.


              Nonsense in the style of media tactics and a misunderstanding of the place and role of aviation in war. In short, the main thing is that our own strike aircraft should work against enemy troops and targets, but they don’t.
              And all the air battles are a side effect.
              For example, if an air defense unit performing an air defense mission did not allow bombing of a covered object, but did not shoot down a single enemy aircraft, then the task was completed 100%. If there were bombings, then don’t care about all the downed planes, because this is already a bonus.
              That’s why the I-16 held out, each of which, according to some experts, was shot down ten times until 1943 and only retired in 1944.
              He coped well with the task of covering the same Il-2s and he had no need to catch up with the German fighters, he had to be driven away.
              But the Me-109 could not cope with the task of escorting the same Yu-87 at all. Hence this ersatz attempt to clear the sky.
              In short, I advise you to read it. Of course there are minor errors, but overall everything is correct.
              https://airpages.ru/dc/ivonin_1.shtml
              1. +1
                18 September 2023 10: 28
                Watch the film "Baltic Sky" about naval pilots of the Baltic Fleet during the war, on YouTube. Yes, the film is old and black and white, but then the consultants who actually fought were still alive. And pay attention to the dressing downs that the commander arranged.
                1. -1
                  18 September 2023 10: 38
                  Watch the film "Baltic Sky" about naval pilots of the Baltic Fleet during the war, on YouTube. Yes, the film is old and black and white, but then the consultants who actually fought were still alive. And pay attention to the dressing downs that the commander arranged.


                  There are even cuts.





              2. -1
                19 September 2023 19: 40
                Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                misunderstanding of the place and role of aviation in war. In short, the main thing is that our own strike aircraft should work against enemy troops and targets, but they don’t.

                Very interesting. Do we know anything about the work of Soviet aviation against the ground other than reports from the Sovinformburo?
            3. +1
              18 September 2023 10: 13
              Hispano-Suiza and Allison produced maximum power at approximately the same altitudes.

              Therefore, the P-39 and P-40 were successfully used by the Red Army Air Force.
            4. +1
              18 September 2023 16: 00
              The Germans had battle tactics suitable specifically for the Me-109 and they could impose it on ours. Gaining altitude, diving with speed - attack - leaving the battle.
              Pokryshkin and others later began to use a similar one on the Airacobra.
              1. -1
                18 September 2023 16: 58
                The Germans had battle tactics suitable specifically for the Me-109 and they could impose it on ours. Gaining altitude, diving with speed - attack - leaving the battle.
                Pokryshkin and others later began to use a similar one on the Airacobra.


                This is not an imposed tactic, but the only way to use the “thin” in combat. The high load on the wing and the forces on the controls, the blind rear hemisphere, did not contribute to other tactics.
                1. -1
                  19 September 2023 19: 32
                  Quote from solar
                  Gaining altitude, diving with speed - attack - leaving the battle.
                  Pokryshkin and others later began to use a similar one on the Airacobra.

                  You are describing boomzum, aka vertical combat. This is not “a tactic suitable for the Me-109,” but in general the main tactics of WWII fighters.
              2. +2
                18 September 2023 18: 10
                And the “Wildcats” on the Pacific Ocean are not from a good life.
                1. -2
                  19 September 2023 19: 38
                  Quote: Maxim G
                  And "Wildcats" in the Pacific Ocean

                  Wildcats in the Pacific Ocean could not afford a vertical battle with the Zero - due to the Zero's exceptionally high rate of climb at low and medium altitudes. But they could leave the battle by diving, because Zero dived poorly.
          2. 0
            18 September 2023 13: 12
            Quote: Luminman
            On the western front, where fighting took place at high altitudes, he was a good fighter. I emphasize - good. Approximately at the level of the British Spitfire and Mig-1. On the eastern front, at low altitudes, it was, as it were, not quite there. The YAKs dealt with them very well. But also good...

            It’s precisely the small and medium heights of the Eastern Front that are not due to our good life request...
            Fighter axiom: “Whoever has an advantage in height has an advantage in speed and, accordingly, an advantage in general.”
            Hence the German tactics - approach at an altitude of 7t (where the characteristics of the vehicle are much better and ours a priori did not fly there (hello to the also disgusting oxygen equipment)), strike from above, escape from the attack due to high speed at a comfortable altitude, prepare for the next attack.
            In general, for us this meant giving up the initiative to the enemy, which is completely inconsistent with the offensive nature of fighter aircraft.
            The situation began to change primarily not due to the improvement of YaKs (although this also made its contribution), but due to the appearance of the La-5FN with a higher-altitude engine. Well, the Germans decided too early to switch to information security in the role of the FW-190, the first series of which were far from perfect as fighters hi
            1. 0
              18 September 2023 14: 44
              Quote: Adrey
              It’s precisely the small and medium heights of the Eastern Front that are not due to our good life

              The Germans did not have strategic aviation, to counter which they needed high-altitude fighters. One of the reasons for abandoning the MiGs was their lack of demand at high altitudes, but the Yaks and Lavochkins coped with this very well, because on the Soviet-German front the main bomb throwers - these are IL-2 and Junkers
              1. +1
                18 September 2023 16: 46
                Quote: Luminman
                The Germans did not have strategic aviation, to counter which they needed high-altitude fighters.

                Altitude, first of all, is needed not to counter any specific type of aircraft, but to gain the initiative.
                Quote: Luminman
                because on the Soviet-German front the main bomb throwers are Il-2s and Junkers

                “Lapotniki” flew quite high because they were dive bombers, but the Il-2s actually flew at low level at the beginning of the war, exposing themselves to everything that could be fired from the ground. And not from a good life. In this way they tried to hide from the enemy fighters dominating the heights. After the Germans lost air supremacy, the IL-2’s flight echelon grew to 3-3.5 thousand meters hi
                1. 0
                  18 September 2023 17: 30
                  Quote: Adrey
                  Altitude, first of all, is needed not to confront any specific type of aircraft, but to gain the initiative

                  What kind of initiative can bombers have? Unless you can hide in the clouds from enemy air defense...

                  Quote: Adrey
                  "Lapotniki" walked quite high

                  Why would they fly high if this is a front-line bomber? As soon as he chose a ground target, our fighters immediately chose him...
                  1. 0
                    18 September 2023 18: 36
                    Quote: Luminman
                    What kind of initiative can bombers have? Unless you can hide in the clouds from enemy air defense...

                    There seemed to be a discussion about Me-109 and Yakov? What about fighter tactics?
            2. 0
              18 September 2023 16: 06
              The situation began to change primarily not due to the improvement of YaKs (although this also made its contribution), but due to the appearance of the La-5FN with a higher-altitude engine.

              Pokryshkin used an attack tactic similar to the German one on the Airacobra; in the list of Soviet aces, this is a frequently encountered aircraft, although in reality few of them were delivered.
            3. -1
              18 September 2023 17: 00
              It’s precisely the small and medium heights of the Eastern Front that are not due to our good life.


              This is because the basis of our strike aircraft, the Il-2, operated at low and extremely low altitudes.
        2. -1
          19 September 2023 19: 10
          Quote: Nagan
          Until about the beginning of 1944 - ideal, compared to almost everything that they tried to oppose him

          The Messer was a successful vehicle for starting the war. Then they pumped it full of steroids in the form of nitrous oxide and methanol to more or less keep it level, although the glider no longer pulled very well.

          When the allies found their tactics and climbed up, Messer could no longer do anything. The Allied aircraft had their drawbacks, but in general the quality of the equipment was already higher.
    2. +3
      18 September 2023 05: 38
      Messer... was not a child prodigy. Until it was brought to fruition, that is, upgraded to version F, it was average, a workhorse.
      In the first couple of days we won due to better training of pilots and clear organization of the combat process...
      In general, the aggressor is not always much stronger, often his opponent is weaker, in itself...
      1. -2
        18 September 2023 08: 45
        Messer... was not a child prodigy. Until it was brought to fruition, that is, upgraded to version F, it was average, a workhorse.

        Actually, Messerschmitt-109 appeared in the skies of Spain and at that time it was crude, but advanced. And by 1941, it was a perfect modern fighter, much better than any of our aircraft, and until the appearance of the Yak-3 and La-5, it retained an advantage over our fighters.
        1. +1
          18 September 2023 20: 11
          Quote: ramzay21
          In fact, Messerschmitt-109 appeared in the skies of Spain and at that time it was crude, but advanced. And by 1941 it was a perfect modern fighter, much better than any of our aircraft, and before the appearance of the Yak-3 and La-5 maintained an advantage over our fighters.
          The first La-5s were inferior to the Bf.109, and quite strongly. With the advent of the La-5FN, they were almost equal. Only La-7 received, although small, but indisputable, an advantage. And the Yak-3, yes, was superior to the Bf.109 in almost all respects, but, alas, it appeared too late, and it basically could not have appeared earlier, because there was not enough lumen. So, the first drawings of what later became the Yak-3 appeared on the drawing boards back in 1941.
        2. +1
          19 September 2023 19: 13
          Quote: ramzay21
          before the appearance of the Yak-3 and La-5, it retained an advantage over our fighters.

          Afterwards it also remained, except for a narrow range of the most successful battle conditions for Soviet aircraft.
    3. +8
      18 September 2023 06: 54
      I’m not an aviator and for me the question is what? By analogy with the beginning of WWII, is the F-35 the same aircraft, fighter as the Messerschmitt-109? Do we need to catch up with this aircraft constructively or will we make do with the existing fleet of fighters in the existing quality and quantity? For me, the authority is the pilot General Kharchevsky, I would like to listen to him. soldier

      It's much worse. He's stealthy. A qualitative leap. Like Me - 262.
      At the same time, it also flies like a helicopter. wink

      1. 0
        18 September 2023 08: 34
        Suppose the jet messer did not help anyone in any way, did not save... the point is not that there were few of them, it did not have outstanding characteristics, except for speed/rate of climb, altitude... this was not enough, against the backdrop of other nuances, disadvantages inherent in new technology.
        What about the “penguin”... yes, it also has shortcomings and whether they cover its inherent shortcomings is not a fact.
        Moreover, even minke whales cannot realize all the ideas and plans that were put forward/planned for implementation during the project to create this combat platform.
        The project is under development and what will happen in the end... will be seen.
        What else is worth paying attention to... everyone with whom minke whales position themselves as opponents is not inactive, but is creating their own systems with the help of which counteraction to such threats will be organized.
        Stripes love to focus attention on their achievements, but they really don’t like to pay attention to the achievements of everyone else....
        1. +1
          18 September 2023 09: 54
          Suppose the jet messer did not help anyone in any way, did not save... the point is not that there were few of them, it did not have outstanding characteristics, except for speed/rate of climb, altitude... this was not enough, against the backdrop of other nuances, disadvantages inherent in new technology.
          What about the “penguin”... yes, it also has shortcomings and whether they cover its inherent shortcomings is not a fact.
          Moreover, even minke whales cannot realize all the ideas and plans that were put forward/planned for implementation during the project to create this combat platform.
          The project is under development and what will happen in the end... will be seen.
          What else is worth paying attention to... everyone with whom minke whales position themselves as opponents is not inactive, but is creating their own systems with the help of which counteraction to such threats will be organized.
          Stripes love to focus attention on their achievements, but they really don’t like to pay attention to the achievements of everyone else....

          Didn't save. Because it appeared in limited quantities at the end of the war, when half the world was actually fighting against Germany.

          But with the penguin the situation is different. Half the world has already riveted 500 pieces, and the rest need 30 years to make just a prototype. what
          1. -2
            18 September 2023 10: 44
            Quote: Arzt

            Didn't save. Because it appeared in limited quantities at the end of the war, when half the world was actually fighting against Germany.

            Well, yes, well, yes, half the world fought with them... but there is no desire to calculate how many there were in that half of the world and how many divisions they sent to the front? By the way, the Germans did not fight against one, there were several more of them, especially since they had the potential of the entire geyrope of that time under their control.
            In general, learn to COUNT, then maybe your statements will... well, first COUNT.
            1. 0
              18 September 2023 13: 21
              Well, yes, well, yes, half the world fought with them... but there is no desire to calculate how many there were in that half of the world and how many divisions they sent to the front? By the way, the Germans did not fight against one, there were several more of them, especially since they had the potential of the entire geyrope of that time under their control.
              In general, learn to COUNT, then maybe your statements will... well, first COUNT.

              What do divisions have to do with it? The sides are important for the Me-262.

              It was calculated a long time ago.
              From 1939 to 1945, the Allies lost 21 aircraft and 000 pilots and aircrew over Germany.
              By the way, the total losses of military personnel of the USA and Great Britain during the Second World War are 780. what

              But they bombed notably - 1 tons of bombs on Germany alone.
              In terms of "Dagger" - approximately a million missiles. If we consider the mass of the explosive bomb to be 200 kg.

              If the Me-262 had appeared 2 years earlier, not everything would have been so optimistic, I think. Yes
              1. +1
                18 September 2023 13: 48
                War... that it was nothing can be changed, so the main evidence/refutation of various arguments, if only, is not there and never will be.
                An empty argument...not interesting.
                1. -1
                  18 September 2023 15: 35
                  War... that it was nothing can be changed, so the main evidence/refutation of various arguments, if only, is not there and never will be.
                  An empty argument...not interesting.

                  Life has proven it. Everyone flies jets. Only transport workers retained the pistons in order to save money.

                  The same will happen with stealth. Yes
                  1. +4
                    18 September 2023 20: 16
                    Quote: Arzt
                    Life has proven it. Everyone flies jets. Only transport workers retained the pistons in order to save money.

                    Even transport workers have no pistons left. They are turboprops. The only place where pistons really remain is in small aircraft, and even there turbines are slowly replacing them.
              2. -1
                18 September 2023 18: 07
                But here we must also take into account Japan and its bombings.
              3. +1
                19 September 2023 19: 16
                Quote: Arzt
                By the way, the total losses of military personnel of the USA and Great Britain during the Second World War are 780.

                Cough cough. The USA and the World Bank did not participate in the Second World War. WWII.
                Quote: Arzt
                lost 21 aircraft and 000 pilots and crew members over Germany.
                By the way, the total losses of US military personnel

                These are not entirely comparable figures. 780 (400+380) is the loss of life. 140 thousand are crews lost on missions. Some of them returned from captivity.
      2. +1
        18 September 2023 11: 09
        Quote: Arzt
        At the same time, it also flies like a helicopter.

        Do you know how much fuel it will burn while flying like a helicopter?
        1. 0
          18 September 2023 13: 28
          Do you know how much fuel it will burn while flying like a helicopter?

          A lot, probably. But a helicopter with its own fuel is not needed. And an AV is not needed. UDC is enough. wink
    4. +9
      18 September 2023 09: 03
      I’m not an aviator and for me the question is what? By analogy with the beginning of WWII, is the F-35 the same aircraft, fighter as the Messerschmitt-109?

      It is very difficult to draw an analogy between the Second World War and the Northern Military District; this means putting an equal sign between Stalin and Putin, between the communist USSR and the oligarchic Russian Federation. And the Germans’ best plane was not the Messer, but the Foke-Wulf-190.
      If you still try to draw an analogy with the Second World War, then imagine that the Germans have Fockers and Messers, and our most modern aircraft remains the veteran Spanish biplane I-15, there are several exhibition copies of the I-16, and all this is presented by propaganda as the most modern The world air force, and no Yak, La and MiG fighters, because Polikarpov is a famous designer and of course he doesn’t need any Yakovlevs, Lavochkins and Gureviches, capable of creating much more advanced aircraft. Also, imagine that Polikarpov would be involved in thefts and the cost of I-15 and I-16 would at least double.
      And imagine that Stalin’s entourage destroys the few factories left after the tsar and buys castles for themselves in Nazi Germany, and they demolished several factories that produced critical parts for the I-16, like the demolished Phasatron in Moscow in 2020, and sold them for development.
    5. -4
      18 September 2023 12: 59
      Quote: V.
      By analogy with the beginning of WWII, is the F-35 the same aircraft, fighter as the Messerschmitt-109?

      Is not. The probability of an anti-aircraft gun hitting a Messerschmitt was close to zero. You can't dodge two simultaneously fired air defense missiles - the F-35.
      In essence, the F-35 is a large “death capsule”
      1. +1
        18 September 2023 16: 09
        You can't dodge two simultaneously fired air defense missiles - the F-35.

        It is difficult for any aircraft to dodge two missiles fired simultaneously.
    6. -1
      19 September 2023 18: 58
      Quote: V.
      Is the F-35 the same aircraft, fighter as the Messerschmitt-109?

      Maybe against I-16. But rather Shootingstar versus La-9.
      Quote: V.
      We need to catch up with this plane

      No need, it's impossible.
      Quote: V.
      constructively or will we make do with the existing fleet of fighters in the existing quality and quantity.?

      You'll get by wherever you go. What about the F-35?
  4. +8
    18 September 2023 05: 28
    The best thing about the F35 for Americans is the pace of production and constant updates. It’s scary to think how many they can rivet them if they decide to take a war footing.
    1. +1
      18 September 2023 06: 43
      Quote from alexoff
      It’s scary to think how many they can rivet them if they decide to take a war footing.

      But don’t be afraid, or rather, don’t be afraid of this. The war will end before the inertial American administration finishes discussing this topic. Another thing is that humanity will also end.
    2. +1
      18 September 2023 10: 14
      Quote from alexoff
      It’s scary to think how many they can rivet them if they decide to take a war footing.

      They already produced a little less than two hundred per year...
  5. -7
    18 September 2023 05: 30
    Airplane computer... that's understandable. Another thing is not clear, they hope that there will be no computers of their own on earth, everything will work on the technologies of the last century???
    A common method, a trick, in order to increase/emphasize one’s achievements, significance, one must underestimate the achievements, level of development, competence of the expected opponent...
    In reality, it is somewhat different and confirmation of it has been seen more than once.
  6. +3
    18 September 2023 05: 55
    The aircraft is more expensive than gold, but capable of performing the combat missions assigned to it.
    The era of cheap aircraft capable of performing the combat missions assigned to them has not yet arrived.
    1. +7
      18 September 2023 06: 20
      Quote: parusnik
      The era of cheap aircraft capable of performing the combat missions assigned to them has not yet arrived.

      More likely, it's long gone. Since about 1982, when Israel, using the very expensive F-15 and F-16 at that time, took out the numerically superior (90 versus 100) forces of Syria, and even reinforced by several dozen air defense systems, but flying on much cheaper MiG-21 and MiG-23. Since then, the more expensive aircraft have consistently won.
      1. -1
        18 September 2023 07: 00
        Quote: Nagan
        Since then, more expensive aircraft have consistently won

        Well-trained pilots usually win, not cars. A car is just an instrument and you need to be able to play it...
        1. +1
          18 September 2023 10: 19
          Quote: Luminman
          Quote: Nagan
          Since then, more expensive aircraft have consistently won

          Well-trained pilots usually win, not cars. A car is just an instrument and you need to be able to play it...

          Pilots are also only a tool, albeit one of the most important. We need organization, preparation, reconnaissance, etc.
          As an example, it is worth recalling the battle over the Sokhno Valley, when sufficiently trained pilots from the USSR, using quite decent equipment, and even having a numerical advantage, fell into a well-planned ambush of the Israeli Air Force, losing several aircraft.
          1. -2
            18 September 2023 10: 44
            As an example, it is worth recalling the battle over the Sokhno Valley, when sufficiently trained pilots from the USSR, using quite decent equipment, and even having a numerical advantage, fell into a well-planned ambush of the Israeli Air Force, losing several aircraft.


            Where was the fight? If on the one hand there are a number of prohibitions, on the other hand the use of missiles with seekers.
            1. 0
              18 September 2023 11: 11
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              Pilots are also just a tool

              The pilots are the subject, and the car is the object.
              And that's a big difference...
              1. -1
                18 September 2023 11: 28
                Pilots are also just a tool


                The pilots are the subject, and the car is the object.
                And that's a big difference...


                So the above was not what I stated. And I know very well that the system at war is pilot-plane, where the pilot is primary, since the plane is only a weapon.
                A simple example is when the Germans transferred pilots from Lapotniks to attack Focke Wulfs, believing that they would now fight off our planes themselves, without taking into account the mentality of their bombers.
                As a result, they could only scramble, while our fighters frolicked like pikes in a school of roaches.
                1. -1
                  18 September 2023 16: 52
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  Pilots are also just a tool


                  The pilots are the subject, and the car is the object.
                  And that's a big difference...


                  So the above was not what I stated. And I know very well that the system at war is pilot-plane, where the pilot is primary, since the plane is only a weapon.
                  A simple example is when the Germans transferred pilots from Lapotniks to attack Focke Wulfs, believing that they would now fight off our planes themselves, without taking into account the mentality of their bombers.
                  As a result, they could only scramble, while our fighters frolicked like pikes in a school of roaches.

                  It is not airplanes or even pilots who fight, but squadrons and air wings.
                  Well, if the Germans were unable to organize training for their pilots in the required tactics, then this is not a failure of the pilots, but a failure of the organizational structure of this air unit.
                  1. -2
                    18 September 2023 17: 04
                    It is not airplanes or even pilots who fight, but squadrons and air wings.


                    An aircraft with a crew is a tactical unit, a pair is the primary tactical unit, a flight is the main tactical unit.
            2. 0
              18 September 2023 16: 44
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              As an example, it is worth recalling the battle over the Sokhno Valley, when sufficiently trained pilots from the USSR, using quite decent equipment, and even having a numerical advantage, fell into a well-planned ambush of the Israeli Air Force, losing several aircraft.


              Where was the fight? If on the one hand there are a number of prohibitions, on the other hand the use of missiles with seekers.

              Those. do you want to say that the Soviet organization was crap by not delivering missiles with seekers and limiting the pilots to certain restrictions? Well, that's about what I said.
              1. -5
                18 September 2023 17: 06
                Those. Do you want to say that the Soviet organization was crap by not delivering missiles with a seeker and limiting the pilots to certain restrictions? Well that's about what I said


                No, you got your pants dirty when you rushed to judgment about something you only know from interior stories.
                1. 0
                  18 September 2023 19: 16
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  Those. Do you want to say that the Soviet organization was crap by not delivering missiles with a seeker and limiting the pilots to certain restrictions? Well that's about what I said


                  No, you got your pants dirty when you rushed to judgment about something you only know from interior stories.

                  Those. Instead of facts, another demagoguery? I'm not interested.
                  1. -3
                    18 September 2023 19: 32
                    Those. Instead of facts, another demagoguery? I'm not interested.


                    Did you provide any facts? Or can you be an aviation expert? No on both counts. So there’s no point in blaming the mirror.
        2. +1
          18 September 2023 13: 00
          Quote: Luminman
          Well-trained pilots usually win, not cars. A car is just an instrument and you need to be able to play it...

          This is already in the past. The pilot is simply an operator of a complex machine, but not an aerobatics ace.
        3. +1
          19 September 2023 04: 23
          Quote: Luminman
          Well-trained pilots usually win, not cars. A car is just an instrument and you need to be able to play it.

          But attempts to counter the Bf.109 on the I-16 or I-15 usually did not end well. So let’s be silent for a minute in memory of those who flew out to carry out combat missions no matter what, and sometimes even returned after completing the task.
      2. +1
        18 September 2023 14: 55
        Quote: Nagan
        Quote: parusnik
        The era of cheap aircraft capable of performing the combat missions assigned to them has not yet arrived.

        More likely, it's long gone. Since about 1982, when Israel, using the very expensive F-15 and F-16 at that time, took out the numerically superior (90 versus 100) forces of Syria, and even reinforced by several dozen air defense systems, but flying on much cheaper MiG-21 and MiG-23. Since then, the more expensive aircraft have consistently won.

        How so!? It turns out that Maxim Kalashnikov, describing how Syrian falcons killed hundreds of Zionists every day... was he mistaken?
        1. 0
          19 September 2023 06: 48
          Quote from: Barmaglot_07
          How so!? It turns out that Maxim Kalashnikov, describing how Syrian falcons killed hundreds of Zionists every day... was he mistaken?
          No, he just screamed like a girl with low morals.
  7. -12
    18 September 2023 06: 02
    That is, in the USA they created a wunderwaffe from which there is no escape.
    I remember there was a sect of Javelin witnesses, a sect of Hymars witnesses, a sect of Leopard witnesses, a sect of Challenger witnesses, a sect of Patriot witnesses... Have you forgotten anything?
    1. +7
      18 September 2023 09: 04
      That is, in the USA they created a wunderwaffe from which there is no escape.
      I remember there was a sect of Javelin witnesses, a sect of Hymars witnesses, a sect of Leopard witnesses, a sect of Challenger witnesses, a sect of Patriot witnesses... Have you forgotten anything?

      Both the javelins, the bayraktars, and the khimars, in their time, fully justified themselves. About leopards, the same people believed in their invulnerability as they believed in the invulnerability of the T90m, on the other hand, the question is not whether this tank can be knocked out, but whether the crew will survive.
      1. +1
        19 September 2023 07: 05
        Quote from realing

        Both javelins, bayraktars, and khimars fully justified themselves in their time

        Yep, Khaimarsa for the first few days, while there was an effect of surprise. The rest didn't even have that.
    2. +6
      18 September 2023 09: 17
      Quote: Dart2027
      Didn’t forget anything?

      You forgot that we are sitting on the defensive, having retreated from territories larger than we occupied after the start of the Northern Military District. The weapon served its purpose.
      1. 0
        19 September 2023 07: 07
        Quote from cold wind
        You forgot that
        The Ukrainian Armed Forces are preparing to conscript minors. The cannon fodder has served its purpose... Only it ends.
    3. +1
      18 September 2023 13: 06
      Quote: Dart2027
      Didn’t forget anything?

      Only just one thing. We haven't won the NVO yet. And it’s been 1,5 years already... Any of the weapons you listed cost our guys a lot of blood, and in general prolongs the conflict indefinitely. Those. It fully justifies its purpose.
      1. +1
        19 September 2023 07: 10
        Quote: Zoer
        We haven't won the NVO yet. And already 1,5 Goa... Any of the weapons you listed
        Any weapon costs blood, even if it's Maxim machine guns. And this is absolutely serious. But this does not mean that a cult should be made out of another Western craft, especially since there were so many problems with the 35s that it is not a fact that they have all been eliminated.
    4. +3
      18 September 2023 13: 23
      Let me disturb you, Bayraktars still work, I recently saw a video of it being used and unfortunately it caused damage. Javelins are not used for a simple reason, at the moment it is a long-range war with artillery, and the use of tanks and transporters is negligible, due to the risk. This does not mean that this equipment did not work, on the contrary. I won’t even comment on the ridicule of the Khimars; the burned warehouses and bases in the back speak for themselves.
      It is also a little inappropriate to discredit Western air defense technology when our Air Force appears only point-wise and fires from outside the battlefield. If all these Patriots, Nasamsa, Iris-T were “weak and useless,” our MiGs and Su would be flying in Kyiv.
      1. 0
        19 September 2023 07: 14
        Quote: Little Bear
        Bayraktars are still working,
        Do you remember how many of them were shot down?
        Quote: Little Bear
        Javelins are not used for a simple reason, at the moment it is long-range artillery warfare
        Is it true? That is, our troops do not converge at all at a distance of a couple of kilometers?
        Quote: Little Bear
        burned warehouses and bases in the back speak for themselves
        And the messages from there that after we improved the electronic warfare, their precision ended, just like the messages from ours about how they were shot down by Shells, what are they talking about?
  8. 0
    18 September 2023 06: 07
    The enemy was represented by long- and medium-range air defense systems and fighters structurally similar to the Su-30. That is, the most powerful enemy was simulated.

    That is, during the modeling, a certain “maximally powerful enemy” was used without indicating its characteristics.
    “Systems people” once had a saying when creating mathematical models:
    “If you put garbage at the input of the system, then you will definitely get garbage at the output.”
    Therefore, the conclusion that Mr. Skomorokhov made in his advertising article
    The aircraft is more expensive than gold, but capable of performing the combat missions assigned to it.

    very ambiguous. If only because the options for “combat missions” have not been formulated.
  9. -6
    18 September 2023 06: 15
    “In the F-16, each sensor was tied to its own screen/dial... often the sensors showed conflicting information” song about Penguin.
    Everything is on the FRS printing press.
    He is not a separate entity. And f35 too.
    The deep state is directing and so far so good.
    Pokvatelodin - surrendering some shit like an Afghan
  10. 0
    18 September 2023 06: 34
    Quote from alexoff
    S-70s need to be riveted in the hundreds, and hangars in the thousands so that the enemies don’t know where to hit.

    It seems to me that even our own people here don’t know where to go, because it’s not clear that there is an S-70...
  11. +1
    18 September 2023 06: 57
    With a divine view of the terrain, F-35 pilots can coordinate with fourth-generation aircraft, making them more lethal in the process.

    It is not clear why the “pilot” needs to be in the F-35 cockpit, and not in the remote control operator’s seat. In my opinion, it is better to remove the ejection system and life support systems from the F-35 and move the control to the air wing’s command center with data transmission via StarLink. It’s even better to entrust most of the functions to AI (at the level of unconditioned reflexes), leaving the operator to make decisions and organize interaction with other aircraft.
    1. +4
      18 September 2023 07: 29
      But this is exactly where things are going. F35 is just such a transitional option.
    2. 0
      18 September 2023 09: 21
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      It is not clear why the “pilot” needs to be in the F-35 cockpit

      You did not understand the role of the F-35. He is the center of a network-centric system, which collects information and the pilot makes decisions. It is more logical to give him loyal wingmen, relatively cheap mass-produced UAVs.
      1. -1
        18 September 2023 19: 56
        Then it is not clear why this platform needs a short take-off/vertical landing, maximum overloads and weapons, if the combat modules are carried on a UAV? It’s easier to take it to a remote platform and “stetcenter” without being exposed to danger.
    3. -1
      18 September 2023 15: 00
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      In my opinion, it is better to remove the ejection system and life support systems from the F-35 and move the control to the air wing’s command center with data transmission via StarLink.

      Firstly, when the concept of the Joint Strike Fighter was determined, Musk was doing PayPal, and SpaceX was not even in his imagination, let alone Starlink. Secondly, the need to constantly radiate, albeit upward, into the satellite, for a stealth aircraft is not good.
  12. +3
    18 September 2023 07: 02
    With so much money for defense, it would be strange if the United States did not build such an aircraft, and in such quantities! And how many more will be built. They are luring away scientific potential, the dollar dominates the world, the possibilities are endless, and they’re also putting together something even worse!
    1. +2
      18 September 2023 08: 33
      Quote: Vadim S
      With so much money for defense, it would be strange if the United States did not build such an aircraft, and in such quantities! And how many more will be built. They are luring away scientific potential, the dollar dominates the world, the possibilities are endless, and they’re also putting together something even worse!

      So, in addition to the USA, there is a whole line of people waiting for the plane, which doubles the order.
  13. Des
    +8
    18 September 2023 07: 26
    “You take from the people, you take from yourself, and the main thing is that the music is yours, and whoever says - plagiarism, I say - tradition.” (c) Excellent article from foreign (anonymous))) sources. Bravo to the author, who is not afraid) and to the VO website.
    In fact. The plane of the future is already in production. Its information support and technological innovations are beyond our reach. And even if it is “unsuccessful”, there is a basis for development and a breakthrough. And even further - the gap will be greater.
    We cannot even make a replacement for the An-2, Il-18 and other Ilas, Carcasses... And the equipment for the production of our new techniques is not ours.
  14. -6
    18 September 2023 08: 14
    Why didn’t they buy a production license for the Yak-141, but only documents for 1 million bucks? Greed? Only England and the USSR were able to create a vertical aircraft, the rest are just watching.
    1. +5
      18 September 2023 08: 43
      Quote: air wolf
      Why didn’t they buy a production license for the Yak-141, but only documents for 1 million bucks? Greed? Only England and the USSR were able to create a vertical aircraft, the rest are just watching.

      A vertical take-off and landing aircraft must be not just an aircraft, but also capable of performing certain combat missions. The Yak-38 was a frankly dull aircraft, and the Yak-141 never went into production, so it’s worth talking about it only as some kind of experimental aircraft.
    2. +2
      18 September 2023 08: 52
      Well, the British developed vertical takeoff for the F-35, there is nothing from the Yak-141. It is not clear why RR bought the documents.
  15. +9
    18 September 2023 09: 15
    Stop arguing whether it’s good or bad, look at the photographs of the workshop where they are assembled to the horizon.
  16. +9
    18 September 2023 09: 31
    It’s a good car, which we tend to laugh at jingoically and patriotically, comparing it with a semi-finished product from Su. And then suddenly go nuts when faced with reality...
  17. +12
    18 September 2023 09: 43
    This article uses information that is 4 years old.
    As of September 2023, 965 F-35s were produced, of which 142 in 2022 (For comparison, 2022 aircraft of 29 different types were delivered to the Aerospace Forces in 5)
    The cost of the F-35A has dropped to $76 million (with engine).
    The price of an F-35 flight hour in 2022 is $42 thousand (F-16: 27 thousand, F-18: 30.5 thousand, F-22: 85 thousand).

    So the F-35 is a very successful aircraft in terms of price/quality ratio.
    The richest US Air Force, in contrast to the Aerospace Forces, abandoned the creation of wunderwaffes that have no analogues in the world in favor of universality and serial production, and with the money saved they purchased many guided bombs and missiles.
    Before the Northern Military District, the United States had 3 times more combat aircraft than the Russian Federation, and in terms of the number of guided weapons, the difference was more than 50 times.
  18. -11
    18 September 2023 09: 57
    In fact, this is another scam of suckers from Lockheed, which at one time was the F-104)))) it was also advertised as the most, the most, the most)))
    1. +11
      18 September 2023 13: 31
      That's right, why not take an old aircraft carrier and repair it without ceasing, or show off the coolest single-engine fighter (though only a mock-up) and make money from it. No, they have already riveted 900 pieces of this nonsense.
  19. PPD
    -6
    18 September 2023 10: 22
    The F-35 may be the stealthiest fighter jet today.

    It may not be. wink
    The author simply rewrote a laudatory article from some foreign magazine with his own insertions. For what? It's easier?
    And f 35, no matter what it is, is not going anywhere.
    The reason is simple - image.
    USA without new flying technology?
    Even if it's an iron.
    Who really works there will be important.
    They will promote f 35 and the next ones.
    The main thing is that it is not too expensive, like the F 22.
  20. -1
    18 September 2023 11: 07
    Personally, I am terrified by the scale of orders and the number of countries that want this plane as soon as possible. Over 3,000 orders, and the table is not complete because several countries are missing. After all, the American arms industry has entered a golden era of its existence.
    1. -3
      18 September 2023 15: 06
      Quote: Little Bear
      and the table is not complete because several countries are missing

      And at least some that are present are incomplete - for instance, Israel has ordered an additional 25, over the initial 50.
  21. -10
    18 September 2023 11: 36
    The F-35 is, first of all, an American-Israeli vehicle, which was actively pushed to the US allies! The US Jewish lobby is behind this fighter! This is a purely Jewish invention: a stealth fighter with wide situational awareness! In Europe, for example, they took a different path: these are Eurofighters, Gripens, Rafales, Su-35s!
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. +1
    18 September 2023 12: 47
    So, without exaggeration, the F-35 is an unusual, stealthy device!
    The fighting in Ukraine showed the inferiority and low effectiveness of almost all air defense systems! SAM radars are easily hit by drones! Thus, broad prospects are opening up for fifth-generation stealth fighters!
    Several years ago, Turkish propaganda actively raised the issue of F-35 or S400? The Turks wanted to understand what was cooler! In the end, they bet on the S400! Now, as we see, they made a mistake and are biting their elbows!
    1. osp
      0
      18 September 2023 13: 30
      Ground-based radars are vulnerable. So be it.
      But NATO countries have dozens of AWACS aircraft.
      They will control the sky and provide information for fighters and ground-based air defense systems.
  24. +2
    18 September 2023 12: 47
    The data is well listed. As a reminder.

    But the role of this fighter-bomber has not been disclosed. That is, not an airborne stealth machine, not an interceptor, but a bomber. But he can fight off the enemy himself.

    Therefore, it would be good to compare it with our fighter-bomber and similar ones. It is surprising, for example, that the F is much smaller and lighter than the SU, but carries almost the same load.

    And the high cost of maintenance... since the details are not disclosed, apparently this is the price for electronics, for wear and damage to the Stealth coating at high speeds....
  25. osp
    +4
    18 September 2023 13: 33
    Whatever this fighter is, it is not for us to judge whether it is good or bad.

    It’s better to think about what we have in this regard.
    In terms of light fighters.

    We can say that it’s nothing, because several dozen MiG-29SMT with a long-outdated radar is nothing for such a territory - in fact, there is no light fighter in the arsenal of the VKS at all!

    The Su-75 has not even been tested, the MiG-35 will probably not be produced - the company is dying thanks to the efforts of Serdyukov and Co.
    It lost almost all production sites in Moscow.
  26. +3
    18 September 2023 13: 46
    Quote: Max1995
    The data is well listed. As a reminder.

    But the role of this fighter-bomber has not been disclosed. That is, not an airborne stealth machine, not an interceptor, but a bomber. But he can fight off the enemy himself.

    Therefore, it would be good to compare it with our fighter-bomber and similar ones. It is surprising, for example, that the F is much smaller and lighter than the SU, but carries almost the same load.


    To gain air supremacy from the US F-15 and F-22, just one hundred new F-15s are now being purchased, apparently in preparation for a possible war for Taiwan. The F-35 is not a machine of extreme parameters, but a universal workhorse, produced in large quantities, and this is what Lightning is good at.

    It is not yet possible to objectively compare our and American aircraft - there is no data on the most important characteristics (this is not speed, weight, etc.) and no experience of confrontation since the Medvedka Operation in 1982, then the Israeli F-15 and F-16 were shot down from 82 to 86 Syrian MIG-21 and MIG-23 without suffering losses.
    1. +2
      18 September 2023 14: 55
      For the MiG23, the collisions were not so tragic, especially for the ML and MLD versions. 1:1.
  27. -6
    18 September 2023 13: 56
    A good plane, but if large-scale hostilities start, it will burn out within the first three days...
  28. -1
    18 September 2023 14: 02
    What prevented you from making a modern universal reconnaissance aircraft?
  29. +1
    18 September 2023 14: 54
    What kind of planes are similar to the Su30? Su27, Su30, Su35? F15A, B or EX?
  30. +4
    18 September 2023 16: 37
    Quote: Arzt

    But with the penguin the situation is different. Half the world has already riveted 500 pieces, and the rest need 30 years to make just a prototype. what

    965+ pieces.
    Total flight time - 721000 hours.
  31. +2
    18 September 2023 17: 10
    As for the high cost, this is no longer entirely true; the price has dropped almost to the level of the SU-35. Yes, and these F-35s, in different variations, were riveted closer to 1000 units.
    In terms of cost, this is more relevant for the F-22, so it turned out to be very expensive.
  32. -4
    18 September 2023 17: 22
    In fact, it could not properly replace either the F-16 or the A-10.
    And overall, the F-35 is a good fighter, inferior to the F-16 fighter only in maneuverability in dogfights and a smaller combat load.
    It definitely couldn’t replace the F-35 attack aircraft. The combat load is ridiculous, there are 6 hardpoints, and the missiles and bombs are not that heavy and can hit only a few targets in one flight. And even then, from afar, he will never make close fire contact.
    Therefore, the destiny of this lame duck is to find the target, launch missiles and immediately get away.
  33. +2
    18 September 2023 17: 32
    Why is the F-35 such a two-in-one Nescafe?

    Well, more like 3 in 1.
    Well, here it is:
    “The F-35 integrates everything into a green dot if it's a good guy and a red dot if it's a bad guy—it's very pilot-friendly. All information is displayed on the panoramic cockpit display, which is essentially two giant iPads.”

    As a matter of fact, there is the concept of avionics, which is implemented in hardware and which made this aircraft the best in the world. This is an information monster that processes a bunch of data from its sensors, external sources (radars, AWACS, satellites, UAVs and others) and which reduces this entire avalanche of data to... green or red dots. And all the pilot has to do is select the appropriate weapon and press the button at the right time.
    1. -1
      19 September 2023 19: 02
      Quote: JD1979
      and which reduces this entire avalanche of data to... green or red dots.

      )))
      The Americans invented the minimap.

      All that remains is to invent the savegame.
  34. +5
    18 September 2023 18: 23
    Quote: Glagol1
    The F-35 at today's rate is 2 times more expensive than the Su-35.

    And they don’t care! They have a printing press and there is a demand for the dollar.
    The most important thing is that the F-35 is the same age as our Su-57. The Americans essentially received 3 aircraft and produced almost 1000!! And what about us? Poor thing, we have a dozen aircraft. Although they have no analogues, the quantity here is impressive.
    And you need to remember that they still have a couple of hundred F-22s. Stop shouting “Hurray”! hi
  35. +2
    19 September 2023 09: 08
    You can slander and mock as much as you like about this aircraft, but the F-35 is being built en masse, it is operated by many countries, which means it flies a lot, fights (Israel won’t let you lie), and “children’s illnesses” are treated. As for the cost, if they tell us the truth how much actually went into the SU-57, I’m afraid we will be greatly surprised, and in an unpleasant way.
  36. +1
    19 September 2023 09: 19
    Our gap with the Americans is growing and growing
  37. 0
    27 September 2023 00: 49
    https://theettingerreport.com/israel-a-mega-billion-dollar-battle-tested-laboratory-for-the-us/ 23 августа 2023 г. "Недавнее увеличение экспорта боевых самолетов F-35 компании Lockheed-Martin на многомиллиардные суммы обусловлено преодолением ряда кардинальных проблем. Это было достигнуто компанией Lockheed-Martin, а также израильскими военно-воздушными силами и аэрокосмической промышленностью (особенно инновационной компанией Israel Aerospace Industries – IAI), известной как экономически эффективная и проверенная в боевых условиях лаборатория американской оборонной и аэрокосмической промышленности и вооруженных сил. В июне 2016 года Израиль стал первой страной, применившей в боевых действиях F-35I Adir. Вскоре Израилю удалось устранить первоначальные неполадки, вызвавшие беспокойство у потенциальных покупателей. Проверенная в боях израильская лаборатория, которая круглосуточно 7 дней в неделю поддерживает связь с компанией Lockheed-Martin (как и со многими американскими оборонными подрядчиками), решила большинство проблем эксплуатации и технического обслуживании, используя свои внутренние возможности". BREAKING: Romania starts the process of buying F-35 multirole fighter jets from the U.S.
    The Romanian Defense Ministry today issued a letter to Parliament, asking it to approve the purchase of 48 F-35s. 32 of them would be bought in a first batch for USD 6.5 billion. The indicated maximum amount includes a lot of things, the Romanians write, including weapons.
  38. 0
    7 December 2023 15: 08
    Author. Why insult the product? and it’s not 2in1 but 3in1. and Nescafe is not as expensive as this painted pile of metal