Russian laughter and American sin

This is indeed both laughter and sin! And after that, some (why are there some, many experts) will talk about how to properly develop aircraft!

Here, of course, there are some nuances; of course, I would like that in terms of combat aviation we would still be ahead of the rest, but today doubts arise directly in the statements that we are so far behind the United States.

Yes, we ourselves noticed that we have been fiddling with the Su-57 for a very long time, and this stump of the Su-75 will most likely remain in the form of a demonstration model for the next twenty years. Well, simply because none of the much-hyped “analoguenets” took off and ran.

However, here we will not think about what is better, but on the contrary, what is worse.

And here’s a question for you: what’s worse, a dozen samples that are being tested with an unclear prospect due to the lack of an engine, or a thousand aircraft that...

Which ones? Who is aiming at the sacred here?

Why not take a swing at it, at this sacred thing, if they don’t even start talking out loud - they start yelling on all corners in the USA?

Of course, when they have already riveted more than a thousand aircraft in just over ten years and suddenly find out that the JSF program, within which the F-35 was created, has practically failed, there is not much to cry about. You know this straight away, you shouldn’t shout “zrada”, but just shout “ban” and “get the gang”, because a thousand planes went not only to the Air Force, Marine Corps and the US Navy, but also spread to the allies.

But today in the United States many people actually say that they did not get what they expected from the F-35 and especially from the F-22. And we need to get out of this situation quickly and before it’s too late.

Why did this happen? Why were trillions of dollars thrown away?

Because there is a very big difference between the standards for military equipment in the United States itself and the capabilities of the military-industrial complex. We must clearly understand that America is no longer the same. In general, this can be applied to many countries, and Germany is not the same, and Russia is not the USSR at all in this regard.

But who can doubt that the United States could create simply masterpieces of military equipment? There’s a sneaky detail here in the word “could.” They could, they did. And within the framework of these capabilities, they developed standards for the best American military equipment in the world.

I won’t be silly and put “best” in quotation marks, the Americans really created a lot weapons, which we can be proud of and which we did not consider it shameful to copy. And the list of such weapons will be very long, and if we talk about the fact that in Soviet times we were often catching up...

But today the situation has changed: the standards have remained the same, but the same cannot be said about technology. But compliance with the standards entails the state of “full mission capable”, that is, full combat readiness to carry out any missions, and the F-35 never got there. And the F-22 too.

Did the Pentagon know about this? Definitely. Nevertheless, the aircraft were accepted into service. But if you remember, the start of full-fledged mass production was delayed no worse than our Armata or Su-57. Separate batches were made, which did not have a positive effect on the price, but should we regret other people's millions?

But we can watch with irony how the combat careers of both aircraft develop. If the F-22 has at least one aerial victory over the Chinese bubble, which flew with impunity across the entire United States from east to west, then the F-35 has more modest combat successes than some drones.

Lightnings practically do not fly. The Americans in the “hot” spots preferred not to fall into the attention zone of Russian radars, and their colleagues in the bloc were also somehow not eager to “show up”; in fact, only Israeli F-35s took part in the hostilities.

But since the Israelis mainly fought against houses in the Gaza Strip, they mostly won. Although there was a lot of talk in the media that the Israeli modification had problems with the operation of the target designation system in the air-to-surface mode.

Well, if we talk about Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, Italy and others who bought the F-35, their planes are invisible! They are saving the resource or something...

Or maybe they are afraid of something. It is not for nothing that in 2021, complaints from South Korea to the United States were pouring in about the newly purchased aircraft, which, despite supercomputers and network-centric capabilities, flew somewhat differently than expected. How can I say this... a bit crooked.

In general, during the 2019 and 2020 operational years, the South Koreans noted as many as 35 cases during flights on the F-16 that could have led to a serious plane crash. And more than 1300 less dangerous “gags” performed by the F-35.

Well, the main complaint: the F-35 is a stealth fighter, right? And these advertised supersonic flights without afterburner? How is that? And the South Koreans found out from their own examples what was wrong. Yes, you can fly supersonic easily and naturally. And without afterburner. But then we forget about the stealth mode. Or the plane is really inconspicuous, but it will have to fly at subsonic speed and, very preferably, without any sudden maneuvers.

Somehow, for 100 million dollars you want to get something more tangible. Moreover, 100 million is just a plane, which requires a lot more, from weapons to technical computers and consumables. And this “either-or” for 150 million... well, it’s definitely not a cake.

However, today this term “stealth” itself has somehow lost its shine and novelty. Inconspicuous compared to whom? With a Boeing 747? Tu-160? B-52? If so, then yes, almost any modern aircraft is stealthy. It seems that soon the term “stealth” will go into history following the term "stealth aircraft". Those left after the well-known events in Yugoslavia, and these... less noticeable ones will also leave behind them.

At least those Israeli F-35s that were hanging around and near Syria have already come into the field of view of our radars and fighters so many times that I am sure that as much is known about them as is known about our Su-35S there.

Another thing is unknown, and right now another scandal is slowly beginning to unfold around this in the United States. There, one of the congressmen spilled the beans (to an AP journalist) that a total of about $35 billion was spent on the F-1,7 program. And the “exhaust” is not even a quarter of this amount, if you analyze all the “successes” of “Lightning” and “Raptor”.

It turns out that the simply wild sums spent on the program were, as always, spent... not very effectively. Amazing, right? Another thing is no less surprising: how was Lockheed Martin able to bypass all the military’s requirements and supply them with this instead? It is clear that the United States is a country of lawyers, but there are also lawyers in the army. However. Nothing has been heard of legal claims. Paradox…

As a result, it turns out that the shortcomings found in the aircraft were not corrected. And this worries many, including representatives of the US Accounting Chamber, who took the trouble to find out how effectively the budget money was spent. Otherwise, according to their data, no more than a third of the total number of new aircraft are actually combat ready.

Sorry, you can’t fight this if something happens

Yes, in general, F-35s are flying somewhere, performing some missions. Where and how effective is the question, because after looking at the files for the last three years, I did not find any mention of the fact that at least one serious NATO operation involved the use of the F-35 as the main element of air cover.

And as a result, they even quickly set up a special Congressional commission on the F-35, appointing a certain Diana Maurer, director of the Department of Homeland Security and Justice, as its chairman.

This lady developed a very vigorous activity, along the way puzzling many with her statements, from Lockheed Martin to the Pentagon.

“We have the fact that our F-35 fleet can only perform 55% of its intended functions. Moreover, only 27% of F-35s are fully operational. This is three times less than the targets they are intended to combat. Isn’t this deceiving taxpayers?”

They say that the situation is no better for the allies who gave up their hard-earned billions.

And here is a situation in which something really needs to be done! Moreover, there are not many options: either allocate another mountain of money and bring to life both the F-35s that will be produced and those that have already been manufactured and even sold. The second option is to throw all your energy and, again, a mountain of dollars into creating a new aircraft.

NGAD

Something tells me that in the USA (especially due to the showdowns caused by Lady Maurer) they will choose the second option. At least $20 billion has already been committed over the next five years to complete the development of the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, which is supposed to replace the F-22.

We have already touched several times on this project, which consists not only of full-fledged next-generation aircraft, but also “smart wingmen” developed under a special UAV program.

The Pentagon plans to buy more NGAD fighters than the F-22 because each manned aircraft will control multiple unmanned vehicles in combat. NGAD will be the first aircraft program designed from the outset to be a combination of manned and unmanned aircraft. And 20 billion for development is quite decent.

There will definitely be more in the future.

Although in the case of Next Generation Air Dominance, not everything is smooth and smooth. As such, the new aircraft design was digital; at least in 2020, the USAF proudly announced that it had virtually created a prototype using new digital engineering technologies.

Secrecy is justified, but in this case there is a clear overkill. The design of the aircraft and other details were never revealed, how and who would build the aircraft. In general, we can draw conclusions that since Northrop-Grumman has withdrawn from the fight, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will remain. Two fat geese who can peck anyone for profit.

It is clear that while the design fuss is ongoing (at least there has been no confirmation of the NGAD flight), the data will not be disclosed. But all the same, steam of vanity is breaking out from under the lid, and it is already clear that the Americans are trying to create the so-called “sixth generation”.

How the sixth generation will differ from the fifth is a question for experts, in which they will be able to scratch their heads to their hearts’ content. As they write in the USA, it all depends on what capabilities the NGAD will have and how much better this device will be than the F-35 or F-22.

Well, let's not get too clever, we won't have to work hard to make it head and shoulders above Lightning or Raptor. You just need to make a good plane, or better yet, an excellent one. And that’s it, all questions will disappear completely. And artificial intelligence, laser weapons, a swarm of drones on the tail - this is secondary.

In May 2022, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said each manned NGAD aircraft would cost "several hundred million dollars." By comparison, the F-35 costs between $82,5 million and $110 million. Air & Space Forces Magazine reports that the Air Force will buy 200 to 250 manned NGAD aircraft, about the same number as the planned B-21 Ryder bombers. The Air Force also said there could be two versions of the manned fighter: one for the European theater, possibly with a larger payload, and another for the Pacific theater, with a longer range.

Well, yes, 20 billion is at stake. By the way, this year the Air Force will play the final part of the competition, after which the one who will build the planes will remain.

Now the Air Force and Space Force says the Air Force will spend $20 billion over five years on NGAD. This year, the Air Force will select two companies to develop their versions of the NGAD manned aircraft, and one of them will ultimately be selected to build the final design.

And one more thing: 20 billion is just for the plane. And there is actually a complex of aircraft and non-aircraft. The so-called SCA - Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which, according to their developers, should become stealth, high-performance autonomous aircraft capable of carrying a variety of payloads, from sensors to jammers and weapons.

And another $8,8 billion is allocated for the SSA. And also for five years. You can be envious, there’s plenty of money, I don’t want to work. As they say, create from the heart.

The unmanned CCA aircraft will act as an extension of the manned NGAD fighter aircraft, adding firepower and sensor range. The CCA aircraft will fly ahead of the manned NGAD aircraft, using their own sensors to survey the sky and ground, allowing for early detection of threats. This delegation of sensor use could allow a manned aircraft to operate with its sensors completely turned off, making it even more difficult for enemy forces to detect.

Intelligent design? Yes, it is quite.

Total: 28,8 billion dollars for 5 years and at the end - a new NGAD aircraft (200 units) and SSA (1000 units).

Attention, question: what to do with 200 F-22s and 1000+ F-35s? Which, let us subtly note, were sold to all allies who could pay for them, except Turkey.

Where is all this good? It will be interesting to see how the US Air Force approaches this problem. As I understand it, they will hire guys from Amazon and organize a total sale for the whole world. Something they can do in the USA.

30 billion for the development of the project - yes, this is trifle compared to how much money will be spent on airplanes and non-aircraft. It smells like a trillion, and not even one.

Excuse me, a question for over 50: who will defend the interests of America, its integrity and democracy?

Oh, yes... F-15, F-16, F/A-18... The good old trinity just from the times of that America, in which they knew how to make masterpieces of weapons.

Well, projected onto us: but here, excuse me, the Su-30 and Su-35 are absolutely from the same times. It would seem, yes? But here there is a big difference: if at one time the conveyor suddenly started working and they started riveting Su-57s without counting, and I remember how they promised to buy almost 1000 of them. Then they adjusted it to 200, and then everything was fine.

With the Su-57 everything is clear, as long as there is no engine, you don’t have to twitch at all. There is something to fight with, KnAAZ makes the Su-35S and makes them quite normally in terms of time.

And I’ll tell you even more, it’s great that the Su-57 didn’t go into production until everything was fully debugged. One could easily end up in the same situation as they found themselves in in the United States: there seem to be planes, but there’s no point in it. We also have such resources, but they are not in hangars.

The situation is further complicated by the sword of Damocles that hangs over American aircraft manufacturers: given such a resounding “success” of the F-35 and F-22, looking at the fact that over the past 30 years the United States has not created a single decent combat aircraft, what are the chances? on the success of such an expensive project?

Comments

[Doccor18]

Well, that’s it, Roman “buried” the entire US aviation industry...

The number of F-35s produced has already reached 1 aircraft.

As of early January 2024, all F-35 aircraft had accumulated more than 773 flight hours and completed more than 000 missions.

It has trained more than 2280 pilots and 15 maintainers in 400 flight services around the world.

Currently, there are 32 bases and 11 ships that host or could host F-35 units. Currently, 17 countries are participating in the international Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
https://m.vk.com/milinfolive?from=post

But Lockheed representatives are not so categorical; they plan to finish the 2024th block by June 4 and continue to “cut” the Pentagon’s money...

[Sergey_K]

“they swooped in” - maybe... And what did they “fight”??? They also went to the moon... like they “flew”, but repeat???

[NIKN]

that the F-35 program cost about $1,7 billion in total. And the “exhaust” is not even a quarter of this amount

And the whole article is focused on expenses (cuts), how much was wasted, etc. But! Think about the numbers. What is 1,7 billion dollars for the USA, when almost a trillion a year (in the year Karl!) is allocated to the military, when 50-100 billion go to Ukraine without strain or regret... In addition, industry is developing, the money goes where it wanted, into the pockets of those interested. As for effectiveness and efficiency, 1000 aircraft is... this is more than serious, and when they are going to fight with someone else’s hands, or rather with their own hands, but not with their own human resources and not on their own territory.

[alexis]

Of course, they meant $1,7 trillion.

[fsvlad]

..and repeat???

It won't work - Kubrick died :)

[Vitov]

Let's get to the point. There is a successful commercial F-35 project. They advertised, removed competitors, created an enemy and forced everyone to buy. Great job, many people can't do this. The new pilots received a flying computer and they like to play, and the demands on the user are not too high, especially since they do not pay for the “toy”. But they say with reluctance that the toy is not only capricious, but also very expensive.
Now about the F-35 as a military aircraft. Firstly, it does not correspond to its tactical purpose. This is not a multi-purpose basic aircraft, but a target designator aircraft, rather a reconnaissance aircraft. Without detecting itself, it carries out reconnaissance, detects targets and provides covert target designation for other aircraft or other weapons. A developed system for exchanging information and interacting with other objects integrated into the system has made the F-35 so far an unsurpassed and landmark aircraft. Real-time information exchange and target designation systems have become the norm for the US Army and have raised the capabilities of weapons in modern warfare. The use of network-centric approaches to ensure information superiority over the enemy using individual models of military equipment and intelligence combined into a single system. We would like something like this in SVO!!!
The United States is at the forefront of military thought and superior to everyone in this regard, and the F-35 has already played an important role in this. Yes, it does not fit the purpose, it is not needed in such quantities, and it is not suitable for the allies, because it can only be successfully used in the American information space. In addition, the Americans have many mistakes in theoretical terms, they are overwhelmed by corruption, and they have to pay for leadership with printed money... Well, that's enough for now...

[paul3390]

The use of network-centric approaches to ensure information superiority over the enemy using individual models of military equipment and intelligence combined into a single system.

This is all very cool - so far there is no active counteraction to this approach from the electronic warfare of an equal enemy... But how it will behave in such conditions is still a mystery..

[Igor Viktorovich]

Who is the equal opponent? You don’t mean Russia, the frail litaks of kaklov fly very calmly, thinly, but they fly, but what will happen to a thousand Amer litaks..?

[paul3390]

Do you seriously think that the United States is ready to exchange at least a couple of hundred aircraft for our air defense? What nonsense...

[Igor Viktorovich]

I seriously believe that, God forbid, if a conventional war with NATO happens (without the use of nuclear weapons), we have absolutely zero chances. First, NATO, led by the United States, will exchange our air defense for a couple of thousand missiles, and aviation will raze our cities and positions to the ground. And our couple of hundred SU-57s... oh, excuse me, they’re not there... they won’t be able to do anything. Therefore, the screamers “we are all NATO with one left” are sick people who poorly accept the realities of modern reality. Note that it will fly at us not from one side, but from all of them, and not twenty propeller-driven UAVs that can easily fly all the way to Moscow. Hundreds of modern cruise missiles will fly at us. Therefore, we have only one option, and you (if you are thinking) know it very well!

[doc_i]

A salvo of a couple of thousand missiles across the territory of the Russian Federation from different directions would not be a reason for a retaliatory, possibly counter-strike using nuclear weapons? You understand perfectly well what will happen. And NATO generals understand this too. Therefore, nothing like this will happen. In itself, an open military conflict with the NATO bloc is, in accordance with our doctrine, a reason for the use of nuclear weapons.

[Negro]

A salvo of a couple of thousand missiles across the territory of the Russian Federation from different directions would not be a reason for a retaliatory, possibly counter-strike using nuclear weapons?

Let's see how they get there. If they hit the spot, no, they won’t.

NATO generals understand this too

Now NATO generals are struggling mainly with the climate and the lack of gender among staff officers. What a rational adversary with such capabilities can understand is a difficult question. In our time, this statement seems like a mockery, but the work of the General Staff requires exceptional intellectual effort and, accordingly, makes exceptional demands on the qualities of its personnel.

[doc_i]

Why wait for a hit? Are you sure that among so many wounds there are no missiles with special warheads?
After all, the preparation of such a salvo cannot go unnoticed. Therefore, it is possible to respond with a retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons.
And to think that all the generals there are stupid people, and in addition, many are transgender, this can end badly.
Politicians - yes, most of them are stupid people. But war is too serious a matter to be left to politicians.

[Negro]

that among so many missiles there are no missiles with special warheads?

Well, it’s unlikely that anyone will install a SBS in the Kyrgyz Republic. Another thing is that if we’re going to start, we should start right away with an ICBM.

[doc_i]

Read about Tomahawks - what warheads they have. The main thing is that there is such an opportunity.

[Fast_mutant]

But war is too serious a matter to be trusted to politicians ©

The copyright should be removed... Moreover, the meaning is just the opposite.
"War! This is too serious a matter to be trusted to the military." (quoted in: Sixty Years of French History: Clemenceau (1932), Georges Suarez).

[doc_i]

Quote: Fast_mutant

But war is too serious a matter to be trusted to politicians ©

Copyright would be removed

I agree, but now this option is making more and more sense. By inertia, I installed the copyright, filed it, and now I can’t remove it.

[Fast_mutant]

I've been checking quotes a lot lately.
There are some very funny ones. Which “everyone knows and has heard,” but which no one has ever said (to whom is attributed). For example, Churchill about Stalin, where a plow and a nuclear bomb are mentioned... He never said this. )) So sometimes it’s interesting to dig around. )) "Take a look at the court archives, sir, you won't regret your time." (WITH)

[JD1979]

Quote from doc_i

A salvo of a couple of thousand missiles across the territory of the Russian Federation from different directions would not be a reason for a retaliatory, possibly counter-strike using nuclear weapons? You understand perfectly well what will happen.

Do you keep your head on your shoulders or in your pants? At least sometimes you get acquainted with information about our officials, where they keep their capital and relatives))) Start at least with the Minister of Special Intelligence)) After this, I think you will think very hard about whether our missiles will take off)) And if they do, where will they take off? will fly.

[Negro]

Therefore, we have only one option, and you (if you are thinking) know it very well!

You are partly right.

On the one hand, recently (since October 2022) the Russian Federation has publicly announced that it does not see any problems in the fact of military operations on its own territory. So, in general, you can do without extremes.

On the other hand, a rational opponent cannot count on the consistency of the leadership of the Russian Federation - consistency is not the strongest feature of the leadership of the Russian Federation. Therefore, a full-scale preventive nuclear strike is without a doubt the most rational way to start a war with the Russian Federation.

[Cartographer]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

and aviation will raze our cities and positions to the ground

I’ll add that we have 1 plant making combat aircraft, 2 making combat helicopters, and a couple of factories making missiles. A couple more factories make armored vehicles. It’s enough to turn them into dust and everything. I don’t know how many factories make ammunition, but I don’t think there are very many of them.

[Igor Viktorovich]

A couple of hundred planes, in exchange for gaining air supremacy, and the Americans will sacrifice 50% of their Air Force for this, since their doctrine is to conquer the air and blow everything to hell from the sky. They conducted all their wars this way, where there was little air defense, the clouds of the Kyrgyz Republic flew first, then aviation and the job was done.

[realing]

I seriously believe that, unlike the Ukrainians, the Americans have a combat-ready and modern air force, trained pilots, a large range of weapons and experience in suppressing air defenses in several wars

[Vitov]

American UAVs fly near the Krasnodar Territory and no one bothers them. They also provide target designation for enemy naval drones and missiles. And where is your electronic warfare? And what will electronic warfare ensure victory in the Northern Military District? Electronic warfare systems are a defense system and they do not win the war!

[paul3390]

MY electronic warfare? Not yours? This is how you, from behind the hill, get screwed over little things...

[Deon59]

With super analogues, there is no electronic warfare, because of which half the team seemed to have escaped from the ship, which will not stop the drones flying towards us.

[Igor Viktorovich]

Well, here you are a little wrong, good electronic warfare is one of the criteria for victory. Only good electronic warfare, and not the hyped one, with the help of which you could make money. Let us remember the well-known US destroyer and Khibiny. I just laughed out loud because of the patriots who were ecstatic.. Hurray, shut down the destroyer, the crew of the cook peed themselves and wrote off on the shore.. Lord, how far such people are from reality.

[Doccor18]

I largely agree, but

This is not a multi-purpose basic aircraft, but a target designator aircraft, rather a reconnaissance aircraft.

With the US Air Force, everything is clear, but why do any of the Czech/Polish/Danish Air Forces need “target designators-reconnaissance”, and dozens of them? And the Turks really needed a basic aircraft, so to speak, the backbone of the future Air Force, but a problem arose, now they agree to at least something... Didn’t they really know what they were ordering? Very doubtful. And why did you so categorically decide that the 35th cannot operate on its own by air and ground? Will he really do it much worse than the 16th?

Yes, it’s not needed in such quantities, but it’s not suitable for the allies

Nevertheless, they were going to rivet in SUCH quantities, they fully engaged the aircraft manufacturing capacities of the USA, Italy and Turkey, sometimes it came to assembling 239 aircraft per year... Why???

[Igor Viktorovich]

And everything is as simple as three rubles, all NATO will be equipped with fu 35, integration so to speak... And all this is aimed against us Russians.

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

And why did you so categorically decide that the 35th cannot operate on its own by air and ground? Will he really do it much worse than the 16th?

Yes, it can work against both air and ground targets. Just no better than 4th generation aircraft. And while maintaining the stealth mode, it takes several times less payload. And his avionics are much more capricious.
The question is not what it can do, but how well, how many targets in one flight (payload) and price/quality ratio. And by all these parameters, the F-35 program is truly a failure.
At the same time, it turned out to be a really good VTOL aircraft for UDC and other mobilization aircraft carriers.
But this aircraft was precisely a commercial project in the conditions of the won Cold War. When there is no strong enemy and is not foreseen, and the goal of a new aircraft is not combat capabilities and efficiency, but commercial success and the opportunity to collect money from trusting partners/allies for its development.

Quote: Doccor18

Nevertheless, they were going to rivet in SUCH quantities, they fully engaged the aircraft manufacturing capacities of the USA, Italy and Turkey, sometimes it came to assembling 239 aircraft per year... Why???

It was simply impossible to do otherwise - money was collected from customers (participants in the program), they were promised an unprecedented aircraft from thirty-three boxes, they themselves incurred considerable expenses... They had to launch a crude machine into production. This happens in any business when they take money in advance, but the fulfillment of the order somehow does not go well... You have to sell what you have. And they sell it.

But nevertheless, in war, AVAILABILITY and NUMBER SUPERIORITY are always more important. And in this regard, we have nothing special to brag about in military aircraft. The size of our own combat aviation fleet urgently needs to be doubled, and in the future - tripled. Because there is simply nothing to cover our such extensive borders with. Not like fighting a strong and numerically superior enemy.
As for the Su-57, if all its weapons systems have already been developed, and first of all the Belka radar and control system, then the series needs to be launched. Although starting this year they promise to deliver the first Su-57s with a new engine. And the series is being pursued.
Also this year, they promised to deliver the first Su-35SM aircraft with the Belka radar and avionics elements from the Su-57. If such a modification goes to the troops, then it must be driven at the pace of the full capacity of the assembly lines.
But what about pilots for new cars... question. The next graduating class of young pilots is coming soon, but how many are there in this graduating class and when will they be cleared for combat missions... the question is.
So, in a conflict with NATO, our Aviation will have hope for effective and sufficiently powerful air defense and combat work in conjunction with it.

[Doccor18]

good day!
It’s strange somehow it seems like you’re acting as the democrats’ devil’s advocate, screw them. I just can’t stand unreasonable bullshit. Well, constructive criticism would come from the mouths of Soviet aircraft designers, who created the world's best bombers and fighters, but from the author, who is never an expert in this industry...

Yes, it can work against both air and ground targets. Just no better than 4th generation aircraft

Why isn't it better? In terms of STEALTH technology, it clearly outperforms the previous line, which means it will be noticed later and the blow will be more unexpected. Its avionics are clearly much superior to those of the 4s, which means it will be able to see more/further/better, which also gives an advantage in a combat situation. Complex software, perhaps even overly complex, was stuffed into a “supposedly” standard mass-produced fighter-bomber for a reason; it is possible that in the near future it will begin to control attack UAVs, and this could seriously change the balance of power (the unmanned F16 is being tested for a reason. ..). As for the smaller combat load, it was cut down for the sake of the advantages mentioned above.

price-quality ratio . And by all these parameters, the F-35 program is truly a failure.

Only a madman would praise the F35; it is a compromise on price (which, by the way, is very acceptable in comparison with European fours), it is a compromise on combat qualities (an unprecedented combination of three main models in one), but, whatever one may say, this aircraft - the next step in aircraft manufacturing. On it, our main enemy works out/solves a lot of complex problems. The program is more than 20 years old, and no matter what anyone says, democrats have learned a lot of lessons from this program, and useful lessons at that. I really wanted our Su-57 to turn out almost perfect, to go into service with the troops in serious numbers...

So, in a conflict with NATO, our Aviation will have hope for effective and sufficiently powerful air defense and combat work in conjunction with it

This is the salt. No matter how mediocre the 35th may be, the practical possibility of riveting them at the rate of a quarter of a thousand annually gives rise to alarming thoughts...

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

In terms of STEALTH technology, it clearly outperforms the previous line, which means it will be noticed later and the blow will be more unexpected.

The trick is that over the past 20-30 years, radars have not stood still either. They have evolved. The sensitivity of receivers and the quality of signal processing have increased very seriously, and our use of meter and decimeter range radars (especially meter) negates all the tricks of stealth technology. The same updated (with digital signal processing) P-18 and especially 55Zh6 will see the F-35 almost as well as before (in the 70s - 80s) their predecessors saw the F-16. But of course for the “SM” range the detection range will be seriously lower... but... signal processing and analysis. Everything is no longer as bad as it was in the 70s and 80s, when STEALTH could really become a disaster for air defense and our aviation.
And in the end, they have more F-35s alone than we have all the MFIs combined. They will crush us with just their mass. Even without superiority in avionics and stealth. And they have such superiority. So I definitely won’t throw my hats.
But the same fact that of all combat-ready F-35s, only a third are combat-ready in the current regime, gives us a chance to equalize the size of the combat-ready aircraft fleet. And the low combat readiness/reliability of this pepelats is definitely to our advantage.

Quote: Doccor18

I really wanted our Su-57 to turn out almost perfect, to go into service with the troops in serious numbers...

Structurally and in terms of its ideology, our Su-57 is much more advanced and has significantly greater potential. And if its avionics operates properly, then it will definitely stand up to several Lightnings in battle. The question is their numbers, the pace of production and the quality of their development in the troops. Let's hope that the SVO has cleared the minds of the political leadership and now the pace of their production will only increase. A new workshop was built for their assembly, capable of producing 30 boards per year under normal operating conditions. If enough personnel are recruited and trained to work in 2-3 shifts, you can count on more per year, but reaching such a pace will take several years. But will we have these few years? This year they promise from 18 to 24 new Su-57s (in the past there were 15 or 18, the last three might not have arrived before the New Year). The task has now been set for each type of manufactured MFI (Su-30SM2, Su-34M, Su-35S\SM, Su-57) to increase to 30 units. in year . In addition, the first production MiG-35S is expected to appear this year, and the modernization of the remaining MiG-31s ​​in storage continues. We can reach the declared production rate for the main items next year (based on the results of next year).
In addition, we need to rearm the air forces of our allies. Therefore, the number of combat aircraft produced per year must be increased to 250 - 300 aircraft per year.

[acetophenone]

Therefore, the number of combat aircraft produced per year must be increased to 250 - 300 aircraft per year.

This year the military budget is 40%. How, will the country achieve 100%?

[bayard]

Quote: acetophenon

This year the military budget is 40%. How, will the country achieve 100%?

Do you know the size of the budget itself and how much has it changed this year? And in the past? Incl. its revenue part.
And this 40% you indicated already includes investments in the above-mentioned rates of aircraft production. From the order to the first delivered car, the time lag is at least 2 years (usually more). So by the end of this year, aircraft production will have already increased significantly compared to last year. No less than 50-60%. Next year, the main positions should reach the design production volumes. And funding for these programs went to the moment of ordering.
And don’t be shy about the 40% figure. Before the SBO, all budget revenues above the level of the “Budget Rule” were sterilized in the so-called. "reserve funds outside Russian jurisdiction. This has not been the case for more than two years. These previously inaccessible funds went to Defense and Northern Military District. Without any particular damage to other items of Budget expenditure. In addition, very Serious money goes to direct investment in development programs and partly to the budget of the Northern Military District.
But not only that.
Before the SVO and the imposition of sanctions against us, Russian enterprises and business in general received loans from foreign banks through their representative offices or directly... The amounts there are huge... But we were excommunicated from SWIFT and payments were prohibited.
Oops And we only have 700 - 750 billion dollars worth of financial resources stuck. They are now accumulated in savings accounts. In rubles, of course. And this money does not lie exactly on the shelf. This is an excellent investment instrument that is used to finance development programs, lending (direct, without Central Bank rates) and lending to domestic enterprises.
So don't worry - there is a LOT of money in the country. And the warming up/acceleration of the economy comes through government investments from reserve and extra-budgetary funds too. There will be no overheating, because our money supply in circulation still lags far behind GDP. And until it reaches the same level, you can safely continue the investment pumping through the budget. . This, among other things, seriously expands the tax base, and therefore the growth of budget revenues. So all this spending is now purely for our future use.

[acetophenone]

That is, 100% will work... What about 146%? Remind me why the USSR collapsed?

[bayard]

Quote: acetophenon

That is, it will work 100%...

So you had a budget of 100 rubles (or pounds, as you prefer) and of this you spent 5 rubles on defense. And so it was before the SVO.
And then the SVO happened, escalated into a war, and in order to finance it, you take out 20 rubles from your stash, and the same amount from extra-budgetary funds. But all previous budget spending remains at the same level. In addition, business and civil society donate to defense.
If this is not due to the social and infrastructural parts of the budget, but simply due to increasing the budget itself by increasing the military component, then this is only a benefit for the under-monetized economy. Like giving fresh blood to a patient who is anemic or has lost a lot of blood the day before. In the Russian Federation, monetization was at the level of 40% (although Putin called the figure 52%, but it seems he did this so as not to scare people) of GDP at the end of 2021. And this is against the generally accepted norm of 100% of GDP. Now monetization is somewhere at the level of 60-70%. In addition, the Russian economy is growing and this growth also needs to be covered by monetization. So don't worry, there is enough money in the budget.
In addition, the budget also uses borrowed funds.
How ?
Capital is being returned from offshore, looking for a place to invest. But part of the amount raised goes towards the redemption of government bonds. This is in addition to those items of extrabudgetary financing that I have already mentioned above. All these funds (and military spending too and especially) in the form of investments and government purchases are poured into the economy and trigger the multiplier. The economy is growing, tax revenues are growing and budget spending can be further increased. In total, at least a trillion dollars have now flowed into the economy. The effect will be somewhat delayed because the process has some inertia. But we are already starting to see results. and they are quite good. This money will increase. In addition, the process of returning illegally privatized enterprises and assets to state ownership has begun. And let’s not forget that we have about 600-750 billion stuck in the Russian Federation in credit funds from Western banks alone. They will be very actively involved in the economic life of the country.
So don't worry about our budget, there's enough money there for a lot. We have a lot of money now.

[acetophenone]

Ehhh... This is pure demagoguery! Money, money, rubbish money...
You understand that in reality there are none, right? How is there no right, left, 1 kilogram or the letter “A”? There are specific production facilities and specific people who work at them. And these people make either civil aircraft or military ones. Either tanks or tractors. Either apartments and roads, or shelters and barriers. And money is only a means of redistribution. And the USSR collapsed because everything worked for the war, and not for the people. And not because there was little money.
Labor is the source of wealth. Not monetization with bonds.

[bayard]

Quote: acetophenon

There are specific production facilities and specific people who work at them.

Well, Soviet galoshes came in handy (defense enterprises, which either stood still or worked at a maximum of 10-15% of the maximum load. In order for people to work there, they must BE.
And in order for people to work there and cooperative enterprises to supply everything for this, money is needed.
remember Napoleon's words about what is needed for war?
And of course trained personnel.
but you asked about Money, which is not there and soon everything will end. Right ?
But, oddly enough, there is money.
As is the production capacity.
And there are still more or less enough people. People go for good salaries. And sometimes they go for ideological reasons - they say, “The Motherland needs help.”

Quote: acetophenon

The USSR collapsed because everything worked for the war, and not for the people.

The USSR was collapsed because the “communists” wanted to become capitalists. And they became them.
Discord and deficits in the late USSR were due to sabotage and low (consciously low) quality of management of the Country's Economy. And all the most delicious assets were distributed on the eve of the collapse of the USSR. Before taking over an enterprise, they first bankrupt it. They did the same with the USSR.

[Cartographer]

Quote: bayard

But all previous budget spending remains at the same level

They don't stay.
The Russian budget in 2022, according to preliminary data, is executed with a deficit of 3,3 trillion rubles, or 2,3% of GDP.
In 2017, 2 trillion 828,4 billion rubles were spent on healthcare, in 2018 - 3 trillion 313 billion rubles, in 3 - 2019 trillion 3 billion rubles, in 811,5 - 2020 trillion 4 billion rubles. In 437, 2021 trillion 5 billion rubles were spent.
in 2024 will amount to more than 1,62 trillion rubles, in 2025 - 1,63 trillion, in 2026 - 1,6 trillion.
As you can see, expenses have been noticeably reduced even compared to 2017. And I dare say the same with education.

[bayard]

Quote from Kartograph

In 2017, 2 trillion 828,4 billion rubles were spent on healthcare, in 2018 - 3 trillion 313 billion rubles, in 3 - 2019 trillion 3 billion rubles, in 811,5 - 2020 trillion 4 billion rubles. In 437, 2021 trillion 5 billion rubles were spent.
in 2024 will amount to more than 1,62 trillion rubles, in 2025 - 1,63 trillion, in 2026 - 1,6 trillion.

Well, we don’t have Stalinist Socialism , but quite enlightened Feudilism with a capitalist flair. Those. The doctrine “The future is like the past” is being implemented. And you noticed that living in the Russian Federation, according to statistics from the Guarantor, is getting longer and longer, which means people don't get sick.
After all, they wanted to cancel pensions 5 years ago. But something about 4k@Nyli. But they wanted and want this - a fact.
In addition, the population has already been taught to go to private clinics, where doctors have more time for patients.

Quote from Kartograph

And I dare say the same goes for education.

With education, most likely, on the contrary, funding will be added - for secondary technical, higher engineering and in general to improve quality. Investing in young people is a profitable investment, and they now need qualified specialists.
Mostly older and elderly people get sick. So they are trying to throw them off the balance. Make you work longer and die earlier.
And yet, the size of the budget itself has grown sharply over the 2+ years of the NWO. Yes, growth is mainly due to military spending, but in this way money flows into the economy and triggers the multiplier. And this is GDP growth and an increase in the incomes of the working (!) population. Starting next year, they are going to double the minimum wage.
Why
It is necessary to compensate for the rise in prices for state employees (low paid) and generally stimulate wage growth. Because this also stimulates budget revenues. In the mid-00s, this was well understood and ensured GDP growth of 7%+. And then they became complacent and got into all kinds of bad things (theft and disregard for citizens). Now it is dangerous to continue this way and, as we see, they are trying to return to the positive experience from the mid-00s until 2014.

[Irokez]

Quote: bayard

in a conflict with NATO, our Aviation will still have hope for effective and sufficiently powerful air defense and combat work in conjunction with it

This is parity when the lack of a large number of aircraft is offset by a large number of air defenses, preventing the enemy from capturing the sky. The outskirts are an example when its outdated and not very large air defense does not give us power over the sky.
The "shield and sword" principle in action.
But at the moment, new conditions and challenges in the form of drones, improved and cheap missiles, and bombs with wings have found a second wind.

[Rhene_Malkart]

Firstly, it does not correspond to its tactical purpose. This is not a multi-purpose basic aircraft, but a target designator aircraft, rather a reconnaissance aircraft. Without detecting itself, it carries out reconnaissance, detects targets and provides covert target designation for other aircraft or other weapons.

You write that this is not a “basic multi-role aircraft”, and then you list the many combat missions that it can perform. This is what makes it a multi-purpose aircraft - reconnaissance, data transfer to other combat units, target designation, striking ground and air targets (let's not forget that the F-35 also has its own weapons). If this is not "multi-purpose", then give an example of multi-purpose in your definition

[bug120560]

You are missing one small but very important detail. The F-35 is a carrier of nuclear weapons and, based on the doctrine of the first global strike, their massive use to neutralize the air defense system can have, if not fatal, very serious consequences.

[lazy]

"The United States is at the forefront of military thought and is superior to everyone in this regard"
judging by the result, the Taliban and Houthis exceed the level of military thought ov

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Did the Taliban and Houthis shoot down a bunch of F-35s?

[Ig sura]

This is who you are, probably sitting in the trenches of the North Military District, of course, an armchair expert knows better what it would be to apply, from whom it’s already funny

[voyaka uh]

"This is not a multi-purpose basic aircraft, but a target designator aircraft, rather a reconnaissance aircraft." ///
----
The difference between the F-35 and a reconnaissance aircraft is that it reconnaissances the target.
(the radar partially works to scan the earth), and applies
her blow - immediately, in the same approach to the target.
This is the only aircraft capable of this.
At the same time, he simultaneously monitors enemy threats.
For these reasons, 15 countries bought it after rigorous comparative tests
with other aircraft: F-18, Rafal, Grifen, Eurofighter.
F-35 radar, integrated with electronic warfare, operating simultaneously in
several modes, unique.
Only Rafal has something similar.

[Ezekiel 25-17]

The question is not how many of them are riveted, but their effectiveness.

[Good Evil]

Well, that's it, Khan thirty-fifth! Earlier, according to Zadornov, they were “Well, stupid!” were. Nobody knew anything about this matter, they only knew how to cut the budget. And now a real expert in these matters, Roman Skomorokhov, came and explained everything to everyone on his fingers. And they will finally understand what amateurs they were when they considered the issue of purchasing this junk for service. Well, if we talk about Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, Italy and others who bought the F-35, let them be ashamed that in the heat of the moment they bought such useless rubbish without consulting Roman. Since we don’t have our own technicians and analysts!

[Dart2027]

Quote: Doccor18

they plan to finish the 2024th block by June 4 and continue to “cut” the Pentagon’s money

Exactly what to cut. But making normal airplanes is a little different.

[Trinitrotoluene]

What kind of hysteria, what’s wrong with the plane?

[Woroshilow]

In short, it turned out very poorly for a very expensive price.

[Woroshilow]

And now - drum roll! - Tell us how much all this splendor you listed cost Western taxpayers.

[Doccor18]

About 1,5 trillion. green...
Well, who cares when it comes to the benefits of mega-corporations, and even under such a powerful pretext as the global rearmament of aviation...

[futurohunter]

No, Roman once again buried the Russian language (((

[Uncle lee]

But who can doubt that the United States could create simply masterpieces of military equipment? There’s a sneaky detail here in the word “could.”

There are two reasons: the design school became a victim of the Unified State Exam and the crookedness of the aircraft manufacturers.

[Revolver]

Quote: Uncle Lee

But who can doubt that the United States could create simply masterpieces of military equipment? There’s a sneaky detail here in the word “could.”

There are two reasons: the design school became a victim of the Unified State Exam and the crookedness of the aircraft manufacturers.

The point is not the SAT (a nationwide test, based on the results of which one is accepted or not accepted into universities, and from which the Unified State Exam was largely copied), it appeared back in 1926. The point is that with the fall of the USSR, they began to invest much less in promising defense programs , and many closed it. And the production of civilian products was largely transferred to where it was cheaper, primarily to China. The demand for designers fell, and salaries followed the demand. Accordingly, talented boys, instead of engineering and scientific faculties, rushed to medical, legal, and economics - where there is a prospect of reliably and a lot of money. And less talented people began to be accepted into engineering specialties.

[alexoff]

And less talented people began to be accepted into engineering specialties.

but smart and hardworking gasters from all over China, Japan and other Russias successfully cope with this. In American science and design bureaus, salaries are not very high and foreign specialists are pushing for them with enviable tenacity. They also go well to technical universities

[marchcat]

There are two reasons: the design school became a victim of the Unified State Exam and the crookedness of the aircraft manufacturers. feel

Perhaps I’ll add one more reason: the smell of free money turned my head, so they decided that this would do!

[2112vda]

I observe this situation here in Russia. The training of engineers in universities has seriously declined, mentoring has been lost, and qualified workers are gradually leaving production. Gosstandart sometimes issues such GOSTs that one is simply taken aback, everything will not calm down, they create the appearance of hectic activity. So the reasons are the same throughout the world, mass stupidity of the population and the reason for all this is gadgets and stupid “platforms”. People have forgotten how to read, fine motor skills have been lost. Now the generations of “covid remote workers” will come, everything will “bloom” with indescribable colors. God be with them, with the Americans, here in our country we need to somehow get out of this swamp.

[t7310]

and the reason for all this is gadgets and stupid "platforms"

Look, it turns out that it wasn’t the powers that be who wanted to live like gods and, in order to maintain such a life, they saved on everything possible and impossible - education, science, the army, nationalism of the people... And smart gadgets are to blame, so remove the gadgets, we will return to the times when a home telephone was a rarity, then yes, everything would get better right away, yeah, everyone would immediately run to read books and write letters to each other, and the countries around would not divide our country into their zones of influence due to technical lag, damn what nonsense, also motor skills have been dragged in, this is why a smartphone Keyboard and mouse develop motor skills worse than pens, given that they still use a pen now, well, electronics have been degenerated, as they say, you can’t stuff them back in

[Uncle lee]

Quote: t7310

smartphone keyboard mouse

Exactly ! Count how many mistakes!

[t7310]

smartphone keyboard mouse

Exactly ! Count how many mistakes!

These are abbreviations, we’re not writing a dessert here

[Uncle lee]

It's not a matterИdissertations, but in general literacy.... There are no commas, the word is mouseЬ it's written with a soft sign...I'm not being picky, it just hurts the eyes....Sorry if anything...

[Anorma]

That's what we're talking about! And that's what I'm talking about. How can you take seriously the opinion of an author who cannot write in Russian?

[t7310]

well, mouse is written without a soft sign, I abbreviated the word mouse, and I write it that way precisely because I read a lot on the topic of IT (IT, it, information technology) and read a lot of forums where you won’t see the word mouse coordinate or computer mouse or words keyboard and only mouse Klava ip nat net shara rul manual, etc.

[Uncle lee]

As they say: no comments....

[t7310]

As if there is no Russian-language electronics, all electronics are English-language (Latin, in the Latin alphabet like medicine and probably in which science do not dig roots in the supposed Latin alphabet, and in some areas, such as IT, they no longer disguise English with Latin alphabet but call things by their proper names) and people who want to be specialists, for example, in IT and who have spent a lot of time on this already read more often in English or crooked translations, but this does not mean that gadgets are to blame for this, for example, I can blame the Ministry of Science of the 50-70s for this, which did not finance Russian-language electronics which existed then and decided (at the suggestion of Lebedev, it seems) to copy the Western one, ibm seems, supposedly if we make the same computers, then we will be able to save money by stealing Western programs and we will not need our own programmers, but after spending thirty years it was not possible to copy completely and still, programmers who were not trained were needed to recode Western programs for our computers, which was almost always more difficult than making a new program, so highly specialized specialists in English are more interested in Russian

[Mishka78]

Как

you'll meet a mouse

That’s how you’ll spend it, yes.
(c) folk wisdom

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Mishka78

you'll meet a mouse

So you’ll tremble, and you’ll scream, and you’ll squeak, and you’ll be silent, and you’ll learn the syntax!

[Vladimir-TTT]

While there were no gadgets, rockets (Soyuz, Proton, Zenit, Energia) and aircraft (passenger, transport, military of all types) were developed and launched.
And now everything is digitized, modeled, and reports written.
They do what they can. Or they can play with gadgets. Like Medvedev)))

[alexoff]

The development of all rockets ended before the advent of gadgets. And if they are developed, will anyone buy them? Our state's demands are not very big

[Vladimir-TTT]

The requests are small - these are for ordinary people. Somewhere in Russia.
And what about the officials? And ordinary Muscovites are not far behind.
But the former prefer business jets, which are so convenient to fly from Moscow during the march of justice, the latter prefer cars. but not small or cheap.

But that's not what this is about. And about that. that all development ended with the advent of gadgets.
Not only missiles - and they are also combat missiles - but also such simple things as drones.
They have a “moped” engine that rattles, a fuselage and wing almost like a Po-2, and a control system that is simpler in composition than the electronics of a modern car.
But the drones are Iran and other “third” countries.
They buy from them.
Why not at your place?
If you have it yourself, you won’t have enough for gadgets. Officials. They can’t pay their own kickbacks like that, they still have to pay all taxes, and be engaged in production, as well as firefighters, environmentalists, labor protection and a bunch of other inspectors.
Development is licensed software that is updated almost every two months - you need to constantly master these new products, there is simply no time to work.
Here's a bunch of problems...

[alexoff]

Quote: Vladimir-TTT

And what about the officials?

not for rockets and planes, they have requests for pontoon yachts, cars and mansions, but our industry has never been able to produce show-offs. In order to sell pens or shoes, it’s better to pretend to be a foreign company, you need to call yourself Erich Krause, Ralph Ringer or Bork.

Quote: Vladimir-TTT

And about that. that all development ended with the advent of gadgets.

Why did it happen? There were, are and will be a lot of developments, entirely initiative projects that journalists talked about, but all sorts of generals and officials did not need it for nothing.

Quote: Vladimir-TTT

Not only missiles - and they are also combat missiles - but also such simple things as drones.

In the Russian Federation, no less drones have been developed in 15 years than in the United States. Go to the page
https://bp-la.ru/category/rossijskie-bpla/
They just did a ton of work, but these are entirely imperfections in conditions of chronic underfunding

Quote: Vladimir-TTT

Why not at your place?

because all the new weapons were being drained from us. Some Shoigu said about 10 years ago that drones should only be made from domestic parts, but the first drone made from purely Russian parts, ready for mass production, will cost 10 billion bucks, since a bunch of electronics factories need to be built. The second drone will cost the same as a motorcycle, very cheap, but someone has to pay for the start of production. But no one gave money, they only gave it to their own people, since this is a corruption component - an impossible requirement in the tender, this will be readily forgiven to their own people, with whom everything has been agreed upon, who will give how much to whom. The drones were needed in the summer of 2022, and before that there was kicking bolts and shameless theft.

Quote: Vladimir-TTT

If you have it yourself, you won’t have enough for gadgets. Officials.

Seriously, what other gadgets are there for officials? Gadgets are for schoolchildren and students, so that they can stare at them and not look around, officials choose real things and skilled escorts. Do you think they are on social networks?

[Vladimir-TTT]

Quote from alexoff

Seriously, what other gadgets are there for officials? Gadgets are for schoolchildren and students, so that they can stare at them and not look around, officials choose real things and skilled escorts. Do you think they are on social networks?

Their gadgets are normal. A tablet with a stand in the shape of a fifty-meter yacht.
And replaceable stands - a business jet, a stationary stand in the form of a villa by the sea.

Quote from alexoff

In the Russian Federation, no less drones have been developed in 15 years than in the United States. Go to the page
https://bp-la.ru/category/rossijskie-bpla/
They just did a ton of work, but these are entirely imperfections in conditions of chronic underfunding

This was not developed. This is a show of dust.
Development ends with a pilot or installation series.

There are constant comments about underfunding. Take an interest in the fees of top managers on these topics.
I talked a little with one of the participants in this process - he receives funding and seems to be developing engines for drones. Shows beautiful photos of details, but everything is in endless development, there is no series and is not expected.
In his words, he is a participant in the process of developing normative documents on this topic.

And then - his attitude to this (and apparently the translation of this attitude into regulatory documents). All those that are used are not drones.
A real drone must do everything itself - take off, search for a target, destroy - without human intervention. And only such a “wunderwaffe” needs to be developed.
And everyone else who makes ordinary drones with control needs to be dispersed. so that not even a spirit remains of them.

I immediately got the whiff of Armata, Su-57 and others that have no analogues - you can endlessly saw on them, and what you need for LBS can be bought in China, Iran or North Korea.

Quote from alexoff

Why did it happen? There were, are and will be a lot of developments, entirely initiative projects that journalists talked about, but all sorts of generals and officials did not need it for nothing.

To the level of a computer model.
With the advent of gadgets - more generally - these are computers and software, CAD.
Constant updates, new versions of software - there is no time left for development, you need to master and master new delights of programmers.

[alexoff]

A tablet with a stand in the shape of a fifty-meter yacht.
And replaceable stands - a business jet, a stationary stand in the form of a villa by the sea.

And the tablet turned their lives upside down. So they would build a bunch of drones, but they sit on a yacht and watch Instagram or YouTube and can’t help themselves

This was not developed. This is a show of dust.
Development ends with a pilot or installation series.

This was developed. They launch the series if there is demand. There was no demand

There are constant comments about underfunding. Take an interest in the fees of top managers on these topics.

For those who are especially stupid, 20 million in the pockets of the tops is a lot, but for the production of drones it means nothing at all. The poorest collective farm can feed its chairman.

All those that are used are not drones.
A real drone must do everything itself - take off, search for a target, destroy - without human intervention.

Otherwise, defeating the target is not protected! This nonsense is that we are either prodigies, or we don’t do anything, we just steal money, this is a Russian tradition

With the advent of gadgets - more generally - these are computers and software, CAD.
Constant updates, new versions of software - there is no time left for development, you need to master and master new delights of programmers.

Nobody really deals with software in our military-industrial complex, pogromists need to be paid decently, but here the bosses don’t have enough for spare parts for their son’s Ferrari

[t7310]

Constant updates, new software versions - no time left for development

Firstly, it’s not necessary to update, and secondly, if you know the previous version, there shouldn’t be any special problems with the new one, or go back to the previous version, but blaming gadgets is not just stupid, it’s strange

[Cartographer]

Quote from alexoff

The development of all rockets ended before the advent of gadgets. And if they are developed, will anyone buy them?

The Sarmatians are just finishing up. Daggers are also missiles. Tomorrow they will suddenly want to make new missiles for submarines based on new threats.... In addition to this, there are also turbines, aircraft, engines for aircraft...

[Cartographer]

Quote: Vladimir-TTT

While there were no gadgets, rockets (Soyuz, Proton, Zenit, Energia) and aircraft (passenger, transport, military of all types) were developed and launched.

Today's university graduates are noticeably inferior to the Soviet school. Even using the example of my enterprise, I can say this. The old designers have left and the young ones are making mistake after mistake.

[Magic archer]

Sooner or later, mattresses will reach 35. Because there is money and lobby in the government. If he were as bad as the author writes, then there would not be such a demand for him. By the way, the Jews still want to increase their number in their Air Force. So this is all the author’s speculation. And yes. Let's not forget that this is an investment in the future. One won’t work, two... And then there may be such a gap between generations that it will be extremely difficult for us to overcome it. They are already thinking about NGAD, but we cannot finish the Su-57....

[KCA]

Jews, like suckers, will take anything for free, they are given F-35s, let them equip the planes themselves, but they get it for free. What is missing from the SU-57? We're up against the "second stage" engine, but what's wrong with the first? Is there non-afterburning supersonic? Yes, yes, with a new engine the plane will become even better, but with what it has it’s very good

[Igor Viktorovich]

The Su 57 is not finished with everything, but first of all with the production series, Chkalovsky is riveting ducklings, but where is the Su 57? They bungled 5 pieces, and there was silence...

[KCA]

You answered yourself, what kind of SU-57 is it now, if right now the SU-34 is needed more? Have opponents appeared in our skies for the SU-57? Or does it work better on the ground?

[Igor Viktorovich]

Not in our sky yet, but in general in the sky since the first flight of the F22.. It’s time to write them off, but we don’t have a series yet. When all these Fu 22-35 fly into our sky, it will be too late to rivet Su 57. Are you delusional or what? You probably look at geopolitics, sooner or later we will either have to give up or the whole world will crumble. We have zero chance against the military power of the West and NATO. Be realistic already. Only the nuclear triad saves us from destruction, that’s all.

[KCA]

The F-22 is slag, not a single one was sold to the allies, why would that be? F-35s won’t be able to crush the country’s air defense, and their SU-27s will be scrapped in batches, they’ve broken through, now what? Are all our air defense circles surrendering and waving the white flag? Are there two concrete streets above Moscow time, soldiers with MANPADS sitting there? A friend of mine was on duty at an air defense point at a depth of 135m, how much lower he didn’t know, a simple private, if everything had been simple, we would have been bombed back in the 50s

[Igor Viktorovich]

I repeat once again, if we didn’t have thousands of nuclear warheads, we would have been bombed. No amount of air defense will save thousands of planes from the Kyrgyz Republic, but the USA and NATO unfortunately have them!

[alexoff]

No air defense will save thousands of planes from thousands of missiles

Fortunately for us, they have thousands of missiles for thousands of aircraft; fortunately, they did not purchase hundreds of thousands of high-precision weapons; now they have spent a considerable percentage of guided bombs on the Gaza Strip. But this, of course, is little consolation. Well, they have more terrible weapons, they can turn off the iPhones of our elites, the howl will be like from a million Crocuses...

[Cartographer]

Quote from alexoff

Fortunately for us, they have thousands of missiles for thousands of aircraft; fortunately, they did not purchase hundreds of thousands of high-precision weapons

Who told you this? They have about 12 tomahawks alone. Add in the different Taurus and Storms, it doesn’t seem like enough

[alexoff]

They have about 12 tomahawks alone.

Who told you that?

Add different Taurus and Storms, it won’t seem like enough

And almost nothing will change.
Once again for those who are especially stupid - a thousand missiles for a thousand planes is one salvo, it doesn’t seem like enough, and winning a war is two different things. By the way, thousands of cruise missiles arrived, so what?

[Cartographer]

If we get personal, for those who are especially stupid:
Today, the American fleet can fire Tomahawks from the boards of its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (73 units), Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers (13 units), Ohio-class SSGNs (4 units) and multi-purpose nuclear submarines (48 units). Moreover, collectively, all of these ships and submarines can carry 3944 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Enough for a first strike.
For 1000 aircraft there are other missiles and not 1 per carrier

[alexoff]

For those who are especially stupid, you’d better look for US purchases of precision-guided ammunition, there are literally a couple of salvos with all the ships that still need to be put together, launched and apparently wait for the NATO parade in Moscow. And then it may turn out that ten thousand rockets in TNT equivalent are less than the Gaza Strip received over the past few months, and Hamas does not give up.

For 1000 aircraft there are other missiles and not 1 per carrier

Very interesting, what are they? JASSM? They produced just one piece per carrier

[Cartographer]

For the dumb and dumber:
Taurus-t can be loaded with 12 pieces on a transport aircraft. Germany has 600 pieces of these in its arsenal

[alexoff]

600 missiles are nothing at all for a serious war, for especially stupid ones. Re-read how the conversation started

[Cartographer]

Quote from alexoff

By the way, thousands of cruise missiles arrived, so what?

In reality, far from thousands and not at once. The problem of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is that they cannot launch thousands of missiles at a time. NATO can

[alexoff]

In reality, not thousands and not all at once.

Yes, in general, thousands, in the first days it was normal, so the arsenals were emptied

The problem of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is that they cannot launch thousands of missiles at a time. NATO can

Well, of course, this changes everything radically, although NATO with their purchases will be enough for a couple of such salvos, and then they will work with their bombs with wings. Well, the main thing is that no one penetrates them from the other side at this time, while they fire the next salvo for a year or two

[Cartographer]

Quote: KCA

if everything were simple, we would have been bombed back in the 50s

You compare the number of air defense launchers of the USSR and now

[KCA]

Do you know the number of PU? Well then you know the differences between the S-25/75/125/300P from the S-300V4, S-400 and S-500, Bukovs, Torovs and Pantsires, Strela-10 from Strela-1, and about the development of detection equipment, RTR and electronic warfare , how's A-235 doing? I hope you don't know

[Passing]

Quote: KCA

What is missing from the SU-57?

Stealth. And it looks like finishing in this sense is not planned. And without it, as reality has shown, problems in the Northern Military District cannot be solved, and even more so it will be impossible to compete in a clash with those who have a full-fledged one. Same F-35. That’s why the next modernization of the ancient Su-27 is more effective in terms of efficiency/cost than the next generation aircraft, and not at all because of some kind of first-stage engine. What will the second stage engine change there? How will cruising supersonic and tag weapons help it perform tasks for the LBS? IMHO, no way, that’s why it is not on the current SVO, and will not be.

[KCA]

Do you know specific data on the EPR of the SU-57 in different projections in the front, side, bottom, keel? And the F-35? Illuminated at an angle of 30 degrees, is the F-35 invisible? Yes, I can spot him with a slingshot, but what about the F-22? There are people who have an image on the radar, but they won’t tell us

[Passing]

Quote: KCA

Do you know specific data on the EPR SU-57

I remember the Indians' opinion about the PAK-FA stealth.
I remember very well how indecently large the EPR for the F-22 was called in the Sukhoi Design Bureau, i.e. they did not see ways to do significantly less - as much as the amers declared, and, accordingly (my assumption), they did not implement this in the PAK-FA.
I see a photo of the Su-57 of the first stage, a lot can be seen from the photo. For example, the joints of the panels are not coated. The mechanization gaps look extremely dubious. OLS is round instead of faceted. The plane is covered with an additional layer of camouflage paint on top of radio-absorbing paint, which, albeit insignificantly (presumably), leads to additional reflection from the top layer. The very presence of a modern interference-based stealth coating is my optimistic assumption, it is not a fact that it is not of the ancient and ineffective type like on the B-1B.
All this has been resolved as it should by the Americans in both the F-22 and F-35. Miracles don’t happen, if the leaders in stealth, the amers, have it, but we, newcomers to stealth, don’t have it, then the difference in ESR will be significant, perhaps dramatically significant.

Quote: KCA

And the F-35? Illuminated at a 30 degree angle

I’ll even say more: if you shine the radar from above, the EPR will be the size of a Boeing. So what? Why fly at large angles, and not as expected, approximately on course to the target? In fact, the first task of a stealth aircraft is to take out air defense, so it will fly directly to the radar, substituting a projection with a minimum ESR. Except for any tricky cases with the enemy’s ambush tactics. But it’s who will outplay whom. The main thing is there is a field for the game, and not as it is now - minus aviation.

[KCA]

The plane cannot fly to the radar, the antenna cannot be raised above 50 meters, which means the radar target will shine at an angle, and no matter what coating you use, it will not help when the plane’s full fuselage glows, the SU-57 does not have an anti-radar coating, it has it on it under the paint and there is no way to wash it off in bad weather

[Passing]

Calculator to help:
For a flight altitude of 100 meters, the radio visibility range is 50 km. In this case, the angle between the aircraft axis and the radiation axis is 0,115 degrees.
Such a tiny turn is clearly not something that will make the plane light up like a Christmas tree. It’s just that the angle will not be ideal, but still close to ideal
And I’ll add for accuracy - the plane flies with certain, different for different speeds, and very significant angles of attack (which does not mean that the fuselage is at the same large angle to the airframe), and even moreover, the plane undergoes microevolutions in the process of overcoming turbulence . Therefore, that fantastic EPR figure for the F-22 is correct only statically, strictly along one axis; in reality, due to the above factors, the EPR figure grows, perhaps by orders of magnitude.
And all this was obviously understood by the creators long before you and I understood this, and since they have been stubbornly inserting stealth into everything possible for 50 years (IMHO, more than enough time to evaluate everything correctly), regardless of the costs, the decrease in functionality, the a decrease in combat readiness, which means it’s more than worth it.

[alexoff]

And without it, as reality has shown, problems in the Northern Military District cannot be solved

It’s not a fact that it’s a matter of stealth. Something tells me that there is no continuous air defense throughout Ukraine and with normal reconnaissance you can fly at low altitude near Zhytomyr and crush railway bridges there with cast iron. Work out a route over the forest, who cares who will catch it. But the planes do not work behind the scenes, most likely as a directive, on orders from above immediately after leaving Kyiv, I do not rule out that this is an agreement. Like we fight only head-on, no tricks, no partisans, no assassinations, no planes

[Carib]

“And the king is naked!!!”, but everyone is afraid to say it out loud so that everyone can hear, because he will be pecked... But in the kitchens, everything has been discussed a long time ago and everyone understands.

[Revolver]

since the Israelis mainly fought against houses in the Gaza Strip, they mostly won. Although there was a lot of talk in the media that the Israeli modification had problems with the operation of the target designation system in the air-to-surface mode.

But the Jews actively use the F-35, and are so happy that they want to buy more. Moreover, they are used mainly not on houses in Gaza - F-16s work there, but on targets such as Iranian generals. And judging by the fact that they arrived exactly where they needed to and when they needed to, they don’t have any problems with shooting at ground targets.

those Israeli F-35s that were hanging around and near Syria have already come into the field of view of our radars and fighters so many times,

that so far everyone has returned to base.

[bya965]

Quote: Nagan

that so far everyone has returned to base.

It would be more correct for everyone to return to base.
At the same time, they use mountains as cover and, if possible, civilian aircraft.
They're cunning!

Quote: Nagan

to homes in Gaza - F-16s are working there

Even the prudent ones!

[Good Evil]

Cunning and prudence when conducting combat operations is not a disadvantage, but a big plus!

[bya965]

Quote: Good evil

Cunning and prudence when conducting combat operations is not a disadvantage, but a big plus!

And I thought it was smart!

[Igor Viktorovich]

And here are the fools, they arrange all the knightly duels with swords. Only ours will fall, not even understanding where it came from, and the commentators will all yell, oh, they are vile, they shoot from afar, well, go out to a cannon fight in a dog fight. The absolutely correct tactic is to polish everything with artillery, polish it with aviation, and then use the boots of the infantry to destroy the point, sons and fathers go home, and let the enemy mourn, that’s why he is the enemy. Let's play with our humanity. No one feels sorry for us...

[bya965]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

And here are the fools, they arrange all the knightly duels with swords. Only ours will fall, not even understanding where it came from, and the commentators will all yell, oh, they are vile, they shoot from afar, well, go out to a cannon fight in a dog fight.

That's it Mikhalych, your Viktorovich!
The same mind is gone. I’ll explain it for those who are sick.
For example, V discovered an enemy ammunition depot. What will you do?
Like cunning people, you will wait until the Ukrainians need it and blow it up.
How prudent you are, you will wait for yours to launch a counterattack and blow it up.

And I... write how, I undertake to answer and you will understand the difference between us
I am Russian, Don Cossack with a pedigree of approximately 800 years, my ancestors fought all their lives.

[Amateur]

In the late 50s and early 60s of the 104th century, the Americans produced the F-XNUMX Starfighter fighter. The plane that was touted as "outstanding" was in fact a complete piece of crap. Therefore, the Americans quickly pushed it to the allies in Europe, where they fought, burying a lot of pilots, especially from Germany.
So there is a successful experience of selling it. It’s just that the allies either didn’t draw any conclusions or the Americans thoroughly pinched their “lead” line.

[Toucan]

When used correctly (as an interceptor), this aircraft was very good. This is confirmed by the experience of the Italian and Canadian Air Forces. Imagine what would happen if our Su-15 was declared “universal” and registered in fighter-bomber aviation?

[sterx20072]

Not certainly in that way. The F-104 was created as a high-altitude interceptor, and where it was used that way (Spain, Italy and, like, Turkey), the aircraft was used until the 90s. And, in Canada and Germany, the F-104 is a fighter-bomber carrying an atomic bomb. They flew at low altitudes and fought accordingly.

[Toucan]

In Canada, which formally did not have nuclear weapons, the F-104 along with the F-101 were used as interceptors.

[Galleon]

I saw Starfighter live over the Baltic. The first adversary with my own eyes for me))

[Wildcat]

I read two articles today in the Armament section.
I realized that the F35 plane is bad, but the MT12 gun is good.

PS.

Russian laughter and American sin

""Laughter for no reason is a sign...." in general, it's a so-so sign.

[Shtrek]

Wildcat

I read two articles today in the Armament section.
I realized that the F35 plane is bad, but the MT12 gun is good.

Unfortunately, the lack of talent in propaganda is so clear that even visiting seemingly relevant topics already causes heartburn......

[Igor Viktorovich]

Exactly. We know it's short...

[Glagol1]

As a fighter, the 35th is of course so-so. But it works decently on the ground. No matter how much anyone scolds him, it’s not a masterpiece, of course, but for the enemy it’s a real problem. Another article for the death of the 35th, but he doesn’t even know...

[tsvetahaki]

In general, from the very beginning of the topic of “stealth” years earlier, some strange attitude towards it had developed... They scolded us for not being invisible, this and that...
In this article they criticize that at supersonic they are not so inconspicuous.
It is useless to speak in the right terms - this is for specialists...
But for non-specialists, compare the two options.
1. The army is dressed in beautiful red jackets with gold shoulder straps and other elements, tanks in Khokhloma with gold.
2. The army and equipment are dressed in camouflage.
What, in camouflage - is it completely invisible? Become invisible?
What, in camouflage - if soldiers run fast and tanks gather dust - visibility does not increase?
And what, in connection with these “disadvantages”, consider camouflage stupid and refuse it - dress beautifully and brightly?

All this stealth is a reduction in the likelihood of detection and target acquisition. And an increase in the likelihood of guidance failure.
Reduces losses and increases enemy ammunition consumption.
And - oranges will not be born from aspen trees.
The Americans managed to develop 21st century electronics on the F-35. Not everything can be clarified using prototypes. No matter what they say, serial production presupposes a good level of reliability and perfection of various structural elements - from engines to electronics. Which provides the basis for the following developments.
No one has been able to jump several generations just like that. Buyers, including the states themselves, paid for the development of new technologies. But as a result, the technology exists.
As well as modifications to the F-15, just in case.

[Alex 1970]

I won't make fun of you This is exactly what this entire article is about. I didn’t think that Roman would descend to this level; after the withdrawn article, did they have a conversation? The F 35 is certainly not the pinnacle of aircraft construction, but it is better to have a strong average aircraft numbering over a thousand than a super duper aircraft numbering less than two dozen.

[Belisarius]

An opus in which an aircraft behind which there is a long line of people willing to buy it and produced in astronomical quantities with zero combat losses and quite successfully overcoming the Syrian air defense (and this, given our help, is actually our air defense in a somewhat truncated form) can be considered humorous. However, the point of the article is in its ending. The F-35 is unsuccessful, the F-22 is the same, and then it’s quite convenient for us to fly planes from the 70-80s. We don’t need any Su-57.. We have the Su-35, which is being produced in quite normal times (as many as 100 units). What else do you need?
It’s nothing that we haven’t been able to liquidate the endless Ukrainian Air Force for three years now, and we won’t fly further than the LBS.
It was said that nothing is needed. And so it will do.
P/S. As for the F-35's problems, they are quite real. And it is difficult to maintain stealth aircraft, and the attempt to create three in one (an aircraft for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps) led to a bunch of compromises. However, this does not mean that the program has failed and the Americans will return to the F-16.

[Zufei]

Quote: Glagol1

As a fighter, the 35th is of course so-so. But it works decently on the ground. No matter how much anyone scolds him, it’s not a masterpiece, of course, but for the enemy it’s a real problem. Another article for the death of the 35th, but he doesn’t even know...

The US Navy, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, announced the successful completion of a “historic flight test” of the LRASM long-range anti-ship missile. At the same time, 4 LRASM missiles were launched from one platform and were in flight at the same time, followed by the statement: “all goals were achieved.”

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Zufei

At the same time, 4 LRASM missiles were launched from one platform and were in flight at the same time, followed by the statement: “all goals were achieved.”

Now they will tell you that this does not count, since the carrier was not a super-duper 5th generation aircraft, but the bad old Hornet.

[Astrologer]

Maybe the author should go to school first? Do you want to master spelling, for example? Blood flows from your eyes while you read...

[S.Z.]

In the USA, everything is bad with airplanes.
However, in the second year of the Northern Military District we never achieved air supremacy over enemy territory, and the United States somehow always manages to achieve this.

[Dutchman Michel]

never gained air superiority over enemy territory

In my opinion, the concept of “air supremacy” is now outdated, just as “sea supremacy” was once outdated. Battleships were unable to seize this dominance either in the First or the Second WW, just as today’s front-line and long-range bombers were unable to seize air superiority.

[S.Z.]

Of course, the concept has changed, but it has not become obsolete. The same goes for supremacy at sea.

Dominance at sea in the wars with Napoleon meant blocking trade and it began with the defeat of the linear forces. In World War I, dominance ensured freedom of navigation for the Entente, a blockade of German merchant shipping and was ensured by the destruction of raiders and the neutralization of the High Seas Fleet. In World War II there were no general battles; dominance was ensured by the destruction of raiders and the successful fight against submarines - above all.

Today, air supremacy is the ability to carry out missions over enemy territory and is ensured by the neutralization of aviation and air defense.

Techniques and tactics changed, but not strategy.

[Dutchman Michel]

During the First World War, domination ensured freedom of navigation for the Entente

It was a good domination, when the submarines almost brought England to its knees

[S.Z.]

In the First World War it was not so scary, the submarines were not perfect, the tactics were lame, Britain did not starve, the front in Europe held out.

It was worse in World War II; we had to fight for dominance for a long time. After the fall of France, the threat of famine was real. The British even gave up bases for destroyers, just how bad things were at one point. There were times when the Germans sank more transports than the Allies had time to build. This dominance came at a cost to them.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: S.Z.

There were times when the Germans sank more transports than the Allies had time to build.

Yeah. One half of 1942. The rest of the time, the shipyards of the United Kingdom and the adjoining neutrals (until December 1941) of the United States filled the Dönitz boys with iron.

Quote: S.Z.

This dominance came at a cost to them.

Three "Flowers" cost the same as one "Seven". Plus, the Lime had a whole horde of mobilized (and also built for the fleet) trawlers, which even had Asdics.
Moreover, most of the Atlantic anti-aircraft defense ships were multifunctional - if necessary, the AVE covered the landing forces and even took part in the attack on the Tirpitz, the EME and FR were engaged in the air defense of the landing formations.

[Kmon]

In WWI, unrestricted submarine warfare, on the one hand, was very successful, on the other, it led to the entry of the United States into the war, which turned out to be the last straw for the camel (the German army), and the Germans never found anything to oppose to the convoy tactics.

In WWII, there were simply too few submarines, and with the exception of two months of the war, they never sank as much tonnage as, according to the calculations of the Germans themselves, was necessary for a successful blockade of the islands.

[Dutchman Michel]

and the Germans never found anything to oppose to the convoy tactics

The Germans simply, for obvious reasons, were unable to produce the required number of submarines. If, instead of unnecessary battleships and heavy cruisers, they had seriously taken up submarines, then the war in the Atlantic could have gone a completely different way

[Negro]

One more.

If only they had replaced unnecessary battleships and heavy cruisers

Then with the saved 200 thousand tons of displacement they could build 20% more submarines than they actually built. Instead of this great opportunity:
1. The damned Anglo-Saxons, who, against 4 German ones, built 20+ new battleships in addition to 30 old ones, could have laid down 5 fewer battleships, and launched their conveyor belt of corvettes and frigates 2 years earlier. In this case, even those dubious successes that were achieved in the first and second “Happy Times” are, to put it mildly, not guaranteed.
2. The Anglo-German naval agreement of 35 allowed the Germans to build a fleet against France. There was a battleship tonnage there, but there were very few submarines. Attempts to build submarines instead of the LC could lead the damned Anglo-Saxons to unpleasant thoughts - and the bombing of Berlin would begin 2 years earlier: not after Poland, but instead of Munich.
3. The corporal agreed with his people not even on small victorious wars, but on simply taking things in stride. Purely for luck. For a while he really had his luck. The war with the Anglo-Saxons is definitely not small and not victorious - obvious preparation for it would raise questions from our own military. And the German military of those years is not Tukhachevsky: they have a short conversation with the great geopoliticians.

So, taking into account point 3, yes, you are offering a very good option for everyone.

[Luminman]

Quote: S.Z.

However, in the second year of the Northern Military District we never gained air supremacy over enemy territory, and the United States somehow always manages to achieve this

Remind me where exactly the United States always managed to gain air supremacy?

[S.Z.]

In Germany, in Japan, in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Yugoslavia.

[Luminman]

Quote: S.Z.

in Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia

And in Papua New Guinea?

[S.Z.]

"And in Papua New Guinea?"

I haven't heard of them fighting there.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Luminman

And in Papua New Guinea?

And there too. And even over the Solomon Islands and Micronesia.

[Negro]

Remind me where exactly the United States always managed to gain air supremacy?

Yes, in fact, everywhere where they have been fighting for the last 80 years.

[paul3390]

I assure you that we would have achieved air supremacy over Afghanistan or Iraq. But whether the US Air Force will be able to do the same over a country with developed modern air defense, such as the Russian Federation or China, is something extremely doubtful..

[S.Z.]

Only an idiot would attack an equal opponent; the weak should be attacked.

[FIR FIR]

Quote: S.Z.

Only an idiot would attack an equal opponent; the weak should be attacked.

Well, Japan in 1941 was not so weak. We had to tinker with the Japanese fleet, and the Zeros made some noise at first.

[Negro]

But will the US Air Force be able to do the same over a country with developed modern air defense, such as the Russian Federation?

Are you sure you want to check this?

[sergan m]

>>>But who can doubt that in the USA they could<<
I DOUBT.

[Astrologer]

Further in the text there is still the same splash.

[Vadim S]

35 states are involved in the production of the F-49, that is, each state has its own piece of this project, funding for jobs, rewards, and feed. No matter how unsuccessful it is, no one will refuse income, it has a very strong lobby!

[DoctorRandom]

Oh, there hasn’t been such a low level of articles for a long time. Skomorokhov has already sunk so low and has nothing to write about, since he decided to raise the topic of the F-35? For fermented patriots, this is like a bottomless box for trivial articles.

[Des]

From an article by a respected author (!) on VO: "... a total of about 35 billion dollars was spent on the F-1,7 program. And the “exhaust” is not even a quarter of this amount, ..." so for a strong state it's not that much. It was for little money that they developed an excellent model of the aircraft of the future. And they will move on. Yes, in the end it is expensive. But there is a supply of “old guys”, and “new ones” - on the assembly line.
The article is normal, there are problems with the F-35, but after all - they - the USA) - are ahead of all aviation now. It's just their way.
And the PRC has its own. Of course, we also have our own.
It seems that the article was written critically, but with a feeling of envy))).
Because there is something.

[alexis]

Didn't you understand that they meant 1,7 trillion dollars? The author described himself.

[Anorma]

combat career of both aircraft

In general, every time I am surprised at the illiteracy of the authors of Military Review. And I’m surprised how one can take seriously the “expert” opinion of authors who have dubious knowledge of the Russian language, but take it upon themselves to broadcast into the public space. I’m generally silent about punctuation. Just don’t say that this is a typo, because there is more than one. Where are the production editors? On the same level?

[Zenn]

[quoteThere, one of the congressmen spilled the beans (to an AP journalist) that a total of about $35 billion was spent on the F-1,7 program][/quote]
The author, I believe, was mistaken with the amount; $1,7 trillion is closer to the truth.

[TermNachTer]

I'm laughing))) finally, after ten years, Hawkeye noticed that the barn did not have a back wall))) I said that the “penguin” is an expensive adventure for Lockheed five years ago. No, Lockheed, or rather its shareholders, definitely won - they spent 1,7 trillion in ten years. $. And there is no end in sight to this auction of fantastic generosity, at the expense of American taxpayers. One can only wish them creative Uzbeks))) and envy how skillfully the mattress makers were able to “cheat” suckers in Geyropa and Asia)))

[Negro]

Do you want to say that over the past 5 years Mr. Skomorokhov’s articles have begun to correspond to the level of your comments?

[TermNachTer]

I don’t know who Skomorokhov is. I state my own opinion.

[Dekabrist]

Quote from Anorma

In general, every time I am surprised at the illiteracy of the authors of Military Review. And I’m surprised how one can take seriously the “expert” opinion of authors who have dubious knowledge of the Russian language, but take it upon themselves to broadcast into the public space.

[Neo-9947]

one of the congressmen blurted out to someone who didn’t need to (an AP journalist) that a total of about $35 billion was spent on the F-1,7 program.

Are these tips?
Cost of 10 aircraft. And there are 1000 of them.

[velikoros-xnumx]

A total of about $35 billion was spent on the F-1,7 program

I think there is a mistake here. The cost of the F-35 program, taking into account the units produced, exceeded $1 trillion. So I think we are still talking about $1,7 trillion.

[AdAstra]

“And I’ll tell you even more, it’s great that the Su-57 didn’t go into production until everything was fully debugged. You could easily find yourself in the same situation that we found ourselves in in the USA: there seem to be planes, but there’s no point in This is zero."
“Comrades” Jews with their Fe-35s look at you with surprise Author. No matter how narrow-minded they may be, life has taught them to understand a little about these things. So it’s too early to laugh, comrade Author.

[Ivan Seversky]

The F35A costs $81.5 million, which is not expensive by US standards, especially taking into account the stealth and sophisticated radars and electronics. It is understandable that the F35 is limited as a fighter, but the main weapon of the Air Force is the KAB, which our Ministry of Defense completely ignored before the Northern Military District. And the USA has produced 1999 thousand JDAM since 550 and continues to produce 100 pieces per day, this is more than our industry produces in the 3rd year of the SVO.

It is impossible to compare the F35 with our aircraft in terms of cost (it is clear that they are cheaper): there is no normal data on the price of our equipment, and secondly, for many years there was a principle when the Ministry of Defense pushes the price as much as possible, defense enterprises can operate even at a loss, they gain loans, which are subsequently covered by the state.

[el_ninio163]

Roman, please clarify, if trillions of dollars have been spent, then why is 1.7 billion dollars mentioned?
Did you mean trillion-bit capacity?

[Kolin]

News from an alternative universe, where from this year product 30 is not installed on the Su-57, and in general the Su-57 did not go into production...

[Curt]

1,7 billion? A huge amount? 70+ billion have already been poured into Ukraine, so it’s just pennies

[Maks1995]

IMHO, Roman is “a little” rigged... Sleight of hand and a little fraud...
1) The F-35 is not a stealth fighter at all. And the stealth bomber is a fighter.
Attacked, hit, ran away, fought off an enemy fighter
those. everything about his role as “air cover”..... noodles?
2) all sorts of Congressional commissions - it seems this is not the first time. And nothing.
3) that they are openly discussing is perhaps even a plus. They will steal less. And it will be clear where and what.
Compare with our S-75 and 57... which are completely classified, there are few of them (in total), and blacks, Turks, Indians, Asians, etc. do not take them.
4) development cost 1,7 billion? this is clearly not much. And he himself was not expensive at all, when mass produced..
well, etc.
As Goblin-Puchkov said, if you put pressure on emotions, then someone is lying...

[Zoer]

and the F-35 program cost about $1,7 billion in total.

At least $20 billion has already been committed over the next five years to complete the development of the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, which is supposed to replace the F-22.

Hmm, that is. The ENTIRE F35 program is more than 11 times cheaper than just starting NGAD development?

[Galleon]

I began to visit the site less and less due to the frequent appearance of such articles.
In the Soviet Union there was a good magazine for officers - Foreign Military Review. I remember it, compare it with this site and am surprised - in that era of Suslov and Chernenko there was no propaganda there at all. An article like this for the weak-minded could not have appeared there. Specifics and facts, nothing more. There are still clippings about the fleet from those magazines.
What, Roman, is there not enough to live on, that you make money on the side with this kind of jam?

[Grandfather Kalash]

And what is wrong ? The fact that you are very worried about America. Or don't you understand how America forces everyone to buy its weapons? There may be a little jam in the article, but it's a lot of crap.

[Dekabrist]

An article like this for the weak-minded could not have appeared there.

Uses and gratifications theory. The bottom line: The media are, in most cases, more than just a source of news and entertainment. For example, they allow a person to save himself from the need to study anything. Or they provide an escape from the realities of life into the world of illusions and fantasies. Stupidization (primitivization) of the topic of conversation is intended to reduce the discussion of the topic to such a low and limited level at which a truthful clarification of the real features, side effects and consequences of the subject (phenomenon, event) being discussed becomes impossible.
For this purpose, the topic under discussion is deliberately simplified.
And many details that are important for discussion, but dangerous for the manipulator, are “omitted.”
The News section of this site is an academic example.

[Galleon]

Decembrist, you are right again. I'd like to have a drink with you...

[Dekabrist]

I'd like to have a drink with you...

About how many wonderful discoveries
Prepare the spirit of enlightenment
And the experience of the son of errors difficult,
And genius, the paradoxes friend
And the case, god inventor ...

[Foul skeptic]

In the Soviet Union there was a good magazine for officers - Foreign Military Review. I remember it, compare it with this site and am surprised - in that era of Suslov and Chernenko there was no propaganda there at all.

Eh, Andrey, then don’t open numbers from recent years. I held on and read. But I decided to quit after the last, April issue illustrated a “trending article” about revived European fascism with a photograph from a march of Russian neo-Nazis. And I don’t understand the reason - either the editors are at such a high level, or they don’t care about the readers. But how to put a photo in which, in addition to the characteristic attributes, you can also see the white-yellow-black imperial tricolor is beyond my understanding.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

But I decided to quit after the last, April issue illustrated a “trending article” about revived European fascism with a photograph from a march of Russian neo-Nazis.

I hope, under the leadership of the mouthpiece of the “Russian March” Mark Izrailevich Galperin?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

But how to put a photo in which, in addition to the characteristic attributes, you can also see the white-yellow-black imperial tricolor is beyond my understanding.

Girl designer. ©
The sister of the one who puts American equipment and German Soldaten on posters for February 23 and May 9.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Galleon

In the Soviet Union there was a good magazine for officers - Foreign Military Review. I remember it, compare it with this site and am surprised - in that era of Suslov and Chernenko there was no propaganda there at all.

That's why they distributed it most of the time only among the military.
And the articles there were excellent - just typical work schemes weapons of imperialist aggression what were they worth?

[_Ugene_]

A total of about $35 billion was spent on the F-1,7 program

maybe $1,7 trillion?

[lukash66]

A notable asshole is brewing. Now F35 apologists will come running. Most are from the promised land. And they will tell us about the F35 that has no analogues.))

[Puskarinkis]

There are planes for war and there are planes for business. Some allow you to win, while others allow you to get rich! The entire American military is supported by an endless dollar scam. Here we can still say: “it’s necessary” and the patriots will come up with a plane “beyond generations” for free (or take it off the shelf “invented in the USSR”), but in America, without the prospect of making good money, nothing works.

[bath]

If the F-22 has at least one aerial victory over the Chinese bubble, flying with impunity across the United States from east to west

[Andrey A]

"Bastard" to the power of N (or "well, bastard"). My “sixth” sense tells me that a plane with that name won’t fly far!!! As for the F-35, the author modestly kept silent about the funniest thing: the Americans didn’t invent their miracle plane themselves, they quietly... copied it from our Yak-141, adding additionally some “gadgets” that never really worked (I about "invisibility"). As a result, the Americans got: an attack aircraft or fighter-bomber, which, in principle, cannot fight to gain air supremacy in a war against a strong enemy. Not only that: he still doesn’t really fly.

[Foul skeptic]

With regards to the F-35, the author modestly kept silent about the funniest thing: the Americans didn’t invent their miracle plane themselves, they quietly... copied it from our Yak-141

The Americans borrowed technical solutions for the F-35B from the Convair Model 200 from the 70s. Don't relay nonsense.

[Andrey A]

The Americans borrowed technical solutions for the F-35B from the Convair Model 200 from the 70s. Don't relay nonsense.

The Convair Model 200 never flew, it was just a game of pictures and it is unknown whether such a project existed in principle. In any case, the Americans themselves abandoned this project, due, presumably, to its impracticability. But the Yak-141 really existed, it actually flew and actually showed the declared characteristics, which turned out to be somehow suspiciously very close to the characteristics of the F-35. The Yak-141 was shown at shows and the Americans, according to some sources, bought its documentation.

Despite all this, from 1991 to 1997, the F-35 developer company, Lockheed Martin, collaborated with the Yakovlev Design Bureau[81][82]. According to some reports, in 1995, the Yakovlevites, with the permission of the Russian government, sold all the documentation on the Yak-38 and Yak-141 to the Americans[51].

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Як-141#Сходства_и_различия_с_F-35B

[Pavel57]

Yes, we ourselves noticed that we have been fiddling with the Su-57 for a very long time, and this stump of the Su-75 will most likely remain in the form of a demonstration model for the next twenty years. Well, simply because none of the much-hyped “analoguenets” took off and ran.


Let's not forget to check.

[Andrey A]

Well, they recently proved that not only the Su-57, the Su-35 will not fly anywhere. They fly, however. Not everything is as bad as others think.

[Negro]

Recently when? The Su-35 is another modification of the 27th, what’s stopping it from flying?

The Su-57 flies in 2024 mainly in Hollywood films and Ministry of Defense reports. Stories about his confrontation with the enemy, newer than the early S-300 and Mig-27, are found mainly in telegram channels for the most picky people.

[Andrey A]

The Su-35C is a deeply modernized super-maneuverable multirole fighter of the “4++” generation[4][5][6]. It uses fifth-generation technologies, providing superiority over fighters of a similar class[5]. Distinctive features of the aircraft are a new avionics complex based on a digital information and control system that integrates on-board equipment systems, a new radar with a phased array antenna with a long detection range of air targets with an increased number of simultaneously tracked and fired targets, new engines with increased thrust and rotary thrust vector[4][5][6]. The Su-35S made its first flight in February 2008.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Су-35
That’s why many people insisted that the Su-35, let alone the Su-57, would never fly, however, they are mass-produced and are fighting. And that's a fact. As of August 35, more than 2021 Su-124s have been produced. Regarding the Su-57: a batch of 2019 vehicles has been produced since 76.

[Negro]

That's why many said that the Su-35

Still don't understand. Why should a Su-27 with another airframe modification not fly? It is clear that the Mig-35 died - the whole company died there. But Sukhoi lives for now, slowly redrawing old drawings. They say that of all the elements of the aircraft, the gliders of the Soviet school were the least problematic part.

Regarding the Su-57: a batch of 2019 vehicles has been produced since 76.

Yes, we made another new airframe for the Su-27, well done. But do you see what the problem is? The Su-27 was created taking into account the results of Vietnam, when the concept of long-range air combat and the Phantom 2 as a fighter for such combat showed themselves to be unsatisfactory. If you want, the Su-27 is a large Soviet Freedom Fighter - and against this background it is very strong, and its most advanced version, the Su-35, is even more so.

But.

The Americans have not calmed down and have been sticking to their line for 60 years. The Fives are again long-range fighters, and EXCLUSIVELY long-range fighters. Melee strength is deliberately sacrificed there for ranged strength. That is, the five are the opposite of the Su-27 in concept.

There is no question whether the Su-57 is a five: it is not. And it’s not needed: the RF Aerospace Forces do not require the A’s and, most likely, will never be required. There is a question of what he is like as a four. There is an opinion that due to useless improvements it is worse than the Su-35.

[Andrey A]

The Su-35, like the Su-57, uses long-range missiles and in this it is at least not inferior to the Americans. Stealth and radar are a little worse, but the Su-35 has electronic warfare. Well, and, of course, the Su-57 is a 5th generation aircraft. Considering that the F-35 is a fighter-bomber and is not really a fighter in the air, and the F-22 was created 20 years ago and is already quite outdated, then they can hardly be called competitors of the Su-57.

[Andrey A]

The Su-35, unlike the Su-27, has a new radar and a new engine, new long-range missiles, and electronic warfare. This was usually pointed out as a possible problem with the adoption of the Su-35 into service. The fact that the glider remains from the Su-27 does not mean anything. But: we did it. And the concept of close combat is more typical for the MiG-29. Su-27 is universal.

[Negro]

.The Su-35, like the Su-57, uses long-range missiles and in this it is at least not inferior to the Americans

Inferior, of course. Worse, there is no way to make a plane that looks like a penguin and then operate it. That is the problem.

then they can hardly be called competitors of the Su-57..

By itself. The F-22 and F-35 are understandable aircraft with understandable applications, but the Su-57 is a flying absurdity.

The Su-35, unlike the Su-27, has a new radar and a new engine, new long-range missiles, and electronic warfare. .

New counting from the 70s. Less new, counting from the F-16 of the 60th block and above.

. the close combat concept is more typical for the MiG-29. Su-27 is universal.

The BVB concept is typical for almost all aircraft of the 70s. This is where all these endless stories about super-maneuverability come from.

[Andrey A]

The detection range of targets with EPR is 1 sq. m. for the F-22 - 200-241 km, for the Su-35 - 270 km. So the Su-35 radar is superior to the Raptor radar, the same can be said about the range of missiles, in addition, the Su-35 also has built-in effective electronic warfare. As for the F-35, the Americans directly state that they use export versions (simplified versions) of F-22 technologies. So the S-35 is no inferior to the F-22. The F-35 and, moreover, the F-16, our Su-35 is superior in quality, which is not surprising. As for the Su-57, the Yankees are as close to it as they are to the sky. Well, as for the obvious use, then even - the F-35 is very difficult to use and a significant part of them are actually not combat-ready, I’m simply not talking about the situation with the F-22.

[bone1]

So initially the idea was stupid - who needs a plane with a non-working locator, even if it’s inconspicuous?

[Foul skeptic]

So initially the idea was stupid - who needs a plane with a non-working locator, even if it’s inconspicuous?

LPIR - low probability of intercept radar

[Aag]

Quote: Ezekiel 25-17

The question is not how many of them are riveted, but their effectiveness.

Is there any doubt that conditional efficiency increases with the number of products produced and sold? (Due to those sold, development costs are leveled; at the expense of those released, again, production and operation experience, unification, production costs...). Supplies to the allies provide an additional tool for the states to conquer by proxy in many regions...

[75 Sergey]

Well, for some reason it seems to me that they will make a new fighter..... a bomber, an attack aircraft because it is beneficial to everyone!
And we will, perhaps, restore our design schools, if possible, because like those, they fell apart in their places, and their children and grandchildren have already grown up to replace them!

[Aag]

Quote: Dekabrist

An article like this for the weak-minded could not have appeared there.

Uses and gratifications theory. The bottom line: The media are, in most cases, more than just a source of news and entertainment. For example, they allow a person to save himself from the need to study anything. Or they provide an escape from the realities of life into the world of illusions and fantasies. Stupidization (primitivization) of the topic of conversation is intended to reduce the discussion of the topic to such a low and limited level at which a truthful clarification of the real features, side effects and consequences of the subject (phenomenon, event) being discussed becomes impossible.
For this purpose, the topic under discussion is deliberately simplified.
And many details that are important for discussion, but dangerous for the manipulator, are “omitted.”
The News section of this site is an academic example.

It’s hard to disagree with you... On the other hand, IMHO, after a series of articles, Skomorokhov received a warning from the “relevant authorities”... Or, a proposal...)))

[Alexey RA]

Lightnings practically do not fly. The Americans in the “hot” spots preferred not to fall into the attention zone of Russian radars, and their colleagues in the bloc were also somehow not eager to “show up”; in fact, only Israeli F-35s took part in the hostilities.

The economy must be economical. ©
The lack of mass use of the F-35 in local conflicts has the same reason as the pulling of “warthogs” by the ears, which should have been scrapped long ago. In a conflict in which the enemy has no air defense, and the cost of a typical target is an order of magnitude less than the cost of a typical F-35 guided munition, the use of Penguins will be a blow primarily to the Air Force budget. The Yankees, remember, even managed to revive the Bronco - just to reduce costs.
The use of the latest generation aircraft makes sense only in medium-intensity conflicts with an enemy who is no more than a generation behind in air defense. But where are such conflicts, and where is the United States (until recently)... But Israel still has such an enemy (albeit a pretty damaged one).
It is noteworthy that with the beginning of the Northern Military District, the opposition in the USAF, which had previously clung to the “warthogs” with its teeth and was inventing various ways to keep them in service (up to direct sabotage - the requirement for cannon attack on ground targets from the F-35), changed its shoes in a jump and is now drowning for rearmament assault squadrons to normal IBA. The concept has changed - bring the Penguin.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

I seriously believe that, God forbid, if a conventional war with NATO happens (without the use of nuclear weapons), we have absolutely zero chances. First, NATO, led by the United States, will exchange our air defense for a couple of thousand missiles, and aviation will raze our cities and positions to the ground. And our couple of hundred SU-57s... oh, excuse me, they’re not there... they won’t be able to do anything. Therefore, the screamers “we are all NATO with one left” are sick people who poorly accept the realities of modern reality. Note that it will fly at us not from one side, but from all of them, and not twenty propeller-driven UAVs that can easily fly all the way to Moscow. Hundreds of modern cruise missiles will fly at us. Therefore, we have only one option, and you (if you are thinking) know it very well!

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

...it will fly at us not from one side, but from all of them, and not twenty propeller-driven UAVs that can easily fly all the way to Moscow. Hundreds of modern cruise missiles will fly towards us...

Thousands of cruise missiles and tens of thousands of drones of all types will fly.

[AC130 Gunship]

Everything is much simpler. The service life of the aircraft is on average 30-35 years. It happened that there were less (F117), and there were more than 60 (C130).
So, the F35 was developed simply as a replacement for the F16 (and partially for the F15 “not in the USA”). It sells well and orders are booked several years in advance.
Of course, no one will push him into the SVO zone because of the risk that he will be shot down and the remains will immediately be sent to specialized research institutes in Russia.
And the F16 has served its purpose well for almost 50 years and it’s just time for it to take a well-deserved rest

[Negro]

I read the title and was surprised. Is Mr. Staver already writing in the “weapons” section?

But no, it was Mr. Skomorokhov who decided to comment in extremely strange terms on another American piece of paper from about a year ago. I can’t say that he hasn’t come across articles of this quality before, but still, on average, he wrote much better.

[Grossvater]

I can’t say anything about the F-22, but with the 35th Lockheed was seriously screwed over by the customers themselves. By the way, this is not the first time. There was also a funny story with 104th.
It was impossible to make the plane according to the TTZ on the 35th. The demands were too mutually exclusive.
By the way, who actually uses this charabanc in the vertical take-off version? I won’t say that I’m directly monitoring it, but, to be honest, I haven’t heard.
But it was precisely the requirements for vertical takeoff that determined all the absurdities of the aircraft’s layout. Starting with a terribly overcomplicated power plant, ending with the denial of the area rule.
Everything is exactly according to the old joke: “We can’t be led astray, we don’t care (prohibited by VO rules ) where to go).
No design genius can correct the customer's mistakes.

[Nesvoy]

Quote: TermNachTER

I'm laughing))) finally, after ten years, Hawkeye noticed that the barn did not have a back wall))) I said that the “penguin” is an expensive adventure for Lockheed five years ago. No, Lockheed, or rather its shareholders, definitely won - they spent 1,7 trillion in ten years. $. And there is no end in sight to this auction of fantastic generosity, at the expense of American taxpayers. One can only wish them creative Uzbeks))) and envy how skillfully the mattress makers were able to “cheat” suckers in Geyropa and Asia)))

You first find out what the program is, and then write down the comments "smart guy"

[Nesvoy]

Quote: paul3390

Do you seriously think that the United States is ready to exchange at least a couple of hundred aircraft for our air defense? What nonsense...

In a global war, the loss of a couple of hundred aircraft is nothing. Come down from heaven to earth, O guardian.

[restless]

“And the list of such weapons will be very long, and if we talk about the fact that in Soviet times we were often catching up...”

Author, you certainly know a lot, but maybe you don’t know that we are still fighting with Soviet weapons, which were created after the USSR, all in single copies. And the first drone in the world, and the space "Buran" was made in the USSR and even went into space and came back. Maybe we were catching up, but now we are trailing behind, due to the fact that we trusted Western “partners”, but what happened was robbery and scam and the destruction of our industry...

[Mainbeam]

Didn't finish reading it. One water. To catch grains of information, I had to filter through a lot of beeches. Poorly presented material.

[the same doctor]

The strategy chosen is wrong. The States are building impenetrable tigers, but they need many, many cheap thirty-fours.

[Kmon]

They also have more “thirty fours” than any country in the world. And by the way, even the USSR did not limit itself to the T-34, but also built heavy ISs.

[Negro]

Why do they need many, many cheap thirty-fours if they have 10 times more tigers than thirty-fours? How many Su-35s are there, about a hundred and a half?

In addition, you greatly underestimate the price of current aircraft. The Penguin is not much more expensive than the latest version of the F-16 - the electronics are almost the same, the airframe and engine are simpler, but also not cheap.

By the way, shocking content. The thirty-four was not cheap. This is a fairly complex tank for its time.

[Warlord]

Well, in 1939, the T-34 cost 260K rubles, and this was without technical support such as an ARV. KV-1 already cost up to 300K rubles. But by 1941, the cost dropped from the beginning to 240, then 220. And by 1943, before the release of the T-34-85, the price of the T-34-76-43 cost 131 thousand rubles. That is, the cost fell by half due to mass production.
But it was the heavy IS tanks that cost the most. It really costs a lot of money and expense to create and produce heavy tanks. But one IS replaced a company of T-34s. But until 1943, the IS had a weak gun for a heavy tank. And its firepower in 1944 would exceed the T-34-85 by a factor of three. With one 122 mm OFS shot, it was possible to demolish the armor cap or turret of a tank dug in like a bunker.

[Negro]

You see what's the matter? In the case of the USSR, we cannot use price at all as a measure of value, unfortunately. The one they drew was exactly what it was. However, the T-34, I repeat, was a rather complex medium tank for its time, unlike the four and the Sherman. He was the least successful, I would say extremely unsuccessful. However, it is not surprising, given the process of its creation.

As for the KV base, I myself consider the IS family to be the most intelligent of the Soviet products. Here they worked smartly, to my surprise. I am ready to name the ISU-122s among the best machines of war. However, your enthusiasm for the IS-2, a turret-mounted self-propelled gun with a hull cannon, is somewhat excessive: a completely useful vehicle in itself did not replace a tank, and certainly was not a tank.

[cast iron]

Another piece of nonsense about “stupid” Americans. It's not even funny anymore. Their F-22 has been flying for 20 years. And the F-35, which is typical, also flies and is in service with several countries. The Russian collective farmer on the cow continues to laugh at the stupid Americans. Yes. Very funny.

[Warlord]

Under-fighter and under-attack aircraft? He won’t have enough speed to even catch up with the TU-160. What can we say about the MiG-31, which can catch up and overtake thousands of kilometers. Plus it also costs more than 150 million dollars. Yes, for that kind of money, I’d rather take 4 4++ fighters. Than one missing plane. That is why Indians buy Russian SU-35 aircraft. After all, their old planes were purchased back in the 60-70s. so outdated that there was no point in upgrading to the 4th generation. And creating from scratch, without any work experience, is like the fable of a swan, a crayfish and a pike.

[Kapany3]

Quote: NIKNN

that the F-35 program cost about $1,7 billion in total. And the “exhaust” is not even a quarter of this amount

And the whole article is focused on expenses (cuts), how much was wasted, etc. But! Think about the numbers. What is 1,7 billion dollars for the USA, when almost a trillion a year (in the year Karl!) is allocated to the military, when 50-100 billion go to Ukraine without strain or regret... In addition, industry is developing, the money goes where it wanted, into the pockets of those interested. As for effectiveness and efficiency, 1000 aircraft is... this is more than serious, and when they are going to fight with someone else’s hands, or rather with their own hands, but not with their own human resources and not on their own territory.

Did an AI write the text?
What the hell did he dump so many letters into a pile without bothering to delve into the topic, without even checking the text for grammatical errors...

[futurohunter]

Not AI. The author simply opened a poor article in English, launched Google Translate in the browser, stupidly copied the text and put his name at the bottom.
He writes at least 50% of his “articles” this way

[Kapany3]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

I seriously believe that, God forbid, if a conventional war with NATO happens (without the use of nuclear weapons), we have absolutely zero chances. First, NATO, led by the United States, will exchange our air defense for a couple of thousand missiles, and aviation will raze our cities and positions to the ground. And our couple of hundred SU-57s... oh, excuse me, they’re not there... they won’t be able to do anything. Therefore, the screamers “we are all NATO with one left” are sick people who poorly accept the realities of modern reality. Note that it will fly at us not from one side, but from all of them, and not twenty propeller-driven UAVs that can easily fly all the way to Moscow. Hundreds of modern cruise missiles will fly at us. Therefore, we have only one option, and you (if you are thinking) know it very well!

Well, what about without crap on the fan? The manual is required!

[Warlord]

Quite an interesting topic, how to cut a budget And there we are talking about trillions of dollars. We ordinary residents never even dreamed of such an amount. Even in the Second World War, it became obvious that having heavy fighters was a vicious scheme. They lacked either speed or climb rate. And most importantly, they were too heavy for pilots, such as Dornier, heavy-class Messerschmidt, and Soviet Pe-2. Retrained as front-line bombers. Yes, they could fight back against the fighter, but they couldn’t catch up with all their desire. It was not for nothing that the Germans abandoned the heavy BF-110 aircraft in favor of the light BF-109. And they won air superiority in the sky, and alas for our ancestors the outcome was disastrous.
I think that after 1943, it became clear that the age of heavy fighters was over. The era of light, maneuverable interceptor fighters was coming. 1947, this trend will be confirmed by the MiG-15, although there were also Sukhoi heavy jet fighters. But under Khrushchev, Sukhoi will receive carte blanche to create heavy, high-speed fighters. However, it soon became clear that having two aircraft with identical characteristics and creating them from scratch is not only expensive and wasteful. But it was also stupid, and a decision was made. That Sukhoi produces front-line aircraft, and Mig produces high-speed interceptor fighters. For me this is the best and most reasonable solution. We see the opposite situation with the F-35; it is not only slow as a fighter. But not powerful enough for a bomber. The SU-35 looks much better against its background.

[futurohunter]

I wonder if the author will ever stop publishing bad computer translations? Unreadable