What do the F-22 Raptor and the Ural-375 have in common?

36 313 137
What do the F-22 Raptor and the Ural-375 have in common?


"But in our district center, things like that don't happen..." No, really, it's unimaginable. But for them, it's perfectly normal. What exactly was causing such a stir? The news from across the pond that Lockheed is upgrading the oldest F-22 Raptor fighter jets.



Okay, so India has been trying to make the Tejas fighter jet for over 25 years, and Russia hasn't given up on making a car at VAZ for 50 years, but the US... It's supposed to be the world leader in everything, and then this happens:

"Extending the service life of upgraded older Block 20 Raptor fighters used for training could increase the number of combat-ready Raptors into the 2040s."

But... Was it really combat-ready? We must have missed something, gotten distracted, and now, "sign here," the F-22 has suddenly become a combat-ready and usable airplane (and perhaps even a plane) capable of little more than chasing bubbles?


So it appears. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is discussing with the US Air Force the possibility of expanding the F-22 Raptor modernization program to include the earlier Block 20 aircraft currently used for training.

These Block 20 aircraft, 35 in total, were previously on the verge of being retired, but amid questions about the F-22's ultimate replacement plan, the manufacturer says it may support modernization efforts if they extend to these earlier and currently far less capable aircraft.

Speaking today at the Air, Space & Cyber ​​conference in National Harbor, Maryland, O.J. Sanchez, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin's notoriously secretive Skunk Works research and development unit, said that "there are conversations going on about whether there's an opportunity to take the F-22 Block 20 fleet and continue to expand its capabilities." Sanchez noted that this isn't exactly a new conversation, but he hopes the service will pursue that option.

Seriously, why rewrite last century's manuals if everything works? But Mr. Sanchez's logic, what logic!

Apparently, we're talking about the very first series of aircraft, produced between 2001 and 2004. They're used as training aircraft, apparently for a reason. And it's certainly no coincidence that Mr. Sanchez decided to take care of these aircraft.


Mr. Sanchez mentioned the Block 30/35 upgrade program for more modern aircraft, part of the Skunk Works project, which aims to make the F-22 "see, shoot, and fly." Well, that is, to make it see and shoot anything at all. For starters.

"The F-22 remains central to the U.S. Air Force, and keeping it on the front lines is paramount. The F-22 program at Skunk Works is focused on this. The F-22 Block 30/35 fighters are undergoing a major modernization program, a key component of which is the software-defined architecture of open systems. This allows for faster and easier integration of new and improved capabilities."

Sanchez also noted that the modernization of Block 30/35 aircraft includes work on developing unmanned and crewed aircraft in collaboration with the Air Force.

"The F-22 is at the forefront of developments in this area."

This is another aspect of the Raptor modernization that was discussed earlier. Furthermore, the F-22 plays a key role in the development of the Air Force's next manned fighter, the Boeing F-47, as part of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program.

The F-47 is still very difficult to understand. The US Air Force is feeding the public with drawings and boastful reports, but no one has seen the plane in metal, although Air Force representatives assure us that it's already flying. Or will be very soon, or something like that.

As Sanchez said, when discussing ways to modernize the F-22, difficulties with specifics begin to arise because the information becomes classified.

"We've talked about the F-22 being a bridge to NGAD, and we continue to monitor its evolution, working with the U.S. Air Force to incorporate next-generation technologies into the F-22. That's our philosophy. However, as we've detailed previously, the F-22 is currently in the process of receiving a number of new 'capability' upgrades. These will help protect the Raptor fighter from emerging threats and ensure its relevance in future conflicts.

We know the upgrade package includes the previously announced Infrared Defensive System (IRDS), as well as improvements to the F-22's stealth, radar capabilities, electronic warfare, and other capabilities.

This upgrade is not related to other upgrades under development for the F-22, including the outboard infrared search and track (IRST) sensor and low-observable drop tanks.

The F-22's continued relevance to the US military, particularly in high-level combat, and its relatively small numbers make the case for similar upgrades on Block 20 aircraft even more compelling."

Well, there's not much to argue with here. Everyone knows that the F-22 has been involved in virtually every armed conflict the US military has fought in the 21st century, from Libya to Iran. The aircraft is credited with hundreds of destroyed targets, dozens of downed aircraft, and so on. And yes, it's very difficult to imagine the US military without the F-22, especially if the drug dealer has a good supply. In a pinch, alcohol can be used, which also helps to understand the necessity of this aircraft for the US military. It's practically impossible to pull off such a feat while sober, because the facts begin to destroy the established worldview, like a bulldozer destroying an old barn.


An F-22 with stealth modules under its wings, 2022

The US Air Force currently operates 185 F-22 aircraft, but only 143 are considered fully combat-ready, with the rest used for training and various testing. This means that all Block 20 aircraft perform secondary missions. Meanwhile, a significant portion of this fleet is typically undergoing maintenance at any given time. Such is the Raptor's journey. From maintenance to repair. There's generally little time to fly.


As for the 32 "inferior" Block 20 aircraft in question, the Air Force at one point considered phasing them out entirely as it faced looming budget cuts and mounting questions about how far it was cutting its existing fleet, particularly fighters, as it pushed forward with modernization plans.

Last year, a congressional oversight body warned that phasing out Block 20 aircraft would leave the Air Force facing potentially serious operational, training, and testing challenges, as well as the risk of associated costs. It also questioned the agency's assessment that upgrading these aircraft to a newer standard would be prohibitively expensive.

Even before that, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which oversee funding and oversight of the Pentagon on behalf of the U.S. Congress, tried to force the Air Force to retain—and upgrade—the F-22 Block 20 fighter jets.


Since the small number of F-22 fighters is already highly capable and in high demand, having more combat aircraft at its disposal would be a huge advantage if it could be funded.

All of this needs additional translation.

The essence of all activity in the United States can be summed up in one word. As in the American bible: first was the word, and that word was... lobby!

It's no secret that the entire US political and economic machine revolves around this very term. The Kennedy, Bush, Biden, Cassidy, and Mallon family clans turn the cogs of this machine, oddly enough, providing jobs for Americans.

Meanwhile, F-22 supporters in the Air Force are arguing for keeping the Block 20 aircraft even without upgrades.

“I’m in favor of keeping Block 20,” General Wilsbach, head of the Combat aviation Command. "Frankly, there's no replacement for the F-22 right now. They're very useful for training, and even if we have to use the Block 20 in an emergency, they'll do the job. They're very capable. Of course, if they received even a fraction of the upgrades currently available for the Block 30/35 aircraft, their capabilities would expand even further."

See? The F-22 Block 20 is great in every way. And there's no need to change a thing! But if you add a few dollars—literally, a couple of tens of millions—the Block 20 will become a Block 30 or 35. The Block 20 already runs great from maintenance to repairs and back, whereas the Block 30/35 will do the job, which is definitely better. And more expensive.


But American taxpayers will be the ones making money, so there is nothing wrong with that, and there can be nothing wrong with that.

Let me give you an example. In our unit, we had two "Breadwinners"—Ural-375 vehicles.


They never went anywhere further than the car wash; they sat on chocks in the garage, washed and polished. And according to their documents, they never showed up at the unit, which was confirmed by properly completed route sheets. And on Saturdays, a demobilized soldier with a drill would go to the "breadwinners" for the PKhD. And this soldier simply rolled back the odometers. And the AI-93 gasoline supplied to these trucks happily migrated into the tanks of the officers' cars, from the unit commander down. Considering that the Ural-375's official fuel consumption was somewhere around 50 liters per 100 km, and the smart guys even increased this figure by warming up during the winter and engine wear, it's understandable why these trucks were idle. In fact, they were a joy to have back then.

It's pretty much the same with the F-22. It can't fly properly, and it can't fight. The budget is slowly absorbing it. Everyone's happy. The main thing is to avoid any F-35-style gimmicks.


That's it: we cover it with pure gold and no more flying!

The US Air Force has repeatedly stated that it ultimately wants its F-22s to be replaced by a new sixth-generation stealth combat aircraft being developed under the NGAD initiative. This aircraft is now known as the F-47. The aircraft's first flight is currently scheduled for 2028, but it's not entirely clear; some claim the F-47 has already flown, while others disagree.

However, last year, the plan to develop the NGAD combat aircraft was suspended, and for a time, it seemed the NGAD project might be canceled. By the summer of 2024, it became clear that there was no longer a clear plan to replace the F-22 with the F-47, as the new project was not progressing as expected.

While the NGAD project, now the F-47, remains afloat, questions remain about the projected size of the F-47 fleet. Meanwhile, it's not entirely clear when—or even if—the aircraft will enter service. In May, the Air Force schedule below indicated that the service planned to acquire over 185 F-47s, which would replace the F-22 fleet at a one-for-one ratio.


But a picture—we understand it's not an airplane. It's just a picture, and let's be honest, lately in the US, there have been a lot of pretty pictures spilling out into the media, but very few viable projects (let alone combat capability).

And while the final figure for the F-47 has not yet been determined, and there are still more and more uncertainties and omissions about the aircraft itself, Lockheed Martin states that with the help of modernization, the F-22 can remain in service until the 2040s.

This is the strangest thing about this storiesOn the one hand, Boeing is making very optimistic statements and forecasts for the F-47, while on the other, Lockheed Martin assures that the situation is under control and the F-22 will still serve.

And, most interestingly, there's not a word about the F-35. It's as if it doesn't exist at all. And for good reason.


It appears the future of the F-22 will largely depend on the pace of F-47 service entry and the Air Force's final procurement plans for this aircraft. At the same time, Lockheed Martin is clearly very interested in the F-22 serving for many years to come—and, of course, generating profits, however small. And if the Air Force wants to ensure the F-22 fleet remains as combat-ready as possible for years to come, upgrading older aircraft could help ensure their long and happy life.

And yet, what about the F-35? Why is it either the F-47 or the F-22, and nothing else? There's only one answer: everything's already been carved up and divided. And the rules of the game are such that it's impossible to even talk about the F-35, because it's not kosher. So, a thousand "penguins"—that's a different matter, as they say in our district center.


And under no circumstances should we rely on them if the F-47 program suddenly stalls. Only the F-22. Apparently, the US Air Force has come to the conclusion that the F-35 is simply incapable of such operations and is unsuitable as a backup for the F-47. Even though you can field four F-35s for one F-22, they won't cope. I won't say why, but there's a strong belief they won't be replaced.

Therefore, it is simply necessary to further modernize the F-22. There is no way out, since it is unclear when the F-47 will be ready, and since the F-35 is not an aircraft capable of replacing the F-22, the only option is to push this lobbying cart uphill with afterburners. For money, of course.

And yes, in this regard, any modernization would be good, really, even if you screw the shafts on the sides, the main thing is that Congress throws out the necessary amount of money for it.

So, it's understood that the F-22 isn't obligated to fly at all. The main thing is to be fully prepared for anything that might happen, so to speak.


It's not a bad idea at all. It was clearly one of our guys who suggested it. One of those guys who checked the odometers on the Urals.
137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    27 September 2025 04: 10
    No, well, what's the matter? Mattressniko has a "normal" concept. Let it be, the main thing is that there are pilots for them. Or, like in Hollywood, in the movie "Independence Day," when the time comes, they'll retrain light aircraft pilots in five seconds, no big deal, five minutes of instruction, and they'll be flying Raptors.
    1. -5
      27 September 2025 09: 15
      Actually, they're retired combat pilots. Secondly, the penguin can catch his breath for now, but not for long. He'll be in trouble again soon.
    2. -3
      27 September 2025 10: 07
      One must understand a simple thing: in the US, the decision to decommission or decommission any weapons system is not made by admirals (generals) or engineers who even understand how it should work, but by LOBBYISTS in Washington, for whom cost is paramount. The more those whose interests they lobby for receive, the more they receive. Moreover, even if US defense capability might suffer, that's a minor matter; profit margins are what matter. There are countless examples. Boeing lobbied for its Hornet and Tomcat to not only be written off, but also scrapped so there would be nothing left to rebuild. And now, the Navy is screaming everywhere that they're "naked" against new hypersonic anti-ship missiles, but who cares?))) Or, the admirals were perfectly happy with the "modified Nimitz," but they were "foisted off" a Ford, which they couldn't "perfect" for several years. The main thing is that the Ford, while 30% more effective, is 50% more expensive. This list goes on and on.
      1. +5
        27 September 2025 15: 20
        In the USSR, there were no lobbyists or profit margins. But there were three non-standardized main battle tanks. Or two parallel series of strategic missile carriers. Or the adoption of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles without competitive bidding.
        1. 0
          27 September 2025 17: 01
          So who told you such nonsense? There was fierce competition, and there were influence groups within the CPSU Central Committee. Besides, the USSR was a rich country and could afford more.
          1. +1
            27 September 2025 17: 15
            There was very tough competition and there were influence groups in the Central Committee of the CPSU.

            That is, this is, after all, a common practice for countries with developed military forces. Meanwhile, the US, for example, adopted JDAM systems, the equivalent of which we later had to cobble together when Hephaestus (who was also lobbied by someone) failed to transform the blunt iron cans into precision weapons.
            The USSR was a rich country and could afford more.

            So the US is even richer. And the USSR ultimately ended.
            1. +2
              27 September 2025 17: 54
              1. Not exactly. In the US, it's just for money, and they don't even try to hide it. I think the Central Committee had slightly different motives.
              2. All empires collapse sooner or later, and the USA will not escape this fate.
              1. +2
                27 September 2025 17: 57
                I think the Central Committee had slightly different motives.

                Well, yes, departmental apartments, dachas in Sosnovy Bor, a Volga instead of a Moskvich.

                2. All empires collapse sooner or later, and the USA will not escape this fate.

                Well, in the USSR they also talked about the decaying West, but in the end it was the USSR that rotted, or more precisely, its ruling elites.
                1. 0
                  6 October 2025 08: 03
                  So the elites have already become capitalist, and the USSR with its Soviet economy was like a fifth leg to a dog, while in the West the elites are capitalist and the economy is capitalist, so everything is fine.
          2. 0
            23 October 2025 16: 44
            What kind of competition? It was mostly behind-the-scenes intrigues about who was better at communicating with the apparatchiks from the Central Committee and Politburo. I won't even mention the military aspect; I'll just take something I read recently. Kamanin's diaries, where he explicitly describes the conflicts he had with Mishin and how they were trying to keep him in line. Meanwhile, he was constantly running to the Central Committee and Politburo for protection. Perhaps his son deliberately distorted the diaries (he should burn with shame for such an act toward such a person), but the picture is coherent in all four books, and there's none of the nuttiness of Belov's upward mobility, where the USSR and its associated moments are excellent, and then bam, everything's bad (obviously, some editors are at work).
            1. 0
              23 October 2025 17: 13
              You think it's any different elsewhere? We won't go far—Boeing is lobbying in Washington for its F-18. As a result, the F-14 isn't just being removed from aircraft carrier decks, it's being cut down to prevent the Persians from stealing spare parts. As a result, now the mattress admirals are crying over the F-18's insufficient capabilities to reach the hypersonic interception threshold. And after that, it's no longer needed. The F-35S isn't even worth mentioning; it's even worse. That's the kind of movie you'd expect.
              1. 0
                23 October 2025 18: 31
                I don't dispute that they're lobbying, but they mostly have open selection programs; we can look at prototypes, learn about the participants, and so on. Meanwhile, we're dealing with Soviet-era problems that no one's particularly interested in fixing. The F-35C is intended for other missions, and it's not against hypersonics. Now they'll be using the F/A-XX; the Navy and the Military Industrial Complex pushed through a project that Hegseth wanted to kill.
                1. 0
                  23 October 2025 18: 51
                  The F-35S is equally terrible for any mission. In case you've forgotten, the Ford-class carriers were built specifically for the F-35, and three Nimitsu-class carriers have already been converted, but the Hornet is still the primary carrier on deck, and will be for a long time to come; another batch has already been ordered. So, their lobbyists are quietly working to the detriment of the state, and no one thinks that's a bad thing.
                  1. 0
                    23 October 2025 18: 59
                    I'll argue, the F-35 is an excellent fighter, it fulfills its missions perfectly. That's why it has so many orders outside the US.
                    1. 0
                      23 October 2025 19: 02
                      Quote: Arkee
                      That's why there are so many orders outside the US.

                      For the most part, these orders are for the well-known reason: "and if anyone doesn't take it, we'll turn off the gas."

                      And they really will turn it off, if anything happens. request
                      1. 0
                        23 October 2025 19: 52
                        That's it, in case you weren't aware. They invested money in the program before it even started being designed. Now you can withdraw from the program, but no one will get your money back. And now, it's nothing like what Lockheed promised 20 years ago.
                      2. 0
                        23 October 2025 19: 55
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        if you do not know

                        Yeah, I know about that. This whole F35 thing initially struck me as a blatant marketing ploy... or rather, a rip-off of customers. laughing

                        In the end, the program was a success, the clients were duped, and already hooked on a product that they basically couldn't produce or service themselves... The US military-industrial complex is flush with cash... everything is fine, in short. Yes
                      3. 0
                        23 October 2025 22: 04
                        Yes, Lockheed has reached a new level of ripping off suckers; now the sucker has nowhere to go.
  2. +36
    27 September 2025 04: 11
    The style is so blatant that commenting on it would only ruin it. If people like the author are responsible for developing our armed forces, I'm not surprised why we haven't developed them.
    1. -4
      27 September 2025 10: 09
      What is the development of the Armed Forces? Who has it?
      1. +4
        27 September 2025 13: 21
        Quote: TermNachTER
        Who has it?
        It seems like the Chinese do.
        1. 0
          27 September 2025 13: 33
          The process of building the armed forces is continuous, but it depends on the financial and scientific-technical capabilities of the state.
  3. +3
    27 September 2025 04: 31
    I liked the gold coating on the Raptor...how much good stuff goes to waste.
    1. +6
      27 September 2025 09: 12
      What's the big deal? It sits in dusty storage for decades, and here it's at least useful, or at least functional. They make gold contacts, wires, and so on, and here it's just a coating. Especially since it's all paid for :))
    2. +21
      27 September 2025 10: 20
      I didn't quite understand the author's sarcasm regarding the F-22 modernization. Upgrading a perfectly modern aircraft to an affordable level can eliminate the shortcomings identified during its service life, improve its combat effectiveness, reduce operating costs, and much more. Upgrading the Su-35, for example, to incorporate more advanced equipment solutions whenever possible, isn't exactly sarcasm, so why can't the same be done with the F-22? The article seems overly biased. I should also point out that the number of F-22s currently significantly exceeds the number of Su-57s, and by the way, the Su-57 is constantly being modernized, and no one is objecting to it—quite the contrary.
      1. +1
        6 October 2025 08: 09
        Well, you don't understand, that's different 😆... I remember there was a TV show, something like a military review with Konstantin Dushenov, and it was all over the place: if the news is that the Americans are modernizing old equipment, it's because they're incompetent and can't do anything new or useful, so they're squeezing the last bit of juice out of the old stuff. But if the news is about domestic modernization, it's a brilliant policy of the domestic leadership to avoid wasting huge amounts of money on currently unnecessary modern weapons, and modernization will bring Soviet equipment up to modern standards.
      2. +1
        6 October 2025 20: 40
        I wouldn't be against it if they wrote off 22... let them be stubborn with their newest troughs. laughing
  4. +24
    27 September 2025 04: 32
    Usually Roman's articles are quite good, but here I disagree. The 22nd is a fully-fledged fighter-interceptor, which is positioned as an air superiority aircraft by Lockheed Martin itself: The F-22 Raptor is a stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness fighter jet that provides unprecedented air dominance;
    And the fact that it spends most of its time on the ground is understandable—the US doesn't have many targets for it. It's designed to clear the skies of aircraft—it seems the US doesn't see such a need unless they're at war with Russia or China.
    The need for modernization is also understandable - it has been in service for 20 years already.
    I'm far from enthusiastic about NATO's military-industrial complex, but objectively, the 22 looks like a very decent aircraft, albeit an expensive one that hasn't yet found a use. It's necessary. For air combat. And the US economy can easily afford its upkeep for now.
    1. +13
      27 September 2025 05: 40
      Quote: 123_123
      The 22nd is a fully-fledged fighter-interceptor,
      This machine is being made fun of only because it hasn't proven itself. Its place is as an interceptor in a serious air battle, against an equally serious opponent. This fighter isn't going to be chasing Papuans, is it?
    2. -6
      27 September 2025 10: 10
      What did he intercept besides balloons?
      1. +5
        27 September 2025 18: 03
        Quote: TermNachTER
        What did he intercept besides balloons?
        What else was he supposed to intercept?
        1. -5
          27 September 2025 19: 06
          Well, I don't even know, isn't it supposed to be a multi-role fighter? Maybe a ball or dollar fighter would be more accurate?
  5. +2
    27 September 2025 05: 23
    The F-22, whatever its name, represents experience across the board: stealth, flight, and combat performance. For us, it's roughly comparable to the evolution of VTOL aircraft from the Yak-36 to the Yak-141. It wouldn't be a bad idea for us to create a pirated copy of the F-22 and F-35 with the same performance characteristics, test them against our air defenses and aircraft, and gain experience countering them. bully
    1. +6
      27 September 2025 05: 36
      It wouldn't be a bad idea for us to make a pirated copy of the F-22 and F-35.

      Firstly, any copy is always worse than the original.
      Secondly, why does Russia need these copies?
      Bottom line: How is the Su-57 worse than the 22&35, except that there are a lot of 22 and 35, and there are Su-57s too, but definitely not many.
      1. -1
        27 September 2025 05: 38
        I wrote to gain experience in fighting them. hi
    2. +7
      27 September 2025 06: 04
      Quote: V.
      It would be nice for us to make a pirated copy of the F-22 and F-35
      F-22 It was produced only for domestic consumption and was not exported - there was simply nothing to copy from. And F-35 Although it was exported, the aircraft destined for the US Air Force will be significantly different from the export models. But engineers will certainly be interested in seeing it...
    3. -3
      27 September 2025 10: 12
      What will happen to the several thousand of these "experimental" aircraft when new airborne detection systems emerge, against which their stealth will be no help? The F-35 is expected to remain in service until 2060, and the program is expected to cost $2 trillion, but it's clear it will be much more expensive.
      1. 0
        6 October 2025 08: 14
        Well, when they show up, then they'll figure out what to do. Why worry ahead of time? Or are you suggesting something like the song "If you don't have a plane, it's not afraid of radar"?
        1. 0
          6 October 2025 10: 21
          Then it will be a little too late—trillions of dollars will go down the drain. Incidentally, note that the mattress makers are in no rush to "saturate" their Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with "penguins"; a significant portion is exported. What's the point?
          1. 0
            6 October 2025 11: 22
            Who cares if trillions fly away, the main thing is that they fly into the right pockets and bank accounts... They're not rushing to fill that 1200 F35 aircraft in service? So is the Russian Aerospace Forces' plans for 70 Su-57s oversaturating the fleet?
            1. 0
              6 October 2025 12: 28
              I have no doubt they'll fly to the right places. 1200—that's all that's been produced, and not all have been accepted from the factory yet. And next year, it'll be a complete circus—the airframes are already paid for, but the engines are a problem. More than a third of the Penguins produced were exported, a situation repeating itself as with the F-104.
              1. 0
                6 October 2025 14: 41
                Okay, so that means 2/3 (800 units) were made for themselves? But even 800 units is an order of magnitude more than our Su-57 plans... Why are you so eager to find their problems? Their problems are their problems... What about our successes? Will there be at least 100 Su-35s? Is their combat readiness in order? I think any patriot should be primarily concerned with how things are going in their homeland, and not devote all their joy and attention to the enemy.
                1. 0
                  6 October 2025 17: 02
                  The good news is that there will be new detection tools – everything will go down the drain for Bobik. Russia will suffer relatively little.
  6. KCA
    +7
    27 September 2025 06: 59
    For some reason, the photo shows a Ural 4320. I didn't read any further, what's the point?
    1. +6
      27 September 2025 07: 25
      The photo in the article shows a Ural-375. The main external difference between the Ural-4320 and the gasoline version is the radiator grille.
      1. +2
        27 September 2025 09: 15
        Not only that! The 4320 also has a filter on the fender, as in your photo, while the 375 just has a snorkel pipe sticking out above the fender, and a more humped hood.
        1. 0
          27 September 2025 16: 37
          This is most likely a modification with a YaMZ-238 engine. It has an extension insert. The KamAZ-740 engine doesn't have one.
        2. +1
          28 September 2025 10: 55
          And the comrades are keeping quiet about the 8T210 Ural-375-based truck crane in the photo. But its official winter fuel consumption in Central Asia, in the 1980s, was 100 liters per 100 km in the Far North (in Long-Range Aviation, that's the Arktika OG, plus another 20 liters). Fuel consumption could be written off more easily if the truck crane's hour meter broke down.
          1. +1
            3 October 2025 13: 18
            My Ural-375 station had a consumption of 98 liters per 100 kilometers, and since no one stole the gasoline, it was nicknamed "the enemy of the Soviet army."
      2. 0
        29 September 2025 12: 11
        Ural-4320 from the petrol version - in the radiator grille.

        for the "blondie" - yes, but in general - the YaMZ740 did not fit into the underhood space of the 375 and it was necessary to extend the frame and, accordingly, the hood with the grille
  7. +7
    27 September 2025 07: 22
    Why is the author so bothered by the modernization of cars at the bottom of the list? They're simply trying to improve their performance.
  8. Des
    +2
    27 September 2025 07: 27
    Yes, there was a story at one time that the Americans put the gasoline-powered Ural truck on a pedestal in their country, as a monument to the USSR's wastefulness.
    But in the end, now the Ural is reliable and in demand.
    Perhaps the same will happen with the F-22.
  9. +13
    27 September 2025 07: 44
    ...In India, they've been trying to make the Tejas fighter jet for over 25 years, and in Russia, they've been trying to make a car at VAZ for 50 years, but the US...
    - and someone is still trying to learn how to cut articles on a wide range of topics, plowing shallowly laughing
  10. +19
    27 September 2025 07: 51
    Yet another - a bunch of empty words from a talentless author. To drag AvtoVAZ and Ural into an article about fighter jets is just too much.
    1. +1
      27 September 2025 20: 35
      I agree that in aviation, their own planes were the breadwinners)))
  11. +2
    27 September 2025 08: 25
    Let me give you an example. In our unit, we had two "Breadwinners"—Ural-375 vehicles.

    It's not entirely clear why the author included a photo of equipment with the GDR NNA emblem. If he served in the GSVG, then we had a completely different emblem there.
  12. +4
    27 September 2025 08: 30
    One demobilized soldier would be sent off with a drill. And this soldier would simply wind up the odometers. And the AI-93 gasoline supplied to these trucks would happily migrate into the tanks of the officers' cars, from the unit commander down.

    And no one wrote to the prosecutor's office...
    1. +5
      27 September 2025 09: 19
      Why? If everyone was feeding and refueling. And those who weren't in the know sat quietly and kept a low profile, because fear is a very common contagion. It's still afflicting every second person, something I constantly encounter at work and elsewhere. Everyone is afraid of something.
    2. +5
      27 September 2025 10: 31
      The entire unit stole state-owned gasoline, and no one reported it to the prosecutor's office. A country of thieves?
    3. +4
      27 September 2025 10: 38
      Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
      One demobilized soldier would be sent off with a drill. And this soldier would simply wind up the odometers. And the AI-93 gasoline supplied to these trucks would happily migrate into the tanks of the officers' cars, from the unit commander down.

      And no one wrote to the prosecutor's office...

      It's funny, who needed it? EVERYTHING It was nobody's business—like, the people's business, but who's going to worry about somebody's business? People with a burning soul are always few and far between, and by the collapse of the USSR, there were none left at all.
    4. +6
      27 September 2025 14: 01
      The article is puzzling. I'm no expert on US aviation, but the URAL-375 story is a typical military legend. It's most likely a translation from a non-Russian source. The terms "odometer" and "route sheet" were never used in the army. Only "speedometer" and "way sheet." There's the Automobile Service Manual. It's all written there. A route sheet is a completely different document, which, by the way, isn't even a strictly accountable document, but rather an instruction to the carrier on where and when to go. Yes, they tried to rig the speedometers, but it was immediately discovered. There are a ton of books and journals in the military unit that record vehicle operation. And the speedometers were always sealed, and this was always verified. That's how life works.
      1. +2
        27 September 2025 15: 22
        And the speedometers were always sealed and this was always checked.
        What does the speedometer have to do with it? The cable was disconnected from the speedometer drive (located in the gearbox), and a small motor was connected to it. It was also sealed, but everything was carefully concealed, and no one ever really looked inside.
  13. +4
    27 September 2025 08: 31
    What do the F-22 Raptor and the Ural-375 have in common?

    Both the Raptor and the Ural consume kerosene with the same intensity, requiring constant refueling?
  14. bar
    +11
    27 September 2025 08: 33
    So many letters written around nothing. That's talent! good
    That's the case when a mouse gave birth to a mountain. But the Ural Mountain was wrongly offended...
    1. 0
      6 October 2025 09: 56
      Maybe it's not the mouse that takes the mountain, but the mountain that takes the mouse?
      1. bar
        0
        6 October 2025 11: 39
        A mountain is the number of characters written by an author on a completely insignificant topic, sucked out of a finger
  15. +16
    27 September 2025 08: 36
    Was it really combat-ready? We must have missed something, gotten distracted, and now you're like, "Sign for it."

    Yeah, right! We convinced ourselves that the Raptor wasn't combat-ready, now we're surprised that the Raptor is combat-ready!
    1. +10
      27 September 2025 09: 21
      Well, since childhood, I've heard tales—and I'm not alone—of the decaying West, the fall of Europe, and the collapse of the dollar, but it only gets stronger and stands firm. Meanwhile, we're falling ever further into the abyss.
      1. +1
        28 September 2025 08: 23
        Nothing grows stronger; on the contrary, it weakens and rots. Not so quickly, of course, but the decline of the Roman Empire lasted a century and a half.
      2. 0
        6 October 2025 20: 50
        Quote: Vadim S
        it only gets stronger and stands firm.

        Do the Europeans even know they're standing firm? Their mood doesn't show it. Even the Czechs kicked the "Brussels dogs" in the ass.
    2. +9
      27 September 2025 09: 23
      Yeah, right! We convinced ourselves that the Raptor wasn't combat-ready, now we're surprised that the Raptor is combat-ready!

      Underestimating your opponent and overestimating yourself leads to bad results.
      The authors have had a clear example of this for the fourth year in a row, but they don’t see it point-blank and continue to repeat the same old story.
    3. -6
      27 September 2025 10: 15
      Who said he was combat-ready? In which battles did he prove it?
      1. +7
        27 September 2025 12: 10
        Quote: TermNachTER
        Who said he was combat-ready? In which battles did he prove it?

        In which battles did the Project 955 Borei-class SSBNs prove anything? In which battles did the Yars-class submarines prove anything?
        Oh, that's it, they're not combat-ready. laughing laughing
        1. +5
          27 September 2025 13: 26
          I'd add: in what battles and what did the Sarmat, Voevoda, Topol, and other ICBMs prove? They're also not combat-ready. laughing
          1. +8
            27 September 2025 13: 49
            Quote: T-100
            I would add: in what battles and what did the ICBMs Sarmat, Voevoda, Topol and so on down the list prove?

            I'll tell you more. For example, the German battleship Bismarck was terribly ineffective in combat, and then suddenly—ZAM!—it sank the British HMS Hood. And immediately its combat effectiveness skyrocketed... The German T-4 tank was also completely ineffective before the invasion of Poland:))))))
            1. +1
              27 September 2025 17: 04
              The T-4 year of production and the year of the invasion of Poland are slightly different years by 3-4
              1. +1
                27 September 2025 18: 53
                Quote: Ivan 1980
                The T-4 year of production and the year of the invasion of Poland are slightly different years by 3-4

                Well, yes, the T-4 entered service with the Wehrmacht before the invasion of Poland. But it didn't see combat until after the invasion.
            2. -1
              28 September 2025 08: 16
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And immediately his fighting ability soared to the skies...


              ...ultimately to the seabed, albeit after a worthy resistance.
              The T-4 tank, as it turned out, initially struggled against enemy tanks, something that, incidentally, was further demonstrated by the experience of fighting in France. The Germans were, however, somewhat mistaken in assuming that their tanks wouldn't have to fight enemy tanks.
              1. +1
                28 September 2025 09: 46
                Quote: Illanatol
                although after worthy resistance.
                The T-4 tank, as it turns out, didn't fight very well from the start.

                What was the point of all this?:)))
                1. -2
                  28 September 2025 12: 45
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  has it been said?:)))


                  The point is that the much-vaunted combat effectiveness depends on the specific conditions of combat use. And even a capable vehicle may prove less than effective if the conditions aren't quite what the developers had in mind.
                  1. +1
                    28 September 2025 12: 46
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    The fact is that the notorious combat effectiveness depends on the specific conditions of combat use.

                    And what does all this have to do with the issue at hand? However, if you want to continue writing platitudes, I have no objections.
        2. -1
          28 September 2025 08: 20
          Are we being disingenuous and humorous? It's inappropriate to compare deterrent weapons with conventional ones, which are perfectly capable of being used in local conflicts. The Yankees immediately chose to test the F-15 and F-16 in a real combat situation by transferring a batch of these aircraft to the Israeli Air Force. Israel, as is well known, also serves as a testing ground for the Yankees. But with the F-22, things turned out differently. Either the Yankees didn't want to transfer them to Israel, or Israel chose to reject this "wonder weapon"—the story is murky.

          The Yars and Borei missiles are clearly combat-ready, as they successfully perform their primary function – deterrence.
          1. +1
            28 September 2025 09: 45
            Quote: Illanatol
            Are we distorting and making fun of it?

            My opponent is distorting the truth when he says that if a weapon has not been used in combat, it is not combat-ready.
            Quote: Illanatol
            It is not appropriate to compare weapons of deterrence and conventional ones.

            It is not appropriate to use one of the most common methods of dishonest discussion - to invent a condition, if it is not met, the technology is declared worthless
            Quote: Illanatol
            Israel, as we know, also serves as a testing ground for the Yankees. But with the F-22, things turned out differently. Either the Yankees didn't want to hand them over to Israel, or Israel chose to reject this "wonder weapon"—the story is murky.

            There's nothing shady about it. The US doesn't provide Israel with its full range of weapons. They didn't give the Jews, for example, Sentry AWACS (though the Saudis, for example, have such aircraft), nor did they give them F-117s, which later performed very well in Iraq. They didn't give them Thunderbolts, F-111s, or any naval tactical aircraft, all those Tomcats, Super Hornets, and other Intruders. And they didn't give Israel any ground-based weapons... No Abrams, no Bradleys, and so on.
            So, let's not get carried away. The fact that the F-22 hasn't seen much conflict doesn't make it ineffective, and Israel isn't automatically getting all the US military's systems to test.
            Quote: Illanatol
            The Yars and Borei missiles are definitely combat-ready.

            Naturally
            1. 0
              28 September 2025 13: 02
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              There's nothing shady about it. The US doesn't provide Israel with its full range of weapons. They didn't give the Jews, for example, Sentry AWACS (though the Saudis, for example, have such aircraft), nor did they give them F-117s, which later performed very well in Iraq. They didn't give them Thunderbolts, F-111s, or any naval tactical aircraft, all those Tomcats, Super Hornets, and other Intruders. And they didn't give Israel any ground-based weapons... No Abrams, no Bradleys, and so on.


              They don't provide them when there's an opportunity to test prototypes at other testing grounds, or when Israel's conditions (a small country) don't allow for the potential to be realized, or when local alternatives are available. There's no real need for an Abrams when you have a Merkava (even though it had and still has German and American components).
              If Israel had wanted anything from the US, there's no doubt the IDF would have gotten it in quantity. Of course, why would a country that can hardly be called a great naval power need naval tactical aviation? But there's no doubt that if the Yankees sold F-14s to the Shah of Iran, they certainly would have sold them to Israel, but Israel simply had no need for such an aircraft.
              In fact, the Israelis wanted to buy 20 Raptors, and the Yankees were willing to sell them. But the Israelis changed their minds after studying the fighters' specifications in more detail. Apparently, they decided the F-15 and F-16 were more practical.
              1. +2
                28 September 2025 13: 55
                Quote: Illanatol
                If Israel wanted something from the US, there is no doubt that the IDF would get it in the desired amount.

                You will still decide somehow, then you have
                Quote: Illanatol
                Israel, as is well known, plays the role of a training ground for the Yankees

                So, for you, Israel plays the role of a discerning buyer:))))
                If you consider Israel a testing ground, then the Yankees were bound to want to test their carrier-based aircraft in combat conditions. If you're a discerning buyer, the F-22 might simply have been overkill (it's expensive to operate). Simply put, the Arab air forces were a very outdated spectacle, and the F-22, specialized for air combat, was truly of little use. However, this has nothing to do with the F-22's combat effectiveness.
          2. 0
            6 October 2025 20: 52
            Quote: Illanatol
            Either Israel chose to abandon this "wonder weapon" - the story is murky.

            Most likely the Yankees didn't sell them to Israel... instead they were given a really rotten F 35.
  16. +15
    27 September 2025 08: 39
    Congratulation and disdain for the enemy have never produced positive results.
    1. +9
      27 September 2025 09: 22
      Patriotic trends in articles are very fashionable these days, it's good that concerts of the same kind have ended
  17. +7
    27 September 2025 08: 58
    Upgrading older aircraft can help ensure they live a long and happy life.
    Replacing the rapidly evolving onboard electronics is all that's needed for modernization. And in some places, replacing traditional aluminum with composites.
  18. 0
    27 September 2025 09: 02
    The Americans should be encouraged to introduce the idea of ​​insurance companies writing off the costs of downing enemy aircraft to enemy banks. Then we could confidently cover the planes in gold. It looks nice and expensive, and we could squeeze huge sums out of the enemy, and, yes, we could also cut into the budget.
  19. +2
    27 September 2025 09: 23
    Well again ...
    The plane is useless, it's a money grab, etc.
    Is this an excuse for why we still don't have a sufficient number of sixth-generation fighters, and most likely combat-ready ones? I see no other explanation.
    1. +1
      27 September 2025 10: 18
      Who has them? Technically, only the US has 5th-generation aircraft, because Russia and China fly 5th-generation aircraft, but with 4th-generation+ engines. It's possible the Su-57 has already been fitted with a second-generation engine, but I haven't heard of any.
      1. 0
        27 September 2025 16: 27
        sixth generation
        I confess I got confused, of course it was the fifth one.
    2. +1
      27 September 2025 23: 27
      What kind of person do you have to be to comment on an article about fighter jets and not know how to spell the word?
  20. +7
    27 September 2025 09: 24
    Ah, Skomorokhov, again mockery and empty talk...

    As we know, all old aircraft are often modernized. The difference is obvious.
    They discuss it and do it openly, even among the secret ones. Rules of the game.
    We have a minimum of words in the press about a ready-made solution; for example, after the first SU57 was released (approximately), the media announced that the first modernization was coming... everything would switch to electronic control.

    Confirmation of the claims that F22s don't fly and can't shoot... but why? Everyone should take the author's word for it.
  21. +6
    27 September 2025 09: 47
    According to fuel consumption standards, the Ural-375 (a boosted ZIL V-engine with a different cylinder head cover) achieved 71,5 liters per 100 km of 93-octane gasoline. Further factors include trailering, winter conditions, city driving, and so on.
    We actually used these Urals for all kinds of driver training marches, exercises, and field trips. They were equipped with a lot of equipment. It was only in the late 80s that we started using KamAZ and Ural 4320 diesel-powered chassis.
    In reality, the Ural 375 had the poorest range—400 km, with a 300-liter fuel tank. Then they got gasoline from the "donor" ZIL-131, which had two 170-liter tanks (though it was octane 76), and a standard fuel consumption of 52 l/100 km.
    True, after such a donation, the Urals sometimes did not stall when turned off, but continued to operate in diesel mode, with detonation, and had to be turned off by abruptly starting from a standstill.
    The BTR-60PB, with two gas engines, had the same hellish fuel consumption standard - 72 l/100 km, but since it used A-66 gasoline, and then, when it was no longer available, A-72, its tanks did not arouse such burning interest.
    1. 0
      29 September 2025 12: 25
      According to the consumption rates of Ural-375 (fforced-draft ZIL V-engine with a different spider cover for the cylinder head) had 71,5 l/100 km of 93-octane gasoline

      There was a ZIL-130 and a ZIL-375: they have different volumes
  22. +7
    27 September 2025 09: 54
    Very strange article and comparisons.
  23. +7
    27 September 2025 10: 16
    But our Arbat strategists are in perfect order in the air. How many Su-57s are in relatively combat-ready form? Not these—prototype 1, prototype 2, and so on—and not those with who knows what kind of radar, or one thing isn't installed, or another isn't finalized, or a third isn't ready yet, but those very "almost final" variants? And how can this number counter 1000 F-35s and 150 F-22s?
    1. 0
      6 October 2025 20: 56
      Quote: Antony
      How can this amount withstand 1000 F35 and 150 F22?

      Have you read the Americans' opinions on the F-35? They're constantly making adjustments.
  24. +8
    27 September 2025 10: 50
    It feels like some dim-witted shepherd from his cowshed gave an assessment of the 5th generation fighter :) It turned out very funny.
  25. -2
    27 September 2025 10: 56
    Quote: Vadim S
    They make gold contacts, wires, and so on, but here it's just a sputter. Especially since it's all paid for :))

    What an incentive... smile For those who smelt gold from radio components...if you give them a "Virba" and land them on the flight route... what
    1. +1
      27 September 2025 19: 11
      Why do you need Verba? Just grab a sapper shovel and don't forget your spare hat, and run to the airbase to destroy potential enemy fighters right on the ground!
  26. +6
    27 September 2025 11: 39
    Yes, the creative path of a Russian propagandist is difficult. One can only sympathize. Just try explaining to the average person why.
    Rosoboronexport: MiG-29 and BMP-2 modernization are major joint projects with the Belarusian military-industrial complex.

    And the F-22 modernization is a waste of money. It'll take a lot of sweat to come up with the right arguments. And some people even try to criticize.
  27. +3
    27 September 2025 11: 53
    The author is right that the American military-industrial complex wants to make money on its products constantly, not just once at the time of sale. And the scheme is orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than "milking" Soviet Army officers from Ural-375 gas tanks.
  28. -5
    27 September 2025 12: 26
    And yet, what about the F-35?

    People speak either well of the dead or nothing at all.
    1. +7
      27 September 2025 13: 26
      Quote: boriz
      People speak either well of the dead or nothing at all.
      Some very actively reproducing dead person
      1. -1
        27 September 2025 13: 57
        Zombies. Galvanizing corpses. This is the specific nature of lobbying.
        If we take the statistics on the combat readiness of the F35, the picture will be much sadder than that of the F22.
      2. 0
        27 September 2025 17: 03
        The F-104 was also being churned out at a rapid pace. So they didn't know what to do with it.
  29. +2
    27 September 2025 13: 20
    And yet, what about the F-35? Why is it either the F-47 or the F-22, and nothing else?
    That's because the F-35 is a light fighter, while the F-22 is a heavy one. Therefore, when discussing the F-22's prospects, it's the heavy fighters that are being considered.
  30. +1
    27 September 2025 13: 25
    I'm not entirely sure why you attached a photo of a GDR NPA Ural, or if you couldn't find a Soviet one. When it came to gasoline procurement, the artillery regiments armed with ZIL-135 "Uragan" tanks fared best. They had two Ural-375 engines.
    1. 0
      29 September 2025 12: 28
      In terms of gasoline procurement, the artillery regiments that were armed with ZIL-135 tanks fared best. "Hurricane".

      The name "Hurricane" referred to the products of Minsk: MAZ 543 (and sometimes MAZ 535/537)
      1. 0
        5 October 2025 20: 09
        The 9K57 Uragan is a Soviet 220mm multiple launch rocket system (MLRS).
        This system was accepted into service in 1975. The system's chief designer was Alexander Nikitovich Ganichev. The combat vehicle's chief designer was Yu. N. Kalachnikov. The combat vehicle and transport-loading vehicle are based on a modernized ZIL-135LM truck chassis.
        1. 0
          6 October 2025 07: 15
          The 9K57 Uragan is a Soviet 220mm multiple launch rocket system (MLRS).

          Don't confuse soft and warm: the car was nicknamed the Hurricane for its off-road performance.
          1. 0
            6 October 2025 18: 30
            Don't confuse the military name of the system and the slang nickname of the tractor.
            1. 0
              6 October 2025 20: 07
              I'm not confusing anything, did you write this?
              Hiller
              (hiller)
              +1
              27 September 2025 13: 25
              I don't quite understand why you attached a photo of the GDR NPA Ural or the Soviet one; I couldn't find one. In terms of gasoline privatization, the artillery regiments in service, which had ZIL-135 "Hurricane". There are as many as two Ural-375 engines.

              so all questions to the "mirror"...
              we need to see it more often
              1. 0
                6 October 2025 20: 46
                You're not confusing anything. I've explained it clearly.
                Likewise. It's better to look at your own things more often.
                1. 0
                  6 October 2025 21: 05
                  You're not confusing anything. I've explained it clearly.
                  Likewise. It's better to look at your own things more often.

                  so Urahan - Is this a ZIL-135?
  31. +1
    27 September 2025 13: 58
    Any weapon system accepted into service automatically becomes obsolete on the day it is accepted into service, because development takes years.
    1. 0
      6 October 2025 21: 08
      [quote=Strelok1976]because it takes years to develop.
      Well, why... you can do what we did with the T-34 or the Americans did with the F-35 by starting mass production of a "raw" product
  32. +6
    27 September 2025 15: 52
    Our overconfident attitudes are costing us dearly. Remember how they told us before February 24, 2022, that there would be no analog. Reality sobered us up instantly.
    1. 0
      6 October 2025 21: 06
      Quote: Antony
      analogue

      So... is there any real evidence of the downing of "calibers" and "daggers"?
  33. 0
    27 September 2025 16: 14
    The stupidest and most obscene text from the very beginning.

    To disrespect AvtoVAZ like this is, excuse me, below the baseboard.
  34. +1
    27 September 2025 18: 58
    Quote: hiller
    I'm not entirely sure why you attached a photo of a GDR NPA Ural, or if you couldn't find a Soviet one. When it came to gasoline procurement, the artillery regiments armed with ZIL-135 "Uragan" tanks fared best. They had two Ural-375 engines.


    Haven't heard anything about military equipment maintenance groups. Too bad. You can't handle it with just a permit and a speedometer motor. Other people will quickly become interested in the excess engine life. And that's a lot more money. Actually, the author is starting to tell tales about gasoline theft. It would take much more than two Ural trucks to fill the entire unit with gasoline. And the author probably doesn't know that the commander has a service UVZ. It happens.
  35. 0
    27 September 2025 19: 11
    Yes, yes, yes - “The grapes are green!”
  36. +1
    27 September 2025 21: 14
    You can try to belittle the F-22 as much as you want, but judging by the feedback from our pilots in Syria, this aircraft is an order of magnitude better than our Su-35.
  37. +1
    27 September 2025 23: 02
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    You can try to belittle the F-22 as much as you want, but judging by the feedback from our pilots in Syria, this aircraft is an order of magnitude better than our Su-35.

    "GENERATION, in technology - homogeneous machines, devices, instruments, etc. at a certain stage of their development, significantly different in technical and economic indicators, reliability, functional capabilities, etc. from those produced previously."
    A 5th generation aircraft is by definition superior to a 4th generation aircraft, no matter how many advantages it has.
  38. +3
    27 September 2025 23: 09
    The texts of the buffoon Roman are unmistakably identified from the very first lines. Reading stops there.
  39. 0
    28 September 2025 11: 59
    The globalists are preparing for war! This is what can be understood between the lines.
  40. +2
    28 September 2025 14: 28
    R.V.S.'s analysis is like a brown bear's ballet - interesting, but pointless.
  41. +3
    28 September 2025 15: 58
    In Russia, they haven't given up on trying to make a car at VAZ for 50 years now.
    So, Russia, on the other hand, only appeared on the map 34 years ago. And it immediately abandoned its own automotive industry. At one time, passenger cars produced in the USSR were quite popular outside the Soviet bloc. The NIVA, for example, or the Moskvich-408/412, which, despite participating in many rally raids, almost never made it out of the top 10.
    1. 0
      6 October 2025 08: 17
      If I'm not mistaken, more than 170,000 Soviet passenger cars were sold in Great Britain in the 1970s (TOP GEAR reported these figures).
      1. 0
        6 October 2025 10: 11
        Quote: Mikhail Krivopalov
        If I'm not mistaken, more than 170,000 Soviet passenger cars were sold in Great Britain in the 1970s (TOP GEAR reported these figures).

        And, oddly enough, they purchased Soviet KrAZ-256B trucks for the construction of the Channel Tunnel. However, they demanded that the KrAZ logo be replaced with the word "BelAZ."
  42. +1
    29 September 2025 07: 20
    Well, he's a master of lying about Urals. Have you ever driven one yourself, Roma? Or were they really on brake pads wherever you've been? That's no reason to criticize a car that may be thirsty, but is still a good one!
  43. 0
    29 September 2025 11: 36
    The Americans suddenly remembered that any war involves LOSSES. That's why they're fixing everything that can work, and the Raptor is currently the best aircraft in the world, it's just very expensive. wink

    Unlike the Urals, by the way. soldier
  44. KCA
    0
    1 October 2025 12: 41
    I didn't bother reading, the main photo shows a URAL 4310, not a 375 or 375D at all.
  45. 0
    6 October 2025 20: 28
    Unfortunately, the 22 mattresses are the only option available right now. It's a reliable and tried-and-true machine.
    As for 50 years... I'd rather believe the Germans who didn't like the look of the Priora than the domestic "experts."
    I won't even say anything about the Ural, the car's track record will speak for itself.