Military Review

Why does the US continue the F-35 project?

107
On the last day of spring, the US Department of Defense published a new update on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II project. Plans for the implementation of this program have recently been revised and some dates have shifted to the left. So, as early as December 2015, the first squadron of the X-NUMX-12 F-24A aircraft will be formed. Thanks to this, the program will reach the IOC stage (Initial operational availability) and the USF will finally have the first combat-ready unit armed with new fighters.




This news can be interpreted differently, but the main conclusion suggests itself. After many years of design, assembly, testing and other work, the F-35 is approaching the start of full-fledged combat service. Despite all the solved and existing problems, the United States Air Force and Lockheed Martin continue to fine-tune the new fighter and do not even think about abandoning it. The new fighter of the fifth generation will now be brought to mind at any cost and built in a large series.

There are several explanations for this. The reasons for the continuation of the project relate to its various sides and they can find both positive and negative sides. However, ultimately, the positive effect of the new project was able to outweigh the problems. F-35 aircraft continue to fly and assemble at Lockheed Martin’s factories, while the US Air Force command continues to carry out the activities necessary for their full service. Let's try to find out why the United States needs this aircraft and why the project, for all its flaws, is unlikely to be closed.

There is no way back

Over the past years, while creating a new F-35, all sorts of criticism fell on him. Listing all the flaws in which the promising fighter was accused will take a lot of time. At the same time, at the early stages of development, when the first reports of failures in the course of the project began to arrive, a proposal was made to abandon the development of Lockheed in favor of another aircraft. The United States Air Force did not take such measures and continued to fund F-35.

F-35 Lightning II


Boeing X-32


As a result, to date, the F-35 Lightning II fighter is the only American aircraft of this class, suitable for full-scale operation in the coming years. If the Pentagon listens to the “hot heads” and considers the existing unsolved problems as a reason to stop work, then it will take too much time to create or process any other project (for example, Boeing X-32, developed simultaneously with the F-35) clear consequences for several types of troops at once: for the Air Force, Navy and the International Law Commission.

It turns out that one of the main advantages of F-35 today is the lack of alternatives, due to the appropriate choice of the military department. As a result of comparing two projects created during the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) program, the future F-35 was selected as the most promising, and its competitor, X-32 from Boeing, added the list of rejected prototypes.

Problems and attitudes towards them

You can talk for a long time about existing and corrected deficiencies or problems of the F-35 project, but you still have to admit one obvious thing. By sacrificing time, effort, and finances, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin continue to struggle with problems. The identified deficiencies are corrected to the best of their abilities and capabilities, although the struggle with some of them requires special efforts. Fortunately, the developers of the project, most of the particularly large problems were identified and eliminated at the stage of testing the first prototypes. As a result, in the event of the identification of any deficiencies in fighters being built in series, their correction, most likely, will not require significant efforts.



In the context of the problems of the F-35 program, it is necessary to note the availability of progress information. The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin regularly publish up-to-date information about their work, identified deficiencies and measures to eliminate them. It is quite possible that such an approach to the coverage of events was one of the prerequisites for a negative reaction to the project on the part of a certain part of the near-aviation community. It is not a secret for anyone that any new aircraft has a lot of “childhood diseases” that have to be corrected for a long time, and sometimes this correction continues even after the start of operation of production vehicles. These two factors can somewhat explain the widespread negative attitude towards the F-35 project.

Great expectations

According to the latest data, the Pentagon will purchase almost 2450 new F-35 fighters in three versions for various purposes. Of these, 1763 vehicles will be built in the F-35A version and will go to serve in the Air Force. 353 F-35B fighters will be handed over to the Marine Corps, and the remaining 260 aircraft will join the ranks aviation naval forces. Thus, the number of F-35A aircraft for the Air Force will exceed the total number of fighter-bombers currently in use.



However, the land and deck fighters F-35A and F-35C will only come to replace the existing numerous techniques, and for some time will serve with it. The situation is quite different in the Marine Corps aviation. The only attack aircraft of the CMP is currently McDonnell Douglas / Boeing AV-8B Harrier II. At the same time in the ranks there are about a hundred such machines, which is not enough for effective mass support of troops from the air. Thus, the F-35B fighter with a shortened take-off and vertical landing will be a real rescue of KMP aviation.

Finally, it should be noted that F-35 has a number of new systems designed to increase its combat effectiveness, as well as compatibility with advanced guided weapons. As a result, the F-35 Lightning II fighter, regardless of modification, is a complex and expensive, but highly efficient combat vehicle, capable in the near future to force out all obsolete aircraft from the troops and ensure the combat effectiveness of the Air Force, Navy and IOM over the next decades .

Decision is made

Minor design flaws, etc. F-35 aircraft problems continue to be identified until now, and the US military takes this into account. The result of attention to such things is the regular introduction of adjustments to the plans, especially vividly manifested in the early stages of the project. In recent years, the planned dates for the implementation of a program element are almost not shifted, so the recent news about the time to bring the aircraft to the state of IOC attracts particular attention. She says that the existing deficiencies are being actively addressed and its rates are higher than previously thought.



As a matter of fact, all the news that appeared as the F-35 project was implemented, unequivocally said that the Pentagon is confident in its choice and intends to equip the air force and naval forces, as well as the Marine Corps with the planes of this particular family. As for the timing and cost of the entire program, in the light of the complexity of the new aviation technology and related systems, they do not look something too big, although they are quite capable of causing disputes. An example of this is the repeated disputes in Congress over the necessary amount of project funding.

At present, there is a slight improvement in the design and a noticeable improvement in the F-35 fighter systems, new serial vehicles leave the assembly hall, and the US military regularly publishes new reports on the project. Proponents of the new aircraft, in turn, continue to defend its need for numerous disputes, and opponents with no less fervor advance their point of view. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has long made its choice: to be a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter.

Of course, in order to fully complete all the planned work and processes, it will be necessary to spend some additional time and some money. But the cost of finance and time seems to suit the customer. Thus, choosing between an expensive, long, but promising project and a less costly, but not yet existing, the Pentagon made the most obvious, though not a cheap decision. He is ready to sacrifice money and refuse to save, but at the same time he intends to get promising equipment with wide opportunities. Making such a choice, you need to be sure that the costs will be justified. The US Department of Defense has good reasons to continue, and they clearly outweigh all the arguments against continuing the program.


On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://defense-update.com/
http://lockheedmartin.com/
https://f35.com/
http://defensenews.com/
http://seapowermagazine.org/
Author:
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Per se.
    Per se. 3 June 2013 08: 21 New
    13
    "When making this choice, you need to be sure that the costs are justified." It is difficult to suspect Americans of stupidity, it must be understood that the F-35 (as more advanced than its competitors on this topic) is their well-thought-out and informed choice. Costs will be justified, VTOL aircraft are global war planes that can survive and take off, if necessary, from any pit on land, and can be used on many ships, even non-aircraft carriers. Yes, VTOL now has its drawbacks, but these planes will be corrected, improved for the sake of the main plus - universality, the ability to do without kilometer runways, which in any war, are the primary targets for strikes. It is a pity that having the Yak-Xnumx VTOL practically ready, we put an end to this topic, especially since Russia itself could be the victim of a disarming, preventive strike in a new war, and not the United States.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 3 June 2013 09: 48 New
      17
      VTOL is not the main thing, the main thing is a new generation aircraft, the second one by the way, with new detection, control and maintenance systems. Those developments that appeared during the creation of 22 and 35 are likely to be used not only in aviation, in the other branches of the armed forces either. And in civil engineering too.
      So 22 and 35, apparently, should be seen as another step forward, from all the others, in the integrated development of military equipment.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 3 June 2013 10: 08 New
        +4
        Quote: sevtrash
        VTOL is not the main thing
        If VTOL was not the main thing, they would not bother with these problems, would make an improved F-22 or other device, would modernize existing machines, replacing the same avionics. I agree that VTOL is not an alternative to classic take-off aircraft, but a very necessary addition. Technique does not stand still, sooner or later, but most aircraft will have to come to a short or vertical start, albeit on other physical principles. Nevertheless, not to deal with VTOL aircraft and convertiplanes in Russia now, at least stupid, especially, losing experience on the YAK-141.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 June 2013 13: 26 New
          0
          Can you read? F-35Bs will make up a very small part of the total number and their prospects are doubtful, because they are built only for pre-aircraft carriers and not one of them will enter the Air Force.

          The developers of the V-22 Union’s heroes have to be paid for the convertiplanes, so much money should be spent on it, giving out a small number of bad planes, each at the price of a fighter, you still need to know how to do it.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 June 2013 13: 33 New
            +2
            Well, if the insignificant is 160 pieces that are still actively being produced, and from which, for example, Israeli pilots were delighted ...
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 7 June 2013 06: 24 New
              0
              Why does the US continue the F-35 project?

              The answer is simple:
              CUT
          2. sevtrash
            sevtrash 3 June 2013 23: 04 New
            +2
            A machine that takes off like a helicopter, but flies like a plane and also carries a good load - sort of like many dreamed of doing.
            But it turned out to bring only V22. I think this achievement is not weak.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 June 2013 13: 24 New
      +5
      Unfortunately, even the Air Force does not always understand that to create an aircraft capable of operating from any pit, making it vertically take off is completely insufficient. An aerodrome is a rather complex system and instant shutdown of a runway on it is far from the most difficult task. But how interaction will take place, how fuel / ammunition will be transported, and other support for the combat operation of the aircraft in any pit are interesting questions. Therefore, the closure of this idiotic Yak-141, which being heavier than the MiG-29 was inferior to him in all respects, was absolutely correct.
      1. Argon
        Argon 3 June 2013 14: 29 New
        11
        The new “Lightning” is not only, and not so much an airplane, it is a universal platform, which is part of the strike system, which has no analogues in the world and is not yet in sight. it’s moving in the air. But it’s not the fighter itself, not the attack aircraft that will destroy any target due to interaction with everything that they have at their disposal (from satellites and ships to cameras on helmets of killed soldiers). Well, they have corresponding problems, and the plane itself? Yes, they made an ostentatious hysteria so that they could also cut money for the unmanned modification of the F-31 (in Tihar), business then. 35 became “victims of the abortion." Why, what am I? Yes, to the fact that you don’t want them to feel bad there, but to do what would become good with us! hi
    3. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 3 June 2013 18: 20 New
      +5
      Quote: Per se.
      "It's hard to suspect Americans of stupidity.

      And in some cases it is not necessary. What is what, but they are far from stupid and their approach to the robot is normal. Of course, not everything turns out, maybe they miscalculated in something. This is normal, the track is new, not beaten. It is necessary to learn, and take the best, and not shout "Hurray."
    4. Civil
      Civil 3 June 2013 19: 02 New
      +2
      because their F35 will be more than 2000 ...
  2. pensioner
    pensioner 3 June 2013 08: 34 New
    +7
    They have nowhere to go. You can make fun of them as much as you like (I myself do not miss a chance). But. As Baarlam was forced to read the letter in syllables, so the amers will be forced to put 35ku on the wing. And they can rivet them a lot ... How will we answer?
  3. Avenger711
    Avenger711 3 June 2013 08: 37 New
    10
    Children's illnesses are one thing, weakness of performance characteristics is another. At the same time, the USA has 2 good aircraft in the same weight category, on which new electronics are installed in the same way.
  4. evgenii67
    evgenii67 3 June 2013 08: 39 New
    +2
    Hello everyone! The Boeing X-32 is generally an open beak pelican! What a horror, such planes fly! Of the two evils, the Amers chose the lesser, or rather, of all the freaks, the Amers chose the cutest. Now, more specifically on F-35- we can now joke, “burn out” on this plane, but work is ongoing, money is pouring in, which means that most likely the plane will be brought to the proper level.
    1. roial
      roial 3 June 2013 09: 10 New
      +6
      DECK STORM ATTACK A-7 CORSAIR
      at one time a good car was, albeit with a "beak"
      1. evgenii67
        evgenii67 3 June 2013 09: 27 New
        -1
        Quote: roial
        DECK STORM ATTACK A-7 CORSAIR
        at one time a good car was, albeit with a "beak"

        this car looks good, the air intake is pushed forward, but you look at the freak Boeing X-32, in my opinion it is not correct to compare.
    2. Constantine
      Constantine 3 June 2013 09: 55 New
      +5
      Quote: evgenii67
      Now, more specifically on F-35- we can now joke, “burn out” on this plane, but work is ongoing, money is pouring in, which means that most likely the plane will be brought to the proper level.


      They F-22 really can’t bring. It is believed that high-profile statements and the continuation of work are more likely connected with external orders, as many countries of the alliance invested in the development of the fighter, and if the Americans themselves do not show due interest in the project, they can be presented in those countries whose taxes were burned in the F-35 boiler. As far as I know, many have already abandoned these fighters due to their high cost and delay. In such a situation, it’s logical to say that “we’ll take a lot” so as not to lose pre-order completely since voluntarily or not, but the members of the alliance are guided by the United States.

      There was the same story with the F-22, at first it was said that "we would buy a lot," and then they took and did not buy much.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 3 June 2013 10: 06 New
        +2
        The US will produce them even if all countries refuse. They have nowhere to go. And they will print dollars. And washed through loans for the supply of their own weapons.
    3. Argon
      Argon 3 June 2013 13: 50 New
      +2
      As for the Boeing, there are no comrades for the taste and color. In my opinion, the F-35 is also not the peak of aesthetics, the appearance is formed by those requirements (thank God) not by the designers. no
  5. Katsin
    Katsin 3 June 2013 08: 50 New
    -22
    I’ll write a seditious thing for you: no one threatens Russia and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches to establish health care, education, and improve the lives of old people. Islam is the real threat to Russia, unlike America ...
    1. feanor
      feanor 3 June 2013 09: 09 New
      16
      Better to be ready for anything than not ready at all.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Tihas
      Tihas 3 June 2013 09: 44 New
      11
      Islam does not threaten any side of Russia. The threat is the SGA. SGA use the radical currents of Islam as an instrument of war with Russia.
    4. Per se.
      Per se. 3 June 2013 09: 51 New
      17
      Quote: Katsin
      no one threatens Russia and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches
      And who is threatening the United States? Missile defense, space shuttle drones, the largest and most powerful army, 95% of the world military bases in the USA, is that from the "terrorists"? If you want peace, prepare for war, otherwise, it will be like with Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, the same Lebanon, which Israel could "bomb a little" at its discretion.
    5. Wedmak
      Wedmak 3 June 2013 10: 07 New
      13
      I’ll write a seditious thing for you: no one threatens Russia and will not bomb ...

      Come on? Give a list of countries that sleep and see how to divide the territory of the Russian Federation into colonies?
    6. ultra
      ultra 3 June 2013 10: 58 New
      +7
      Quote: Katsin
      : no one threatens Russia and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches

      Yes, We don’t seem to be in the trenches! It’s better to suggest it to the “world democrats”, they climbed into them like after WWII and still don’t come up with new enemies almost every year!
    7. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 June 2013 13: 29 New
      +6
      You left Russia, so you sit there. And from Islam, heavy weapons very well help.
    8. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 14: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: Katsin
      I’ll write a seditious thing for you: no one threatens Russia and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches to establish health care, education, and improve the lives of old people. Islam is the real threat to Russia, unlike America ...

      Gaddafi also developed everything for people. Only doves of peace flew under the pretext of dictatorship, they bombed the country in the Stone Age. You wouldn’t have taught anyone to live here, we can handle it without your advice.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 33 New
        -14
        Gadduffy was extremely unpredictable in his own state, in the international political arena. Managed to annoy everyone - terrorist attacks, assassination attempt on the Saudi king, war with Egypt, etc. It was good for everyone mainly on a piece of paper. Although Libya lived beautifully on a piece of paper, in fact, there was a rather low level of medicine, some very large areas that supplied oil were simply ignored in the social plan - well, etc.
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 15: 18 New
          +4
          Oh, just do not need it, but he wanted to sit on two chairs, but he was rather pro-Western. He is not Saudi, not Egypt, but all friends including France, whose president he brought to power. Everything was good not on paper, otherwise he would not have been able to ride in the desert for almost a year. And if not for the intervention of the friends of “Libya”, then it would not be so sad.

          http://cuamckuykot.ru/life-before-war-in-lybia-390.html
        2. Corneli
          Corneli 5 June 2013 11: 25 New
          -1
          Quote: Pimply
          Gadduffy was extremely unpredictable in his own state, in the international political arena. Managed to annoy everyone - terrorist attacks, assassination attempt on the Saudi king, war with Egypt, etc. It was good for everyone mainly on a piece of paper. Although Libya lived beautifully on a piece of paper, in fact it was, "some very large areas that supplied oil were simply ignored in the social plan - well, etc.

          But right now (without Kadaffi) there is simply a paradise on earth! Such "predictability", sho amers embassies evacuate). And those crowds, bearded young people with Kalash, who go there (not subordinating to anyone except their commander) or other crowds (from there) fighting at home in Mali and Syria are not "terrorists" at all, where they are to the evil Gaddafi! Earlier in Libya, there may have been a fairly low level of medetsina "and" it’s beautiful on a piece of paper .... but it’s not even beautiful there on a piece of paper .. —but there’s democracy!)
    9. NOBODY EXCEPT US
      NOBODY EXCEPT US 3 June 2013 16: 13 New
      -3
      I don’t know about America, but about Islam, to the point .... it’s not clear why there are so many minuses, are there really so many professing Islam on the site ..?
    10. TS3sta3
      TS3sta3 3 June 2013 18: 37 New
      +9
      I’ll write a seditious thing for you: no one threatens Israel and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches to establish health care, education, and improve the lives of old people.
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 3 June 2013 19: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: TS3sta3
        I’ll write a seditious thing for you: no one threatens Israel and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches to establish health care, education, and improve the lives of old people.

        Is that you to us? what good
    11. sonik-007
      sonik-007 3 June 2013 19: 28 New
      +3
      The real threat is people like you - pseudo-patriots, liberal basement hamsters who shout from all stripes and from all angles that nobody needs you. You shit. You are rogue. Etc. etc.
      We have heard this more than once. The information war is in full swing and you, as one of its activists, probably should already change the record - you have already been bitten through.

      I recall one of the "axioms" of the information war - something like "do it so that the enemy would believe in their worthlessness and convince that no one needs him. And you can take it with almost bare hands."

      Russia will always be rebellious, and as long as there are Russians, real patriots who are ready to give their lives for their homeland, star-mattressed with their satellites like Israel wink never calm down.

      The redistribution of spheres of influence and territories is taking place now. So, again, come up with something new.
    12. TUMAN
      TUMAN 3 June 2013 21: 19 New
      +3
      Quote: Katsin
      Islam is the real threat to Russia

      Islam, or rather, Islamic radicalism, artfully controlled by the Zionists, is a real threat to Russia! That's what you wanted to say, "respected" Katsin!
    13. Sergey_K
      Sergey_K 3 June 2013 22: 04 New
      +2
      I would not say that. Not without reason hypersonic devices, missile defense, etc. are being developed. But I will say that with a powerful, good army, but without health care, education, a country is even faster than pi ... than without an army ...
  6. roial
    roial 3 June 2013 09: 04 New
    +6
    Carry hard and throw a pity
  7. evgenii67
    evgenii67 3 June 2013 09: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: Katsin
    I’ll write a seditious thing for you: no one threatens Russia and will not bomb ... So get out of the trenches to establish health care, education, and improve the lives of old people. Islam is the real threat to Russia, unlike America.

    well yes! Now this will be borne on this topic, but I will start (more precisely after you)! The USSR did not collapse because of Islam! The missile defense system that "does not threaten" the national security of Russia, the Islamists are building! Al-Qaeda, Osama, whose will you be (who fed him and raised him!) Well, according to the old pattern of saying: “golden billion”, “large territory, low population density”, “lazy people, there should be no more than 50 mln. Hl” is far from all, and even a very small part of what Westerners think and dream about politicians towards Russia (Western politicians are not yet radical Islamists, although what they do and how they are unlimited are hundreds of times worse and more dangerous).
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 3 June 2013 09: 33 New
      +4
      do not feed the troll, it will bend faster.
  8. alex67
    alex67 3 June 2013 09: 25 New
    +9
    NO ROAD BACK! ONLY FORWARD AND EXTENDED - THIS MONEY IS ONLY IN THIS PLANE
    VBUKHANO, MUCH ALLIES ARE STANDING IN THE QUEUE WHICH IS CHEAPER TO FIND,
    WHAT TO PAY FOR EVERYONE ...
  9. Svarog
    Svarog 3 June 2013 09: 35 New
    +4
    The photo shows why they took the F35, and not the X-32 Boeing. There the name didn’t work out, not to mention the appearance .. I'm afraid he would have no chance even with a significant superiority in parameters :).
  10. Vlad7461
    Vlad7461 3 June 2013 09: 52 New
    -1
    There is hope that the F-35 will turn out to be a shitty plane and in fact will not be a strong rival to our aviation. I am happy for the mattresses))).
    1. reichsmarshal
      reichsmarshal 3 June 2013 22: 59 New
      -2
      The effectiveness of aircraft confrontation is determined by weapons and guidance systems. Melee battle "in Pokryshkinski" - this is the fate of the history of the Air Force. RVV-AE is not worse than AMRAAM, but there are very few of them, and the P-27 is junk! Our A-50s, unlike AWACs, were not used in air battles: only in exercises. I fear that in the conditions of a REAL war, our planes simply will not have data where the F-35 is, and they will see us in full view (in Lebanon-1982 and in Yugoslavia-1999 it was).
  11. Wedmak
    Wedmak 3 June 2013 09: 58 New
    +2
    Americans really have nowhere to retreat. And it's better F-35 with low performance characteristics than nothing at all. I hope our MIG-35 will be a worthy competitor to him. Moreover, thank God, they went into the series.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 June 2013 13: 30 New
      0
      There is no contract yet.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 3 June 2013 16: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      I hope our MIG-35 will be a worthy competitor to him.

      To fight a giant, you need a giant. It is desirable to have as many T-50s as possible.
      If you are talking about competition in export markets, then they are in different niches. F-35 is for America’s allies and wealthy customers. Mig-35 is for America’s opponents and economy customers.
      But first you need to bring Mig-35 with AFAR to mind.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 3 June 2013 16: 32 New
        0
        To fight a giant you need a giant.

        The myth of David and Goliath will help you. )))
        It is still desirable to have as many T-50 as possible.

        But the T-50 is a heavy multifunctional one, and the opponent is the F-22. But not F-35.
        F-22 is the most sophisticated machine to date. F-35, a stripped-down version of 22, and also redesigned into a platform for 3's options. But the F-22 is not for sale outside the US, and the price of the F-35 continues to rise ...
        F-35 - for America's allies and affluent customers.

        Allies are already scratching their turnips and want to abandon the purchase of this expensive toy. Maybe this is the goal of the United States? Developed as if together, and the Americans will exploit. Once again, they will fool the people.
        Mig-35 for opponents of America and economy clients.

        Economy, not economy, but MIG-35 will give odds to many modern fighters. And when finalizing the radar, it will be the best light fighter.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 3 June 2013 17: 42 New
          +3
          Quote: Wedmak
          But the T-50 is a heavy multifunctional one, and the opponent is the F-22. But not F-35.

          It is doubtful that the F-22 is not exported, so it can only become an adversary in the event of a global war with NATO, and in this case we will have one chance - a nuclear strike.
          But the F-35 just goes for export, he has more chances to meet in the confrontation with the T-50.
          Quote: Wedmak
          F-22 is the most sophisticated machine to date. F-35, stripped down version of the 22nd

          Yes, it’s different. F-22 is a clean fighter with ultra-low EPR. F-35 is a multi-purpose fighter with higher EPR and worse LTX, but with better electronic warfare and, in general, with the best avionics.
          Quote: Wedmak
          Allies are already scratching their turnips and want to abandon the purchase of this expensive toy

          They don’t refuse. Only Canada, Australia and Great Britain have the right to vote, and Israel has it, of course. But in the case of the Allies, this can really be an expensive toy. First, they (except Israel) want to sell planes with increased EPR. Secondly, the strength of the F-35, as Argon correctly noted, is that it is integrated into a single strike system. And how is it with the allies it is not entirely clear ...
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 3 June 2013 21: 22 New
            -1
            Quote: Odyssey
            They will not refuse. The right to vote, and that is relative, is only there in Canada, Australia and Great Britain. Well, in Israel, of course.

            There is not even the right to vote, everyone who reached the f-35 is still happy, it's like a new long-awaited toy. But the tricked-out helmet does not really work, there are problems, they are using a simplified version. As long as there is no one in the USA to challenge, they can experiment as they want.
  12. Russ69
    Russ69 3 June 2013 10: 22 New
    +1
    They will bring it to mind, there is no doubt. The question is how much will it cost yet ...
    Dates of combat duty recently announced; PThe Pentagon announced that F-35B fighters for the US Marine Corps will begin operational alert in December 2015, F-35A for the Air Force in December 2016, and F-35C for Navy carrier-based aviation in February 2019.
    1. Rider
      Rider 3 June 2013 14: 37 New
      -2
      add
      in February of this year, the Pentagon DECLINED the technical requirements for its main prodigy f22.
      this news has already been discussed on the site
      http://topwar.ru/24213-pentagon-vnov-snizhaet-tehnicheskie-trebovaniya-k-svoemu-
      glavnomu-stels-istrebitelyu.html
  13. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 3 June 2013 11: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Constantine
    Quote: evgenii67
    Now, more specifically on F-35- we can now joke, “burn out” on this plane, but work is ongoing, money is pouring in, which means that most likely the plane will be brought to the proper level.


    They F-22 really can’t bring. It is believed that high-profile statements and the continuation of work are more likely connected with external orders, as many countries of the alliance invested in the development of the fighter, and if the Americans themselves do not show due interest in the project, they can be presented in those countries whose taxes were burned in the F-35 boiler. As far as I know, many have already abandoned these fighters due to their high cost and delay. In such a situation, it’s logical to say that “we’ll take a lot” so as not to lose pre-order completely since voluntarily or not, but the members of the alliance are guided by the United States.

    There was the same story with the F-22, at first it was said that "we would buy a lot," and then they took and did not buy much.

    More than a hundred of them are in service.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 3 June 2013 12: 02 New
      +2
      More than a hundred of them are in service.

      Exactly - worth it! And the production of F-22 is stopped. smile
      1. Phantom Revolution
        Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 14: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Exactly - worth it! And the production of F-22 is stopped. smile

        Believe me, only billions + maintenance will go for modernization. In short, this hundred will drink a lot of green blood.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 3 June 2013 14: 38 New
          +1
          In short, this hundred will drink a lot of green blood.

          Yes, I am against something ...)) Let him drink, but not choke. If only ours did not look back on this matter ... but went their own way.
  14. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 3 June 2013 11: 44 New
    -2
    Think the F-22 is "nothing"?
  15. 0255
    0255 3 June 2013 12: 05 New
    -3
    They wrote that the electronics for the F-35 were made by the Chinese, so that it was possible to connect to it and receive data from the aircraft's on-board systems and disable it. I wonder how Lockheed Martin solved this problem?
    Yes, and if the F-35 is so wonderful, then why create the F-15 Silent Eagle invisibility?
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 June 2013 13: 32 New
      +1
      F-15SE is developed at the initiative of the manufacturer, they are private traders where they want to go there and spend. And our design bureaus themselves disposed of their dough.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 3 June 2013 13: 34 New
      +2
      They wrote something completely different. Among the entire mass of components, we found a quantity produced in China. Quickly replaced.
    3. Yuriwhite
      Yuriwhite 3 June 2013 14: 06 New
      -2
      Yes, because they understand that before the implementation of f-35, although a failure is still a long way off. The Air Force needs a plane, but no plane. Therefore, the right decision was made to maximize the very successful aircraft. And I think they do it not in vain.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 34 New
        -1
        100 aircraft in the air - is this far?
    4. Odysseus
      Odysseus 3 June 2013 16: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: 0255
      Yes, and if the F-35 is so wonderful, then why create the F-15 Silent Eagle invisibility?

      There are no invisibles. There are inconspicuous aircraft F-35, F-22. And there are planes with measures to reduce the EPR of Rafal, Super Hornet, Typhoon, Silent Eagle, etc.
      Specifically, Silent Eagle is a purely exported McDonnell-Douglas project.
  16. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 3 June 2013 12: 25 New
    +1
    The thrust-weight ratio of 0,57 at full combat load, in my deeply unprofessional view, is not enough.
    And if this is the main vehicle for supporting troops, with such a thrust-weight ratio it can become an easy target ...
    1. cyberspace
      cyberspace 3 June 2013 16: 45 New
      0
      Quote: Just_Nick
      Thrust-weight ratio of 0,57 at full combat load

      With such a thrust-weight ratio, one can forget about super-maneuverability and cruising supersonic, i.e. the 5th generation no longer fits, as the Australians estimated - a 3rd generation aircraft with elements of the 5th.
  17. Pimply
    Pimply 3 June 2013 13: 37 New
    +6
    To begin with, it is worth noting that the Americans are building not one plane at once, but three. As much as possible unified, but three. And build on the limit of modern technology. Hence most of their problems. Build openly, not particularly hiding the problems.
    Therefore, you can laugh at the project as much as you like, but the reality is this. There is already a plane, the plane flies in the amount of hundreds of copies, and they will successfully complete this project. And taking into account how many breakthrough technologies are developed with such projects, it is clearly not to the detriment of oneself.
    1. Yuriwhite
      Yuriwhite 3 June 2013 13: 58 New
      +2
      The reality is that the F-22s are no longer being built, although as they wrote and canned production lines. F-35 is frankly not a good plane. In an attempt to make a universal machine, they got a wretched penguin who has nothing to do with the 5th generation. Of course it will be finished and advertised as F-117 and after a couple of combat use in a quiet write off as again F-117. There is only one reason - the catastrophic collapse of the military-technical school. No one in the US wants to be an engineer. In MIT, for example, there is even a quota for white Americans and oh ... even for blacks. But mainly Asians study there.
      And I repeat - F-35 is one plane, just 3 modifications, and who says that these are 3 different planes, it’s just as usual distorting the facts.
      PS What are breakthrough projects? What are they breakthrough? Good to retell American agitation.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 36 New
        -1
        Well, if you carefully looked at the information on the development of the F35, and did not wave the slogans, you might know what technologies are in question.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 3 June 2013 14: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Pimply
      To begin with, it is worth noting that the Americans are building not one plane at once, but three.

      More precisely, three planes on the same base.
      One way or another, Americans will enter the fifth generation fighter age with the F-5. But already swung at the 35th generation.
      They voiced the pace of construction of a large series after the tests. 40 aircraft per MONTH.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 39 New
        +2
        About that and speech. And here everyone laughs at him. Yeah. Such an aircraft is ridiculous, which allows you to do a circular view without aerobatics, simply by turning your head, for example, or by looking at the floor, and even pointing a rocket. Or version B, which they did manage to finish, which just expands the possibilities of using aviation.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 3 June 2013 14: 56 New
          +2
          Such an aircraft is ridiculous, which allows you to do a circular view without aerobatics, simply by turning your head, for example, or by looking at the floor, and even pointing a rocket.

          If I’m not mistaken, this function was refused. the flow of information is so large that the pilot loses orientation in space.
          Or version B, which they did manage to finish, which just expands the possibilities of using aviation.

          Thunderstorm and rain is not afraid? Restrictions on altitude, range and overload removed?
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 June 2013 15: 07 New
            +1
            And once again you confuse solvable or resolved problems that arise when refining ANY airplane with reality.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 3 June 2013 15: 16 New
              +2
              May be. But letting the plane into a series with such flaws that are detected on the F-35 ... brr ... you must agree that this is not nonsense, then wrong.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 3 June 2013 16: 47 New
                0
                They launch a conditionally "small" series, on which they catch flaws. While these flaws are commonplace for the development of all aircraft.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 3 June 2013 17: 03 New
                  0
                  Well, yes, with their printing press, why not run it, at the same time sawing a couple of billion.
                  True, there are some flaws ... for which it is necessary not to modify the iron, but to cut the performance characteristics.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 3 June 2013 17: 11 New
                    0
                    Do not repeat stories about the printing press. Learn the economy. The printing press out of Zimbabwe included. Did it help them?
                    1. Wedmak
                      Wedmak 3 June 2013 17: 19 New
                      +3
                      Do not repeat stories about the printing press. Learn the economy.

                      Yes, I see that economy ... everything keeps on loans.
                      The printing press out of Zimbabwe included. Did it help them?

                      I don’t know, maybe they were wrong with the paint? It was necessary to take the green ... and not interfere with the color? smile
                    2. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 3 June 2013 22: 41 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Pimply
                      Do not repeat stories about the printing press. Learn the economy. The printing press out of Zimbabwe included. Did it help them?

                      Are you kidding me like that?
  18. viktorR
    viktorR 3 June 2013 13: 50 New
    -1
    Honestly not an article but some kind of propaganda for the F-35.
  19. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 3 June 2013 14: 10 New
    +3
    Honestly, I also did not understand what kind of three aircraft in question?

    And looking at the list of weapons in 4 pendants inside the fuselage and 6 on external pendants, you are puzzled about what Stealth technologies can be discussed here ...

    However - let them have such planes, it’s for us to help ...))))


    1. Algor73
      Algor73 3 June 2013 18: 04 New
      +2
      Well, such a picture is suitable for almost all modern aircraft that are being developed.
  20. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 3 June 2013 14: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    And taking into account how many breakthrough technologies are developed with such projects, it is clearly not to the detriment of oneself.


    Maybe you know more about ours about this project.
    I ask you to share what exact breakthrough technologies are used in the F-35?
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 54 New
      +2
      Have you read anything about the project besides cheers-patriotic articles on Russian sites? Or should I do your education?
      1. Constantine
        Constantine 3 June 2013 15: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Have you read anything about the project besides cheers-patriotic articles on Russian sites? Or should I do your education?


        You were asked a specific question, but instead of answering, you start pouring water. No offense will be said, but usually they behave this way in cases where there are no actual arguments. What is happening now is an attempt to replace concepts. Those. you are trying to pass off personal arguments for facts, rather than justifying your arguments on real facts. Show official information and there will be no questions.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 3 June 2013 17: 05 New
          +1
          Should I do technical education for people who are too lazy to read and post silly pictures?

          When developing STOVL alone, or the Pratt & Whitney engine, can you imagine how many new technologies are involved, from software to chemical industry? The Chinese are still not able to copy the Su-27 engine normally - and he got to them 15 years ago.
          Or HMDS, which allows you not to resort to aerobatics in order to assess the situation and / or hit the target, which means that you do not overload the pilot?

          I'm not a teacher at school, sorry.
          1. Constantine
            Constantine 3 June 2013 17: 21 New
            -1
            This is not the answer to the question you were asked. This is water. No one asks you to act as a teacher, just show the source of information, and there everyone who wants to figure it out. If you read it somewhere, then you should not have a problem with sharing the source. Otherwise, your words are worthless. you only pour water and no specifics.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 3 June 2013 18: 03 New
              +1
              Google banned you? You do not know how to search for information?

              Let's take one example. Out of thousands

              http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-whitney-to-test-upgraded-f135-th

              is-year-382781 /

              Development of technology to save 5% of fuel. And this is one of the pieces of a very large puzzle with only one engine.
              1. Constantine
                Constantine 3 June 2013 19: 55 New
                0
                It is rather an optimization and refinement of existing technologies. It was about the fact that the technology is new, which actually costs, perhaps, those costs. Dopilka is not something that changes the course of the game. The Su-35 vector engines are also cool, but no one screams that there is a super breakthrough. New technology is a qualitatively new solution, which at the time of its appearance signs the death sentence to the previous decision and smoothly replaces it with itself, or, it becomes the de facto standard in its field of application. Nozzle wraps, cool, but how practical? The 5th generation, in the meantime, should be supersonic without afterburner, that this engine can be mastered vryatly. Still, so much time has passed. What is specifically breakthrough and where is the data on the basis of which you judge.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 47 New
                  0
                  It should not be supersonic without afterburner. There are no uniform requirements for it. Each wraps his own. They achieved this supersonic without afterburner on the Raptor. And they wondered how much he really needed there. And now they are achieving the same goals with completely different methods.
                  And the scheme was not stripped from Yak, they refused this scheme - thanks to the same Yak.
                  Quote: Constantine
                  Su-35 projection engines are also cool, but no one screams that there is a super breakthrough.

                  Are you kidding me? There are no analogues in tons on ears. I'm telling you. For you, a breakthrough is antigravity and destructors.
                  1. Constantine
                    Constantine 3 June 2013 22: 17 New
                    +2
                    How did they refuse if the power plant layout is almost identical? This Harrier has differences and he went on his way to implement vertical take-off, not F-35. Supersound without afterburner is a generally accepted criterion of the 5th generation, along with low visibility and high automation, etc.

                    Quote: Pimply
                    They achieved this supersonic without afterburner on the Raptor. And they wondered how much he really needed it.


                    Where does this information come from? The F-22 had problems with pilot overloads and air supply, so restrictions were placed on their altitude and speed. This was due, first of all, to the danger of losing the plane and ditching the pilot, and not to the fact that they thought “Is it necessary?”. They wrote about this, like, here, on topwar'e.

                    Quote: Pimply
                    There are no analogues in tons on ears.

                    Show me a plane with other engines that is able to perform the same evasion maneuvers and go on a counter-attack as vigorously as drying with these engines does. But this is a slightly separate topic.


                    Quote: Pimply
                    For you, a breakthrough is antigravity and destructors.

                    For me, a breakthrough is technologies that take the plane to a whole new level. Lego constructor with a dopilka existing technologies - not a breakthrough. Hypersound is a breakthrough. An innovative layout that provides lightness, simplicity and reliability, coupled with vertical take-off - a breakthrough. Yes, the electronics there are fashionable, but like the F-22 it is sensitive to weather, etc., which for an airplane of 80-100 million dollars, at the moment, is stupid to the point of horror. What lead to a failure in the supply of oxygen, for example, it is known from the experience of operating the F-22. You yourself said that there are a lot of new technologies, so where are they, these technologies? )
              2. piotr534
                piotr534 3 June 2013 21: 07 New
                0
                Development of technology to save 5% of fuel. And this is one of the pieces of a very large puzzle with only one engine.
                And here are a few more pieces of the same puzzle. The range of flight is about 2000 km, the speed of 1,6 Mach, despite those 5% savings, has not gone far. As for the system of all-round visibility, the pilots abandoned these helmets and as a result they remained ax maneuverability. request
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 48 New
                  -4
                  And now remember what version it refers to ;;)
  21. Rider
    Rider 3 June 2013 14: 48 New
    0
    I'm not at all special in aviation.

    but I recommend reading these articles written by non-amateurs at all.

    http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/172361-razberem-f-35-po-vintikam.html

    http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/reports/view/75300/
  22. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 3 June 2013 15: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    Have you read anything about the project besides cheers-patriotic articles on Russian sites? Or should I do your education?

    If you tell me, I’ll try to answer - I get information not only on Russian sites, I get it everywhere. I draw, and then compare. Therefore, I say - give information. No need to do my education, just give new information about breakthrough technologies. If you have it.


    PS, if that, a minute I slammed you not ...
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 3 June 2013 17: 06 New
      0
      The question is, what will you consider yourself so. I have a suspicion that anti-gravity.

      Do you think that the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine alone required how many of these solutions were needed to have a thrust of 12 / 700 kgf?
      1. Fofan
        Fofan 3 June 2013 23: 20 New
        -1
        and the United States is the birthplace of the Mustangs. 4.6 liters! 300 wildest mustangs under the hood !!!!! and all this mosch purely tears up the Opel Astra Opt with standard 2 liters. but Mustang impresses with numbers, right? I agree that the comparison is not entirely incorrect, but stupid traction is also not an indicator. on f117 on paper, the thrust is the same as on the instant29. and then cho? 29th best in maneuverable combat, and according to the Germans, who flew on everything similar (and Eurofighter and f-16). and numbers on paper are just numbers on paper.
        1. Constantine
          Constantine 3 June 2013 23: 28 New
          -3
          “Palekhce”) He ran out of arguments, and judging by “-1” in uncomfortable comments, he switched to “minusomet”;)
          1. mirag2
            mirag2 4 June 2013 06: 50 New
            -2
            Well done! I respect it. It’s not for him to shiver with retirees and shkolota.
  23. lazy
    lazy 3 June 2013 15: 26 New
    0
    any stealth becomes perfectly visible as soon as it turns on its locator, the helmet is beautiful, but he still doesn’t really care, it would be better if they gave Google a glass to the pilot, only the program for the plane was reflashed.
  24. Algor73
    Algor73 3 June 2013 18: 13 New
    +3
    A 5th generation airplane is a very expensive option. It is still unknown how much will be swelled in the T-50 and when it will enter the troops. If the Americans are faced with problems, then Russia cannot escape them. And the more modern the aircraft, the more difficult, expensive, and expensive it will be to maintain. And until then, when humanity will not discover some new technology, a new concept for both flights and construction. The Chinese also swung at the 5th generation, but it is doubtful that they are elongated. It was correctly noticed that the VTOL aircraft is a perspective, but with a different concept of take-off and landing. Developments on the 5th are not dead ends, it seems that the latter are according to the classical scheme. And who knows what the 6th generation means?
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 3 June 2013 22: 56 New
      0
      ... And who knows what the 6th generation means? ...
      Probably, the plane is a robot, without a pilot, as a further development of drones. "Dog dumps" will die forever.
      Although they used to think so too.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 3 June 2013 23: 06 New
        0
        Quote: sevtrash
        ... And who knows what the 6th generation means? ...

        The article was on the site. Boeing concept.
        http://topwar.ru/26547-boeing-rasskazal-ob-istrebitele-shestogo-pokoleniya.html
  25. Fofan
    Fofan 3 June 2013 23: 01 New
    0
    did not read not take off
  26. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 3 June 2013 23: 43 New
    0
    Hooray! a contract was signed for the first batch of MIG35 24pcs.
    1. sashka
      sashka 4 June 2013 01: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Hooray! a contract was signed for the first batch of MIG35 24pcs.

      First they promised Syria, then Serbia. Now to whom?
  27. Lankov Victor
    Lankov Victor 4 June 2013 01: 11 New
    +1
    Americans with this F-35 are like a chicken with an ostrich egg: it’s a pity to quit, and there’s no way to sit out any asshole.
  28. sashka
    sashka 4 June 2013 01: 24 New
    +2
    Why is he so bad? Bring to mind. It's just a matter of technology. And the development of production. Which also did not hurt us ... But they don’t sell to the Chinese.
  29. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 4 June 2013 06: 00 New
    +3
    [center] [/ center]
    Quote: Pimply


    Do you think that the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine alone required how many of these solutions were needed to have a thrust of 12 / 700 kgf?




    The engine AL-41F built 31 years ago, the thrust was 18000 kgf. What is the breakthrough in Pratt & Whitney F135 which itself became the development of Pratt & Whitney F119, I do not understand? Therefore, I asked you to give information about certain technologies newly applied on the F-35.
    That is, you do not have any information about "breakthrough technologies." Thank.

    Here is another silly picture for you.
  30. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 4 June 2013 07: 43 New
    +1
    With the engines sorted out.
    Well, what about HMDS, here is a link to a completely non-cheer-patriotic site, everything is sad http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/03/20130306-air-forces-f-35a-not-ready-for -combat.
    html But with the original documents. As I understand it, Australians who want to buy an F-22 and with all their limbs kick back from the F-35.
  31. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 4 June 2013 14: 44 New
    +2
    This aircraft will be the backbone of the West Air Force. A cheap, technological, mass strike aircraft of the 5th generation. Although not with the most impressive performance characteristics, but with an excellent range of weapons and trained pilots.
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 4 June 2013 15: 12 New
      -1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      A cheap, technological, mass strike aircraft of the 5th generation.


      If we compare its price with F-16, whose price is around 34-50 million dollars and F-35, whose price exceeds 100 million, then yes, it is very cheap% D

      As for its mass character, I would not judge at this stage since the same F-22s were planning to buy 800 units, and as a result, they did not reach the 200 a bit and changed their minds. The loud statements that "we will buy them the darkness of darkness and darkness", at the moment, an empty propaganda chatter.

      High tech? It is possible, but it does not reach the 5th generation, and its practicality leaves much to be desired. By and large, the F-35 is a designer, like Chinese cars, with some fashionable implementations in order to give it a gloss and beautifully paint it in a brochure.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 4 June 2013 16: 00 New
        +3
        Excellent, but let's compare the price with the A-10, in general, the tin will come out.
        F-22 multirole fighter, was planned to deal with powerful modern air forces of Russia and China. Obviously, there are enough available for these purposes. 3 times cheaper f-35 - strike aircraft, for the spread of "democracy" in countries with weak opposition.
        At the moment, the ongoing and planned wars are just such.
        As for the quantity, there is no alternative, nothing else is planned and developed to replace the existing aircraft, what do you think will replace the decommissioned equipment. As for the 5th generation, what performance characteristics should a 5th generation strike aircraft have? As for practicality, there is nothing to compare with, but in my opinion modularity and versatility is + practicality. Manufacturability provides a high rate of production and international cooperation. The disadvantages of such a complex machine, of course, are, and of course they will be eliminated.
        1. Constantine
          Constantine 4 June 2013 16: 43 New
          -1
          And where is the A-10? F-16 and F-35 - one weight category. These are planes of the same class. You are not comparing the price with the average for the market, but with the most expensive plane, which is orders of magnitude more expensive than the average price for the same 4 ++, which are not much inferior to the 5th generation. If it is 3 times cheaper than the F-22 (± 300 million), then this does not mean that it is cheap in principle.

          For that matter, it’s stupidly more expensive than the Su-35, which “rolls” it 1 on 1 with a high probability since in itself almost corresponds to the 5th generation. The cost of the Su-35 is 85 million, but their weight categories and combat capabilities are completely different, if you look at the ability to complete tasks, and not on the principle of take-off. As regards super-maneuverability, which is one of the attributes of the 5th generation, the F-35 is simply “about nothing”, and there is no need to talk about afterburning super sound. Small take-off run? Well, this is also a weak argument) The same Drying, in the ship version, being a heavy fighter, takes off without a catapult from Kuznetsov, which gives odds to their take-off systems from the deck.

          As a result, we have:
          Unreasonable cost, which, with an increase in investment in development and development, has been actively increasing this cost for more than a year. I dare say that the F-35 was, by design, cheaper than the F-16 i.e. at the moment it exceeds this indicator at least 2 times.

          A bunch of electronics that fail. Another F-22, which was actively brought up, sinned with this topic. The more capricious electronics, the greater the chance that the plane will not complete the task, at least, but in general this way you can lose the plane. This is evidenced by the Raptor accident in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012. This is just what was officially veiled, and partially recognized as troubles with electronics. + These are only those cases that could not be recognized since either the plane crashed, or the pilot died.

          Modularity and versatility are certainly cool, but reliability also plays a small role. Sense from the fighter, which after each flight for a long time is in the hangar and "communicates" with the rem. the brigade? If we take into account the fact that his series has been postponed for so long that those who sponsored this development have run out of patience and are ready to score on investments, then this is already a sign. A sign that he has huge problems with reliability. This can be seen even in monetary terms.

          Regarding the true purpose of the F-22. Well, yes, after the bathherts that this plane experienced, it’s better to say that it is against the Russian Federation and China, well, because its use is not advisable against the natives, then let it stand in the stall. This is a cheap trick. if it is knocked down by an obsolete anti-aircraft gun, and this was even with the super mega inconspicuous F-117, it will be a shame on the century and a blow to the prestige of their military equipment. Given the fact that the United States is the largest seller of weapons, such a butt can cost a lot in flirting with India, as well as with other countries. It’s cheaper to keep them like paper tigers, shrouded in an aura of invincibility, somewhere in the base, and to fight in the “classics of the genre”.
  32. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 4 June 2013 17: 14 New
    +2
    And where does the f-16? You confuse soft with puffy. f-16 multipurpose fighter of the previous generation, like the Su-35. f-35 fighter-bomber, can you imagine the difference? So there is a difference, compare with the same f-22 or Su-35. As for reliability and other things, there will be time before the end of the decade, they will bring it.
    For the price, by the way, doesn’t it bother you that your F-16 is half the price of the Su-35, and are they both 4 ++?
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 4 June 2013 18: 01 New
      -1
      Learn the materiel, for starters.

      F-35 is the successor to F-16.
      F-22 is the successor to F-15.

      F-35 exists in three versions: A - Air Force, B - Marine Corps, C - Navy. Among them, only version B has VTOL, which adds a dead ballast in the form of this very system, which in turn reduces its “payload” to about 500 kg + it still needs to take off to take off. 500 kg of bombs somehow weakly fit with the bombers, and the range of the B version is less than the other two. Even here, the F-35 stupidly loses to the Yak, which we collected a couple of decades earlier because Yak both took off and sat upright. So this technology cannot be called a breakthrough, and it is lapped in terms of layout and some other solutions with the Yak-141. It is shown next to the F-35 above in the comments.

      As for the difference between the multi-purpose F-16 and the F-35 fighter-bomber, if you knew that the F-16 Block 15 (983 pcs) could drop 1000 pound bombs and Block 25, capable of operating in air-ground mode, the difference would have dissolved before your eyes, but you were not puzzled to look at the materiel.

      By the way, the price that I called on the F-35 is indicative for 2019, which means that it will still go up in price. At the moment, the average price of an airplane is approximately 120-130 million, which is not justified at all. With the mediocre performance characteristics of the F-35, even relative to the 4th generation in the form of the F-16 and the space difference in price, this is an expensive ala toy "China".

      As for his uber coolness. Well, he will not pass the S-300, and the F-35 will not even be allowed to close the possible firing points. As an interceptor, he is wretched in view of his, again, characteristics.

      Su-35S flies at cruising at 1300 km / h, and at afterburner 2500 and can carry X-31AD, which bodes chaos and destruction to the enemy, which the 35th certainly does not, but makes it possible to work on ground and surface targets. At a cost of 85 million, it is cheaper and cooler than the F-35 because stealth is a very relative thing, and super-maneuverability at high speed gives Sushka a much greater chance of surviving in battle.

      Even stupidly take the Su-34, which is a bomber, but in terms of speed characteristics is close to the F-35. It costs $ 33 million, but it bombs like the F-35 can’t. 85 + 33 = 118 million. These are 2 full-fledged aircraft that can individually pile the F-35 and which together stand as 1 this stool.

      For the Navy, it is generally obscure. How he will intercept the same Dryers is not clear at all. The F-18 still gives at least some chance, but the F-35 is not a plane for interception definitely. Flies shitty. And since he’s without a vertical, in the marine version, the same Su-33 give him a head start because take off without a catapult.

      The conclusions, I think, suggest themselves.
  33. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 4 June 2013 19: 36 New
    +1
    Mother is wonderful. It’s a pity that you somehow stubbornly do not notice the difference between a “multi-role fighter” and a “fighter-bomber”. The niche "5th generation multipurpose fighter" is f-22. Compare with him what you want at least f-16, at least PAK-FA. f-35 - IMPACT PLANE, when we have a “5th generation strike aircraft”, we will compare with it, so far we can only compare with the Su-25.
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 4 June 2013 19: 44 New
      -2
      F-22 - a heavy fighter. F-35 is lightweight. You just don’t understand the difference.
  34. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 4 June 2013 20: 11 New
    +2
    "Fighter-bomber" is a synonym for "light fighter", I understand you correctly?
    Or you are hypnotized by the word "fighter" in "fighter-bomber." The exponents of BB2 generally had a "torpedo-carrier", let's compare it with the FV-190, laugh at the stupid Angles.
    “Based on an analysis of flight performance and combat capabilities, F-35 family aircraft should be considered strike fighters or fighter-bombers, for which the main task is to destroy ground targets. In tandem with the F-22A air conquest fighter, they can be used to counter strike enemy aircraft. "
    Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/055057052124053055057048.html
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 4 June 2013 20: 35 New
      -2
      Arguing with you is the same as arguing with a dove, who jumps onto the table, blows the pieces and flies away to tell his that he won.

      There is no significant difference in whether this is a fighter-bomber or it is a multi-role fighter. Here, the essence is rather in systems that are installed on an airplane. The same F-16 is in different versions, like the F-15. The bottom line is in the classes. There are light fighters like Mig-29, Mig-35, F-16, F-35, Grippen, etc., and there are heavy ones like, for example, Su-33, Su-35, F-15, F- 22, Eurofighter, etc.

      A fighter-bomber differs from a fighter in that it is capable of attacking ground targets. The F-16 also has such a modification. A multi-functional destroyer is also capable of attacking sea targets, etc. That you ran into its purpose, but absolutely do not take into account other parameters. I gave you a detailed answer to all questions, and also argued in detail my position. Hence the conclusion, either you are not reading what I wrote, or you are simply stubborn. Sorry, of course, but this is no way.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 4 June 2013 21: 10 New
        +2
        I have the same claims for you. In fact, all of these “fighter-bomber” and “multi-purpose fighter” are very important and almost exactly indicate what kind of aircraft in front of us.
        A fighter-bomber, an aircraft ground for striking at surface, surface targets. It retains the opportunity to participate in aerial combat, has an appropriate sighting system and allows the suspension of appropriate missiles. Pilots are trained primarily in striking targets on the surface. The performance characteristics of a multi-role fighter are sharpened for air combat, but it can also use a certain range of weapons for ground, surface targets, and has an appropriate sighting system. Pilots are mainly trained in air combat.
        Obviously, a multirole fighter fights better with airplanes, istr.-bombs. it strikes better on land-sea. In the USSR there were also istr.-bombs., Su-17 and MiG-27. At our airfield MA regiment was based Su-17, constantly flew into the area to bomb, storm. The commanders flew into the zone for aerial combat, but stuck them for the results of the attack on naval targets.
        Classes (heavy-light) have nothing to do with it, just the specialization (purpose) determines the main performance characteristics, pilot training, the composition of avionics, the range of available weapons and, accordingly, the tactics and purpose of use. A plane sharpened by a fighter-bomber, it’s silly to compare it with a multi-purpose one, these are two different things. Ist.-bombs. essentially a fast, maneuverable, weakly armored attack aircraft made on the basis of a fighter.
        1. Constantine
          Constantine 5 June 2013 01: 15 New
          -2
          Fighters themselves are divided into classes.
  35. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 5 June 2013 06: 24 New
    +1
    If you look
    Quote: chunga-changa
    Excellent, but let's compare the price with the A-10, in general, the tin will come out.
    F-22 multirole fighter, was planned to deal with powerful modern air forces of Russia and China. Obviously, there are enough available for these purposes. 3 times cheaper f-35 - strike aircraft, for the spread of "democracy" in countries with weak opposition.
    At the moment, the ongoing and planned wars are just such.
    As for the quantity, there is no alternative, nothing else is planned and developed to replace the existing aircraft, what do you think will replace the decommissioned equipment. As for the 5th generation, what performance characteristics should a 5th generation strike aircraft have? As for practicality, there is nothing to compare with, but in my opinion modularity and versatility is + practicality. Manufacturability provides a high rate of production and international cooperation. The disadvantages of such a complex machine, of course, are, and of course they will be eliminated.



    You read the list of weapons and their performance characteristics to claim the imaginary impact of the F-35.
    The versatility of the aircraft is a tricky thing, you always have to sacrifice something, sometimes it’s flight and combat qualities.
    PS, I do not say anything - let it be such a shock, to me that ...))))
  36. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 5 June 2013 06: 45 New
    +2


    Many people must have seen this video, but still ...
  37. Constantine
    Constantine 5 June 2013 18: 25 New
    -2
    Quote: Kovrovsky
    More than a hundred of them are in service.


    Is that "worth". I don’t know how now, but recently they couldn’t fly to Alaska, they couldn’t fly at supersonic sound, they couldn’t fly above 7 km, like, and also fly away from airfields, where they could quickly land. Read their story, there are a lot of stocks that can’t be fixed.
  38. nersmail
    nersmail 11 June 2013 18: 56 New
    0
    Pozdnyak already refuse, apparently. It will be a shame + huge funds thrown in the trash. In addition, for sure the mighty Lockheed can seriously lobby this aircraft