Military Review

Why Australia should spit on F-35 and fly Sukhoi

174
The F-35 Lightning was the first aircraft to be chosen by the Australian Air Force. However, according to this project, built using the “stealth” technology, suddenly, as if several lightning strikes struck, one of which was the appearance on the horizon of Sukhoi design bombs at the new generation, which could nullify all the chances of success for the Australian Air Force.




Somewhere in the middle of this year, Australia, with its vulnerable defense system and virtually no budget, will have to make a difficult choice between buying another squadron consisting of X-NUMX F-24 "superhornets", or, with its initial plan for purchasing X-NUMX F-18 aircraft "Lightning", the so-called American shock fighter co-production.

The trouble is that none of these options adds anything new to the security of the country. The reason for this is that, according to the Business Spectator information portal, “Indonesia plans to buy Russian / Indian Sukhoi fighter jets around 180, and almost certainly Pak Fa T-50 and Su-35S will be among them.” So the question is not at all how much better the outdated F-35 "Hornet" is, but how much better it is than the T-50 and SU-35S that can fall into the hands of Indonesia. "

Like much of what is published in the Australian media, the article has a panicky tone. However, it makes a reasonable assumption that instead of consulting with Australian and American military officials who have long relied on F-35 for careerist purposes, the Department of Defense should receive a comprehensive and unbiased opinion from the outside. If everything goes on, as things are now, then Australia will soon discover that its militant slogan, “first saw, first shot, first killed” - works only against the outdated “Hornets”, and not at all against “Sukhoi”, which today is just too good. "

For example, the article points out that the F-35 can only work efficiently at maximum up to about 40000 feet (it can fly higher, but at the same time it loses its combat characteristics at such heights). “Dry” can operate at full capacity and at much higher levels of height. Add to this his advantage in new systems and weapons, which allows him to simply break the Australian F35 in the sky before they have the opportunity to "first see, first shoot, first kill" without any air combat at all.

BusinessSpectator offers a way out of this impasse. through the acquisition of F-22 or its production technology. The recipe is pretty close to what most Australian media and defense experts are talking about. The only problem is that even if it were possible to borrow F-22 technologies (produced by another company) and install them on F-35, it would still be an impossible dream the way American laws prohibit the export of F-22 and its technologies. . REPEAT LOOK AT "DRY".

So what do Australia do? According to the independent analytical center New Australia, the country should take into account not only the Flanker Sukhoi, but in the future, and Pak Fa. “We recommend that Australia negotiate with the Sukhoi Company in the same way as it did in India by creating a HAL cooperation program. The contract with the Russian company should be licensed under either SU-35S Flanker or SU-32 in Australia. this preference today must be given to SU-35S, "says New Australia.

Sukhoi issues licenses for the manufacture of its aircraft and parts for them in a number of countries, including India and China. Australia can buy the entire Sukhoi aircraft and start producing avionics, spare parts and weapons in their own country. Many companies in Russia, Asia, Israel and Europe today produce parts for Sukhoi aircraft. Today, this company operates on the principle of "open source".

New Australia quotes a study conducted by the organization Air Power Australia (Australia's Air Power).

“Strategically, the Su-35S will change the rules of the game, as it decisively surpasses all competing Western fighters, except the F-22A Raptor. The Russian Sukhoi aircraft located somewhere in significant quantities can change the balance of forces in any region where they are transferred "This is exactly the reality that, it seems, was never understood either by the leadership of the majority of the air forces of the Western armies or by their bureaucratic defense departments."

WHAT PREVENTS BARGAINS

Australia is mainly concerned with the rise of Indonesia as a regional power, but in many government circles, India is also seen as a threat. Perhaps this is because cheers the patriots, who sometimes want to be English more than the English queen herself, consider India guilty of the collapse of the British empire.

In 1986, Australia made a big fuss when India acquired its second aircraft carrier, the Virat. Again, in the 1998 year, when India tested five nuclear bombs, Australia recalled its ambassador and, in a fit of indignation, expelled an Indian officer who had studied in Australia under an exchange program from her territory.

While a number of former Australian prime ministers, led by Kevin Rudd, have a strong anti-Indian stance, there is another lobby led by current Prime Minister Julia Gillard who are trying to improve relations between the two countries.

Under these conditions, any decision to buy jet planes in Russia will depend on which lobby will win up. If India is viewed as an ally, then the Australian military can also reach for the T-50. But if India is perceived as a threat, in addition burdened by purchases of airplanes, also in Indonesia, this will pave the way for the F-35. However, the latter decision will drive the Australian defense and national budget into a tailspin.

AIR FLOWING COSTS

The costs are clearly worried, since F-35 is a program that has long been out of control. In addition, it is shocking that this plane costs more than the whole of Australia. After all, in the end, the cost of the entire program may skip the $ 1385000000000 mark, which will exceed the capitalization of the entire Australian economy combined.

From the point of view of Canberra, each of these planes could end up costing 238 million dollars, which is more than the 60 million dollars per piece that was spoken about at the very beginning when it first committed itself to participating in this program . In addition, since the F-35 is the latest US military technology, access to many of its spare parts will be closed to Australians. Such details will have to, if necessary, be transferred to the US military bases in Australia or serviced in Australia by the Americans deployed specifically for this task. Of course, this will not only add to costs, but also increase downtime.

In such circumstances, the purchase of the aircraft "Sukhoi" will be just manna from heaven. New Australia believes that instead of buying the 100 F-35, Australia could have purchased the Sukhoi 70 SuperFlanker for just 66 million dollars per piece. Such a deal could have prevented the excessive burden on the defense budget of Australia as a whole.

AUSTRALIA AND RUSSIA - SIMILAR APPROACHES

Russian planes are designed to overcome the typical Russian problem - a huge airspace with a limited number of aircraft. Australian land is 4000 km wide, and F-35 simply cannot cover this distance. Su-35 has an effective range of about 4000 km compared to about 2200 km for F-35. This means that for a flight he will need an air tanker to support both inside and outside of Australia.

SPEED - BULLET COMPARED WITH TARANTAS

The SU-35 has a 2,4 max speed (which is almost two and a half times the speed of sound) while the F-35 speed is limited to 1,6 max. According to Victor M. Chepkin, First Deputy General Director of NPO Saturn, the new AL-41F engine will allow Russian planes to fly with supersonic super cruising speeds over long distances without starting afterburner, which will allow them to save a large amount of fuel. Translating the above into normal language means that fighters who do not have the ability to fly at super-cruising speed, such as the F-35 and F-18, simply cannot do anything in the sky against Sukhoi.

TECHNOLOGY STELS - HOLE IN THE COAT

The designers of the aircraft were so obsessed with this technology that they ignored or sacrificed the main advantages of the fighter, such as range, payload and speed. The idea was that the technology "Stealth" is already enough to F-35 would be ahead of the entire air force. However, despite the fact that Americans are improving these technologies, the Russians are developing new methods to combat it. They are currently experimenting with a new radar that will be able to detect airplanes built using Stealth technology.

Colonel aviation Grigory Grisha Medved, a former Russian fighter pilot, says the F-35 is worst off with a very hot engine. 160 degrees Celsius is much hotter than a standard jet engine exhaust. “The plane turns into a very bright star in the sky and creates a long train behind it,” he says in a study by Air Power Australia.

Russia has adapted a technology developed for detecting launches of ICBMs for these purposes, says Medved. This technology allows Russian fighter pilots to see a standard fighter at a distance of about 50 km. By 2017, this technology will allow them to see fighters built using Stealth technology at a distance of about 150 km. In addition, due to the fact that such radars are passive, the enemy will not even know that they are being watched.

In an air battle, notes Bear, Su-35 can release a couple of missiles in one gulp. And the first one, with active homing radar, will force the F-35 pilot to dodge, detecting its radar and engine exhaust, and another heat-guided missile will attack it.

In addition, having a large internal supply of fuel, the Su-35 can carry out numerous attacks, launch rockets, maneuver and dodge, and then return to battle, that is, play cat and mouse with the Australians. Taking into account the fact that on Sukhoy great rockets, then everything will end with them. As Bear says: “In a massacre at the top, P-73 or guns simply kill outright. No one (F-35) can ever furnish“ Sukhoi ”there. And when Pak F appears,” the colonel adds, “F-35” it’s better to stay home altogether unless he is allowed to take off accompanied by his older brother. "

Whether the older brother will accompany F-35 or not is not clear. "If the F-22 does not fly, then Sukhoi aircraft will become the most efficient fighters of all those available today," the New Australia report said. "It will also become historical by turning and transferring air power from the US to Russia and to those countries that use Russian military technology. "

In the end, if you serve in the Australian air force, you will have to choose your own partner at your own discretion.
Author:
Originator:
http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/04/08/why_australia_should_scratch_the_f-35_and_fly_sukhois_23629.html
174 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 3 June 2013 16: 02
    15
    So the question is not at all how much better is the F-35 of the outdated Hornet, but how much better it is than the T-50 Pak Fa T-50 and SU-35S, which may fall into the hands of Indonesia. "
    Something is not entirely clear to me - it turns out Australia is more afraid of Indonesia than China?
    1. Greyfox
      Greyfox 3 June 2013 16: 13
      35
      They are even afraid of India. Imagine a whole continent with 22 million people (and they are crowded on the east coast). It is tempting for overpopulated countries? That's just they will never buy Su. Although for the sake of this it would be possible to distribute bribes to Australian officials on a cosmic scale ...
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 3 June 2013 20: 08
        +5
        Maybe so, only a huge part of Australia is lifeless. So do not twist and you can live only where the main population lives now.
        1. hiocraib
          hiocraib 3 June 2013 22: 23
          10
          cool!
          seriously discuss the "problems" of the Australian Air Force, according to the artistic whistle of a yellowish Indian blogger ...
          laughing laughing laughing
      2. Dilshat
        Dilshat 3 June 2013 22: 21
        +1
        Well, even if there is not enough money for Russian planes, you can buy the S-300. It’s also an option.
        1. dmitrich
          dmitrich 4 June 2013 05: 18
          0
          Do you think the S-300 is cheaper?
      3. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 4 June 2013 00: 20
        -1
        Quote: Greyfox
        They are even afraid of India. Imagine a whole continent with 22 million people (and they are crowded on the east coast). It is tempting for overpopulated countries?


        Read at least the Wikipedia chtoli. You will find out why no one lives in the center of the continent.
        1. Greyfox
          Greyfox 4 June 2013 08: 16
          +9
          Quote: Geisenberg
          Quote: Greyfox
          They are even afraid of India. Imagine a whole continent with 22 million people (and they are crowded on the east coast). It is tempting for overpopulated countries?


          Read at least the Wikipedia chtoli. You will find out why no one lives in the center of the continent.

          As I like the instructive tone .... Of course, we, gray and illiterate, can read Wikipedia only after your pointing ...

          The Australian Union is a state of 7 692 024 km². Almost three-quarters of Australia is a desert and semi-desert. Indian territory 3 287 590 km² with all sorts of Himalayas and Thar deserts. 1,2 billion people live there. In other words, approximately 1,5 million km² of Australian territory has a suitable climate. And there lives 22 million people.
          Moreover, if India is a purely fantastic threat, then Indonesia is next to it with a population of 240 million, with which, moreover, there are serious "graters".
          So the Australians have a reason to cautiously look at their neighbors ...
          PS. Strangers, by the rules of courtesy, should contact each other on you .. hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. si8452
        si8452 6 June 2013 10: 28
        +1
        Plus natural wealth. This country is similar to Russia, as well as large lifeless spaces, where the icy desert is replaced by the most ordinary. That's just it is inhabited by the Anglo-Saxons ..
    2. Nesvet Nezar
      Nesvet Nezar 3 June 2013 16: 37
      +7
      Indonesia Muslims ....
      1. elmir15
        elmir15 3 June 2013 16: 50
        16
        Australia could acquire 70 Sukhoi SuperFlanker

        If we sell Australia, the Su-35 does not come around to us sideways? because together with the plane we give a bunch of secrets ... America, for example, values ​​secrets therefore:
        US laws prohibit export of F-22 and its technologies
        May we also ban the export of modern aircraft and its technologies to potential adversaries
        1. foxhound
          foxhound 7 June 2013 16: 16
          +1
          an export version of drying has been developed specially for this, it seems that the technology "friend or foe" has been changed there.
          1. Whale
            Whale 10 June 2013 12: 04
            0
            your alien floor at the lever in the block, and secret technology is the whole plane from the angle of the pilot's seat to the radius of the lock washer on the 5 flap of the 4 lower ramp block
    3. teodorh
      teodorh 3 June 2013 17: 40
      +3
      They fought for East Timor
    4. Army1
      Army1 3 June 2013 17: 58
      17
      No need to sell our aircraft to Australia. It is tantamount to donating US technology
      1. bogdan
        bogdan 3 June 2013 19: 37
        0
        Damn, Who ??? going to attack Australia !!! This is one of the very, United States, why are they fighting fighters ??? They have their own - or perhaps our advanced developments have appeared, and the "Australians" are very interested ??? )))
    5. v53993
      v53993 3 June 2013 21: 07
      +6
      Is Australia More Afraid of Indonesia Than China?

      Australia is most afraid of itself, i.e. its chronic weakness militarily.
  2. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 3 June 2013 16: 07
    18
    It's better to be friends with Russians!
    1. Konstantm
      Konstantm 3 June 2013 22: 57
      +2
      Quote: Black Colonel
      It's better to be friends with Russians!

      Praise to Native Aircraft Industry !!!
      1. tt75tt
        tt75tt 4 June 2013 14: 59
        0
        by the way. at KnAAPO (where they are planning to build 50 tons) this month, 600 people are fired.
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 4 June 2013 15: 26
          0
          This is not to tell that there will be a T-50 build
      2. samolet il-76
        samolet il-76 12 December 2013 11: 57
        0
        Russia makes airplanes no worse than American ones! So you are mistaken!
  3. master_rem
    master_rem 3 June 2013 16: 11
    +9
    Well, that's good to hear. What kind of pig can you put on Uncle "Samyon", it's up to the Australians. drinks
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 3 June 2013 16: 21
      33
      Quote: master_rem
      What kind of pig can you put on Uncle "Samyon"

      So in the 80s a pig was already planted, with this Stealth technology. When the United States began to develop this technology, our developments in this area were already completed, and recognized as not effective. Then, in small doses, they dragged the United States into this unpromising business. laughing
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 3 June 2013 17: 58
        +5
        Yes, they dragged us in so that now we are making PAK FA inconspicuous, but PAK YES ideologically generally looks like a copy of B-2 wink
        1. fisherman
          fisherman 3 June 2013 21: 34
          0
          the main thing is that they don't go to extremes ("make the fool pray to God, so he ..."), like our American "partners" :)
    2. gigiperfetto
      gigiperfetto 3 June 2013 18: 39
      +5
      Personal respect to comrades "Grisha" and Rakesh. soldier
  4. Tatarus
    Tatarus 3 June 2013 16: 11
    11
    Viva Dry!

    It should be more aggressive in the arms market. Squeeze Amerov. Lock everyone on our technologies and spare parts
  5. OTAKE
    OTAKE 3 June 2013 16: 11
    63 th
    released 8 pieces of Su-35 and 5 pieces of FAK PAK, but roars all over the world, the Raptors have been flying for 100500 years, and are in service, the F-35s are being actively developed, but here everything’s out of the blue, and the point is 0. Australia will not to buy Russian weapons, if only because their materiel is already imprisoned under the armaments of NATO countries, I think the Australians are not so stupid as to engage in phallometry
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. feanor
      feanor 3 June 2013 17: 07
      19
      Quote: OTAKE
      released 8 pieces of Su-35 and 5 pieces of FAK PAK, but roars all over the world, the Raptors have been flying for 100500 years, and are in service

      And who roars, The author is clearly not of Russian origin, all the claims to the bend of FU-XX to him.
      The fact of the matter is that they just stand in service laughing
      1. Check
        Check 4 June 2013 14: 21
        +1
        Yeah, they only drive them from base to base, as far as I understand, they weren’t used anywhere, they lose.
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 4 June 2013 15: 29
          +3
          If they (FU-22) quickly and quickly drive back and forth, no one will see them, especially at night. That's stealth technology. wassat
          And over such a period, how many orders were there to stop flights "until the reasons for the oxygen starvation of the pilots were clarified?" And they did not take part in combat missions. It's scary to lose a bird - and well, how can someone knock down a thread - the paragraph will come to the image.
          1. foxhound
            foxhound 7 June 2013 16: 40
            +2
            the fact of the matter is that at night they are visible even better by the ultraviolet shadow in the sky. (the sky glows at night in the UV spectrum) so any missile is not with an infrared head, and UV will easily paint and kiss it.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. FC SKIF
      FC SKIF 3 June 2013 20: 27
      +3
      your comments are just as nauseous as Petrosyan’s jokes.
    5. Aava
      Aava 3 June 2013 21: 47
      +2
      Yes, almost everyone knows how to play the button accordion, but only everyone presses on their favorite keys ...
    6. Dim Dim
      Dim Dim 3 June 2013 22: 34
      +2
      The question is what is in service and what flies. It is possible to arrange for arming and not to use, due to elementary unpreparedness, but to blow the whole world about wonderful opportunities that cannot be used in a given period of time due to unsettled defects. Or for 20 years poking around in small things, then selling to China or India and when they try to put into service in the amount of 5 pieces. Let the adversary be afraid!
    7. Lankov Victor
      Lankov Victor 3 June 2013 23: 22
      +4
      Do not drown in the OTAKA (2):
      "Raptors have been flying for 100500 years and are in service,"
      That's just the ceiling they have 7600m, above these Craptor their own pilots strangle. The armament is not better, so these prodigies did not take part in any conflict.
      "F-35 is actively being finalized"
      The manufacturer promises that the first option can be adopted in December 2015. How many were those promises?
      1. OTAKE
        OTAKE 4 June 2013 05: 42
        -9
        That's just the ceiling they have 7600m, above these Craptor their own pilots strangle. The armament is not better, so these prodigies did not take part in any conflict.

        But where did the Russian pilots manage to fight? About planes generally keep silent the Arab-Israeli war, the Gulf War, Yugoslavia, have already shown Hu from Hu)

        The manufacturer promises that the first option can be adopted in December 2015. How many were those promises?

        By the way, the engines for Pak Fa promise to 2016, moreover, to compare a single-engine light aircraft with a twin-engine Su-35 is idiocy. And the F-35, of course, does not fly, does not shoot, and in general it is a wooden model! here is a video just about a piece of wood
        1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
          GELEZNII_KAPUT 4 June 2013 06: 47
          +1
          Beautiful advertising movie! laughing
        2. Lankov Victor
          Lankov Victor 4 June 2013 07: 06
          +8
          I didn’t compare anything, I was simply admired by the scope of the Amer’s candy wrappers.
          F22 is released in an amount of about 200pcs at a wild price. It has not been used in any of the many US aggressions. Why? What are they afraid of? After all, he is the same, the most.
          F35 does not meet the assignment of the military. Nevertheless, the production of the first hundred cars at the same wild price as the F22 ends. They are purchased by the army, but do not fly.
          Our stool chokes with envy. Feeley his Mistrals is child's play in the sandbox compared to Lockheed.
          1. OTAKE
            OTAKE 4 June 2013 10: 50
            -4
            Quote: Lankov Victor
            Why? What are they afraid of? After all, he is the same, the most.

            Nobody is afraid of anything, is it a fighter for gaining superiority in the air, whom to conquer in the air of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? I haven’t seen something flying Taliban and Alkaidovites yet, maybe you saw them? Moreover, bombing a tent of some African leader with an airplane for $ 350 million is not entirely rational; both the F-16 and F-18 normally cope with this.

            They are purchased by the army, but do not fly.

            Of course it doesn’t fly, doesn’t shoot, it doesn’t upgrade, you just forgot to ask


            Our stool chokes with envy. Feeley his Mistrals is child's play in the sandbox compared to Lockheed.

            You can scream at least 100500 times that Lokhids and Martins are cutting money and believe in it, but the fact remains, you admire Taburetkin’s thick cheeks, his fucks who fed on your own money, you can be glad for his new cottage, and Americans have 2 normal competitive aircraft.
            1. feanor
              feanor 4 June 2013 13: 02
              +5
              Quote: OTAKE
              You can scream at least 100500 times that Lokhids and Martins are cutting money and believe in it, but the fact remains, you admire Taburetkin’s thick cheeks, his fucks who fed on your own money, you can be glad for his new cottage, and Americans have 2 normal competitive aircraft.

              It may not be worth shouting, but obviously no one admires Stouretkin here, unless in a suit with black and white stripes, such a suit suits him, and they don't feed on our money now. About 2 "normal competitive aircraft" is debatable, F22 Raptor if only, and then the price / quality obviously did not even come close to the SU-35, the F-35 can be said as a competitive aircraft only when it is finished with grief on the floor to a capable state.
              1. Ustas
                Ustas 4 June 2013 13: 41
                +5
                It seems that Mr. OTAKE (2), like Pavlov's dog, has an unconditioned reflex to the words "American most", and there is a strong salivation.
                You can 100500 times (borrowed from OTAKE (2)) eagerly praise the F-22 and F-35, you can really find out who is what only in battle. In the meantime, judging by the simulation of the battle with Russian Sushki, their vaunted technique is still losing.
                1. OTAKE
                  OTAKE 4 June 2013 17: 18
                  0
                  You can 100500 times (borrowed from OTAKE (2)) eagerly praise the F-22 and F-35, you can really find out who is what only in battle. In the meantime, judging by the simulation of the battle with Russian Sushki, their vaunted technique is still losing.

                  What famous company did the simulation? What kind of computer battles? Under what conditions did they pass? The battle can be single, pair by pair, link by link (4 by 4). Three links - a squadron. Is it possible in more detail, and with proof?

                  Of course, both Su and PAK FA are superior. Can reality surpass fantasy? F-22 riveted since 1997, two hundred pieces, and even managed to remove from production. And PAK FA - flying mass-size mock-ups with the number 4, and it seems that they will go into service in 2016. Or maybe not. Three and a half pieces of the Su-35 have not yet passed state tests and have not been put into service, probably with a bunch of jambs and flaws, because without them it’s not real, it's just a miracle and not a fighter. An Indian wrote an article, if only, because India, together with Russia, is participating in the development of a fifth-generation fighter, and now they are also trying to slip away the SU-5, which even Russia has not yet taken on duty.
                  1. Slevinst
                    Slevinst 4 June 2013 18: 52
                    +1
                    Su35 is a modernization and therefore the jambs there if they will be then to a minimum
                  2. Avenger711
                    Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 30
                    +2
                    And why did they take them off, huh? But remember the low cost of flight hours, all trumpeted.

                    Su-35 project without risk, which can not be said about the F-35.
            2. T-130
              T-130 4 June 2013 17: 01
              +3
              At the expense of normal is an excess! F-35 still bring to normal and bring, what can be done on an airplane that flies only in clear weather? For him to complete the task before him, clouds still need to be dispersed! Yes, and they have such a price that they can ruin!
              1. OTAKE
                OTAKE 4 June 2013 17: 21
                0
                Quote: T-130
                At the expense of normal is an excess! F-35 still bring to normal and bring, what can be done on an airplane that flies only in clear weather? For him to complete the task before him, clouds still need to be dispersed! Yes, and they have such a price that they can ruin!

                no one argues, be sure and Pak fa will not slip through all these schools and illnesses, of course, if at first they at least take them into service. but the F35 flies, shoots, modernizes, in general, does what it should. how where and why, that's another question.
                1. Avenger711
                  Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 33
                  0
                  F / A-18E / F would do the same, and even better, but apparently you can’t make money on it.

                  There is no demand with the T-50, but its very conception causes much less questions. Very promising as a strike aircraft and interceptor.
                2. foxhound
                  foxhound 7 June 2013 16: 36
                  +1
                  Drying is an efficient and cheap (relatively) aircraft. It is massive and easy to operate. soon the planes will reach the price limit (but will not get better); what will be able to oppose your f-22 or f-35 su-37 or MiG-35? ...
        3. foxhound
          foxhound 7 June 2013 16: 27
          +1
          as I understand it, Russian pilots managed to fight in all of the above (and more) conflicts. but nobody will tell you directly. This is the n11 stratagem (for those who are in the subject).
        4. deoman
          deoman 9 June 2013 16: 10
          0
          I am a patriot of my country, but we must pay tribute to how many jobs, minds and engineers and the already set production line ... beauty. We would rather like that! The video was really impressive! I hope to soon see a similar advertisement for the T-50!
  6. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 3 June 2013 16: 12
    12
    Quote: svp67
    So the question is not at all how much better is the F-35 of the outdated Hornet, but how much better it is than the T-50 Pak Fa T-50 and SU-35S, which may fall into the hands of Indonesia. "
    Something is not entirely clear to me - it turns out Australia is more afraid of Indonesia than China?

    Yes, very afraid. Indonesia is not far away, Indonesia is strengthening its marines, as a result, Indonesia's marines in terms of the number of combat units will be like the entire active component of the Australian army.
    1. zennon
      zennon 3 June 2013 16: 50
      34
      Colegi, the population of Australia is 23 million, while the population of Indonesia = 200 million. That is, 000 with a small tail more. It is also interesting that Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. promising economically developing countries. The volume of GDP is the 240th in the world and the first in SEA. It is located on the islands, MOVED. The army is very authoritative. Here and think, is Australia worth worrying about.
      1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 4 June 2013 06: 48
        0
        Hmm ... even the SU-35 will not help them! laughing
    2. Victor
      Victor 3 June 2013 20: 10
      +5
      Quote: Mr. Truth
      Indonesia is strengthening its marine corps, as a result, Indonesia’s marine corps will be the entire active component of the Australian Army in terms of the number of combat units.

      According to some futurological forecasts, it is Indonesia that over time will become the main force in the Indian-Pacific region. Not immediately and not suddenly, but such a possibility is present if Indonesia solves internal interfaith problems.
      1. Mr. Truth
        Mr. Truth 3 June 2013 21: 12
        +1
        Quote: Victor
        futurological forecasts

        I adhere to this.
      2. opkozak
        opkozak 3 June 2013 21: 23
        +1
        Another Papuan war, it turns out not the first, flared up on June 18, 2012 in Indonesia, in the village of Kvamki Lama, between the inhabitants of the villages of Amole and Harapan. The cause of the conflict is not currently known, but four Papuans have already gone to the other world. Also, as a result of the battles, 4 police cars burned down.
        The previous conflict arose in 2010, between two Papuan tribes, as a result of which 23 houses and 12 cars were burned. The reason for this conflict was a certain insulting ringtone installed on the mobile phone of one of the islanders, who outraged representatives of a neighboring tribe. As a result, edged weapons and bows were used. Thank God their short barrels seem to be banned.

        Indonesian soldiers and police officers stop riots by surrounding and disarming small groups of aggressive Papuans. This time, the soldiers quickly blocked the main road along which the main hostilities took place.


        There is where to turn around, and there is someone to fight

      3. Avenger711
        Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 36
        +1
        Damn, it is logical, there is no other such "bridge" country there, and all the neighbors are much smaller. Although before that, 20-30 years at least, while the army of Indonesia hangs anyone.

        And when I look at the map of Indonesia, I think that I could learn an excellent naval strategy on the topic of war in this region. laughing
  7. fisherman
    fisherman 3 June 2013 16: 13
    14
    There is no need to arm a potential adversary's colony, let them be content with the "best" ...
  8. Black
    Black 3 June 2013 16: 14
    +4
    China is a nuclear power. There would be a fight off the neighbors.
  9. Vtel
    Vtel 3 June 2013 16: 19
    +5
    Why Australia should spit on F-35 and fly Sukhoi

    Because it is cheaper and on business.
    Under these conditions, any decision to purchase jet aircraft in Russia will depend on which lobby is up.

    Including the T-50. It's a pity our elite measures everything for money, but where is the patriotic note in this policy. Although it is clear there are almost no Russians at the top - they are proletarians, that is, below, under the skyscrapers of the most successful "Russian" billionaires.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 39
      +1
      Not all of us are allowed to export. The very secrecy with respect to many types of weapons is quite absurd.
  10. T-100
    T-100 3 June 2013 16: 19
    +7
    Something is not entirely clear to me - it turns out Australia is more afraid of Indonesia than China?

    And look at the map, where is China, and where is Indonesia! !!!
  11. mihai_md2003
    mihai_md2003 3 June 2013 16: 32
    19
    Of course, it’s nice to read such articles in the Western press, but one must keep in mind that Indian Pak FAs will have slightly different characteristics than those coming to the Russian Army. It seems that these will be somewhat truncated characteristics. I also wanted to note that it takes a considerable time to break in all systems, this can be seen in the example of the Americans with their frequent breakdowns f 35. So it’s too early to compare the non-existent and non-run-in pack fa with something like F 35 already flying. But as the saying goes overpower going or in this case flying)). And the Russians seem to have the right direction, now the main thing would be enough money and time to run in and put into production a really working plane.
    1. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 3 June 2013 17: 48
      -4
      Quote: mihai_md2003
      Of course, it’s nice to read such articles in the Western press, but one must keep in mind that Indian Pak FAs will have slightly different characteristics than those coming to the Russian Army. It seems that these will be somewhat truncated characteristics. I also wanted to note that it takes a considerable time to break in all systems, this can be seen in the example of the Americans with their frequent breakdowns f 35. So it’s too early to compare the non-existent and non-run-in pack fa with something like F 35 already flying. But as the saying goes overpower going or in this case flying)). And the Russians seem to have the right direction, now the main thing would be enough money and time to run in and put into production a really working plane.

      I agree. Not so simple.
      And an article from the category: somewhere the grandmother farted.
  12. waisson
    waisson 3 June 2013 16: 33
    +8
    2008 As computer simulation of air battles between the F-35 and the Russian Su-30 showed, the “dry” ones completely outplayed the overseas enemy, it was SU-30 and not SU-35
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 3 June 2013 16: 54
      16 th
      Quote: waisson
      As computer simulation showed

      Zhote
      http://topwar.ru/13780-kak-su-35s-s-konkurentami-sravnivali.html

      - Su-35C vs F-22. 139 Raptor and 33 Su-35С flew off the battlefield;
      - Su-35C vs F-35. “Drying” destroyed completely, while only three dozen “Lightning” survived.
      With the initial number of 240 cars
      But will England and NATO not protect Australia in the event of aggression by Indonesia?
      1. Guun
        Guun 3 June 2013 17: 25
        17
        Quote: Pilat2009
        ZhZhote http://topwar.ru/13780-kak-su-35s-s-konkurentami-sravnivali.html- Su-35C vs F-22. 139 “Raptorov” and 33 Su-35S flew off the battlefield; - Su-35S against F-35. The “dryers” were completely destroyed, while only three dozen Lightnings survived. With the initial number of 240 cars, would England and NATO not protect Australia in the event of Indonesia’s aggression?

        Nonsense, this computer simulation of battle - war. If you believe this crap - Germany defeated the USSR, and the Roman legions are invincible even ... JUST.
        Only REAL FIGHT will determine the winner and the point. The road does not mean better (much unnecessary), cheap does not mean worse (nothing more). Just do not forget that underestimating the enemy is the key to his victory.
        1. Bekzat
          Bekzat 6 June 2013 12: 42
          +2
          Greetings to all, of course this is nonsense "computer simulation", for example, if you enter data on the defense of 316 SD against 35 PD, 2, 5 and 11 TD of the enemy, then the enemy will accordingly win the battle, and quite quickly. And in real life, it turned out that the 316 SD defended for almost a month, from October 15 to November 16, 1941.
          In a real battle, everything will depend on the preparedness of the crew, and on the attitude of the pilots, remember how many episodes there were when Soviet pilots went to ram, and at the last moment the enemy turned his plane away, putting his "belly" under the sight.
      2. trenitron
        trenitron 3 June 2013 17: 31
        14
        Modeling is who conducted the Australians or NATO. In the Korean War, 4 Reich oh ... l from the losses that they suffered in air battles, and the pathos was first to dope. So I agree to the F-22 account, but not to the F-35 account, I don’t think that this goblin will be an effective air fighter
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 3 June 2013 18: 24
          10
          As a rule, the Americans had massive good airplanes: R-51, Saber, F-16, F-18 are all quite strong and good cars.
          So to give up on an airplane that is just undergoing tests is kind of early.
          There is no evidence that he is bad.
          The school of aircraft manufacturing in the USA is very strong.
          True, what can lead a project to failure is universalization.
          Universal - one that performs all its functions equally poorly wink
          As for the Su-35 - it is clear that a good car, only practically Australia will never buy them. Russia is the enemy of the United States, Australia is the closest ally.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 3 June 2013 19: 44
            11
            What yes then yes. F-35 was conceived as a machine that does everything for everyone. Air Superiority fighter and invisible bomber for USAF; a carrier-based fighter, aka a bomber, a ground attack aircraft for US Navy aircraft carriers, a carrier-based fighter for destroyers and almost frigates (vertical take-off model); support aircraft for marines (again with vertical take-off). Have you forgotten what else?
            As a result, continuous compromises, and it turned out what happened. There is an idiom in English: "Jack of all trades, master of none", like it can do everything, but somehow.
            By the way, Lockheed diversified. In addition to military aviation topics, in which they were once on top, they are now doing hell with that, including software services, outsourcing, and hosting. Also become Jack of all trades, master of none.
            It's a shame that this city, but you have to pay taxes.
            1. vadson
              vadson 3 June 2013 20: 27
              +2
              what are the problems? don't pay :-)
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Revolver
                Revolver 3 June 2013 21: 11
                +3
                So they will put you in prison, and they will force you to pay anyway. With interest.
                :-(
            2. Avenger711
              Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 42
              0
              In Russian it will be: "all at once and nothing together."
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 3 June 2013 19: 44
            +2
            What yes then yes. F-35 was conceived as a machine that does everything for everyone. Air Superiority fighter and invisible bomber for USAF; a carrier-based fighter, aka a bomber, a ground attack aircraft for US Navy aircraft carriers, a carrier-based fighter for destroyers and almost frigates (vertical take-off model); support aircraft for marines (again with vertical take-off). Have you forgotten what else?
            As a result, continuous compromises, and it turned out what happened. There is an idiom in English: "Jack of all trades, master of none", like it can do everything, but somehow.
            By the way, Lockheed diversified. In addition to military aviation topics, in which they were once on top, they are now doing hell with that, including software services, outsourcing, and hosting. Also become Jack of all trades, master of none.
            It's a shame that this city, but you have to pay taxes.
      3. Rink
        Rink 3 June 2013 20: 53
        10
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Quote: waisson
        As computer simulation showed

        Zhothote .....
        - Su-35C vs F-22. 139 Raptor and 33 Su-35С flew off the battlefield;
        - Su-35C vs F-35. “Drying” destroyed completely, while only three dozen “Lightning” survived.
        With the initial number of 240 cars
        .



        How to say? It seems that you are still quoting the misinformation.
        It reads:
        ... The 80-page Rand report casts doubt on the unconditional faith of the US Air Force leadership in reducing radar visibility and other modern technologies implemented in the F-22 and F-35 aircraft complexes.
        ...
        The F-35 was criticized because of the doubts of experts about the adequacy of the combat capabilities of this aircraft. It is indicated, in particular, on the low flight characteristics of the Lightning, which “is inferior even to the F-16 aircraft, which it is called to replace, in terms of turning speed, climb rate and speed characteristics.”
        ...
        Major General Charles Davis, JSF Program Manager, claimed that reports of a "complex computer simulation" of air battles between the F-35 and Su-35, allegedly carried out in August 2008 at the Hickam air base in Hawaii and ended in complete victory for the Russian fighterI, “are completely wrong” and are “an absolute lie, not supported by anything”. ... (however, it would be strange if he recognized the complete failure of his program!)
        ...
        Harsh criticism of the JSF program came from the Southern Hemisphere. At the virtual "air war", played out in Hawaii in August 2008, the allies of the United States - the Australians, were also present as observers. Following the results of the war game, they presented a secret report sent to Australian Secretary of Defense Joel Fitzgibbon. Fragments of this report somehow got into Australian newspapers, causing a sharply negative reaction from the public and demands from the opposition to urgently revise procurement plans for American aircraft. So, the representative of the Australian liberal party, Dennis Jensen, having read the materials presented, emotionally remarked: "Dry" beat the F-35, like penguins! "

        A source: http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut09/F-35Ques/F-35Ques003.htm


        And, please note, this criticism of the JSF program does not come from Russian patriots, but from partners from the United States and American think tanks. So it’s rather difficult to reproach bias.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 June 2013 13: 47
          +2
          You will forgive me, but everything that you quoted is a little wrong.
          I believe that in the end the Su-35 will be in some ways not worse, and in some ways better than the "penguin". But...
          Quote: Skating rink
          Harsh criticism of the JSF program came from the Southern Hemisphere. At the virtual "air war", played out in Hawaii in August 2008 year, the allies of the United States - the Australians, were also present as observers

          All of this - and thereafter - is the complete and absolute fiction of a certain Australian expert named Carlo Kopp.
          The exercises in Hawaii really were.
          Neither Carlo Koppa nor his mythical "representatives of Australia" were present at these exercises. Nevertheless, Kopp claims a kind of computer simulation and publishes an article in every newspaper he can reach.
          Major General Davis, who, unlike Kopp, WAS there, accuses Kopp of lying, because there were no simulations in Hawaii
          Kopp and his accomplice:
          a) Remove the information about how Su beat F-35 from their site
          b) Although they do not apologize, they write a response article, in which they cannot argue with Davis. The point of the article boils down to the following: "Well, you yourself must understand that the F-35 is worse!" - Kopp does not provide ANY evidence of his lies
          c) As the English-speaking comrades told me, the Australian newspapers then gave a refutation, but I didn’t see this myself
          Kopp Davis's response articles on his website, somewhere here http://www.ausairpower.net/
          In fact, Kopp, from whom the wave about how "Australian specialists hate the F-35" is going around the world, is someone like our Oleg Kaptsov, with his irrational hatred of aircraft carriers. Kopp HATES the F-35 but loves the F-22. Therefore, he seems to have decided to put his life on the fact that Australia would buy the F-35 instead of the F-22. That the United States does not sell the F-22 does not bother him at all.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 5 June 2013 15: 53
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I believe that in the end the Su-35 will be in some ways no worse, and in some ways better than the "penguin"

            But you are a competent person ... This is technically impossible.
            I believe it is wrong to create false illusions in people out of delicacy.
      4. Dim Dim
        Dim Dim 3 June 2013 22: 50
        +3
        Do not you think that according to the results of your forecast F 22 it’s time to write off, They are much worse at handling Russian planes and leave them in service more than their trimmed halves F 35. True, on the condition that the pilots of these F 35 can control them in the process of a duel in real conditions, and not during computer modeling, and do not turn off immediately after departure from oxygen starvation, or other unforeseen conditions.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 3 June 2013 23: 55
          0
          Quote: DimDim
          Don't you think that according to the results of your forecast F 22 it’s time to write off,

          And this is not my forecast, I just conveyed one of the opinions
          Each person has his own opinion
          Some model this way, others model this way
          1. Rink
            Rink 4 June 2013 11: 54
            +2
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Some model this way, others model this way

            Then such a simulation is NOTHING worth it, agree? And it is not clear why you refer to its results: if you are right, then the results of such modeling as an argument have no power.

            If "as they wanted, they modeled it" - what's the use? And it makes sense to spend a lot of money on such simulations with the invitation of foreign partners only in order to launder a little money from the budget.
            I am still inclined to think that since it is being conducted on such a large scale, its results are quite close to reality. And that's why they invited the buyers to see how they would "smash" the Russian fighters. But ... they themselves were stunned by the results! That's why there were classified.

            Rђ RІRѕS, write to the media about the results of the simulation, you can really do what you want. (Especially if these reports are pre-classified.;))

            But just the fact that the simulation results are kept secret gives them away! If the JSF had crushed our DRY with such a result, then NATO would have trumpeted about it on every corner - this is such an advertisement !!! especially in conditions when different countries take turns to abandon the expensive flightless F35 iron.

            But instead they classified them .... Think about why?
            It seems to me that you do not need to have seven spans in your forehead to guess about the present the outcome of simulated battles. And you need a very big desire to believe in superiority F35 (or the task of making others believe it), so that even in this case, continue to repeat after storytellers from the media, even if their tales contradict logic.
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 4 June 2013 22: 27
              0
              Quote: Skating rink
              If "as they wanted, they modeled it" - what's the use?

              To properly simulate, you need to score real performance characteristics of the aircraft, missiles and pilots, electronic warfare systems and target designation, as well as air combat techniques + an element of chance.
              Since f-35 is not yet mass-produced, it remains only to poke a finger into the sky
              I doubt that the competing parties have provided full performance characteristics of their products
              And I refer to the article that led this result
      5. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 4 June 2013 15: 48
        +1
        This is where such a massive air battle modeled? Passion of the Lord! belay
  13. Sochi
    Sochi 3 June 2013 16: 33
    +5
    Here is the opinion of a completely unbiased subject, and then they write that our car wash sucks and has become outdated ...
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 3 June 2013 21: 52
      15
      So it depends on what to compare, and how to look. Yes, the Soviet development of the 1970s. Yes, the element base is out of date. But they are so ahead of their time that today they are quite adequate, and if you change the filling to something newer, then for many more years it will be enough. And even the development of PAK FA began in the USSR. In the Union, it was done with an eye on for many years to come, the benefit was the prospect.
      Yes, Russia lives on Soviet developments, but it was too good. And if the engineers work on the old drawings, you will look, and will be pulled up to the level that was so mediocre lost in the nineties.
      In general, the B-52 Stratofortress development of the early 1950s, but no one calls them obsolete and is not going to write off.
      I personally, not only as a native of the USSR, but also as a US citizen, sincerely wish the Union collapsed. After the USSR disappeared from the world map, America lost perspective. There is no worthy opponent. You can’t call such a gang of Islamist thugs, which drones lack for watering and, in special cases, commandos.
      Now the screams will begin: "What about a rival? And Russia?" Over the years I have not met anyone in America who was eager to fight with Russia. Since the threat of the export of communism disappeared, no one has been making plans to fight with Russia. They are afraid of unpredictability - this is so, but the most likely war, for which they are really preparing, is the conflict with China over Taiwan. And to China as a military force up to the level of the former USSR - "like cancer before China."
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 50
        0
        How can the element base be outdated when the F-22 itself flies with 20 MHz processors at 1000-1500 nm? At the same time, this is clearly enough for systems there, "Buran" did not land on such an automatic mode. In the military, in general, there is no electronics thinner than 180 nm, although this technology can already be used to build a percentage that way at 300 MHz, it will be enough for everything.
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 3 June 2013 21: 52
      +1
      So it depends on what to compare, and how to look. Yes, the Soviet development of the 1970s. Yes, the element base is out of date. But they are so ahead of their time that today they are quite adequate, and if you change the filling to something newer, then for many more years it will be enough. And even the development of PAK FA began in the USSR. In the Union, it was done with an eye on for many years to come, the benefit was the prospect.
      Yes, Russia lives on Soviet developments, but it was too good. And if the engineers work on the old drawings, you will look, and will be pulled up to the level that was so mediocre lost in the nineties.
      In general, the B-52 Stratofortress development of the early 1950s, but no one calls them obsolete and is not going to write off.
      I personally, not only as a native of the USSR, but also as a US citizen, sincerely wish the Union collapsed. After the USSR disappeared from the world map, America lost perspective. There is no worthy opponent. You can’t call such a gang of Islamist thugs, which drones lack for watering and, in special cases, commandos.
      Now the screams will begin: "What about a rival? And Russia?" Over the years I have not met anyone in America who was eager to fight with Russia. Since the threat of the export of communism disappeared, no one has been making plans to fight with Russia. They are afraid of unpredictability - this is so, but the most likely war, for which they are really preparing, is the conflict with China over Taiwan. And to China as a military force up to the level of the former USSR - "like cancer before China."
      1. timurso
        timurso 4 June 2013 16: 35
        0
        Bad you, as a native of the USSR, you know this very USSR. The export of communism ended with the expulsion / death of Trotsky, and the desire to bomb the USSR with the United States appeared only at the end of WW2.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 53
          0
          But Khrushchev spread neo-Trotskyism, and in principle, the USSR could simply put a bolt on the monkeys on the palm trees that declared socialism, thereby giving less reason to blame themselves for interfering in someone else’s internal affairs.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 51
        0
        5th generation Soviet projects are not related to PAK FA.
  14. BARKAS
    BARKAS 3 June 2013 16: 36
    +2
    So the question is not at all how much better is the F-35 of the outdated Hornet, but how much better it is than the T-50 and SU-35S, which may fall into the hands of Indonesia. "

    Or the question is whether the Australians will have enough money or rather whether they decide to save money without listening to the entreaties of the United States.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 3 June 2013 16: 38
      +8
      If Australia also puts a bolt on the United States, this will be another good kick for the Yankees.
  15. Conepatus
    Conepatus 3 June 2013 16: 39
    11
    I liked about Indonesia’s purchase of 180 Su-35S and PAK-FA. How much money will they buy for so many fighters? Indonesia buys 2-6 Su-30 fighters every year and then takes a loan from Russia for this business. And to lend 180 pieces, this Well, tens of billions. Such money usually give horseradish.
    It would be great to sell Australia the Su-35S, but I think that nothing will work out, Australia is politically tied to the USA and England, they simply will not allow it. It’s a pity.
    1. ankh-andrej
      ankh-andrej 3 June 2013 18: 23
      0
      Quote: Conepatus
      but I think that nothing will turn out, Australia is politically tied to the USA and England, they simply will not allow it. It’s a pity.

      There is no doubt about it:
      “Previously, critics predicted that the F-35 would be inferior to promising fighters such as the Russian T-50 PAK FA and the Chinese J-20, as well as some existing ones, such as the Su-35 fighter, citing computer simulations.

      “Let me say, I don’t think they (Russian and Chinese fighters - VP) have the level of stealth that is available on US fifth-generation aircraft, which is a factor in our significant superiority over them. Both the PAK FA and J-20, and also the J-31, have a long road ahead of them, while we are 10-12 years ahead of them, ”Brown told Australian lawmakers.” AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE COMMANDER
    2. avdkrd
      avdkrd 3 June 2013 22: 56
      +3
      not entirely true about the fact that "such money is usually not given." If "they do not give" this about Soviet military credits, then in fact, practically all of them were taken by minerals (uranium, sugar, for example) and, most importantly, by geopolitical attachments at that historical moment. The fact that under EBN the military-political relations with countries that owe us "like land to a collective farm" were destroyed is the merit of the comprador elite of the 90s. Still quite a lot of debts were "written off" at GDP, but that's another story and Russia received significant preferences from the debtor countries. You know that Gazprom's position in Africa is so significant that they even manage to deal with solar energy. The presence of debts with the right contract allows you to literally manage the country by the debtor, moreover, within the framework of international law. Actually "driving into debt" is just the strategy of ASP and Co. Vivid examples are all the post-Soviet republics (especially the Baltic ones) and the countries of the Eastern bloc that fell into the zone of influence of the ASP and Geyropa. The debtor's country essentially falls under external control (with very large debts), but any debt allows you to manipulate the debtor (or rather, his government), for example, by skimping on terms of return, prolongation, interest, etc. Another fresh example of a creditor-debtor relationship is Greece and Cyprus. Something tells me that at the moment the arms contracts of the Russian Federation are correct.
      1. Conepatus
        Conepatus 4 June 2013 00: 56
        +2
        Let’s take Venisuela as an example. If there was a pro-Amerian candidate there, how many decades would Venisuela repay Russia's debts? And Venisuela could refuse to pay the loan at all and the United States would immediately support them.
        And as for International Law, so look at what is happening in the world, the feeling is that this very International Law has only to wipe itself.
    3. sir.jonn
      sir.jonn 3 June 2013 23: 29
      0
      Quote: Conepatus
      For what money will they buy so many fighters? Indonesia buys 2-6 Su-30 fighters every year and then takes a loan from Russia for this business. And to lend 180 pieces, this is tens of billions. Such money is usually given to horseradish.

      "Oil and gas dollars" already exist or will appear tomorrow. Indonesia has been actively exploring its shelves in recent years. There is oil and gas there, which can be evidenced by the systematic increase in efforts and the active participation of the most authoritative organizations in the field of geological exploration. I don't have any statistics, but I know what I'm talking about. I work at the geodynamic laboratory.
      1. Conepatus
        Conepatus 4 June 2013 00: 00
        0
        If I am not mistaken, that gas and that oil located on the territory and these resources are also claimed by Malaysia and Thailand. So if all this appears, then not soon. (This is if I am not mistaken)
        1. sir.jonn
          sir.jonn 4 June 2013 00: 42
          0
          Quote: Conepatus
          If I am not mistaken, that gas and that oil located on the territory and these resources are also claimed by Malaysia and Thailand. So if all this appears, then not soon. (This is if I am not mistaken)

          All work is carried out in the territorial waters of Indonesia and, moreover, in the western and southwestern waters of Java and Sumatra, also among many islands up to Papua. I want to note that these extremely expensive work would not even have begun if there were the slightest doubt about the nationality of the territories and water areas.
          1. Conepatus
            Conepatus 4 June 2013 00: 59
            0
            Yes, it’s their water. So I was mistaken. Let's hope then for large orders from Indonesia to your defense industry.
  16. BIGLESHIY
    BIGLESHIY 3 June 2013 16: 42
    +4
    "Indonesia plans to acquire about 180 Russian / Indian Sukhoi fighters, and the Pak Fa T-50 and Su-35S will almost certainly be among them."

    Oops-la and with what fright the Russian-Indian, that India bought "Sukhoi" or she was developing T-50?
    It’s total stupidity to sell new generation airplanes, especially those that do not enter the Russian Air Force.
    1. Conepatus
      Conepatus 3 June 2013 16: 48
      +3
      So the Indian wrote the article, judging by the name. smile
    2. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 3 June 2013 17: 05
      +8
      we have an agreement with India on the joint development and production of t-50, by the way the Indians allocate good money for this project, without them prototypes would hardly have been built so quickly. Considering that we have a minimum of geopolitical contradictions with India, joint projects are a blessing. Launching production alone will take much longer.
      1. BIGLESHIY
        BIGLESHIY 5 June 2013 16: 01
        +1
        Quote: maxcor1974
        we have an agreement with India on the joint development and production of the t-50, the Indians, by the way, are allocating good money for this project, without them prototypes would hardly have been built so quickly.

        In fact, the T-50 was designed and built without the participation of India, just our managers suggested to sell it to the Indians to jointly develop a complex of weapons (but why? We can even without the Indians). By the way, if someone else will mention the "Brahmos" then it is 99% (1% of the Indians for the name) our development based again on our technologies.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 7 June 2013 08: 58
          0
          And why do everything yourself when you can for someone’s money? A couple of hundred aircraft for India is not an obstacle for us, on the contrary, let the packs be bombed, it’s not a pity, or the Chinese, but it concerns the secrecy of individual elements.
  17. gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 June 2013 16: 44
    24
    I have been living in Australia for a long time, but I have not observed and do not observe any particular panic and phobias.
    Yes, there is a concern of a number of politicians about the state of affairs in the Asia-Pacific region and, accordingly, the state of the Australian Armed Forces. The almost unpunished bombing of Darwin by the Japanese during the 2 World War was remembered for a long time.
    And although not all politicians like Australia's dependence on the United States, even those who doubt it understand that if something happens, Australia itself will not last long. And if so, she doesn’t want to, but is forced to rely on her military strategic allies and spend a substantial part of the budget on various "shooters" and "flying games" that these allies make.

    Many specialists are worried about the supply of DRY probes to potential adversaries of Australia, as this forces Australia to spend more on ways and means of counteracting these dryings.

    Can Australia buy DRYS instead of F35 or F18?
    He cannot and does not want, because bound by military-technical cooperation agreements with its strategic partners, i.e. The United States and Co., and it considers nonsense to buy weapons systems from a potential adversary. There are also enough corruption here, as without them, but there are no Serdyukovs of their own yet
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 3 June 2013 17: 09
      +6
      Quote: gregor6549
      I have been living in Australia for a long time, but I have not observed and do not observe any particular panic and phobias.

      There are simply no military threats to Australia.
      And in general, along with Canada, it is the most stable country in the Western world.
      In geopolitical terms, they only need to be prevented from drawing themselves into a confrontation with the PRC.
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco 3 June 2013 17: 38
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      and he considers it a nonsense to buy weapons systems from a potential adversary.

      Is Australia a NATO Alliance?
      1. teodorh
        teodorh 3 June 2013 17: 51
        +4
        No, but part of ANZUS is a Pacific analogue of NATO. As part of ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States)
    3. avt
      avt 3 June 2013 17: 57
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      Can Australia buy DRYS instead of F35 or F18?
      He cannot and does not want, because bound by military-technical cooperation agreements with its strategic partners, i.e. The United States and Co., and it considers nonsense to buy weapons systems from a potential enemy.

      Quite right, if you say smart - Australians buy a system of systems and become part of it laughing in issued, the flight characteristics of specific samples with this approach are not even taken into account.
      1. in reserve
        in reserve 3 June 2013 18: 51
        +4
        avt
        Quite right, if you say smartly - the Australians buy a system of systems and become part of it laughing out, the flight characteristics of specific samples with this approach are not even taken into account.


        Well, Che says everything correctly. So far, the Americans have not put our "VEPR" into service and no one in Europe has bought it, and now they are buying it.
        So it is with airplanes until the states allow, buy.
  18. WIN969
    WIN969 3 June 2013 16: 44
    +1
    Why should Australia spit on the F-35 and fly Sukhoi planes?

    Answer:
    Because Sukhoi planes are a work of art, and the F-35 is a pile of scrap metal in a beautiful wrapper!
    1. DEfindER
      DEfindER 3 June 2013 17: 39
      +9
      Quote: WIN969
      Because Sukhoi planes are a work of art, and the F-35 is a pile of scrap metal in a beautiful wrapper!

      Better is the one that is used longer in the army, for example, why the Americans developed the 5th generation aircraft so early, and we still upgrade the 4th, the answer is simple, their 4th generation aircraft have long exhausted their stock of modernization , our Su-27 has such a large reserve that it has not yet been fully disclosed. And as you know, good modernization allows you to fight on an equal footing with next-generation airplanes, which, for example, were demonstrated by the Indian MiG-21 deeply modernized in joint exercises with the American F-15 F-16, fighting almost equal to them. I think that the potential of aircraft based on the Su-27 will be in demand for more than a decade.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 19: 06
        +2
        If you are exhausted - these are the latest versions of the Hornets, F-15 and F-16, then you are, to put it mildly, wrong
        1. DEfindER
          DEfindER 4 June 2013 09: 47
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          F-15 and F-16, then you are, to put it mildly, wrong

          Then why, when ours brought to mind the Su-27, did the Amers begin to develop the next generation, rather than modernize the existing one? Despite the fact that the development of a new airframe is not a very cheap activity. The answer is obvious, any modernization of the F-15 no longer gives an advantage over the Su-27. The same thing with the F-16 vs Mig-29
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 7 June 2013 09: 02
            0
            Track. generation begin to develop as soon as the current goes into the series. At the same time, a new modification of the current one is being developed. F-22 passed all stages of development, the Soviet developments did not pass. That's all. Bottom line, the T-50 from scratch or so.
  19. DEfindER
    DEfindER 3 June 2013 16: 55
    +9
    Australia, with its scanty population, has a budget that’s not rubber, but the territory is probably the most unpopulated of all. And then there are such overpopulated countries as Indonesia, India, not counting small ones. They emigrate to the north of the continent under Autralian citizenship, and then they will create their own republic there. So the white population of astralia may be in the role of the same Aborigines which at one time were driven into the center of the continent .. Let them think.
    Someone on this forum said - For antlers you need American weapons, for comfort German, and for War Russian. The choice is theirs.
    1. Conepatus
      Conepatus 3 June 2013 17: 00
      16
      Optimists learn English.
      Pissimists-Chinese.
      Realists are teaching a Kalashnikov assault rifle. smile
      1. Bekzat
        Bekzat 6 June 2013 12: 53
        0
        For Alexander, the US realists buy Russian weapons, mostly Saiga
    2. gregor6549
      gregor6549 3 June 2013 17: 18
      +7
      The budget, of course, is not rubber, but the financial crisis somehow bypassed Australia, and the demand for minerals is still holding on. So there is still enough money not only for "shooters" and "flying games", but also for a very good social program. Moreover, many serious and chronic diseases like cancer are treated at the expense of the state, and their graduates pay for their studies at universities after graduation, and only if they have a job. Those. admission to universities and study at them according to ability, and payment for the fact that he studied as possible.
      Armed forces are not large in size, but those that are trying to be as effective as possible. Whether this efficiency will help in the event of a major war with someone from Australia's neighbors, God alone knows. Most likely no. But this is not only Australia's problem, but also much more powerful countries than Australia.
  20. vitas
    vitas 3 June 2013 17: 02
    +7
    A 35 ++ generation SU-4 can kick the ass of an F-35, it’s better to buy a SU-35 that is not so expensive for its capabilities than to throw money on an airplane that it would be a pity to send into battle. And the F-22 also raises doubts, since it was forbidden to sell, as if they have "secret technologies" there.
  21. Odysseus
    Odysseus 3 June 2013 17: 04
    -1
    Absolutely incompetent article of a Russian-Indian newspaper.
    Extremely amused already at the beginning - super-impoverished India talks about "no" budget of rich Australia smile
    I believe the article has a purely political meaning, its essence is in these words- "If India is viewed as an ally, then the Australian military can reach for the T-50. But if India is perceived as a threat, in addition, burdened by aircraft purchases in Indonesia, then this is will pave the way for the F-35 "
    The signal that the article sends is India wants to be friends with Australia.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 3 June 2013 17: 22
      +6
      Actually, the policy of India today does not quarrel with anyone, if possible, but if the quarrel still took place, then have something to brush it off. Therefore, India is ready to buy anything and anyone else if only it fits into its policy and financial capabilities and does not create unnecessary hotbeds of tension along its borders. She also misses Pakistan, followed by the shadow of China
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 3 June 2013 18: 02
        +1
        Quote: gregor6549
        Actually, the policy of India today does not quarrel with anyone, if possible, but if the quarrel still took place, then there is something to dismiss

        It’s possible, but India’s tense relations with almost all its neighbors and the huge military budget for a country with such acute social problems speaks more about India’s aggressiveness, but even quarreling with Australia, the key US ally in the region, would be too much ...
    2. sir.jonn
      sir.jonn 3 June 2013 23: 45
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      Absolutely incompetent article of a Russian-Indian newspaper.
      Extremely amused already at the beginning - super-impoverished India talks about "no" budget of rich Australia

      In India there are a lot of beggars, as in almost all former colonies, but India itself is very rich, which is very clearly manifested.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 7 June 2013 09: 06
      0
      And indeed, where is India with its billion people population up to Australia's 23 millionth. Maybe they live better in Australia, on average, only in absolute terms the financial capabilities of countries with a difference in population of 40-50 times are not comparable.

      And where only such alternative gifted come from ...
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 7 June 2013 19: 17
        0
        Quote: Avenger711
        And indeed, where is India with its billion people population up to Australia's 23 millionth. Maybe they live better in Australia, on average, only in absolute terms the financial capabilities of countries with a 40-50 times difference in population are not comparable

        Damn, did you skip political economy at the institute?
        Brief educational program-India is a classical country of 3 cap.world (or peripheral capitalism) with acute socio-economic problems characteristic of such countries.
        Australia is the country of the "core" capital system, and one of the richest countries even among this core.
        Indeed, in absolute figures, the budget of India, in which 1200 million people live, will be larger than the budget of Australia (for example, the difference in PPP GDP is 4,7 times), but with a population almost 60 times larger than the population of Australia and necessary expenses only to meet the primary needs of this huge population will be many times more.
        However, in practice, the whole budget of India doesn’t even have enough for that. By and large, they wouldn’t have to play war games, but they should think how to provide at least 2/3 of their population with digestible water and medical care.
        Of course, this is their business where they spend money, but the words about the "small budget" of Australia (which just can afford even an F-35, even a spaceship) in the mouth of a representative of a country that does not have money for the most basic needs sound very funny ...
        Quote: Avenger711
        Maybe they live in Australia on average better

        And you go to India and you will see everything for yourself. Not only as a Moscow major in the five on Goa, but as a normal Hindu 3 class on railway somewhere in Varanasi, or in Calcutta. Drink some local water, see how people live ... Get a lot of impressions.
  22. HAIFISCH
    HAIFISCH 3 June 2013 17: 24
    +8
    Quote: OTAKE
    The raptors have been flying for 100500 years, and are in service, the F-35 is being actively developed

    They joked, right? The effectiveness of the raptors is doubtful only because there are no examples of its combat use (if I’m mistaken for correctness), as for the F-35, it will be inferior to the Su-35 both in terms of flight range and in the weapons used and in the cost of production and operation, to compare it with the T-50 impossible, given the fact that the t-50 in basic parameters is equal to f-22, and in some it even surpasses it. And as far as Australia is concerned, it is unlikely that they will begin to buy our weapons, amers will not allow it to be so easy, for them it will be a blow, again it’s true that one cannot just buy and buy airplanes, infrastructure is needed.
    1. vadson
      vadson 3 June 2013 20: 39
      +5
      By the way, yes, amers love and are able to PR - a simple example:
      f-22 is painted as a child prodigy BUT did not fight anywhere for stsikovo, they are afraid to go wild,
      s-300 hay on what the light is BUT he didn’t fight anywhere and hi everywhere if we sell somewhere, for again stsykovo as he can pile on cradles
      conclusion - pay less attention to trash like foreign screams and do your thing
      1. HAIFISCH
        HAIFISCH 3 June 2013 22: 11
        +2
        they are afraid that with f-22 they will do the same thing that they once did with the invisibility in Yugoslavia.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. piotr534
    piotr534 3 June 2013 17: 35
    +1
    Australia's purchase of the SU-35 is such a fantasy bordering on delirium. But the fact that countries such as Indonesia, India and China are interested in buying Sukhoi products is an excellent advertisement in market promotion. And besides, the contract for the supply of Rafaley, India has not yet been signed.
  25. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 3 June 2013 17: 36
    14
    Well, it’s hard not to buy such a handsome man as in the photo .. Power is elegance .. I have always been fascinated by such photos of our fighters .. and the technical parameters .. and the ease of operation is our Russian chip .. !! They are like a Kalashnikov assault rifle .. I am proud of our designers, engineers, turners, milling machines .. electricians, etc. you will not list all ..
  26. Orel
    Orel 3 June 2013 17: 37
    +3
    An interesting article, but the author is confusing, and seriously confusing. The F-35 and SU-35 are not even classmates and are designed to solve different problems. The F-35 is a light aircraft, moreover, with a focus on the use of high-precision weapons against ground targets, and not on air battles, and it should be compared with light aircraft, if we have, then it is more likely a MIG-29 (although the comparison here is only in terms of dimensions, perhaps but the F-22 is just the same in terms of tasks similar to the SU-35. It is difficult to say who is stronger and better. Australia just needs to decide what tasks they need an aircraft for. If a fighter, then there is only Su-35, since the export is F -22 is banned by the US Congress, but if they need more aircraft to bomb someone, then the F-35 will do (if it "flies" in the end, of course.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 3 June 2013 18: 13
      0
      Quote: Orel
      F-35 and SU-35 are not even classmates and are designed to solve different problems

      Similar needs to be compared with similar. Su-35 is a modernized Su-27 and it should be compared first of all with modernized F-15,16,18.
      Even Rafal and Typhoon, not to mention the F-35, are somewhat different.
      1. Orel
        Orel 3 June 2013 20: 38
        +2
        I don’t quite agree. Each aircraft has its own task. F-15 was created as a plane gaining air superiority, i.e. fighter, the F-22 is designed for the same tasks as the SU-35. Therefore, it is possible to compare the SU-35 and F-22, of course the planes are different, but their tasks are similar and the purpose, too. The F-16 was also created as a fighter, but it is still a light aircraft, which neither the F-22, nor the F-16, nor the SU-35 belong to, these are heavy vehicles, so it is better to compare the Falcon with the MIG-29. Hornet was created mainly for the needs of the Navy and the Marine Corps, i.e. for the AUG and for delivering mainly bombing strikes, but at the same time with acceptable characteristics for air combat, just in case, but still he has a bias towards working on the ground. Actually, the F-35 is being developed to replace them.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 5 June 2013 16: 21
          0
          Quote: Orel
          I completely agree. Each aircraft has its own task. F-15 was created as a plane gaining air superiority, i.e. fighter, the F-22 is designed for the same tasks as the SU-35. Therefore, it is possible to compare the SU-35 and F-22, of course the planes are different, but their tasks are similar and the purpose is also

          The purpose of the aircraft is, of course, an important sign, but you do not need to bring it to the point of absurdity. So you can compare the I-16 with the F-22 only on the grounds that they are clean fighters.
          In addition, and on purpose, you are mistaken. Now there are no clean fighters, the last was the F-22, but now it is given the opportunity to work on the ground.
          Now, during modernization, even aircraft from the 80s become multi-role fighters.
          As for the Su-35, if it is comparable in its capabilities with the F-15 with AN / APG-63 (V) 2, or with the Super Hornet, then it will be fine.
          But to be honest, the chances of this are few, all the same, AFAR against PFAR, and the set of measures to reduce ESR in Hornet is not limited to RPM.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 7 June 2013 09: 14
            0
            AFAR vs PFAR sucks if the PFAR has banal more power. Sometimes decisions in the forehead are the most effective and when you have such a thing as a Su-35 on which you can put such a radar that it simply crushes any rogue like the F-35, simultaneously putting a bolt on their notorious EPR, this is worth using.

            And to do the F-35, when there is such a wonderful machine as the "super hornet", which, unlike the bottom of the F-16, is worth respecting, is the height of absurdity. Modern electronics can be shoved onto a hornet.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 7 June 2013 19: 29
              0
              Quote: Avenger711
              and when you have such a thing as a Su-35 on which you can put such a radar that it simply crushes any rogue like the F-35, simultaneously putting a bolt on their notorious EPR, this is worth using.

              And to do the F-35, when there is such a wonderful machine as the "super hornet", which, unlike the bottom of the F-16, is worth respecting, is the height of absurdity. Modern electronics can be shoved onto a hornet.

              Of course, of course, you are much better than the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon together you know which American aircraft are better and which aircraft they need to make laughing
              Write to the Pentagon that the F-35 is "beggarly" and building it when there is a Hornet is the height of absurdity. And that the Su-35 is its radar laughing the F-35 will jam and "put the bolt" on the RCS.
              They are fools and do not know this.
              - A letter to the editor of the television program "Obvious-Incredible"
              from a lunatic asylum

              Dear transmission!
              On Saturday, almost crying
              The whole Kanatchikova cottage
              To the TV was torn, -
              Instead, to eat, to wash,
              Prick and forget
              The whole crazy hospital
              Gathered at the screen
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 7 June 2013 09: 09
        0
        Damn, that's definitely no brain. The Typhoon is a direct analogue of the F-16, like the Rafale. The F-35 is closer to the "super hornet", and they are all in the heavyweights of the Su-27 class.
  27. Suhov
    Suhov 3 June 2013 17: 38
    +1
    Why should Australia spit on the F-35 and fly Sukhoi planes?

    It is known why.
    The question is different:
    What is stopping Australia spit on the F-35 and start flying Sukhoi planes?
    wassat
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 June 2013 17: 52
    +5
    I wonder where such confidence is that the F35 is complete? Yes, the machine turned out a little expensive, but why do we need to consider someone else’s money? And who said that her tasks would be limited to one-on-one duels with Sushki? A somewhat primitive approach to the role of a multi-purpose aircraft stuffed with the most inadequate modern electronics, equipped with a very good engine and capable of carrying the widest range of weapons, including high-precision ones. Of course, like every new aircraft, the F35 has its own childhood illnesses. But they were and are in all such aircraft. Heal over time, where to go. They have enough money for this.
    1. Tambov we ...
      Tambov we ... 3 June 2013 18: 12
      +5
      Yes, not confidence, but a clear understanding that loot foolishly stuffed into this barrel with wings, without any understanding of military realities - pryvodimost, low cost can not be defeated in the war. Remember the T-34, although this is not a plane.
    2. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 4 June 2013 01: 06
      0
      I am not a supporter of the sale of the Su-35 to Australia, but buying a plane, even a super-duper one for 135 million greens, is nonsense, F-35 -forever!
  30. uzer 13
    uzer 13 3 June 2013 17: 59
    +3
    Australia's problem has been identified correctly. The F-22 aircraft cannot afford not only them, but even the United States itself. But it also needs a whole range of all kinds of services, from maintenance to control systems, both ground and air-based. they will buy American planes anyway. But this, of course, is their problem. And the Sukhoi company is pursuing an absolutely correct marketing policy, which allows for the possibility of participation in the modernization of aircraft of third-party manufacturers.
    1. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 4 June 2013 01: 09
      0
      However, Australia can pay only 14 F-35.
  31. dimon-media
    dimon-media 3 June 2013 18: 09
    +2
    Even if Australia wants to buy our DRY products, the USA will begin to exert pressure on them in every possible way (they can think of an occasion for pressure) demanding the cancellation of the transaction, not allowing a precedent in this. There are many aspects to why the United States seeks to arm the whole world with its weapons. I think one of the most important is financial calculations in the US national currency. (purchase, maintenance, spare parts, etc.) Since a world without dollar saturation and dollar turnover means the collapse of the United States. No wonder they planted everything and everything on their national currency. The arms trade on a global scale is a trillions of dollars. A very good reason for lending to other countries and, subsequently, for the inclusion of their printing press.
  32. Truffoff
    Truffoff 3 June 2013 18: 23
    15


    Appropriate musical accompaniment PAK FA.
    As you know, gave birth to t-50 GDP. For 8 years, overseeing the project personally.
    1. aleksandroff
      aleksandroff 3 June 2013 19: 40
      +5
      Russian military equipment even looks kind, not aggressive.
    2. Zeus
      Zeus 3 June 2013 20: 06
      +7
      Here’s a nice movie too.)
    3. Suhov
      Suhov 3 June 2013 20: 28
      +3
      Quote: Truffoff
      As you know, gave birth to t-50 GDP. For 8 years, overseeing the project personally.

      Russia needs not so much firm hand, how sober head.
      hi
      1. fisherman
        fisherman 3 June 2013 22: 26
        +2
        a firm hand is also needed, we traditionally "get drunk" (decompose) from gingerbread :)
        1. Suhov
          Suhov 3 June 2013 22: 44
          0
          Quote: fisherman
          a firm hand is also needed, we traditionally "get drunk" (decompose) from gingerbread:)

          Power Tools - whip shadow и ghost gingerbread?
          laughing
  33. My doctor
    My doctor 3 June 2013 18: 25
    +6
    From reading the article, my mood rose a little. It turns out that among their journals there are also revisionists experimenting with hallucinogens. There is also the benefit of Freedom of Speech.
  34. APASUS
    APASUS 3 June 2013 18: 30
    +2
    Australia has never entered the sphere of interests of the USSR and modern Russia, and Australia's purchase of our SU is fantastic. The influence of the USA and England is strong enough, why did the author allow such an opportunity ??
    1. Tambov we ...
      Tambov we ... 3 June 2013 18: 53
      +3
      However, for reference - served in the early 80's. I remember I was in an outfit in the kitchen, I saw a carcass of a kangaroo (later explained) with an ink stamp of 1943. Lend-Lease, however.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 3 June 2013 20: 28
        +1
        Quote: We are from Tambov ...
        However, for reference - served in the early 80's. I remember I was in an outfit in the kitchen, I saw a carcass of a kangaroo (later explained) with an ink stamp of 1943. Lend-Lease, however.

        He served in the 80s.
        And our unit was often sent on business trips. So in Kaliningrad, our unit was fed German stew with crosses. So what ....?
        1. Tambov we ...
          Tambov we ... 9 June 2013 19: 07
          0
          So the warehouses were rich - and you got it.
    2. Conepatus
      Conepatus 4 June 2013 00: 08
      0
      Quote: APASUS
      Australia has never entered the sphere of interests of the USSR and modern Russia, and Australia's purchase of our SU is fantastic. The influence of the USA and England is strong enough, why did the author allow such an opportunity ??

      It’s already included. Russia has interests in the uranium region and either nickel or some other metal, Russia wanted to develop there. I don’t remember exactly. About 3 years ago a documentary about this business was underway.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 4 June 2013 18: 40
        0
        Quote: Conepatus
        Already included. Russia has interests in the uranium area and either nickel or some other metal

        You are a little confused area of ​​interest!
        Arms sales and investments are things of a different order.
        For example, Estonia practically does not miss the opportunity to put sticks in the wheels of Russia, while in the field of tourism of Russian citizens always hearty welcome
  35. Semen Semyonitch
    Semen Semyonitch 3 June 2013 18: 38
    +1
    “Add to that his advantage in new systems and weaponry, which allows him to simply rip up Australian F35s in the skies before they have a first-to-see, first-to-kill, first-to-kill ability without any aerial combat at all.”
    For the ignorant. What is this advantage ???
    1. dimon-media
      dimon-media 3 June 2013 18: 46
      +3
      This is an endless debate. It will become clear to us who is better and who is worse only when there is a real air battle between these machines. In addition, there should not be a duel, but for example a link against a link or a squadron against a squadron. Only then will it be possible to construct a schedule of losses from one side or another, excluding a random single defeat. God forbid of course this happen ..
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 3 June 2013 18: 55
      0
      Quote: Semyon Semyonich
      . What is this advantage ???

      In target designation with AWACS and other means
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 4 June 2013 03: 14
        0
        A F-35 target designation from AWACS can not receive? Or do we have so many of them and they are ultra-long AWACS ??? What about AFAR and weapons?
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 4 June 2013 22: 37
          0
          Quote: Semyon Semyonich
          A F-35 target designation from AWACS can not receive?

          I apparently misunderstood you. It is of course about f-35, when they are highlighted by AWACS
  36. Semen Semyonitch
    Semen Semyonitch 3 June 2013 18: 47
    +1
    Especially smiled, just to break ")))
  37. individual
    individual 3 June 2013 18: 49
    0
    Quote:
    “The costs are clearly worrying as the F-35 is a program that has long gone out of control. It is also shocking that this aircraft is more expensive than the rest of Australia. Ultimately, the cost of the entire program could skip a mark of $ 1385000000000 billion, which will exceed the capitalization of the entire Australian economy combined. "

    Anglo-Saxons crush.
    But who will agree to such a program.
    This is from the area macroeconomics ...
  38. luka095
    luka095 3 June 2013 18: 59
    +1
    It is unlikely that the Australians will buy "dry". They are too tied to the Americans and the British.
    And if that happened, it would be a breakthrough for the dry.
    1. Tambov we ...
      Tambov we ... 3 June 2013 19: 03
      -2
      China is very pretend to Australia. Maybe that's why they have such reels?
  39. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 3 June 2013 19: 07
    +3
    Since childhood, Russian boys have always flown into space .. space pilots .. designers .. now the priority has changed a bit for programmers .. (though most hackers want to become like 90 = x (bandits) .. but this is temporary let them train.). . Now everything is digital in the West robots and soldiers with headphones and a movement map with glasses .. And in Russia Susanins -programmers may appear .. wassat
  40. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 3 June 2013 19: 13
    +2
    It’s not the planes that fight, but the pilots on the planes.
    And the training of pilots is as difficult as the design and manufacture of modern aircraft, and not every country can handle it.
    I have no doubt that Australia will buy American planes, if they are 100 times worse and more expensive than Russian ones, the owners in Australia are not Australians, but Yusovites.
    "B toprovle in CSHA Avctpaliya imeet camy kpypny defitsit -13.1 Ga doll Glavnye tovapy, poctavlyaemye in CSHA:.. Nemonetapnoe zoloto - 785, govyadina - 750 cypaya neft - 485 camolety, veptolety and zapchacti to him - 375. Bedyschie ctati impopta from the USA - planes and helicopters ($ 2 billion), computers ($ 1.1 billion), spare parts for computers (831 million) ... "
    http://www.coolreferat.com/%D0%AD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B
    0_%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B8_4
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 4 June 2013 07: 15
      0
      To clarify, all types of armed forces are at war, not just aviation. And on how these types of weapons, military equipment, "consumables" are equipped and how they know how to handle all this "equipment" and use it in a real combat situation, which will be tomorrow, and not the one. which was yesterday and the result of the battles depends. After all, to be honest, not only generals, but we also think, as a rule, in the categories of past wars, poorly imagining future (God forbid) wars.
      After all, it is possible that all these super duper Sushki, Lightnings and other "wunderwaffe" stuffed with "smart" electronics will become a pile of useless iron when exposed to high-power EMP, hackers, and other nasty things. And the creation of such "nasty" is no longer a problem. Here is a protection from them a problem that no one can really solve yet.
  41. kind
    kind 3 June 2013 19: 28
    +3
    I am not special in aviation, but I think that technology (especially engines and missiles) is not worth selling.
  42. Algor73
    Algor73 3 June 2013 19: 40
    +2
    Australia will never buy Sushki, obviously. But he will buy the F-35. Maybe not as much as she planned, but she will buy. And the topic of the PAK-FA-T-50 is still open, only prototypes are flying, there is no equipment, the engine is still "raw", I am silent about the radar. It is unknown whether India will not suffer the same fate as the US donors in the F-35. I am a realist, I try to look at things realistically. There will be a serial T-50, or whatever it will be called, then it will be comparable to the F-35 and F-22. You can shout that "we are ahead of the rest of the planet", it was in the USSR, but then it was a reality.
  43. AnpeL
    AnpeL 3 June 2013 19: 44
    0
    Wow!!! I didn’t know that the countries in that region also sharply “dislike” each other request
  44. Bosk
    Bosk 3 June 2013 19: 48
    +3
    Does anyone remember that the Queen of England can veto any decision of Australia ... but what kind of veto is there, she can simply dismiss the Australian Parliament if something happens. This I mean that the question should be formulated differently ... "Will the Queen of England want to buy SU-shki?" ... I think the answer suggests itself.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 7 June 2013 09: 18
      0
      I remember. But this is a secret. And do not care that at one time the King or the Queen, I do not remember who was there, they ordered, and simple New Zealand and Australian guys obediently went to fight in Europe.
      1. Bosk
        Bosk 8 June 2013 01: 42
        0
        Well, it wouldn’t hurt future authors of articles to know, otherwise it will soon turn out that Canada is going to buy something from us ...
  45. My address
    My address 3 June 2013 19: 51
    +2
    As there in the advertisement on Radio Russia - "We ourselves need such a cow!" And if necessary, take the currency from the gold-currency reserves of the COUNTRY (!), Which are stored IN THE WEST (!).
  46. KBPC50
    KBPC50 3 June 2013 20: 07
    +2
    I am a military man with education. I still do not understand - why the heck do we, beautiful people, kill ourselves? Isn’t it time to kill those who benefit from killing each other? THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY has come. Come to your senses YANKS in USA, life is very short.
  47. Alexander D.
    Alexander D. 3 June 2013 20: 09
    +3
    The article, of course, contains the correct arguments, but it is from the category of "if only, if only" and the maximum benefit from it - flatters the pride of Russians. In the same way, in the USA, some Washington post might write "Why should India spit on Vikramaditya and take off with Gerald R. Ford." soldier
  48. ed65b
    ed65b 3 June 2013 20: 14
    +1
    Article balm for the soul. And Australia will never buy dry. The terrible brother will not allow it.
    1. Toit
      Toit 3 June 2013 22: 53
      +2
      Quote: ed65b
      Article balm for the soul. And Australia will never buy dry. The terrible brother will not allow it.

      Russia will never sell Sushki to Australia, or to any other closest ally of the United States, it's just like transferring US technology
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 3 June 2013 23: 27
        +2
        Quote: Toit
        it's like just transferring US technology

        You can transfer technology to China, India too, maybe even Indonesia, from where you can get a sample, but Australia is not
        Nobody has canceled industrial espionage yet
        1. Toit
          Toit 4 June 2013 06: 40
          +2
          Quote: Pilat2009
          e China can transfer technology, India, too, maybe Indonesia, where you can get a sample, but Australia no way
          Nobody has canceled industrial espionage yet

          Industrial espionage is one thing, and when you have a legitimate ready-to-use technique, it's a slightly different calico.
          China is not an ally of the United States, but rather on the safe side, although in my opinion China cannot be sold either due to possible geopolitical conflicts in the Far East
          To sell Australian equipment, it’s the same as for Israel, the next day it will be tested in the USA, and this is an undesirable scenario for Russia
  49. Orthodox warrior
    Orthodox warrior 3 June 2013 20: 16
    0
    If I am not mistaken, today in Australia a holiday is the Foundation Day. Here is an article for the holiday!
    1. SerAll
      SerAll 3 June 2013 23: 48
      0
      I have an offer! Let's give Australia Su-35S passes for advertising purposes! irresponsibly! that is, for nothing ... And then we'll see ... No one canceled the PR campaign!
  50. serpentine fist
    serpentine fist 3 June 2013 20: 23
    0
    I want to believe that somewhere in 10-15 years the USA will fly to SU.
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 3 June 2013 21: 42
      +2
      Quote: serpent-fist
      I want to believe that somewhere in 10-15 years the USA will fly to SU.

      I want to believe that somewhere in 10-15 years the United States, or rather the United States will live in the Stone Age, because they deserve it.