F-35 lost the fight

244


The inconspicuous multipurpose F-35 fighter was defeated without firing a single shot at the enemy. The plane lost the main fight in its life long before its incarnation in the metal - the battle for the justification of its existence.

One can only admire the stubbornness and perseverance of the engineers at Lockheed-Martin, who from year to year correct the identified shortcomings and perfect the complex machine. The efforts of the designers are in vain - despite the brilliant solutions to all the problems that arise, the fighter does not fulfill its main mission: neither the Air Force, nor the Navy, nor the US Marine Corps have any need for such an aircraft.

Fate turned out to be merciless to this cute car, resembling a fat penguin: "Lightning" will never repeat the fates of the legendary Sabers, Phantoms or fourth-generation fighters. Not a single pilot will slam the Lightning over the silver lining and will not say, blurred in a Hollywood smile: “The car is simply gorgeous. This is the best on which I flew! ". The creators of the uber-plane are ashamed to look into the eyes of American taxpayers and European creditors - everyone who sponsored a deliberately uncompetitive project.

What is the reason for such a vile state of affairs?



Now it is completely unimportant: whether the F-35 meets or does not meet the requirements of the “fifth generation”: low profile / increased combat autonomy / cruising supersonic ...
Fate played a cruel joke with the “fifth generation” - most of the stated requirements do not meet the needs of the modern military aviation. And what is really necessary in reality has long been introduced on 4+ generation fighters (a striking example is over-maneuverability).

At the same time, such things as hypersound, increased survivability, absolute invisibility for radar detection means - that could become a real "impetus" for the appearance of fighters of a new generation, still remains in the field of science fiction.

As a result, what Lockheed-Martin designers offer under the guise of a fighter of the “new generation” is just an extremely expensive and complicated machine, standing on the “leading edge” of modern science and technology. At the same time, the achieved gain in the combat capabilities of the F-35 is incommensurable with the amount of funds spent on the creation of an Über-plane.

The abundance of new technologies and overly bold design solutions was not in vain - the F-35 is constantly “frayed” and “lame” during test flights. The wind blows down the most complicated electronics, the pilot doesn’t see a damn thing out of the cabin, and the landing hook, as luck would have it, is too short for a safe landing on the ship’s deck.

Of course, billions of dollars were not wasted in vain - a monstrous amount of money was converted into the powerful fighting machine F-35 "Lightning II".

Lightning is superior to its competitors in the area of ​​stealth (detecting an enemy plane at a distance of 50 or 100 km is two big differences), versatility (sighting systems for working on the ground + a line of outstanding ammunition), as well as detection and integration into The Pentagon’s combat network (it’s no coincidence that the Yankees plan to “link” with the active AN / APG-81 phased array and AN / AAQ-37 electron-optical system naval Aegis air defense / missile defense system - F-35 soaring in the sky-high heights will automatically issue target designation for targets beyond the horizon). These are the side features of the Uber Fighter! In terms of airborne avionics and versatility, the F-35 confidently “plugs in the belt” even its older brother F-22.

F-35 lost the fight

Internal bomb bay F-35. Inside visible planning bomb AGM-154 JSW

It is necessary to note the ingenious concept of "three in one" - the Americans managed to create, on the basis of one glider, a light fighter-bomber for the Air Force, a deck aircraft for the Navy and a "vertical line" for the ILC. The process went with a big creak, the Yankees probably 10 once regretted their careless decision to "save", however, brought the matter to a logical end. Big money can work wonders - an investment of 56 billion in dollars will make even a piano on wheels fly.

And then questions begin. The first of these is why was the F-35 created at all? Formally, to replace the F-16 and F / A-18, as well as the specific AV-8B Harrier II.

In fact, the process is as follows: the Yankees really need to upgrade their fleet of light fighters - the last of the F-16 were transferred to the US Air Force eight years ago. But, excuse me, how is this related to F-35? Modern modifications "Fighting Falkenov" perfectly cope with their functions (cost / result), another thing is that they have not been released for a long time, and the existing F-16 is running out of resources.

The situation with the F / A-18 is even more interesting - the F / A-18E and 18F Super Hornet modifications are in the process of mass production and fully meet the requirements of seafarers.

As for the “vertical” AV-8B, the presence of such equipment in the composition of the aviation of the ILC raises more questions than answers. Wouldn't it be easier to call a link of normal fighters / bomber from the nearest airbase than to try to "shove" these nedosamolety onto the cramped decks of the same non-Avian carriers (versatile amphibious assault ships of the "Wosp" type)? And the use of VTOL F-35B is not a panacea.



To get new type of aircraft is always a pleasure. Another thing is that new fighters should be somewhat different from the "obsolete" aircraft in a positive direction.
This is where the main embarrassment arises. With all the apparent external futuristic, F-35 has no special advantages over the machines of the previous generation.

"Lightning" does not shine flight data: its thrust-to-weight ratio, load on the wing, the value of the established climb rate - everything remained at the level of fourth-generation fighters! There is not even such an interesting feature as a controlled vector of thrust - although it would seem that it is high time to acquire such a system - even in “lapotnaya” Russia, serial production of fighters equipped with engines with military equipment has been established.

The dispute about “flying in a supersonic without afterburner” does not matter: first, the F-35 cannot do this. Secondly, “supersonic without afterburner” is not a priority for modern aviation - the combat capabilities of fighters are determined by dozens of other, much more important parameters.

It is quite obvious: the creators of the F-35 have relied on the perfect on-board electronics and stealth. “Lightning” will be the first to notice the enemy and will be the first to deliver a devastating blow from the ultimate distance, and will remain unnoticed by enemy radars. The calculation is absolutely correct, but there is one important point:
All super-electronics and measures to reduce visibility, implemented in the project F-35, could be successfully introduced into the design of fourth-generation fighter!



As a result, we have the simplest logical chain:

1. The new "platform" did not give any advantages - LTH "Lightning" remained at the level of F-16 and F / A-18.

2. The high-tech “stuffing” of the F-35 does not require the creation of a special carrier for it - all systems
perfectly integrated into the design of existing machines.

The verdict is obvious: there was no need to create from scratch a new lightweight fighter. The existence of Lightning is not justified by anything other than the inordinate greed of the managers of Lockheed-Martin, who have convinced the Pentagon’s leadership that they are right.

As for the real "fifth generation fighter" - it seems that the hour of these machines has not yet struck. Modern science can not offer anything that could radically increase the capabilities of combat aircraft.

Backstab F-35

The pitiful existence of F-35 was suddenly disturbed by the news of the appearance of a formidable competitor. Who is the "put a pig" the latest American fighter? Who plotting against the USAF? Again, these unpredictable Russians with their Sukhoi PAK FA? Or the crafty Asians that copied the F-35 and now sell countless copies in each tray in the Chinese market?

Honestly, you will laugh. The American company "Boeing" tripped the footboard of the American fighter F-35. Fatally offended by the victory of competitors (concept X-32 proposed by Boeing completely lost to Lockheed-Martin concept X-35), Boeing’s top management sat down at the table, and after a short depression phase, decided to turn the offensive loss into their advantage (Americans, pragmatic people). Let competitors disgrace with their F-35, we will not repeat their mistakes and we will be ahead of the curve!


Experimental aircraft Boeing X-32, the main competitor of X-35 (future F-35)
The look of X-32 is so disgusting that there is no way to publish an illustration without the risk of damaging the psyche of the reader.

There was little money - there was no need to rely on funding from the state, Lockheed Martin won all tenders. The development of a new fighter "from scratch" on its own "Boeing" could not pull. The conclusion was obvious: the modernization of existing models.

Then the gaze of Boeing specialists turned to the F / A-18 aircraft of the E / F Super Hornet.

What is this beast "Super Hornet"? Deck fighter-bomber generation 4 +
Easy, reliable, versatile. Twin-engine layout. Full integration into the structure of the US military. Impressive story services - in addition to the States, the Hornets family is in service with seven countries of the world. The main combat aircraft of the CMP aviation and the only fighter-bomber remaining on the decks of American aircraft carriers after the write-off of the F-14 "Tomcat" in 2006 year. There is something to be proud of.


F / A-18E Super Hornet

The Super Hornet (adopted in 1999 year) is not an easy upgrade of the Hornet fighter. This is a completely new plane, a free improvisation based on F / A-18 - a glider, an engine, and avionics - absolutely everything has changed. The wing span increased by 20%, the mass of the empty aircraft - by 3 tons compared to the original design. The capacity of the F / A-18E fuel tanks exceeds that of the Hornet by a third, the combat radius increased by 40%.

The main direction of modernization was chosen to reduce the visibility of the aircraft. Box-shaped nacelles of engines with curved air intakes, high-quality "fit" and alignment of the joints of parts, the elimination of gaps and cavities-resonators, sawtooth joints of surfaces. Widespread introduction of radio transparent and radio absorbing materials has been ensured - according to Boeing’s representatives on F / A-18E and 18F, the most comprehensive set of measures to reduce the visibility among all modern fighters has been implemented, with the exception of F-35 and F-22 stealth aircraft.

This is the place to start!

After discussing all the issues, Boeing decided to create a future competitor F-35 on the basis of its Super Hornet. Why not?

Even the standard “Super Hornet” looks great against the background of the F-35. Flight data and combat load F / A-18E (single version) are absolutely identical to the parameters of the Lightning. The aircraft is tested in combat, reliable and unpretentious.
As for the “stuffing” - here the possibilities of upgrading the “Super Hornet” are practically unlimited - this is what the new EA-18G “Growler” electronic warfare aircraft demonstrated on the basis of the two-seater F / A-18F modification.

“Growler” is known for the fact that a couple of years ago, in one of the training air battles, he “hammered” the F-22 “Raptor” interference, and then conditionally destroyed the “enemy” with rocket weapons. News went beyond the scope of official reports and became the object of caustic jokes at foreign aviation forums in the style: “But have we done everything right? Maybe we should change the "Raptors" to EA-18G "?

Those. The Super Hornet payload reserve allows the installation of virtually any radio-electronic system on the airframe: a radar with AFAR, a system of IR sensors for circular surveillance, an active jamming station or an optical-electronic aiming system for ground-based operation.

After weighing the pros and cons, Boeing announced the launch of the Super Hornet International Roadmap program. As the name implies, Boeing actively contacts foreign developers, contractors and potential buyers. The design of the fighter of the new generation, which was named “Silent Hornet” (silent hornet - a hint of “stealth”), is prepared to the maximum extent for installing any equipment of foreign production - at the request of the customer.

The program was presented at the Farnborough 2010 aerospace show. A year later, a real machine “in metal” grew from a beautiful sketch on paper - a prototype for the study of the main developments under the “Silent Hornet” program, demonstrated at the international exhibition Aero India 2011 (Yelahanka Air Base, Bangalore).

An external inspection gives the following picture: the plane “absorbed” even more elements of the “stealth” technology - the main “highlight” was the ventral overhanging container, made in accordance with the requirements of low visibility. "Boeing" did not "mock" the original design, trying to find a place under the internal compartment of weapons, but simply carried the missiles to the external suspension, covering them with a radio-absorbing "cap", forming a single bottom profile of the aircraft. If the target is designated as “striking ground targets”, conventional bombs, PTBs, sighting and navigation containers or other equipment will take the place of the removable stealth container.









There was something else: the “glass cabin” of the new generation with wide-format indicators of the tactical situation with the possibility of mixing information (simultaneous output and overlaying of “images” from various sensors on a single scale) - as it should be for the fifth generation fighter.

On the hull of the Silent Hornet, specific “influxes” appeared - conformal fuel tanks providing intercontinental flight range. In addition, the Yankees promise new engines and a full range missile detection system, similar to AN / AAQ-37, which is installed on the F-35.

The new generation of Super Hornet will have increased combat survivability, situational awareness and effectiveness.

- Vivek Lall, Vice President, Boeing

In general, the appearance of "Silent Hornet" does not promise anything good for the F-35. The renewed F / A-18 has similar LTH, combat load, avionics and stealth elements. At the same time, the “Silent Hornet” goes at a dumping price, has proven itself well in combat and has a reputation as a powerful, reliable and versatile aircraft. It is no coincidence that thematic editions instantly dubbed the car, as JSF-killer (Joint Strike Fighter - program to create F-35).

The foreign operators of the Hornet family of fighters, among which currently are Canada, Australia, Kuwait, Finland, Spain, Switzerland and Malaysia, already have a prepared infrastructure and accumulated operating experience of such aircraft, so they will consider buying the updated Hornet with great interest whose capabilities match the advertised F-35.

Australia has already taken the first step - January 29 representatives of Canberra announced the cancellation of plans to buy F-2013 fighter jets, in favor of F / A-35F Super Hornet (18 fighter, contract amount $ 24 billion). It is possible that the new Australian F / A-2F will acquire many of the features of the Silent Hornet.

As for the States themselves, it is clear that the existing plans for the purchase of X-NUMX F-327C for deck naval aviation and 35 F-353B vertical pilots for KMP aviation will not be able to meet the needs of the American military - half of the squadrons will continue to fly Super Hornies, and , in perspective, on the “Silent Hornets”.

This is such a funny story - the impromptu Boeing created the Big Trouble program F-35 JSF, and now it is not known how the two aircraft giants will share the tactical aircraft market.

Epilogue. Russian aircraft developers should analyze the experience of their Western colleagues. Perhaps the constant evolution of fourth-generation fighter jets is the key to creating the fifth generation of this magnificent vehicle.



http://www.militaryparitet.com/
http://www.aex.ru/
http://airwar.ru/
http://www.militaryphotos.net/
244 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    27 June 2013 08: 30
    F-35 constantly "strews" and "limps" during test flights
    It remains only to rejoice and wait for our T-50 in a series

    What, what, and call our probable friends of the master
    1. +6
      27 June 2013 08: 47
      And despite all the above, the best aircraft in the world were, are and remain the aircraft of Russian production! smile
      The only thing that upsets, if you look at the number of aircraft purchased by the Americans and compare with ours, but we have almost no aircraft. What can I say if even Su-35 we have in total about fifty ... I hope everything will change, and the T-50 will delight in everything ...
      1. +21
        27 June 2013 12: 49
        Quote: Romn
        if even the Su-35 we have in total about fifty ...


        I will disappoint you, we have a dozen of them.
        1. 0
          28 June 2013 21: 48
          It’s interesting that they manage to minus the couch cushions? I don’t care, I just want to look at these clowns)
          1. ded10041948
            +3
            2 July 2013 08: 55
            Get used to it! The site is full of "disposables" who live according to the principle: "I jumped out, minus and into the bushes until they spotted (identified)"
      2. +8
        27 June 2013 12: 56
        Quote: Romn
        What can I say if even the Su-35 in our total number is about fifty ...

        you wrote crap, but you set up the pros, just for what it is not clear what
        1. +5
          27 June 2013 16: 14
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          you wrote crap, but you set up the pros, just for what it is not clear

          Probably for fantasy .......
          At the end of 2012 there were only 8 of them, the Su-35 is meant.
        2. +3
          27 June 2013 17: 10
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          , and you have set up pluses, just for what it is not clear


          Offend ....
          1. 0
            2 July 2013 13: 01
            Just like that, and they live. What we do, we don’t understand ourselves, but we say they don’t understand us, and we ourselves also can hardly realize what we said and trampled on the keyboard. We always see only the minuses in our country, in our home - such horizontal astigmatism (everything is flattened and stretched horizontally) and the pluses are veiled there beyond the horizon, and with elements of vertical astigmatism (everything is sublime and large). That's how we live in different Russia. Some have it alone, while others have it different. I ask you not to entangle the oligarchs and other mutoty here, we are talking about ordinary Russians, but only in a completely different way perceiving life.
      3. +5
        27 June 2013 13: 41
        Alas, in matters of radar, navigation and combat electronics, we traditionally lag behind.
        1. +2
          29 June 2013 09: 37
          In the matter of introducing the latest ideas, we lag behind unambiguously.
          What, interestingly, needs to be done with our generals so that they finally stop repeating the phrase "but our unlikely ally does not have this, but this is there and we want the same."

          The AFAR topic was worked out in the USSR back in the 1950s, the implementation rested solely on the element base. So even "Buran", at the request of the Ministry of Defense, was made with a swinging antenna. Although even on vacuum-electronic devices made according to the technology of microlayer spraying (according to the technology of microcircuits), it had already been worked out by the beginning of the 1970s and ... was safely buried. Yes, it had a much higher consumption, but at the same time it had characteristics unattainable even on modern semiconductors.
      4. +5
        27 June 2013 13: 58
        And despite all the above, the best aircraft in the world were, are and remain the aircraft of Russian production!
        --
        Patriotism is good, but in this case you are wrong.
      5. Gari
        +7
        27 June 2013 15: 49
        Quote: Romn
        I hope everything changes, and the T-50 will delight in everything ...

        T-50 handsome
    2. +41
      27 June 2013 09: 18
      Some kind of obscure article about the confrontation between the two largest aircraft companies in the United States based on which the author took the F-35. Reading the article, I caught myself thinking that the author is persistently trying to complete the task and prove that the Americans spent a lot of money, that the original product did not work out, that nobody needs the F-35 ...
      They really spent a lot of money, but this is their money and their problems, even if they are investing trillions.
      There is a plane, it flies, it launches rockets, and if they put it in series, it means they will put and sell it for themselves
      In general, I don’t know, maybe I misunderstood the message of the article, but I am very confused by the numbers of aircraft manufactured in the USA and Russia. And everything else is according to the Russian proverb: "Every sandpiper praises his swamp." hi
      1. +53
        27 June 2013 10: 06
        Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
        The look of X-32 is so disgusting that there is no way to publish an illustration without the risk of damaging the psyche of the reader.



        Russian men are so severe that their psyche can withstand even the appearance of the X-32
        1. +30
          27 June 2013 10: 12
          And what kind of photo? Did the F-35 lose its jaw at the sight of the Su-35 aerobatics? laughing
          1. +32
            27 June 2013 10: 25
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And what kind of photo?


            This is a rare refuge - the Boeing X-32, which was preparing to be a star of the American aircraft industry and if Yeltsin had not sold them the Yak-141 it would have been
            1. +13
              27 June 2013 10: 39
              Yes, I know, thanks, but at the sight of this creation of a gloomy Boeing genius I could not resist a joke of humor laughing drinks
            2. +12
              27 June 2013 11: 03
              Quote: Vadivak
              This is a rare sanctuary.

              By the way, just now I thought - maybe it would be more correct not to "slaughter", but "uboingishche"?
              1. +8
                28 June 2013 01: 35
                One of the reasons Lockheed won was because the pilots were openly saying that it was a bastard for them to fly this [profanity]. Upon seeing the X-32, the pilots immediately gave it the nickname "Monica" for its wide open mouth and thickness. If anyone remembers, it was just then that the soap opera about Clinton and the plump brunette Monica with her mouth wide open was in full swing.
          2. +5
            27 June 2013 10: 30
            No, it's Boeing smiling at Lockheed's success
          3. +15
            27 June 2013 11: 40
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And what kind of photo?

            But he also flew. really a little bit but flew
            1. +5
              27 June 2013 16: 29
              Quote: self-propelled
              But he also flew. really a little bit but flew


              Like a crocodile ..... low, low
            2. +1
              27 June 2013 18: 20
              Beauty is a relative thing. If this "eccentric" flew wonderfully, they would say - oh, what a handsome man.
              1. 0
                29 June 2013 09: 56
                One Penguin, the other Monica - well, they basically can’t fly well.
                Appearance will not allow.
            3. +2
              27 June 2013 22: 29
              Come on. When I saw this prototype, my mood immediately lifted. But not from thoughts like "LOL, that's the same." Its hefty air intake is very much like a mouth spreading into a smile. Or even a shark's mouth in something, only teeth are missing. Surely, if the Pixar studio artists decided to create an animated film like "Cars" but only about airplanes, they would have a jet fighter just like the X-32A.
            4. +2
              28 June 2013 05: 48
              O_o it also flies!
            5. 0
              30 June 2013 19: 37
              Scary, of course, but from a layout point of view, this can be a good solution.
              In general, it is more like working out a conceptual layout.
            6. 0
              1 July 2013 19: 41
              Quote: self-propelled
              But he also flew. really a little bit but flew

              Not just Monica, but flabby Monica.
              Really pah!
          4. +4
            27 June 2013 20: 18
            Laughing in vain smile
            And if the Boeing decided to implement the concept of a ramjet engine in a fighter, the concept of Ajax?
            http://topwar.ru/1538-ayaks-giperzvukovoj-mnogocelevoj-samolet.htm
            If this aircraft performs its tasks, what difference does it look like?
            By the way, it seems that (I read somewhere), our designers want to stick a plasma component (igniter) into the engines of the Sushki.
            I am not an Aviator, but I would listen with interest to the opinion of experienced pilots on this subject.
            1. +1
              29 June 2013 10: 02
              Well, our space interceptor also looked like a bast shoe.
              It is a pity that for him the direct-drive has not yet been completed.
              And the Yankees will not finish it. Until Russia does it.
              Their jumps in direct-flow tanks became possible only after all developments on this topic flowed from the plundered USSR.
              And before that, they did not advance further the PRD-1 schemes.
          5. +1
            29 June 2013 09: 53
            Very accurately noticed.

            MiG37 guidance navigator to Su35 flight commander:
            Thirty to the smallest, in a square twelve zero three five penguins (Ф35) and four monica (X32).

            Nah, the American guys don’t like this.
            So the Boeing with FA18 is doing the right thing. It follows the path of Russia - in-depth modernization of the 4 +++ generation. I wish our return to our path.
        2. +5
          27 June 2013 11: 27
          Quote: Vadivak
          The look of the X-32 is so disgusting
          Yes and F-117 is far from handsome
          ZRK Square did not like
          Like the Northrop B-2 Spirit
          1. +5
            27 June 2013 12: 07
            Quote: Denis
            Like the Northrop B-2 Spirit
            Well, about the B-2 - it's a legend ... it didn’t happen. But C-125 for F-117 is a fact. Zlotan Dani will not let lie.
            1. +4
              27 June 2013 14: 33
              Quote: Bronis
              Well, about the B-2 - it's a legend ... it wasn’t
              How to know, how to know ...
              They could not refute either
              NATO war against Yugoslavia - used in 1999 by Yugoslavia [15]. According to Russian sources, several NATO aircraft were shot down during use [3]. So for example, the 3M9M3E rocket was Northrop B-2 bomber shot down Spirit [13]. In addition, the fact of the destruction of the American Lockheed F-2 Nighthawk stealth aircraft by the 12K117E "Square" anti-aircraft missile system was officially confirmed by the ministers of defense and foreign affairs of the Russian Federation, as well as representatives of the military air defense of the Russian Federation [3] [16]. The fact that the F-117 was shot down by the Kub air defense missile system is also reported by the author of the website "Armament, military equipment and uniform of the Russian army and navy in the XX century" A.K. Lysochenko
              I prefer this version
              1. 0
                27 June 2013 16: 19
                And the fact that he is listed in the Air Force does not bother you?
                What do you mean could not refute? You? No? So refute!
                1. +2
                  27 June 2013 16: 47
                  Quote: patsantre
                  What do you mean could not refute? You? No? So refute!
                  I’ll refute the set of words. Yes, yes! At least for now
                  Quote: patsantre
                  And the fact that he is listed in the Air Force does not bother you?
                  Haven't there been cases of "resurrection" before that?
                  Yet again versionread carefully
                  1. -3
                    27 June 2013 20: 42
                    Do not believe in everything now?
              2. +8
                27 June 2013 16: 31
                how it was exactly there - we will not know, because we were not there. The Yugoslavs talked about 2 allegedly shot down B-2 - "Spirit of Washington" and "Spirit of Missouri". True, they were then repeatedly photographed and took part in the war with Iraq in 2003. So there is no comment. Conspiracy theorists, of course, will say that these are other planes - "the king is not real." Nevertheless, most likely, they did not shoot down the B-2.
                Although the general estimates of losses, to put it mildly, differ. NATO confirms only 2 or 4 combat losses (can't remember). Serbs sometimes write about 100 aircraft. Average - about 60 pcs. Often such planes are then "resurrected" (if the numbers are known).
                The reality is that without "invisibility" for the Yugoslav air defense there were many simpler targets - all Tornadoes and others. But here you need to understand that by the end of the 90s the air defense of Yugoslavia was greatly weakened - the "parade of sovereignties" made decent "holes". And the general balance of forces was depressing ... In general, the way the Yugoslavs fought with NATO aircraft deserves respect.
                And yet, the same Dani shot down the F-117 from close range (6-8 km) from an ambush, point-blank. And the calculation was probably used by "Karat" - it was directing visually (although there are different opinions). So "stealth" here would not help much ... because the radar is not in business. But all the same, to shoot down this miracle of the American aircraft industry with a complex at the beginning of the 60s is a skill, but also a certain professional luck.
                So the losses of NATO, most likely, although they are higher than declared, but far from 100 machines. Which does not beg the Serbs. It's just hard to stop the asphalt roller ...
                1. +1
                  29 June 2013 10: 09
                  Simply Zoltan studied well at the school and remembered that F117 is not visible to the radar rays that irradiate it and is clearly visible when using radiation from another radar, and that the C125 complex has a function preserved from C75 - the use of radiation from a neighboring radar is passive mode.
                  So I caught F117 for escort and banged him.
                  There is in the internet his own description of the battle.
          2. +10
            27 June 2013 12: 17
            Quote: Denis
            Yes and F-117 is far from handsome

            And here I do not agree
            F-117 - the standard of futurism. Stylish black plane
            1. +9
              27 June 2013 13: 07
              Yes, futurism. And what else. Officially Knight Hawk. And the pilots called the Lame Goblin. Well, if in fact, then for the time of appearance - this is the peak of the development of technology (within the framework of the goals and objectives that set for the designers).
              The main trouble with the F-117 is not the "legendary" flight characteristics, but excessive publicity. In the media, the Americans made him an ideal "super-weapon" capable of solving almost all problems. Of course, he was not such a super-weapon, but was part of the Air Force system, in which he was assigned a certain role. in general, it was more useful to the Americans in the field of information warfare, and not in military conflicts. This is how his fate developed ... thanks to the PR people. but to be able to promote yourself competently is right. But to engage in self-flagellation is stupid.
              1. +5
                27 June 2013 14: 22
                The history of the Russian self-flagellation is counted in more than a thousand years of history, but the "competent PR" of the Americos will hardly make it to half a century of history.
                Draw conclusions what is right and what is not;)
                1. +5
                  27 June 2013 15: 10
                  Quote: We refund_SSSR
                  The history of Russian self-flagellation is estimated more than a thousand-year history

                  The fact that our history is more than a millennium is good. And it would be even better if we did not engage in self-revisionism on a state scale. And this action has no direct relation to history ... but only to the momentary politics of various power circles (depending on time).
                  The Yankees, for example, are not talking about the genocide of the Indians, but about the development of unpopulated lands, not about their large-scale use of chemical weapons in Vietnam and ecocide, but about the mythical Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and dubious rumors about its use by Assad. The ability to "translate arrows" and shift accents - you need to learn this ...
                  1. vBR
                    vBR
                    +1
                    30 June 2013 18: 44
                    Presenting abominations as harmless candy is not our approach. Actually, we simply never had anything like this, except for the only time - when our own country was simply and shamefully ... but this is a different topic. Well, honestly, you need to ask yourself questions, our culture is based, among other things, on the truth
                2. Kostya pedestrian
                  +1
                  4 July 2013 06: 06
                  I note that your knowledge in the history of the Russian peoples is doubtful. If only you are about Fiji - yes, they have such a tradition.

                  my amateur opinion is that air defense systems and turntables are a much more profitable weapon in mine over the battlefield.

                  Although, given the vastness of Russia, supersonic fighters are important: flew in, saw, hit the target.

                  But best of all, it’s the deployment of ground troops, and the significant role of intelligence and counterintelligence in intimidating potential enemies.

                  PieS: by the way, one should not go in cycles in history, it is not necessary to return the USSR, but the spirit of those people who stood breastfeeding for their Motherland, and our traditions defended and increased, despite the minute benefits or deprivations.
              2. 0
                12 July 2013 12: 57
                Quote: Bronis
                Well, if in fact, then for the time of appearance - this is the peak of the development of technology (within the framework of the goals and objectives that set for the designers).

                Which they did not cope with safely ...
            2. +6
              27 June 2013 14: 37
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              standard of futurism.
              Tastes could not be discussed ...
              But I would not want my lady to look like on the canvases of Picasso and Pirosmani themselves
              Scary!
            3. mansur
              +7
              27 June 2013 15: 43
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Stylish black plane

              Type of black square Malevich
              1. +26
                27 June 2013 16: 27
                In the picture, the "black square" hangs upside down.
                1. Gari
                  +1
                  27 June 2013 16: 59
                  Quote: Thunderbolt
                  In the picture, the "black square" hangs upside down.

                  Wow
                  1. -1
                    1 July 2013 07: 39
                    he hangs sideways
              2. 0
                2 July 2013 10: 30
                at a point (i.e. squared) noticed the comrade lol
            4. +2
              27 June 2013 17: 13
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              F-117 - the standard of futurism. Stylish black plane

              Yes, even Steven Seagal flew on it.
              But foreign pilots, in an interview, about the f-35 respond well, maybe PR, I don’t know. Until the mass F-35 series, another 3 years, then years of production, this is the time the Super Hornets fly by. Your article, as always, is read interestingly, but you did not drip deep into it (personal opinion). That would be about the submarines of WWII time to read in your performance.
              1. +3
                27 June 2013 18: 36
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                then years of production, this is the time the Super Hornets fly by

                Super Hornet production is calculated at least until 2020.
                Then the Silent Hornet will enter the series - the f-35 will serve side by side with the Hornet until the middle of the century, and then you will see the sixth generation will come up with
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                That would be about the submarines of WWII time to read in your performance.

                Yes I will try
                1. +5
                  27 June 2013 22: 17
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Then the Silent Hornet will enter the series - the f-35 will serve side by side with the Hornet until the middle of the century,

                  Well, of course, as without the relatively cheap workhorse, I would imagine f-35 as a mobile platform for an information and combat module, I think this is still a step forward in the development of military equipment, I am alarmed by the single information field created by the Americans, the release of f-35 to 2034, then a decade and a presentation of the 6th generation, such are the plans of the USA, if there is enough money, but the 6th generation is something like this
                  1. 0
                    29 June 2013 10: 13
                    They simply realize one idea worked out in the USSR in the late 1960s.
                    Maybe now our generals will want "the same".
            5. laurbalaur
              +2
              27 June 2013 17: 38
              I agree with you! About SR-71 and U-2, they also said: What monsters! But the cars did their job in high quality!
            6. 0
              27 June 2013 17: 50
              Stylish black plane

              Correction: Stylish black Subsonic aircraft.
            7. +2
              27 June 2013 18: 24
              The tail is really like feathers ... in the ostrich's ass.
            8. 0
              2 July 2013 10: 26
              just tail iron tifal is the standard of futurism laughing
        3. mansur
          0
          27 June 2013 15: 39
          Quote: Vadivak
          Russian men are so severe that their psyche can withstand even the appearance of the X-32

          Admire this ,, Handsome ,,
          1. +1
            27 June 2013 16: 49
            Quote: mansur
            Admire this
            Is he that?
            pregnant
            1. +1
              2 July 2013 10: 37
              I didn’t guess, he’s a male, you see two eggs hanging on his belly)))
          2. soldier's grandson
            +5
            27 June 2013 23: 13
            I still want to throw a garbage bag into this waste bin
            1. ded10041948
              0
              2 July 2013 09: 17
              Finally found a use!
          3. antibanukurayza
            +1
            28 June 2013 10: 42
            It resembles a pelican ... or a fish on the shore ... greedily swallows the air.
          4. +1
            28 June 2013 17: 59
            yes, friends ... X-32 looks mildly obscene ... as much as distorted ...
        4. +2
          27 June 2013 18: 47
          Pleased, I’ve been laughing for 5 minutes already !!! So it’s only to stub fish while fishing, and to frighten for one))) I think an eternally drunken welder from any wreck will make such an instance in 2 nights and one bottle of vodka ...
        5. 0
          28 June 2013 05: 47
          How terrible he is ...
          1. +1
            28 June 2013 18: 00
            he is terrible .... he is clumsy ... laughing
      2. djon77
        +2
        27 June 2013 10: 12
        they weren’t embarrassed. Initially, the Super Hornets were to be operated in parallel with the F-35 lightings. So the author here just gave out wishful thinking. It’s hard to blame Americans for the lack of pragmatism
        1. +2
          27 June 2013 14: 24
          Examine the question.
          F-35 was created as a single replacement, and not as an addition.
          1. djon77
            +1
            27 June 2013 16: 51
            it’s not quite like a replacement. I therefore wrote about the deck version. only the newest US aircraft carriers are designed to receive lightning. and the linkage on earlier versions of the Nimits will remain in the form of Hornets. as a complete replacement this applies to the f-16 also to the harrier
      3. -1
        27 June 2013 11: 59
        Quote: seasoned
        And everything else is according to the Russian proverb: "Every sandpiper praises his swamp"

        To the brutal TRUE words, as well as all the others in the post.
        But for the work done to the author THANKS. good
        This is not a homosexual and the Zionists discuss. wassat
        1. +6
          27 June 2013 12: 05
          By the way there is an almost fresh video, like for the Indians did.
          Rafal's training battle against the Fu-22.
          Watch with 2: 20.
          You can clearly hear how the pilot suffers overload.
          1. +1
            27 June 2013 18: 34
            I thought a woman was giving birth.
          2. -3
            28 June 2013 06: 53
            And you didn’t think that this plane can carry EVEN SUCH overloads and what is its safety margin?
            1. +2
              28 June 2013 08: 07
              the plane makes EVEN SUCH overloads and what is its safety margin

              Which ones? Our Su-27 (what can I say about the 35th?) Carries more loads than the pilot can withstand!
            2. +1
              29 June 2013 12: 11
              Well, what is it, what is it? ..
              Well, only 9 times the load.
              And what?
          3. 0
            29 June 2013 12: 10
            ёёёё .....
            Already sweating ...
            The pilot is cool.
      4. smprofi
        +6
        27 June 2013 13: 38
        Quote: seasoned
        to prove that the Americans spent a lot of money, that the original product did not work out, that nobody needs the F-35.

        oh how not needed!
        oh how everyone refuse it!
        US Navy 4 a day ago received the first F-35C Lightning II, deck version



        and Italian-macarono confirmed that it will purchase 90 pieces of various modifications of the F-35. The Minister of Defense wants, however, 131 pieces, but the parliament told him "padazhzhi! here we will buy 90, and then we will scratch the bottom of the barrel and consider the issue of additional purchases"

        here: http://www.corriere.it/politica/13_giugno_26/pd-presenta-mozione-per-acquisto-f3

        5_615038ca-de33-11e2-9903-199918134868.shtml
        1. 0
          27 June 2013 14: 03
          Quote: smprofi
          US Navy 4 a day ago received the first F-35C Lightning II, deck version

          This is even funnier)))
        2. +5
          27 June 2013 20: 18
          Lockheed Martin: Israel will be the first US ally to receive the F-35

          publication time: 16: 53
          last update: 17: 02



          Vice President of Lockheed Martin Corporation Steve O'Brian, who is responsible for the financial part of the F-35 fifth generation fighter program, said that Israel will be the first country after the United States to receive new aircraft.

          According to the Aviation Week magazine, the statement was made by O'Brien the day before in Paris, where the Le Bourget international air show is taking place these days.

          The first IDF Air Force pilots are scheduled to arrive for refresher training at US Air Force Base Eglin in early 2016. The first squadron of F-35I aircraft will be transferred to Israel in 2018.

          O'Brien added that each of the eight countries participating in the project will receive their own version of the aircraft, designed in accordance with the wishes of the customer. Other buyers will only be able to obtain this version with the permission of the first buyer.

          Therefore, all electronic and avionic systems installed on the F-35I by order of the Israeli Ministry of Defense will be exclusive. As an example, the vice president of Lockheed-Martin cited Rafael's Spice-1000 missile control units.

          O'Brian said Israel will likely receive the latest AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles and Raytheon's AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles along with the planes. At the same time, specifically for the F-35, the Rafael concern is developing a new version of Python missiles.

          It is also reported that in order to increase the aircraft's range, Lockheed Martin is studying the possibility of using the 425-gallon firing fuel tanks developed by the Elbit concern.

          Note that Israel has become the last country to receive partner status. In addition, the Israeli Ministry of Defense agreed to sign an agreement on the purchase of aircraft only in July 2012, after Lockheed Martin made concessions and agreed to grant Israel permission to install equipment developed by Israeli defense concerns on the F-35.

          The installation of Israeli equipment on the F-35 delivered to Israel was one of the main requirements of the IDF. However, until the last moment, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin did not agree to this requirement, although a similar permission was obtained for aircraft of other models (F-15, F-16) purchased in the USA.
          1. 0
            29 June 2013 10: 19
            All systems will be exclusive because the US Congress allowed only the flawed version to be supplied.
            An exclusive is worth other money.
      5. +1
        27 June 2013 14: 01
        America i.e. USA did not open. The US Air Force command can bet on different companies, and we can only on Sukhoi Design Bureau. Alas.
        1. +9
          27 June 2013 14: 24
          Quote: Andrey77
          and we are only at Sukhoi Design Bureau. Alas
          KB Mikoyan is somehow undeservedly forgotten
          Or maybe Yakovlev’s design bureau will surprise you
          1. +1
            27 June 2013 14: 37
            Maybe they’re doing something, but they can’t imagine a glider. It does not apply to Mikoyan Design Bureau - I repent, did not mention it in a post.
          2. 0
            29 June 2013 10: 25
            Mikoyan Design Bureau is 40% owned by Boeing.
            So, in principle, they will not be able to surprise anything special.
            This is a window for Boeing in our secrets.
            So first, we’ll be surprised at the new features of the FA18 with another plus.
            Yakovlev Design Bureau in a strong corral.
            Design Bureau Ilyushin only partially exported from Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The Ukrainian part of the Design Bureau is trying something, but they squeezed money. For the Russian part of the design bureau, the maximum that is allowed is the modernization of IL72 and IL76.
            KB Antonova almost entirely dies in Ukraine.
      6. +1
        27 June 2013 16: 44
        An article about the fact that although the amers shoved indescribable money into a crumpled teapot of "inconspicuous" form, unfortunately they also have a decent plane. That is, that in the military field, despite the rapid erosion of potential under the influence of the philosophy of effective managers, they still have a large margin of safety. And this is upsetting and sad.
      7. +2
        27 June 2013 20: 13
        Quote: seasoned
        Reading the article, I caught myself thinking that the author is persistently trying to complete the task and prove that the Americans spent a lot of money, that the original product did not work out, that nobody needs F-35 ...
        The author, perhaps, is trying to prove that we do not need such a plane, goodbye forever, YAK-141, eternal memory. But, God forbid, war, a big war, Borjomi will drink late.
        1. 0
          29 June 2013 10: 33
          Yak141 is a completely different concept.
          Only common - all weapons in the fuselage.
          But it was decided on the great-grandson of IL2 - IL-102.
          However, IL102 is also buried.
      8. pavelfi
        0
        28 June 2013 01: 34
        it would be surprising that after such a devastation the numbers would be the same.
      9. +1
        29 June 2013 01: 58
        Quote: seasoned
        Some kind of obscure article about the confrontation of the two largest aircraft concerns

        I agree, such a feeling has developed that it’s as if it’s written specifically for us by amers, like you don’t have to worry about American technology full of g .. so you can relax and not create your new generation aviation ..
        At the same time, it is correctly said that the piano will fly for that kind of money, so they will bring it to mind, they have nowhere to retreat, it will fly and shoot, so we should not relax.
      10. 0
        29 June 2013 09: 46
        Flying for such grandmas is not enough.
        You must also be able to defeat the previous generation of aircraft not only for the price.
        But he cannot do this.
        And he blew the lafal, and the super hornet, and the EW airplane.
        It remains to be seen what Su35 can do with it.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Nitup
      +6
      27 June 2013 15: 23

      _____________________
      1. Avenger711
        +1
        27 June 2013 21: 22
        Shurygin LOL. The declared speed of intercepted targets in the S-300, even with the weakest missiles, is 4 Mach. And where does the information harness and the plane itself, I did not notice the connection.
        1. Nitup
          +1
          28 June 2013 00: 32
          at the expense of our air defense, I agree that he obviously mixed up something with the speeds of intercepted targets.
        2. vBR
          vBR
          0
          30 June 2013 19: 09
          I read it so occasionally. But then a strong suspicion crept in, whether he possessed anything at all for real, or whether he was half-fantasizing. He did not make a reservation - 2500 km / h, but simply does not know
    5. Gari
      +1
      27 June 2013 15: 58
      Quote: Denis
      What, what, and call our probable friends of the master

      But friends of friends:
      According to the Norwegian government and industry, the American company Lockheed Martin has not yet set a real price for the F-35. They fear that the signed contract at a cost will be very different from the prices of 2014, when the fighters begin to enter the arsenal of the country's air force.
      For example, the previously announced price of $ 2,57 billion for a batch of 48 aircraft was calculated at the wrong exchange rate of the Norwegian krone to the US dollar. This price is based on the January 2008 rate.
      Other potential F-35 recipients are also not fully informed about the value of the contracts.
      The price for one "Norwegian" F-35 in the amount of $ 68,12 million is also very different from the cost of the aircraft intended for the Pentagon
      Generally complete mess
    6. +1
      27 June 2013 20: 13
      Colleagues, it’s a sin, of course, to laugh at the wretched, but, as I recall, the basis of P. Inosovsky’s F-35 was the Soviet Yak-141. Not?
    7. 0
      27 June 2013 21: 26
      And the moral of this story is this: sometimes the simplest solution is the best! drinks
    8. SSR
      +5
      27 June 2013 21: 56
      Quote: Denis
      What, what, and call our probable friends of the master

      and then it will be like with other fkmi ... they will go ... block-1 ... block2 and so on ..
      Super Hornet (adopted in 1999) is not a simple modernization of the Hornet fighter. This is a completely new aircraft, free improvisation based on F / A-18 - glider, engine, avionics - everything changed drastically. Wingspan increased by 20%, empty weight - by 3 tons

      Personally, I am glad that they have so many problems with 5 .. but do not consider them completely booby ...
      + a candy wrapper machine they have a plus .. let's compare the speed of Boeing and Lockheed with Sukhoi .. no ... compare with the United Aircraft ...
      IMHA to spoil the image .. and overtake .. may the great gurus of patriotism forgive me .. the battle cannot be defeated by one thrust vector ...
      PS. for the ram on the fan ..
      The United States rivets for the last hundred for the year .. we are a dozen ... you can mock at the failures of the United States but you cannot underestimate their potential ...
      (statistics of air fights are not in our favor (modern fighters) on the battlefield they always participated in more advanced models) but then .. MiG-29 fired f-15 ... current arf block three (roughly speaking) and MiG from the first. ..in general, you need to learn apathy quickly and not like us .. Su-27 ... 20 years Su-30 ... another 15 years Su-35 ...
      The truth is always unpleasant .... and the shades are a sauce to soften bitterness.
    9. askarlad
      +6
      28 June 2013 00: 15
      Hello everyone! I have been reading articles and comments on this site for a long time. With your permission I will express my point of view.
      Don't you think that all the defeats of the F 35 are just dust in the eyes? You can certainly say that in the US everything is built on a commercial basis and lobbying (well, like cutting the dough). But it seems to me that the American government is not that stupid. PS "Do not underestimate the enemy!"
  2. +9
    27 June 2013 08: 34
    Chickens in the fall count






    1. +8
      27 June 2013 09: 10
      Good to you Professor. I also think that it is better to judge a combat aircraft not by advertising leaflets, but by the facts of its combat use. But the cost of the aircraft can be judged now, and this parameter is not in favor of the F-35, and even more so the F-22. B-2 so generally more damage to the Americans than their opponents.
      1. +10
        27 June 2013 09: 18
        It would be interesting to compare the cost of aircraft in man-hours, say, Chinese, Russian and American "invisible". This would clarify a lot and one could assume the cost of these aircraft in 10 years, when they all go into production. hi
        1. +3
          27 June 2013 09: 55
          Now you can compare the FA-18 and Su-35 for the price of approximate parity. The market equalizes prices. With invisibles in 5-10 years of mass production, I will be sure as well. And all the development costs will be covered by the American taxpayer, because development costs will be included in the cost of the first shipments of aircraft, which naturally go into service in the United States. As a result, US debt will grow by several hundred wagons of money (billions of dollars), and the world will come closer to the financial apocalypse. I'm afraid these planes will only lead to the end of the world by their presence.
          1. Hug
            0
            1 July 2013 15: 45
            What an internationalist you really are! - Worry about American taxpayers ....
      2. +2
        27 June 2013 09: 24
        You judge the cost, as if one aircraft was being developed. But in fact, there was a development of three different machines. The fact that they are unified in a number of details is a saving in the future, and not at the development stages.
        1. +2
          27 June 2013 11: 02
          What is the difference, at what stage does an unforeseen excess of project costs arise?
        2. SSR
          0
          27 June 2013 23: 03
          Quote: Pimply
          You judge the cost, as if one aircraft was being developed.
          here I’m talking about .. in two years they’ll give out a bit like block 2 and block-3, but in fact like Su-27 and Su-30 .....
      3. postman
        +4
        27 June 2013 18: 40
        Quote: Canep
        B-2 so generally more damage to the Americans than their opponents.

        I do not agree.
        At least for a brief analysis, read PM, where the correspondent personally flew and flew the B-2.
        And nothing about the strikes from the United States to the transcontinental range.

        That B-2, that 22 or 35, is still a new stage of aviation.
        It doesn’t matter whether it turned out or not.
        first damn so to speak
    2. +2
      27 June 2013 09: 37
      Colonel, why all these photos?
      Do you think we forgot what the 35th looks like? It’s bad, it doesn’t look beautiful. Well honestly.
      1. +8
        27 June 2013 09: 45
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        Do you think we forgot how 35 looks like?

        the photos show: vertical take-off and landing, the number of finished aircraft, a carbon helmet, the size of the aircraft relative to the pilot, the ability to refuel in the air. I can offer night flights including vertical take-off and landing, rocket launch.
        1. ed65b
          +1
          27 June 2013 10: 04
          Hi professor hi globally nothing new and such that we do not have. Vertical take-off only in lightning is an exception.
          1. +11
            27 June 2013 10: 11
            Quote: ed65b
            Vertical take-off only in lightning is an exception.


            And even then the big question is whether it is advisable to carry around two tons of sophisticated equipment that after take-off is no longer needed is a very expensive pleasure
            1. postman
              +2
              27 June 2013 18: 37
              Quote: Vadivak
              And even then, the big question is its feasibility, to carry about two tons

              for KPM it is important, otherwise you need to carry bulldozers or airfields with you.
              O. Kaptsov convincingly proved (well, let's call it that) that there is nothing to be done by decks and not to win
              1. +2
                27 June 2013 19: 29
                Quote: Postman
                for KPM it is important, otherwise you need to carry bulldozers or airfields with you.

                Practice shows that the aviation of the ILC and the Navy is too small and weak
                All serious matters are decided only by the Air Force (they have both numbers and special equipment - RC-135, E-8, U-2, Raptors and F-15, strategists, etc. destructive things)

                Regarding bulldozers - a panorama of the construction of the ersatz airbase in the Falklands (Harrier FOB)
                1. postman
                  0
                  28 June 2013 00: 51
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Regarding bulldozers - a panorama of the construction of the ersatz airbase in the Falklands (Harrier FOB)


                  This is a classic example. Conclusion?
                  svvp or ukvp-need!
                  for cpm anyway
                  1. +1
                    28 June 2013 01: 05
                    Quote: Postman
                    svvp or ukvp-need!
                    for cpm anyway

                    why are these stumps?
                    there is always an air force nearby with hundreds of full-fledged vehicles
          2. White
            +3
            27 June 2013 10: 14
            well, for example helmet f-35 if everything goes together, it will just be a leap into the future.
        2. +1
          27 June 2013 10: 55
          But there is no photo where the deck version has a normal, laid out length, hook?
        3. +8
          27 June 2013 11: 07
          Quote: professor
          I can offer night flights including vertical take-off and landing, rocket launch.

          Professor, do you have an F35 rental office? lol
          1. +3
            27 June 2013 11: 14
            Quote: Corsair
            Professor, do you have an F35 rental office?

            I would not refuse to own such an office. bully
    3. +1
      27 June 2013 10: 14
      Penguins ... Of course, the Americans have nowhere to go, they gave birth to a penguin, now we need to buy, otherwise they will be left without aviation.
    4. Uncle Serozha
      +6
      27 June 2013 11: 52
      Quote: professor
      Циdance in the fall

      Professor, do not mistake for grammar nazi, but at your scientific degree it’s a shame to write the word “chickens” through “and”. ;)

      In addition, I did not understand exactly how the F-35 photographs you uploaded confirm or refute any messages. That is, the pictures are beautiful, of course, but they wanted to say something?
      1. +8
        27 June 2013 12: 04
        Quote: Uncle Seryozha
        Professor, do not mistake for grammar nazi, but at your scientific degree it’s a shame to write the word “chickens” through “and”. ;)

        Technician I, what will you take from me? Yes, and non-Russians one around ... feel

        Quote: Uncle Seryozha
        That is, the pictures are beautiful, of course, but they wanted to say something?

        This plane is not a toy and did not cut money. People are serious about adopting it for service, they thoroughly "roll it in" and the bird is far from being a single copy.
        1. Uncle Serozha
          +5
          27 June 2013 12: 14
          Quote: professor
          Technician I, what will you take from me? Yes, and non-Russians one around ...

          I am also a techie, but I prefer to write competently. Well, at least to set an example for non-Russians. ;)
          Quote: professor

          This plane is not a toy and did not cut money. People are serious about adopting it for service, they thoroughly "roll it in" and the bird is far from being a single copy.

          Mmmm ... I apologize for my visual cretinism (although I changed my profession from an engineer to a designer), but I could not draw such far-reaching conclusions from the pictures. feel That F-35 does not exist in a single copy is not necessary to prove, because in the article, in fact, the opposite was not stated. But that the car is problematic is for sure.
          I have another claim to the article - the lack of parametric criteria. Well, they spent on Hornet measures to reduce the EPR. So what is the bottom line? Did the EPR itself equalize with that of the F-35, or not? Vague doubts torment me ...
          1. 0
            29 June 2013 10: 47
            Judging by the shape of the air intakes, there is still work to work on the superhornet.
            Plus, the wing adjoining the fuselage must be filed with a file.
            Although the idea of ​​licking is quite promising and certainly less expensive (at least in cost) than F35.
            Maybe if Israel throws out the entire problem stuffing from the F35 glider and fills it with stuff from the superhoner or rafal, something more decent will work out.
            Here, the ban on the supply of Congress the most sophisticated version can play into the hands of F35.
            So the positive of the Professor can be very justified.
      2. SSR
        0
        27 June 2013 23: 07
        Quote: Uncle Seryozha
        Quote: Professor
        Chickens in the fall count
        Professor, do not mistake for grammar nazi, but at your scientific degree it’s a shame to write the word “chickens” through “and”. ;)

        His nickname is loud and provocative ... but in fact Pimpled and Atalef give out on the mountain much more information for discussion ... and the prohhfeessor, with one distortion of his nickname, makes a pug .. I'm "nedura" ...
        1. 0
          27 June 2013 23: 57
          Quote from S.S.R.
          but in fact Pupyrchaty and atalef give out to the mountain much more information for discussion ...

          It’s better to double-check their information, just in case, from the Israelis I would single out Aron Zavi and the Tourist Breakfast, and the professor has a lot to do with the mood
    5. askarlad
      0
      28 June 2013 01: 12
      I wonder how many designers worked on the helmet? Not to mention the elements of an airplane. Dust in the eyes that everything and everyone on this last hope.
    6. Borat
      +1
      28 June 2013 08: 20
      Quote: professor
      Chickens in the fall count


      Professor, respect the Russian language!
      Gypsy stood on his chicks and said Chicken Chick
  3. keeper
    +1
    27 June 2013 09: 04
    Let's hope that the new T-50 glider will really bring new opportunities compared to the good 4 ++ Su-35. I would not want to think, as can be seen from the article, that all the same could be achieved on the Su-35 glider (in the sense of the already spent funds on the development of a new glider).
    1. +12
      27 June 2013 10: 02
      Quote: keeper
      new glider T-50


      All new well-forgotten old, Yak-201 for example
      1. WS
        -1
        27 June 2013 20: 45
        This aircraft Yak-141
        1. +3
          27 June 2013 23: 59
          Quote: WS
          This aircraft Yak-141

          And this is a plane
        2. 0
          28 June 2013 00: 09
          And what then is the plane
    2. askarlad
      0
      28 June 2013 01: 55
      Understand the Show (with a capital letter) in the USA and only there they know how to create. And in Russia, the successor to the USSR, words serve the cause.
  4. 77bob1973
    +9
    27 June 2013 09: 19
    As Valery Pavlovich Chkalov said, a fighter should be simple, reliable and cheap.
    1. +4
      27 June 2013 10: 30
      At that time, yes, but now the 21st century is in the yard ...
    2. Uncle Serozha
      +5
      27 June 2013 12: 28
      Quote: 77bob1973
      As Valery Pavlovich Chkalov said, a fighter should be simple, reliable and cheap.

      Valery Pavlovich was an outstanding pilot, for which he has a bright memory. But he was neither a designer nor an analyst, so I would rely on calculation rather than quotes when shaping the appearance of future cars. Even quotes from the great.
  5. +7
    27 June 2013 09: 25
    This article says "you can't put your eggs in one basket": at least two design bureaus should design aircraft and prove the advantages of their aircraft by demonstration flights, and not by "battles" in high-ranking offices.
  6. +2
    27 June 2013 09: 27
    Good article. And the impression remains that neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are useless. Although a lot of questions remain regarding the further development of aviation. We are not pulling for hypersound yet, but development is required somewhere. I wonder where we'll go. hi
  7. +15
    27 June 2013 09: 34
    Our favorite national game is to throw the enemy’s caps at first, and then hardly recover from a sudden knockout.
    And why no one undertakes to analyze, for example, the capabilities of the onboard computer of the F-35? For some reason, nobody is interested in the level of software for this machine ... It feels like we want to convince ourselves that the F-35 is just a safe toy. Yes, soon she "with us" will even stop flying.
    1. +7
      27 June 2013 09: 44
      That is not, it is just that if a thread of our new planes had so many bugs and other problems and absurdities, then different Xpertoids would find fault with him at every step. Well, when this happens with our "friends", they try to pass it off almost as a dignity. It's all funny.
    2. 77bob1973
      +2
      27 June 2013 09: 45
      It's just that in order for this to be a real aircraft of the 5th generation, a truly miracle is needed, but this is an awesomely sophisticated and fucking expensive aircraft whose tasks can be successfully performed by the Super Hornet.
    3. Uncle Serozha
      +4
      27 June 2013 11: 58
      Quote: DAGESTANETS333
      Our favorite national game is to throw the enemy’s caps at first, and then hardly recover from a sudden knockout.

      +1 Moreover. The article did not like the fact that the author continuously says that the same can be achieved on modernized machines of the 4+ generation, but at the same time does not give any figures and calculations.
      Silent Hornet conducted a series of activities to reduce ESR. Perfectly. So tell us what is the EPR of this machine relative to the F-35? Parity achieved?
      1. +6
        27 June 2013 12: 30
        Quote: Uncle Seryozha
        So tell us what is the EPR of this machine relative to the F-35? Parity achieved?

        For a standard Super Hornet, the minimum RCS from the front directions is 1,2 sq. meters

        According to reports from November of the 2005 year, the U.S. Air Force claims that the F-22 has the smallest EPR of all manned aircraft in service with the U.S. Air Force, with a frontal EPR of 0.0001 ~ 0.0002 m² (which is comparable to a marble ball in the frontal aspect). According to these reports, the F-35 has an EPR comparable to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 m². What is 5 - 10 times larger than the minimum frontal EPR of an F / A-22 fighter. However, the F-35 has an EPR less than that of the F-117, and is comparable to that of the B-2 bomber (whose EPR is two less than the F-117).
        For comparison, the EPR MiG-29 is about 5 m².


        This whole pun has one result:

        inscription on a T-shirt - sorry, did not know that he is invisible
        1. Uncle Serozha
          +1
          27 June 2013 12: 50
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          According to reports from November 2005, the US Air Force claims that the F-22 has the smallest EPR of all manned aircraft in service with the U.S. Air Force, with a frontal EPR of 0.0001 ~ 0.0002 m² (which is comparable to a marble ball in the frontal aspect)

          In our aviation industry, among the experts, other figures are in use. It is believed that the frontal EPR F-22 is 0,0024 m², from the side angles - 0,004. In the rear hemisphere, it rises sharply to 0,032 m²

          But I didn’t talk about that. I asked if it was possible to equalize the EPR Silent Hornet with the F-35? By superhornet, the data is just well known. That is, is the message of the article true that on a 4+ generation machine it is possible to achieve the same EPR values ​​as on the F-35? There are doubts about this.
          1. 0
            27 June 2013 13: 49
            Quote: Uncle Seryozha
            That is, is the message of the article true that on the machine of the 4 + generation it is possible to achieve the same EPR values ​​as on the F-35?

            And why not?

            If you do not bring the idea to an absurdity and take, as the most likely, frontal direction:

            - dismantle underwing pylons and protruding parts
            - without lantern
            - coating the outer surface of the fuselage with a radar absorbing material, similar to F-35

            There are already curved air intake channels, it remains to lay them out from the inside with radar absorbing material
            Wing span F / A-18E and F-35C identical
            1. Uncle Serozha
              +2
              27 June 2013 14: 04
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And why not?

              This is exactly what the article says. And I asked for specific numbers. Did you manage to bring the EPR of at least one generation 4 car to the F-35 level?
              1. +4
                27 June 2013 14: 20
                Quote: Uncle Seryozha
                And I asked for specific numbers. Did you manage to bring the EPR of at least one 4 generation machine to the F-35 level?

                Does anyone have accurate EPR data for thirty-five? I’m silent about the Silent Hornets ... (c)

                On my own behalf, I will add: in the stealth techniques implemented on the F-35 there is not a single one that could not be implemented on the Saylet Hornet. In the same volume and with the same result
            2. postman
              0
              27 June 2013 18: 36
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              There are already curved air intake channels, it remains to lay them out from the inside with radar absorbing material

              Toyota will not work out of Lada Kalina, even Opel, how not to tune.
              It's the same here.
              Read (as you recommended, Ufimtsev to everyone), everything is written there
              1. +1
                27 June 2013 19: 31
                Quote: Postman
                Toyota will not work out of Lada Kalina, even Opel, how not to tune.

                F / A-18E - not fret viburnum, that’s the thing
      2. 0
        27 June 2013 13: 12
        Does anyone have accurate EPR data for thirty-five? I’m silent about the Silent Hornet ...
        1. 0
          29 June 2013 10: 55
          According to different sources, different.
          Some say 0,5 square meters, others say 0,35 square meters.
          But in the millimeter range.
          In decimetric, a completely different picture.
          Data varies from 3 to 8 sq.m
          But even if you take the largest ones, it will still be very difficult to find it at long range, and in the conditions of electronic warfare.
    4. 0
      27 June 2013 19: 03
      What subject? What can this computer do that an average tablet can't? The power of this lame duck is not in the computer, but in the weapons. This is not a plane, but just a foundling! He jumped, aimed at about where the enemy was, fired rockets and sat down with relief. Well, I hobbled around in circles if I didn't find anyone. He also needs to have a reliable connection ... that's all. If you exfoliate words that are beautiful and “selling” that marketers love, this is how the thing comes out of their ads.
      By the way, they implemented there "poke control" as I understood. Well done ...
      1. 0
        29 June 2013 10: 57
        "By the way, they implemented there" poke control "as I understand it. Well done ..."

        Well, keep up with the Chinese ...
    5. SSR
      0
      27 June 2013 23: 13
      hi
      Heh .. what are we talking about .. in a year two will release Block two .. (wrote above)
      here is what I’m talking about .. in two years they’ll give out a bit like block 2 and blo3, but in fact like Su-27 and Su-30 .....

      Quote: DAGESTANETS333
      And why no one undertakes to analyze, for example, the capabilities of the on-board computer in the F-35?

      but cho to analyze .. so I'm the coolest .. like chuck noriss ... if you analyze .. then along the steep not chuck)))
  8. +4
    27 June 2013 09: 47
    Most importantly, we (and the Americans, too, regrettably) will accumulate vast experience in the technological field, young engineers will gain knowledge for subsequent developments ... another question is whether it was worth spending such a huge amount of money? Although it was probably worth it ... in 90 we lost a whole generation of promising engineers, still a little time and the old people simply would not have time to pass on their still Soviet experience to the young. The answer is obvious - the costs are 100% justified for just that. Yes, and it’s too early to write off 4 ++, they will last even a dozen years, they need to be built more, they will remain a real workhorse for aviation in the near future, the 5th generation, even the domestic one is still expensive, both in production and in operation .
    1. djon77
      -1
      27 June 2013 10: 17
      and now let’s imagine the developments that are used in 35 on the raptor. after all, the principle of architecture can be upgraded until ... you fall. again, the raptor will be ahead of the rest of the planet
    2. Uncle Serozha
      +4
      27 June 2013 12: 35
      Quote: Gray_K
      The most important thing is that we (and the Americans, too, sadly) will accumulate vast experience in the technological field, young engineers will gain knowledge for subsequent developments

      But this is a VERY true idea. If we do not want to become a nation, then we need to work our brains. Continuously. Did not work out? Not scary, experience gained is also a result.
      But if the whole country will be engaged in screwdriver assembly of sliding wardrobes ... If institutes and technical schools will train sales managers, and vocational schools - security guards and prostitutes ... then write is lost.
      I would like to be smart and rugged people. And for this, mind and hands must be applied.
  9. +9
    27 June 2013 09: 48
    As you Oleg categorically walked through Lightning-2. You point out that it "crumbles" and limps on tests. However, according to LM reports, all test tests pass successfully confirming the inherent characteristics. And about the fact that the electronics are turned off from the wind ... why not from the gases emitted by the pilot? The problem with the hook on variant C was solved, and the problem was that it was not short, and with the chosen location of the hook, it bounced upwards when landing, and therefore there was no hook on the air arrestor. This has already been fixed ...
    25.10.2012/1000/2012 The 3th flight was performed in 2012 under the design test program (CF-31.12.2012 prototype, test pilot of the US Navy Chris Tabert, Patuxent River), in total in 1167 (as of 9300/XNUMX/XNUMX) XNUMX were performed under this program flights that resulted in the "closed" of XNUMX points of the program;
    14.11.2012/50000/4 for the first time, a maximum design height of XNUMX feet was achieved (prototype AF-XNUMX, Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson, Edwards);
    30.11.2012/10/1 a new hovering record was set for a fighter with a shortened takeoff and a vertical landing - XNUMX minutes (prototype BF-XNUMX, test pilot BAE Systems Peter Wilson, Patuxent River);
    07.12.2012/4/2 the first flight was performed at maximum angles of attack with external suspensions (prototype AF-3, test pilot Lockheed Martin David Nelson, Edwards), pylons were installed on the plane at points 9, 10, 9, 1, AIM-11X rockets at points 31 , 2, in addition, in the internal compartments there were a guided aerial bomb GBU-120 and XNUMX AIM-XNUMX missiles;
    07.12.2012/1000/1 The XNUMXth test flight for fighter aircraft with a shortened take-off and vertical landing was performed (prototype BF-XNUMX, test pilot of the Marine Corps CR Clift, Patuxent River);
    18.12.2012/360/1,2 1 degree coup was performed for the first time. at supersonic speed (XNUMXM) with open shutters of the internal weapons compartment (prototype AF-XNUMX, test pilot of the US Government Vince Catarina, Edwards);
    23.03.2013/1/6 the first delayed landing with external suspensions was performed (prototype BF-2, test pilot BAE Systems Peter Wilson, Patuxent River), the machine was equipped with a fuselage container gun and 9 pylons, XNUMX of which were suspended AIM-XNUMXX missiles.
    And the fate of Silent Hornet will be similar to the fate of Saylet Eagle, oblivion and a place in a museum or test bench, because the best enemy of the good ...
    1. +1
      27 June 2013 13: 15
      And the fate of Silent Hornet will be similar to the fate of Saylet Eagle, oblivion and a place in a museum or test bench, because the best enemy of the good ...
      mixed up places wink ?
      1. 0
        27 June 2013 21: 26
        No, do you have any perspectives on F-15SE sales prospects?
        1. 0
          27 June 2013 23: 45
          Quote: Nayhas
          No, do you have any perspectives on F-15SE sales prospects?

          Imagine, even the F-15SE turned out to be overly complex for the US Air Force

          South Korea (purchased by 61 strike needles), Singapore (24), Saud. Arabia (70) - they all chose the standard F-15E fighter-bomber. The capabilities of this machine are amazing
          1. 0
            28 June 2013 05: 58
            I didn’t mean the F-15E Strike Eagle, but the F-15SE Silent Eagle
            1. 0
              28 June 2013 12: 54
              Quote: Nayhas
              F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15SE Silent Eagle

              Well, what am I talking about?
              Everybody prefers the regular F-15E and doesn't want to pay extra for the Silent Eagle. The capabilities of this machine (the usual Strike Needle) allow you to solve any urgent tasks
    2. 0
      29 June 2013 11: 01
      "However, according to LM reports, all test tests are passing successfully confirming the inherent characteristics."

      Now, if only Boeing confirmed this ...
      And so ...
  10. ed65b
    0
    27 June 2013 10: 07
    Of course, after so many bucks entered, no one will abandon him. And judging by the author, the 5th generation should look more like a UFO.
  11. White
    +2
    27 June 2013 10: 09
    F-35 is mercilessly criticized though, as for me the plane is not so bad.
    But I'm not talking about that - you look at this assembly line, at the production culture just a fairy tale. But the technology is becoming very complicated and in order to do everything qualitatively, to set everything up and calibrate, you need to go to such a production because it is difficult to pull modern equipment to the standards of the USSR.
    1. +11
      27 June 2013 10: 19
      Quote: White
      you look at this assembly line, the production culture is just a fairy tale


      The Yankees have always had culture, and there has been no war on their territory since the civil
      1. White
        -2
        27 June 2013 10: 46
        70 years of peace time is that a short time?
        This is just an excuse no more.
        1. +4
          27 June 2013 11: 24
          Quote: White
          70 years of peace time is that a short time?


          After the war, the country lay in ruins for about 20 years, and then that we did not have perestroika? and then Yeltsin, this is the second troubled time
          1. 0
            29 June 2013 11: 04
            Stalingrad was still being restored in the mid-70s, but there are cities that have not yet been restored to pre-war sizes.
        2. Zopuhhh
          +1
          27 June 2013 14: 47
          In fact, there were photographs from our factories, the only difference is in the assembled aircraft.
          1. +3
            27 June 2013 18: 31
            Quote: Zopuhhh
            In fact, there were photographs from our factories, the only difference is in the assembled aircraft.


            Yes, the only difference is in airplanes laughing
    2. +4
      27 June 2013 10: 56
      But what, do we still collect planes on our knees or what?
  12. +5
    27 June 2013 10: 10
    f-35 victim is more likely a new developer policy. Everything related to aircraft testing, all problems are widely covered.
    This does not change anything. They’ll bring the car. An excellent range of weapons is already there. Better write than we will fight back.
    1. 0
      29 June 2013 11: 05
      Ugly planes do not fly well.
      Let's hope this is just a stepping stone to generation 6.
  13. +1
    27 June 2013 10: 12
    Russian aviation weapons developers should analyze the experience of their Western colleagues. Perhaps the constant evolution of fourth-generation fighters is the key to creating the fifth generation of this magnificent technique.

    A family of aircraft based on the Su-27 seems to provide an answer to this "attack". Yes, and the MiG, with due attention from the state, could give birth to a whole family of light fighters, electronic warfare aircraft, and deck ships.
    It is also interesting what modifications the T-50 will have, probably the schemes are already being worked out.
    1. +3
      27 June 2013 10: 53
      Quote: Wedmak
      It is also interesting what modifications the T-50 will have.


      So far, only one is known - double
  14. +1
    27 June 2013 10: 20
    All the problems of this aircraft are economic ... Do not underestimate the opponent ...
    Aircraft industry is developed in the USA and competitors themselves produce such critical materials ... Well, let it be no better than f16 / 18, the main thing is to be worse than PAK and its other ...
  15. abu
    abu
    +2
    27 June 2013 10: 33
    An interesting decision about a hanging container with missiles, do not bother with a place in the fuselage, and who wondered if anyone had thought of this before?
    1. +3
      27 June 2013 10: 45
      Even on IL-2 there was, so to speak, a prototype of such a container. True to PTAB. Il took 4 such containers and poured them onto a column of armored vehicles, the effect is amazing.
  16. TRAFFIC
    0
    27 June 2013 10: 44
    Gee-gee, all mixed up in a heap, we’ll leave it to the conscience of the author about reliability, but the fact that so far none of the F-35s have crashed and the F-16s are falling with frightening regularity. As for the F-18, it’s as if according to LTX, it’s worse than the F-14 which he replaced and nothing wink
    The existence of Lightning is justified by nothing but the exorbitant greed of the managers of Lockheed Martin, who convinced the Pentagon leadership of their correctness.
    So this is not the Pentagon conceived the JSF program? After all, an F-35 was created for it, and not vice versa. About the new F-18, so when there was a competition, and when the Boeing showed the concept, the difference is 10 years! And as for the F-35B and Harrier, there’s a shine in general, just why you need it. smile
    1. 0
      27 June 2013 23: 38
      Quote: TRAFIC
      ! And as for the F-35B and Harrier, the shine is generally good, just why is it needed.

      Why are they needed? Your version?
      1. TRAFFIC
        0
        28 June 2013 14: 19
        Yes, what does my version have to do with it? They wanted the ILC to replace the Harriers, they have to ask why they need their own aircraft, but it is obvious that the F-35B is better than the Harrier.
  17. Grigorich 1962
    +1
    27 June 2013 10: 57
    If we rise even higher above the analysis of the situation, then it is clearly seen ... The United States is losing ground on all fronts. Somewhere when I heard ... or read that the United States will fall apart under the "black" president ..... hmm .... it seems that the forecast is starting to come true ... given the internal political situation in the United States ... well, how it says ... God forbid!
  18. Vital 33
    +3
    27 June 2013 10: 58
    I think everything will be fine with the F-35, it will be brought up to condition. Yes, the plane is not bad for me. As for any failures, there is nothing to be surprised at, since the car is new, and the introduction of innovations always goes "over bumps". Our su-27 and mig-29, at one time, also experienced various difficulties. It just wasn't written about it then. If anyone thinks that ours quickly riveted, and he immediately began to fly super, he is mistaken. I remember reading about the creation of the Su-27, at first they also miscalculated a little, but they brought it to mind, and got one of the best cars ...
    F-35 may not be the best, but it will fulfill its tasks ... They will bring it ..
  19. 0
    27 June 2013 11: 00
    Quote: White
    well, for example helmet f-35 if everything goes together, it will just be a leap into the future.

    And how can you shield the electronics in a helmet from exposure to EMP?
    It is simply not clear how, in a limited volume, this problem can be solved. After all, the helmet, if, as you say, "brought to mind", will be laid indication of almost all incoming information. We must defend something like that.
    1. +2
      27 June 2013 11: 11
      And how can you shield the electronics in a helmet from exposure to EMP?

      Aluminum foil will save the beacon of democracy!
      1. 0
        29 June 2013 11: 13
        Somewhere in the internet there is a video as a balloon surrounded by foil reacts to irradiation with a maser.
        I don’t think the pilot will be pleased.
        In addition, it remains a visor with a bunch of dusting of various metals.

        Ammunition EMR F35 just can not bear painlessly.
  20. -23
    27 June 2013 11: 04
    ... the Russians want - but they cannot ...... therefore the poison from the teeth drips. I imagine, as it were, those who were throwing their hats over the enemy in combat conditions would again be draped to Moscow .... leaving 5 million prisoners.
    1. +2
      27 June 2013 11: 37
      Quote: savoj
      poison from the teeth and drips.
      Noticeably
      And someone feces, a lot of feces and not a word about the car
      It remains to blurt out about Stalin
    2. +1
      27 June 2013 12: 31
      Quote: savoj
      Again, they would have been draped to Moscow .... leaving 5 million prisoners.


      It is a pity that only the Romanians felt sorry for you, but it was necessary as near Stalingrad, the grandfather told the tank in a column


      One word Romanian.
      -He is Bulgarian!
      -Who cares?
      1. djon77
        0
        27 June 2013 16: 59
        he is not Romanian and not Moldovan. he is a merchant. there are such individuals in every nation. Russia all contains dependents, but she is grateful. 4 lard with a fostik for gas should already be sent to you. Then they yell at all forums that their gas is cheaper than in the rest of Moldova
      2. postman
        +2
        27 June 2013 18: 33
        Quote: Vadivak
        -Who cares?

        Vadim, you're wrong.
        In any case, from the point of view of the Romanians.
        They with respect worthy of tenacity, consider:
        Romanians are the only heirs and direct descendants of the proud Rome
        -Rom = RomanmiaYou root one IMHO we (Romanians essno), heirs of proud Rome
        -Latinica identity (do not care that the languages ​​are far, the heirs have forgotten)
        - once upon a time (that they consider) the Romans (the most conscious and advanced) reached the territory of present-day Romania and formed a conclave.
        Here.
        Something like this.
        And you equate them with "some kind of Bulgarians."
        Not comme il faut.
        Nostalgia (memoirs of a military man): 1991-92, I remember Romanians in Transnistria, nice, good ... THROUGH A CUT SIGHT love
        1. djon77
          -1
          27 June 2013 21: 18
          well, even if you started to say something, then at least study the question. The Dacian population after the conquest by Rome was romanized. That is, the Legionnaires were allowed to stay and marry the Dacians. And there are very few Dacian men left and women were married to Roman legionaries, and the language is common was Latin. although legionnaires and not all were Romans. by the way, for reference, Romanian and Italian are most similar from the Romance language group
          1. postman
            0
            28 June 2013 00: 49
            Quote: djon77
            Well, even if I took to say something

            What am I talking about?
            my version is one of the versions promoted by romanians.
            yours is another. and it is not adequate. with the same success, the legionnaires remained, married (or simply) on the Celts, Franks, and other wavars.
            Something I did not meet with allegations about the Romans ala naturel in Fr, Germany and so on.
            Quote: djon77
            .By the way, for reference, Romanian and Italian

            By the way, for reference: proven (scientifically and irrefutably) English and Russian languages ​​were divided 6-6.5 million years ago.
            and one people has a common language.
            but about the "similarity" of Romanian and Latin, I will not say anything.
            Oh well, why am I all on my own, and then again
            Quote: djon77
            Well, if I took

            Give the tel / name of the Turk, engineer Philip Maurice, now he is in Algeria, the Romanians arrived there, after the Russians.
            He will tell everything, for me.
            Is it necessary?
            1. djon77
              -1
              28 June 2013 12: 43
              explain to me then, how did I communicate with an Italian without an interpreter and I understood him and he didn’t understand me 100%, but 80 percent for sure. I assume that you are a super person. But I would do my self-education before I talk about something to reason
    3. postman
      +1
      27 June 2013 18: 28
      Quote: savoj
      ... the Russians want - but they cannot ...

      some kind of not good (quite) comment. fu
    4. 0
      29 June 2013 11: 24
      You should read the uncensored memoirs of the generals of the winners about the initial and not only the period of the war.
      They retreated to Moscow precisely by the elementary gouging of bureaucrat generals.

      I’m now reading the memoirs of the colonel in command of the 159 fortified area.
      The fortified areas were built according to the focal principle with a spacing of positions of up to 3 km, forgetting the experience of the First World War and about the trenches.
      In the gaps between the positions of the German columns and broke through.
      In 1943, near Stalingrad, in order to recapture the fortified heights from the Germans, the artillery battles were disarmed (they seized the machine guns and mortars instead of arming the calculations with small arms) and threw them into the attack. The battalions laid the heights did not take.

      At the same time, the defense systems of fortified areas were built according to the "advanced" Western European principle of those times ..
  21. Akim
    0
    27 June 2013 11: 08
    The F-35 will soon have competitors in the form of: Dassau, SaaB, Mitsubishi. This will spur him on to further development.
  22. +2
    27 June 2013 11: 28
    Here is a view of the Italians on the participation of Italy in the development of the F-35 from the fresh Inopressa, there is a lot about the plane, the article "The whole truth about the F35" ("L'Espresso", Italy) Gianluca Di Feo
    Thesis is written very accessible hi

    http://www.inosmi.ru/world/20130627/210418690.html
    1. +4
      27 June 2013 12: 43
      Interesting article. The respondent is somewhat cunning. A typhoon theoretically can certainly replace Tornadoes and the AMX, but Harier will never have to give up her aircraft carriers in Italy ... Italy has no choice, Typhoon was the last fighter developed by European cooperation, there were so many difficult deliveries that many doubted the positive outcome. the second Typhoon Europe will not stretch and Italy will have to buy Laetningi.
  23. -1
    27 June 2013 12: 06
    An expensive toy that they were afraid to use in Libya because of maintaining the image and its price.
    1. -1
      27 June 2013 13: 08
      What ??? He hasn’t even been adopted yet, and it will not be adopted very soon, as far as I know, he hasn’t used weapons yet (I could be wrong). What kind of Libya ???
      1. 0
        27 June 2013 15: 46
        Suppose (although they could test in real conditions), but the F-22 was also not used for these reasons ??? )))
        1. +1
          27 June 2013 16: 14
          Quote: Forest
          Let's say (although they could test in real conditions)


          He is not ready for this yet.

          Quote: Forest
          F-22 is also not used for these reasons ??? )))


          But what the hell is it for? It's a plane to gain air supremacy, and it is designed to fight against a serious opponent. And its strike capabilities are very modest. Its use there is meaningless and not justified.
          1. 0
            27 June 2013 16: 25
            Quote: patsantre
            Quote: Forest
            Let's say (although they could test in real conditions)


            He is not ready for this yet.

            Quote: Forest
            F-22 is also not used for these reasons ??? )))


            But what the hell is it for? It's a plane to gain air supremacy, and it is designed to fight against a serious opponent. And its strike capabilities are very modest. Its use there is meaningless and not justified.

            So you yourself have proved - "senseless and not justified." In short, they created an airplane, but tasks for it are not expected).
            1. 0
              27 June 2013 20: 47
              If it was not useful in one war, this does not mean that it will not be needed in another. And yes, the raptor then began to be created during the Cold War and its task was to fight our fighters. But even now it would be foolish to say that the tasks for he is not there.
              1. 0
                28 June 2013 11: 39
                "But even now it would be stupid to say that there are no tasks for it" - since they have not used it for 12 years, it means that it is stupid to assert about its necessity, another five-year plan and it will become morally obsolete, but for now the 4+ generation is in demand.
            2. +3
              28 June 2013 00: 51
              Quote: Forest
              So you yourself have proved - "senseless and not justified." In short, they created an airplane, but tasks for it are not expected).

              Your logic is strange. But you are aware that the MiG-31 and Su-27 have never been used in combat for 30 (!!!) years (the Su-27 allegedly had one semi-mythical battle in Ethiopia, but with the Soviet Mig-29)
              So, according to your logic, it turns out that these planes are "meaningless expensive toys"
              1. 0
                28 June 2013 10: 00
                Quote: Odyssey
                Your logic is strange. But you are aware that the MiG-31 and Su-27 have never been used in combat for 30 (!!!) years (the Su-27 allegedly had one semi-mythical battle in Ethiopia, but with the Soviet Mig-29)
                So, according to your logic, it turns out that these planes are "meaningless expensive toys"

                The best weapon should be such that for a probable opponent the very fact of its presence would beat off any desire to measure strength. And the price depends on the technological level of production.
              2. 0
                28 June 2013 11: 21
                The aforementioned generation 4 and 4+ vehicles are therefore orders of magnitude lower in price and cheaper in maintenance, and I did not say anything about the 4+ generation, the construction of which is justified and which "work" in hot spots.
  24. 0
    27 June 2013 12: 38
    Just be glad it remains let them take their F35 into service, although they will spend more money)
    1. +2
      27 June 2013 16: 56
      Quote: Marssik
      Just be glad it remains let them take their F35 into service, although they will spend more money


      What’s the matter with what and with the dollars, but we have for one paper 1 they give 32,8766 raw
  25. +4
    27 June 2013 12: 40
    Epilogue. Russian aircraft developers should analyze the experience of their Western colleagues. Perhaps the constant evolution of fourth-generation fighter jets is the key to creating the fifth generation of this magnificent vehicle.
    Or maybe you should think about the fact that Boeing is rummaging around in our airlines, and many of our aircraft designers work for them? But the fact that Boeing has taken Our Way (modernization of Su, MiG to the level of many +++++) does not make you think? And the replacement of our civilian aircraft by Boeing?
  26. Uncle Serozha
    +2
    27 June 2013 12: 40
    Quote: Uncle Serezha
    Quote: Gray_K
    The most important thing is that we (and the Americans, too, sadly) will accumulate vast experience in the technological field, young engineers will gain knowledge for subsequent developments

    But this is a VERY true idea. If we do not want to become a nation, then we need to work our brains. Continuously. Did not work out? Not scary, experience gained is also a result.
    But if the whole country will be engaged in screwdriver assembly of sliding wardrobes ... If institutes and technical schools will train sales managers, and vocational schools - security guards and prostitutes ... then write is lost.
    I would like to be smart and rugged people. And for this, mind and hands must be applied.
  27. +4
    27 June 2013 13: 02
    At least the Americans have a flying saucer in zone 51, why hasn't it been gutted yet? But seriously, apparently the Americans tried to cram all the new items they have into one plane, it is clear that the plane will initially have a bunch of "childhood diseases", but over time They will surely fix them. No need to throw hats on them, in the end only a real air battle will show who is better.
  28. 0
    27 June 2013 13: 28
    "Fifth Generation" is nothing more than a publicized move in order to pull taxpayers from those in power. They have no real and real, tested and practical advantages over the machines of the previous fourth generation (and even more so 4 ++). So stop naively believing the manufacturers' advertising brochures. For the sake of a catchphrase, they will also write not such fairy tales ...
  29. postman
    +4
    27 June 2013 13: 42
    Quote: Author
    to everyone who sponsored a knowingly uncompetitive project.

    obviously uncompetitive -Where are the "firewoods" from? well, that is, thoughts?
    Docks, reports, assumptions of futurologists (well, the globe finally)
    HOW CAN YOU KNOW what will be known?
    Quote: Author
    - Most of the stated requirements do not meet the needs of modern military aviation.

    и
    Quote: Author
    At the same time, things like hypersound ... still remain in the realm of science fiction.

    Something I didn’t hear, so that the KPM (well, or the Australian Air Force) ordered a hypersonic plane, or did TK for this
    Quote: Author
    And then questions begin. The first of these is why was the F-35 created at all? Formally, to replace the F-16 and F / A-18, as well as the specific AV-8B Harrier II.


    Well, the answer is obvious. Inertia of thinking ... When it was the USSR, with its capabilities
    Quote: Author

    As a result, we have the simplest logical chain:

    1. The new "platform" did not give any advantages - LTH "Lightning" remained at the level of F-16 and F / A-18.

    2. The high-tech “stuffing” of the F-35 does not require the creation of a special carrier for it - all systems
    perfectly integrated into the design of existing machines.

    1. stealth and something else (I will not list)
    2. see. 1 + 3 in 1
    Quote: Author
    There is not even such an interesting feature as a controlled thrust vector — although it would seem that it was time to get a similar system for a long time — even in the “boggy” Russia mass production of fighters equipped with engines with OVTs was launched.

    -And he (UVT / OVT) is really needed (provided that the glider satisfies aerodynamics)?
    -cost price?
    survivability? Life cycle?
    -cost and qualifications for maintenance?
    -qualification of the pilot?
    Who has the thread analyzed this?

    Quote: Author
    the plane “absorbed” even more elements of the stealth technology

    I assure you: he has not "absorbed" anything and cannot "absorb" anything:
    the same glider
    95% glider materials are the same
    -the signal from the bottom (container) will glow no worse than the outboard weapons on the pylons of the external wing suspension (and what can you "stick" into it)
    1. postman
      +6
      27 June 2013 13: 43
      Quote: Author
      Specific “influxes” appeared on the Silent Hornet hull — conformal fuel tanks providing intercontinental flight range.

      everyone runs with these ctbs, like with a written bag, but there was a smart article by a NASA engineer:
      ON FUI do you need them?
      -99,99% La flies over its territory
      -up to 80% of flight time over its / friendly territory or under the cover of air defense
      - when a situation arises / performing a combat mission, they are dropped by the PTB and La is deprived of flaws, but what about the KPTB? THEY are removed / installed only on the ground
      -intercontinental range and with PTB was easily achievable
      -KPTB worsen LTH LA.

      -expensive, no need (PTB performs the same tasks), BUT BEAUTIFUL AND GLAMOROUS
      Quote: Author
      Here’s such a funny story - the Boeing impromptu created Big Trouble for the F-35 JSF

      competition, you know ... Well, there is no Poghosyan in America, what to do and UVZ does not receive preferences (however UVZ does not get the same)

      Well, then, in principle, the same situation as with the T-50 and variations on the theme of the Su-35 / Mig-29 (35)
      Only it is easier for us, because we go "next", taking into account the mistakes ...
      Moreover, it is correctly spelled "chickens in the fall"
      So far, all the reasoning: the fruit of the fantasies of journalists (the T-50 will tear the F-22 to shreds), an analogue of "another iPhone killer released"
      =========
      Overboard were:
      -development of new production lines
      -Breo, radar, other sensors, materials science, etc., that appeared during the development of Ф-35
      -the concept of 3 in 1 (so what is the first pancake with lumps)
      - the system itself of automatic design and diagnosis
      And there were no battles yet, even "virtual" ones.
      Tc statement
      Quote: Author
      F-35 lost the fight
      , no more than a figment of the author’s imagination.
      Shl. I would have figured out why he is promoting Boeing so much (and rhythm Lockheed)?
      Huh? recourse
      "Shpak has a tape recorder, the ambassador has a medallion", i.e. Yesterday, he (the Author) is harassing aircraft carriers, promoting nuclear submarines, today he has taken on the F-35 ..
      Not casually all this, certainly not "for so"
      1. 0
        27 June 2013 17: 32
        Quote: Postman
        everybody runs with these ctbs, like with a written bag, but there was a clever article by a NASA engineer: DO YOU NEED FUI?

        Bombing remote areas in the absence of serious resistance - when the only obstacle is range

        Ordinary PTBs have less capacity and create more resistance, and dumping them without cause is ruinous (so what if they are empty?).

        The Silent Hornet (like the MiG-29SMT - although there is a different situation, but it looks like) they are generally built into the upper fuselage. Like regular tanks. Space reserve.
        Quote: Postman
        So far, all the reasoning: the fruit of the fantasies of journalists (the T-50 will tear the F-22 to shreds), an analogue of "another iPhone killer released"

        Samsung Galaxy

        I agree about competition. The advantage of F-35 is not obvious - he will not be allowed to live in peace.
        Quote: Postman
        -development of new production lines
        -Breo, radar, other sensors, materials science, etc., that appeared during the development of Ф-35

        F-35 goes on the thumb.
        All this is a consequence of work on the "Raptor"
        Quote: Postman
        Yesterday, he (the Author) is harassing aircraft carriers, promoting nuclear submarines, today he has taken on the F-35 ..
        Not casually all this, certainly not "for so"

        It was a Stasi special mission.
        And today I received an order from Mossad - to quit Merkava))))
        Previously often collaborated with the CIA and NSA (operational alias - Edward Snowden)

        The witch hunt is open!
        1. postman
          0
          27 June 2013 18: 25
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The witch hunt is open!

          You twisted as always
          and about KTPB you are not right. There is no less volume there. not at all.
          Where will it fit more into the cylinder with the same length or into something incomprehensible?
          and aerodynamics, yes.

          but the cost is incommensurable
    2. 0
      27 June 2013 17: 16
      Quote: Postman
      HOW CAN YOU KNOW what will be known?

      A single-engine aircraft, with a low thrust-to-weight ratio, without OVT, with a high specific wing loading (475 kg / m2 for the Super Hornet versus 520 ... 600 kg / m2 for the F-35), whose appearance is "refined" with stealth technology - what is it a "new generation" fighter?
      Quote: Postman
      Something I didn’t hear, so that the KPM (well, or the Australian Air Force) ordered a hypersonic plane, or did TK for this

      Naturally. The Australian Air Force fully satisfies the Hornet aircraft (cost / benefit) and the Australian Air Force does not have the need for the "fifth generation" (more precisely, what the F-35 is issued for).
      Quote: Postman
      1. stealth and something else (I will not list)

      Silent Hornet, Silent Eagle
      Quote: Postman
      and he (UVT / OVT) is really needed

      Yes, judging by what Su-35 is doing, OBT is a good bonus for close combat
      Quote: Postman
      survivability? Life cycle?
      -cost and qualifications for maintenance?
      -qualification of the pilot?

      no more complicated than the AN / AAQ-37 - an all-view infrared detection system, whose sensors are "stuck around" the F-35
      Quote: Postman
      the same glider
      95% glider materials are the same

      But what about upgrading the F / A-18C ⇒ F / A-18E
      Quote: Postman
      (and what will you "stick" into it)

      4 AIM-120 or AIM-9
      1. postman
        0
        27 June 2013 18: 26
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        no more complicated than the AN / AAQ-37 - an all-view infrared detection system, whose sensors are "stuck around" the F-35

        compared electronics and mechanics of the highest degree of complexity, working around the clock, and even in a "hot shop"
  30. +1
    27 June 2013 14: 08
    "Here's a funny story - the Boeing impromptu created Big Trouble for the F-35 JSF program, and it is now unknown how the two aircraft giants will divide the tactical aviation market."
    The author of the article, and from which finger conclusions? Two different firms were created on the model, as we have Kalashnikov and Simonov. They will accept the best.
    1. 0
      27 June 2013 14: 25
      Quote: Andrey77
      They will accept the best.

      Will both
      F-35 - there is no turning back
      Silent Hornet is a real opportunity to save money (full analogue of the F-35 at a dumping price). But you can't talk about it aloud, otherwise a question from taxpayers will follow: WHY F-35 ??
  31. Vlad_Mir
    +3
    27 June 2013 14: 18
    Airplane do not underestimate! Finalize, bring to mind and will be a great car! It is clearly being developed for new tactical schemes and weapons. I would take a closer look at it, especially the version soaring vertically.
  32. -2
    27 June 2013 14: 23
    Quote: Vadivak
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And what kind of photo?


    This is a rare refuge - the Boeing X-32, which was preparing to be a star of the American aircraft industry and if Yeltsin had not sold them the Yak-141 it would have been


    that’s how it was, they handed over the documents to them, and the specialists at 90 worked for them for a pittance, and damn it anyway they gave birth to some kind of G.!

    this is definitely some kind of rare talent to create eerie ...
    1. +4
      27 June 2013 14: 41
      And you have a rare talent to freeze thoughtless crap :)
      1. +1
        28 June 2013 16: 47
        I don’t understand what you do not agree with.

        So that the Americans used our developments when designing their aircraft in 90? Thank you for at least some bucks given but could give nothing at all.

        Or with the fact that when designing this fat penguin, the F-35 used the documentation for the Yak-141?

        Or with the fact that our specialists lured west and left so that they would not bend here? Like, too, is no secret. If they wanted to and money, they could bring any kb to the bud in the United States, and there would be some kind of dry from Michigan, another question is that they didn’t set the task so specifically, or they thought that only stars like the same Jews with their mercava are cooler than Boeing with Locking , again, Putin apparently did not wait ....

        Or do you disagree with the statement "a good plane is a beautiful plane!"
        I agree somewhat emotionally and vaguely, but there are almost no damn exceptions.

        I advise you to see the F-22 aerobatics, I personally have the impression that a cabinet with wings flies, like a cabinet with wings.
  33. +1
    27 June 2013 14: 30
    And I liked the new F18) and I think it is not a direct competitor. 35. Amer just made secure by introducing a transitional link (and rightly so). Over time, they will change the old F18, while the ratio of aircraft in the troops of the F18 / 35 series will gradually go down to 2m. They did everything right. And not how some people like to do. write off the old and the new is still raw !!!!
    1. 0
      27 June 2013 14: 41
      The "old" is still far from old and can be modernized, and when purchasing a "transitional link", a lot of money will go away, especially since the "new" will soon be ready for production, you just need to wait a little, and they have nowhere to rush.
  34. 0
    27 June 2013 15: 53
    The Americans will bring their F-35 to mind sooner or later. but how much will it cost? although having a printing press on hand is permissible for them.
    I imagine what a howl would be if Russia would spend the same dough on the creation of the T-50.
    But in fact, we spent several times less money, and we argue who is cooler.
    So it is necessary to rejoice that it was possible to create an identical aircraft at a minimum price and for a shorter time, compared with mattresses.
    1. Capt.stryker
      0
      27 June 2013 16: 34
      Quote: Russ69
      The Americans will bring their F-35 to mind sooner or later.

      They will certainly bring it, and God forbid not to know its real possibilities. And then a-ba-sru-t-xa all sorts of Arabs there, not Arabs with the vaunted Su-35s against the F-35s, and severe depressions will happen at the patriots! laughing
      Quote: Russ69
      I imagine what a howl would be now if Russia would spend the same dough on the creation of the T-50

      And who will tell you how much money you really spent on this plane? Moreover, using stolen technology, you can greatly save on research of something fundamentally new.
      Quote: Russ69
      So it’s necessary to rejoice that we managed to create an identical aircraft at the lowest price and for a shorter period

      In less time? With a lag of 20 years, is this a shorter period? fool
      1. 0
        27 June 2013 20: 04
        Quote: Capt.Stryker
        And then a-ba-sru-t-xa all sorts of Arabs there, not Arabs with the vaunted Su-35 against F-35, and a severe depression will happen in the patriots!

        And it will happen to you. After all, you do not have a US citizen passport

        Then why are you rejoicing, wonderful man? The fact that the Yankees can joke to smash your house?
        Quote: Capt.Stryker
        So it’s necessary to rejoice that we managed to create an identical aircraft at the lowest price and for a shorter period
        In less time? With a lag of 20 years, is this a shorter period?

        It began to be created 7-8 years ago. Prior to this, there was no work on the PAK FA topic (MiG 1.44 and Su-37 with "forward sweep" - dummies for air shows)

        The PAK FA will be put into service at least 10 years later, but Russian science is not to blame. This influenced the economic and political situation in the country. And your slogans "20 years later" are populism and cheap chatter

        By the way, can you tell me how many years the Yankees saved thanks to the documentation received on the Yak-141?
        1. 0
          27 June 2013 21: 35
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          By the way, can you tell me how many years the Yankees saved thanks to the documentation received on the Yak-141?

          I think a couple of days were saved, no more ...
        2. Capt.stryker
          -2
          27 June 2013 21: 57
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Then why are you rejoicing, wonderful man? The fact that the Yankees can joke to smash your house?

          It’s only in your crazy fantasies that the Yankees are going to bomb my or your house fool

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It began to be created 7-8 years ago. Prior to this, there was no work on the PAK FA topic (MiG 1.44 and Su-37 with "forward sweep" - dummies for air shows)

          That's right, weirdo! Since the Mikoyan product "1.44" and the Sukhovo S-37, aka Su-47, but not like the Su-37, turned out to be dead ends, at the Sukhoi company they were forced to follow the path of the Americans, and took all the best from the F-22 and YF -23, combining them together, adding something already known at that time from the JSF program, piled the notorious T-50.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And your slogans "20 years later" are populism and cheap chatter

          These are your works - populism and empty, cheap talk am
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          By the way, can you tell me how many years the Yankees saved thanks to the documentation received on the Yak-141?

          Do not be ashamed to lie !? am The Americans did not receive any documentation, actually on the Yak-141 airplane! They officially bought only the swivel assembly for the deflected nozzle! The patent, by the way, belongs to the British. And that picture, such as the Yak-43, which you compare with the X-35, appeared after the appearance in the open press of sketches of JSF projects.
          1. +4
            27 June 2013 23: 34
            Quote: Capt.Stryker
            It’s only in your crazy fantasies that the Yankees are going to bomb my or your house

            No, they will treat you to ice cream
            Quote: Capt.Stryker
            These are your works - populism and empty, cheap talk

            Then why do you read and comment on them?

            To spend time with greater benefit - learn English and express your enthusiasm in American forums (indigenous amers respect patriotism, but you will treat people like you with sincere misunderstanding and disgust)

            but to constantly blow on the Russian forum about the victories of American weapons - not from a great mind
            Quote: Capt.Stryker
            they were forced to follow the path of the Americans at the dry company, and they took all the best from F-22 and YF-23, combining them together, adding something already known at that time from the JSF program, pile the notorious T-50.

            So, what is next?

            Lockheed-Martin has more money and opportunities than Sukhoi Design Bureau - the political and economic state of the Russian Federation and the United States is not even the same
            Quote: Capt.Stryker
            They officially bought only the swivel assembly for the deflected nozzle! The patent, by the way, belongs to the British.

            And the theoretical basis for "stealth technology" belongs to the Russian scientist Peter Ufimtsev

            What's next? Repeat for the hundredth time: US science and technology are the best !!! Russian and Soviet technology is a backward pile of metal (with which, in principle, I agree - not everything is smooth and often done through the fifth point, there are many miscalculations and problems). But why so self-flagellate? Why repeat the hackneyed truths for the hundredth time and tease everyone with the successes of the American military-industrial complex?
          2. 0
            28 June 2013 07: 44
            Quote: Capt.Stryker
            They officially bought only the swivel assembly for the deflected nozzle!

            And they looked, looked at him ... and gave to develop Rolls-Royce, which made it based on their past achievements.
  35. +2
    27 June 2013 16: 04
    The article is complete nonsense, the author, well, at least, did you go to an air club at school? Obviously not. Then why write "reviews" of the world media and pass them off as your opinion. How can you compare the F-18 and F-35, cars in different weight categories. with different number of engines. One can be argued that they will not be competitors in the US Armed Forces.
  36. Capt.stryker
    +4
    27 June 2013 16: 22
    Mr. Kaptsov has long proved his fierce hatred of aircraft carriers in general and of American carriers in particular. Now it was the turn of combat aircraft, and American ones in particular. Come on, Mr. Kaptsov, "burn" further!
  37. Consmo
    +2
    27 June 2013 16: 39
    All this canoe for boys sitting in flight simulators, around the clock. You need to take radical steps. Such a step is being prepared, cancellation of medium-range missiles, really what is the point of doing thousands of expensive aircraft. We have space and technology, and programmers we have are at least no worse. All airfields should be included in destruction programs. Only defending against air strikes like Serbia or Iraq cannot be defeated. The output must be beaten at the airfields and storage facilities of aircraft and ammunition, as well as crews. When it's all on the earth, not in the air. The enemy must be forced to walk on the ground and then in small dashes. That would not even have thought to bring the plane to taxiing.
    hi But in general, I am for peace, I’m all for good.
  38. vikruss
    0
    27 June 2013 17: 29
    The article says F 35 is the most sophisticated in terms of electronic systems. The article says how Super Hornet_GROULER, crushed the electronics of the F35th followed by theoretical destruction. This is his weak spot ... It is necessary to create universal systems of radio interference and suppression, like this is already in the plans. Also, the F35 will be fully integrated with satellite target designation ... it will most likely be completely silent and use only passive sensors. If the radar is used, it will be detected. It all comes down to the fact that in the event of a successful rapprochement with this machine, and such options are even very possible as it seems to me, this machine will lose its superiority and will prove to be vulnerable. I am sure that without the support of the AWACS system, F35 will not be used at all. All this super duper electronics is becoming a weak point in these systems. It is necessary to damp into the radio suppression systems ...
  39. Algor73
    0
    27 June 2013 17: 30
    5th generation airplanes are very science-and technology-intensive. The Americans were the first to encounter a number of problems that are gradually resolving and not always successfully. Russia cannot avoid them either, it is not known how long the T-50 will be required before the series and what kind of concessions and simplifications Russian designers will make. But the Americans have an indisputable advantage - its F-22 and F-35 aircraft are already in the series. There are also doubts about the effectiveness of the 5th generation in the costs of their development. I'm not saying that this is a dead end, but traditional aircraft construction seems to have reached the top of perfection.
  40. KononAV
    0
    27 June 2013 17: 35
    Wonderful article. Although I don’t really like the USA, the reading about F 18 was pleasant. But the question is different, about its relationship with our Su 30/35
  41. 0
    27 June 2013 17: 58
    "The dispute about 'supersonic flight without afterburner' does not matter: firstly, the F-35 does not know how to do this. Secondly, 'supersonic without afterburner' is not a priority of modern aviation."

    Because supersonic without afterburner is not a priority of modern aviation, because the F-35 does not know how to do this. Everything is purely American. I propose to remove cannon weapons from the F-35, in close combat it will not be useful to him and the weight characteristics are spoiled.
    1. 0
      27 June 2013 18: 29
      Quote: Jurkovs
      I propose to remove cannon weapons from the F-35, in close combat it will not be useful to him and the weight characteristics are spoiled.

      On the "deck version" of the F-35C and VTOL F-35B there is no built-in cannon

      Suspended cannon container visible under F-35 belly
  42. +3
    27 June 2013 18: 23
    I'm not a big specialist in "flying" and maybe f35 has already lost to someone and in something, but how do you order to interpret this messages?

    "Vice President of Lockheed Martin Corporation Steve O'Brien, who is responsible for the financial part of the F-35 fifth generation fighter program, said that Israel will be the first country after the United States to receive new aircraft.

    According to the Aviation Week magazine, the statement was made by O'Brien the day before in Paris, where the Le Bourget international air show is taking place these days.

    The first IDF Air Force pilots are scheduled to arrive for refresher training at US Air Force Base Eglin in early 2016. The first squadron of F-35I aircraft will be transferred to Israel in 2018.

    O'Brien added that each of the eight countries participating in the project will receive their own version of the aircraft, designed in accordance with the wishes of the customer. Other buyers will only be able to obtain this version with the permission of the first buyer.

    Therefore, all electronic and avionic systems installed on the F-35I by order of the Israeli Ministry of Defense will be exclusive. As an example, the vice president of Lockheed-Martin cited Rafael's Spice-1000 missile control units.

    O'Brian said Israel will likely receive the latest AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles and Raytheon's AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles along with the planes. At the same time, specifically for the F-35, the Rafael concern is developing a new version of Python missiles.

    It is also reported that in order to increase the aircraft's range, Lockheed Martin is studying the possibility of using the 425-gallon firing fuel tanks developed by the Elbit concern.

    Note that Israel has become the last country to receive partner status. In addition, the Israeli Ministry of Defense agreed to sign an agreement on the purchase of aircraft only in July 2012, after Lockheed Martin made concessions and agreed to grant Israel permission to install equipment developed by Israeli defense concerns on the F-35.

    The installation of Israeli equipment on the F-35 supplied to Israel was one of the main requirements of the IDF. However, until the last moment, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin did not agree to this requirement, although for aircraft of other models (F-15, F-16), purchased from the United States, a similar permission was obtained. "

    Those. It turns out that Israel, which is really fighting and is going to fight further, is betting in future wars on a knowingly losing plane? I do not believe, as Stanislavsky would say

    And the fact that the delays in its delivery are being temporarily compensated for with other aircraft, for example, with the modernized F18, this does not mean that the aircraft itself is bad. Only time and real combat actions can show what he is or is not capable of. Before that, everything that they write about him is a typical "la la poplar"
  43. 0
    27 June 2013 18: 27
    Quote: Denis
    Quote: mansur
    Admire this
    Is he that?
    pregnant

    No, he wants to eat! laughing
  44. +3
    27 June 2013 19: 27

    And why did they decide that the F-35 should replace the F-18. It was previously written that he will replace the F-16. And they plan to replace the F-18 with this http://dream-air.ru/forum/38-234-9, at least as it was written earlier.
    1. 0
      27 June 2013 20: 13
      And why did they decide that the F-35 should replace the F-18. It was previously written that he will replace the F-16.

      because the F-35 was created in three modifications - for the Air Force, for the Navy and "vertical" for the ILC

      They plan to replace F-18 with this http://dream-air.ru/forum/38-234-9, at least as it was written earlier.

      Dreaming is not harmful
      1. +2
        27 June 2013 20: 42
        The US Navy has issued a request for information on the supply of a new carrier-based attack aircraft F / A-XX, which will replace the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft.

        As Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis stated at the annual conference of the Navy Association on April 16, the Navy expects that the new generation aircraft will reach a state of initial readiness for combat use in 2030. By this time, the Super Hornet park will have flown about 9000 hours.

        According to Janes Navy International, the request for information provides for a preliminary selection of applicants by the US Naval Aviation Systems Command (NAVAIR) to analyze alternatives to replace the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler.

        According to the requirements, the new aircraft must perform tasks as part of an aircraft carrier-based aircraft wing (CVW) from aircraft carriers of classes CVN-68 and CVN-78. At the same time, changes in the configuration of the ship and the operating modes of the air units during the operation of new equipment should be minimal.

        The F / A-XX is seen as a complement to the F-35C Lightning 2 and unmanned reconnaissance and strike UAVs (probably UCLASS).

        The main tasks of the US Navy F / A-XX are to gain air superiority, strike at ground targets and surface ships, air support, and ensure the isolation of the combat area. Developers should also evaluate the capabilities of the aircraft for reconnaissance and electronic warfare.

        The US Navy intends to consider a wide range of proposals, including unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft. These systems are supposed to be considered in the context of their cost and feasibility.

        According to Donald Gaddis, the analysis of alternative technologies, which usually precedes major procurement programs, is likely to "be lengthy" with a view to conducting various studies on the structure of the aircraft by 2030. The US Department of Defense may require an assessment in conjunction with the US Air Force, which also intends to purchase an FX aircraft to replace the F-22A Raptor.

        The Rear Admiral also announced his intention to replace the C-2 Greyhound carrier-based transport aircraft. An analysis of alternatives is currently underway with a view to developing a replacement plan. The program is planned to be implemented over the next decade based on the results of a tender.

        According to a number of specialists in the Navy, one of the most acceptable options would be the use of V-22 Osprey tiltrotors.
        In addition, the US Navy is due to issue a request for proposals in June as part of its next-generation jammer procurement program for the EA-18G Growler aircraft. Its delivery is scheduled for 2020.
        1. 0
          27 June 2013 23: 11
          This is the old duck news of 2010 of the year.
          Reminiscent of the story with the stealth attack aircraft A-12 "Avenger"
          Quote: Marmon
          the fleet expects that the new generation aircraft will reach the state of initial readiness for combat use in the 2030 year.

          and then where to put F-35C, what will reach the state of initial readiness towards the end of this decade?))
    2. Windbreak
      +1
      28 June 2013 10: 09
      F-35C should replace F / A-18 Hornet, not Super Hornet
  45. +4
    27 June 2013 19: 30
    An interesting and, as usual, with a twinkle written article by a respected author. But in general, it is difficult to agree with his arguments
    1) In order to create an inconspicuous aircraft, it is not enough to make some changes to a 4-generation aircraft. It must first be designed as inconspicuous.
    For example, the EPR of Super Hornet from the nose was brought up to only 1 sq.m. And even for this it was necessary to create a new airplane in many ways.
    2) The integration of new equipment into 4-generation airplanes is not at all such a simple thing. For example, integration of one AFAR into Typhoon and Rafal will take at least 5 years and not a little money.
    3) In total, at best, from the 4-generation aircraft we can get "half-stealth" in which we constantly need to "implement" something, and for a lot of money. The cost of Raphael, Typhoon, and most likely Silent Hornet does not differ much from the cost of F- 35. By the way, precisely because of the high cost (and also because of the length of the runway), the ILC at one time abandoned the Super Hornet.
    4) The juxtaposition of Silent Hornet and Lighting2 .F-35 is not primarily understood as a single strike fighter to replace the F-16, A-10 and then the F-15E in the Air Force and Harrier in the ILC. The program began in the mid-90s, and the versatility of the aircraft was supposed to ultimately contribute to cost savings, since it was not necessary to develop several separate programs. Plus, the mass production should have had a beneficial effect.
    Silent Hornet is a purely exporting feature of the Boeing of the late 2000s. The aircraft, of course, is good, but so far there are no orders for it and it is not known whether it will be not cheap at all. For example, Australia acquired 24 Super Hornets for 2,9 billion. Doll.
    So there is no reason to say that Silent Hornet is an effective and cheap alternative to the F-35.
    1. 0
      27 June 2013 20: 44
      Quote: Odyssey
      In order to create an inconspicuous aircraft, it is not enough to make some changes to the 4 generation aircraft. It must first be designed as inconspicuous.

      If you do not bring the idea to the point of absurdity (F-117, B-2), then all "stealth" rests on the "three whales":
      - geometry (parallelism of edges, "sawtooth" joints)
      - radar absorbing coatings
      - careful assembly and special receptions (bezrypletny lamp, etc.)

      Each of these tricks can be implemented on F / A-18E
      Quote: Odyssey
      EPR Super Hornet from the nose brought only up to 1 sq.m.

      Is the standard Super Hornet covered in multi-layer stealth like the F-35?
      Does the hornet have a non-binding flashlight? Hanging stealth container for weapons?

      That's when these things will be introduced into the design - then we’ll see how much less EPR F-35. Most likely, it will be comparable (dimensions are identical, stealth elements are identical)
      Quote: Odyssey
      Integration of new equipment into 4-generation aircraft is not at all such a simple thing. For example, to integrate one AFAR into Typhoon and Rafal, it will take at least 5 years and not a few funds.

      Radars with AFAR are located on many US fighters - F-16 Block 60, new F-15E modifications ...
      The AN / APG-82 combines the processor of the APG-79 used on the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet with the antenna of the APG-63 (V) 3 AESA being fitted on the F-15C

      And the most complicated sighting and navigation containers (LANTIRN, LITENING) are carried by each "dog" of the US Air Force. So the hardware integration problem is exaggerated
      Quote: Odyssey
      F-35 was primarily created as a single strike fighter to replace the F-16, A-10 and then the F-15E in the Air Force and Harrier in the KMP.

      Replaced?
      1. 0
        28 June 2013 00: 36
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Is the standard Super Hornet covered in multi-layer stealth like the F-35?
        Does the hornet have a non-binding flashlight? Hanging stealth container for weapons?

        That's when these things will be introduced into the design - then we’ll see how much less EPR F-35. Most likely, it will be comparable (dimensions are identical, stealth elements are identical)

        Super Hornet doesn’t have all this, but that’s not the point.
        The fact is that if to create a stealth aircraft from a 4-generation aircraft, it means to a large extent to create a new aircraft that will not be inferior in cost to a stealth aircraft. The question arises - why do this?
        If you follow this logic, then in the 90s (when the concept was chosen) amers had to create several alternative projects of "stealth" aircraft of the 4th generation. Silent Falcon, Silent Hornet, Silent Eagle, some Silent Harrier. And launch all of them. in production. As a result, all this would result in some unrealistic sums. Moreover, it is not a fact that on the basis of old aircraft it would be possible to radically reduce the RCS.
        The Americans took a different path: they decided to create a new single unobtrusive aircraft, integrating all the achievements in the field of avionics.
        In my opinion, the solution is logical.
        Another thing is that the creation of a "single" aircraft faced various technical difficulties and its cost exceeded the calculated one.
        But, IMHO, finally we can understand whether the Americans were right only by assessing the real effectiveness and cost of the F-35.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So the problem with equipment integration is exaggerated

        Why exaggerated? This can be done, but it’s difficult and expensive. Only a few F-15Cs pulled the AFAR. F-16 block 60, in general, an expensive export aircraft for the rich UAE, the F-15E AFAR equipment program will take a lot of time and will cost a pretty penny. on the F-35 is not only AFAR.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Replaced?

        No smile But will replace.
        "-Give just a time limit, there will be a squirrel for you, there will be a whistle!"
      2. postman
        +2
        28 June 2013 03: 57
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        then all "stealth" rests on the "three whales":

        there is one more "whale": to emit a wave in antiphase to the source of radio waves.
        The result of adding two sinusoids = the signal received at the receiving antenna will be zero (well, or close to it) and?
        and the radar will not "see" anything
        Well, if you forget about dualism
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Radars with AFAR

        well, not the 81st

        (he has a very interesting noise and tsu selection software)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So the problem with equipment integration is exaggerated

        ?
        F-18 bus MIL-STD-1553B or MIL-STD-1770. bandwidth, voltage frequency differ from IEEE-1394B (35)
        even more so if in the specification S3200 + ADA
        22 is compatible (or rather will be by 2014) with 35m, but the F-18 is unlikely
  46. diesel
    +1
    27 June 2013 19: 42
    To such articles you need to add drumming, for greater vigor. Aircraft Sazdan as part of a global reconnaissance and strike system. A specialized aircraft, for strikes against ground targets, an air battle on an equal footing with a specialized fighter is not his element. The aerodynamic design will work for about 40 years, the systems will be brought up and tightened. The mood of the article resembles Voroshilov’s speeches, before the Second World War, we will fight only on the territory of the enemy.
  47. 0
    27 June 2013 19: 52
    who knows what they stuffed in f35. guessing does not make sense. The US Navy plowed the expanses of the Atlantic Pacific Oceans while controlling the actions of the armies of other countries. therefore f35 and unmanned vehicles meet these requirements and the solution to these problems. therefore, I think T50 with this armada is not worth comparing. if they create a pack that can resist this, then we'll see.
  48. +1
    27 June 2013 20: 27
    The look of X-32 is so disgusting that there is no way to publish an illustration without the risk of damaging the psyche of the reader.

    Inadvertently splattered the monitor with tea laughing thanks neighing
  49. +1
    27 June 2013 20: 30
    All talk goes around the concept of the 5th generation aircraft, which was formulated at the beginning of the 80s.
    F22 is quite consistent with it. PAK FA also follows it. Sukhoi adheres to the Japanese principle "let's do the same, but better and cheaper." Apparently the T-50 will be so.
    But there is one big "BUT":
    In the late 90s, the concept of the 5th generation aircraft was seriously changed. The main element has become a distributed system of global information and combat simplicity, which creates completely new opportunities. The F-35 is a key link in it. The creation of such a system is an ambitious and very difficult task. The Americans have not yet managed to provide "Real time" functionality. The delay in displaying information on the helmet-mounted display reaches 1 second, which is unacceptable in a real combat situation.
    The 35th program code exceeded 10 million lines (10 cuts more than the 22nd) and requires serious debugging.
    Such problems are the main causes of development delays and consequently rising costs.
    In no other project (F22, PAK FA, Silent Hornet, Silent Eagle) such tasks were set, F-35 is the first here.
  50. 0
    27 June 2013 21: 01
    I do not see the logic in the article! Consider the T-50 and Su-35: they are similar in terms of thrust-weight ratio, speed, and super-maneuverability. So, someone will say that the T-50 is just an expensive toy, of course not. Since the T-50 is new materials, technologies, equipment (including integrated), engines, etc. Su-35 is the modernization of the Su-27 to the parameters of the 5th generation. Is it possible to oppose them, I think not. I do not pretend to be true ... hi
  51. diversant2013
    +2
    27 June 2013 21: 22
    In my opinion, although the F-35 was too expensive, the Americans have gained enormous experience in this direction. I’m not going to be a visionary, but should they stop working on the f35 and start cutting some kind of f40? Moreover, only the tip of the iceberg is visible; we will find out what they are currently developing only in 5 years. As for money, they will print it. If only our designers had such opportunities and tools... while we wait for the pack!
  52. +2
    27 June 2013 21: 48
    Historically, the creations of our aviation industry differed very favorably from the aircraft of adversaries in their aerodynamic data. But as for avionics, it’s a complete mess compared to the Yankees. Moreover, if we compare the aircraft fleet of our Motherland with the fleet of the “probable reset partner,” we get a very unpleasant picture.
    I might be wrong about the timing, but I think not much. Despite the fact that the SU-34 had been in development since the 90s, it was supposed to begin entering service in 2005, and only in 2012 did we enthusiastically clap our hands at the news that the first copy had landed in Lipetsk... And in the regiments they flew the SU-1 (developed in the 24s), and continue to do so...
    In the mid-90s, we considered the required MIG-23P force to intercept an F-16 flight (4 units). It was a shame to the point of disgrace - almost the composition of the regiment. I don’t remember the details - many years have passed, but the memory of the impressions of resentment for the POWER remains...
    1. 0
      28 June 2013 00: 40
      Quote: NektoRU
      In the mid-90s, we considered the required MIG-23P force to intercept an F-16 flight (4 units). It was a shame to the point of disgrace - almost the composition of the regiment. I don’t remember the details - many years have passed, but the memory of the impressions of resentment for the POWER remains.

      Maybe in the mid 80s? In the mid-90s, the Mig-23P was already written off.
      1. 0
        28 June 2013 09: 16
        Don't say if you don't know. It was "Bobrovka" - a garrison near Samara. Who knows will understand. The regiment was disbanded in 1997. At the same time, at the nearby BRS (aircraft cutting base), the MIG-23MLD, a more advanced model, was safely disposed of.
        1. 0
          28 June 2013 15: 19
          Quote: NektoRU
          Don't say if you don't know. It was "Bobrovka" - a garrison near Samara. Who knows will understand. The regiment was disbanded in 1997.

          In 683, the Mig-23 lived to 97? Hmm, I really didn’t know. Basically everything was disbanded in 1989-1994.
  53. -4
    27 June 2013 22: 15
    This is an F-35, but not a Su-35, and it doesn’t hold a candle to the T-50 at all. Fuck the Americans.
    1. -1
      27 June 2013 23: 19
      In short, the F-35 is the same, compared to the T-50
  54. Capt.stryker
    0
    27 June 2013 23: 14
    Here’s another bag of stones for the patriotic urchin on the topic “The F-35 lost the battle”: Once upon a time, a long time ago, “mattress makers” supplied third-rate countries with second-rate equipment with crappy characteristics. Then, by chance, this technique fell into the hands of testers of a great power - the test results of this “sludge” plunged into panic shock, or shock panic, both the inventors of the very, very “unparalleled in the world”, and the highest generals in astrakhan hats with which they threatened bombard the entire “imperialist” world. And there are SO many examples like this!
    1. Cat
      0
      27 June 2013 23: 29
      Quote: Capt.Stryker
      Here’s another bag of stones for the patriotic urchin on the topic “The F-35 lost the battle”: Once upon a time, a long time ago, “mattress makers” supplied third-rate countries with second-rate equipment with crappy characteristics. Then, by chance, this technique fell into the hands of testers of a great power - the test results of this “sludge” plunged into panic shock, or shock panic, both the inventors of the very, very “unparalleled in the world”, and the highest generals in astrakhan hats with which they threatened bombard the entire “imperialist” world. And there are SO many examples like this!

      Well, duh... we don’t need examples, a dozen will be enough. Preferably in this format: year of creation “with them” - year of sale “to third countries” - year of creation of the analogue “with us”.
      1. Capt.stryker
        0
        28 June 2013 00: 04
        Quote: Cat
        Well, duh... we don’t need examples, a dozen will be enough. Preferably in this format: year of creation “with them” - year of sale “to third countries” - year of creation of the analogue “with us”.

        And the USSR has always (!!!) played the role of catching up! Not lagging behind, not trailing far behind, but catching up with the leaders(!) And analogues and especially copies “from us” turned out to be no better, or even worse, than “their” original.
        1. Cat
          0
          28 June 2013 00: 10
          Quote: Capt.Stryker
          And the USSR has always (!!!) played the role of catching up! Not lagging behind, not trailing far behind, but catching up with the leaders(!) And analogues and especially copies “from us” turned out to be no better, or even worse, than “their” original.

          If you didn’t get it the first time, I repeat: give 10 examples in the format year of creation "with them" - year of sale "to third countries" - year of creation of the analogue "with us".
      2. 0
        28 June 2013 00: 09
        Quote: Cat
        Well, duh... we don’t need examples, a dozen will be enough.

        I believe this refers to the testing of the F-5E in Akhtubinsk at the end of 1976.
        1. Cat
          0
          28 June 2013 01: 04
          so what? The amers ripped off the idea of ​​a tank with a gas turbine engine from the USSR, and they couldn’t really implement it (a lot has been written about the “uniqueness” of Abrams, including by the amers themselves; I don’t see the point in repeating it). But they still can’t rivet an AZ tank like that (the T-64 went into production in 1964). Smooth-bore tank guns (until 1985, the “mattress guns” had a British rifled gun, and only after that a German smooth-bore gun) On the same topic - a roller tank trawl (an unlicensed copy of the Soviet KMT-5, received from Israel; the Yankees also couldn’t create their own model ).
          In the fleet, where the Amers are traditionally and definitely stronger than the USSR, not to mention Russia: not a single US nuclear submarine, during the entire time of their existence, was able to fire the entire ammunition load of ICBMs, even individually (in the USSR - a full salvo from the K-407, in 1991). The infamous K-278 “Komsomolets” - the Amers did not have a boat with such parameters, and do not expect to have one in the foreseeable future.
          I don’t think it’s worth mentioning about rockets in general and space in particular.
          In terms of shooting: neither the states nor anyone else has created anything even close to the AK in terms of reliability in more than 60 years. RPG-7, manufactured in 1961, still quite capable of knocking down all sorts of MBTs (including Abrams) - can you name the US equivalent?
          Well, the main character of this article, the F-35 - is it based on which aircraft was created, where and in what year was it invented? So from there.

          And will anyone else here be trending because, supposedly, all our best is dull copies of all their worst? Shuzz, I’ll drop everything and start believing.
      3. +2
        28 June 2013 01: 17
        Quote: Cat
        Well, duh... we don’t need examples, a dozen will be enough. Preferably in this format: year of creation “with them” - year of sale “to third countries” - year of creation of the analogue “with us”

        Captain Stryker, of course, won’t be able to find any facts - the only thought spinning in his empty head is: everything Russian/Soviet is worthless trash. He is unable to confirm or refute his thoughts with facts.

        This time he had the following in mind: a dogfight between the F-5 Freedom Fighter and the MiG-21 (1976, test center of the Air Force Research Institute, Akhtubinsk). The F-5 came to the USSR from Vietnam. The lightweight American F-5 won 10 out of 10 battles. The situation was the same with the MiG-23.

        Cause? The F-5 turned out to be more maneuverable and more dangerous than the combat American Phantom!!! This is such a paradox. The Yankees underestimated the F-5 and did not accept it for service, sending it for export to other countries - as a result, the heavy Fathoms of the US Air Force burned like candles in Vietnam.

        And the USSR has always (!!!) played the role of catching up! Not lagging behind, not trailing far behind, but catching up with the leaders(!) And analogues and especially copies “from us” turned out to be no better, or even worse, than “their” original.

        Captain, spend your time more usefully - learn English and express your delight on American forums (native Americans respect patriotism, but people like you will be treated with sincere misunderstanding and disgust)
        1. Cat
          0
          28 June 2013 01: 38
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          I know very well that expecting concrete examples from Stryker is an activity for optimists. =)
          Although, no one is saying that there were no such examples - there were, of course. At all times, warring countries, by hook or by crook, tried to steal more or less interesting samples from the enemy, disassemble them into screws, and introduce, if not a complete copy, then at least successful components, layout solutions, and so on.

          In the case of the USSR and the USA, the most illustrative example is the Tu-4 - copied down to the last screw from the B-29 =))
          But alas... Mr. Capt. Stryker could not name even such a textbook example... Because instead of brains, there are, in fact, entirely cliches produced by the “free” media, plus a couple of rally chants from Bolotnaya. Or maybe even that is not there.
    2. 0
      28 June 2013 00: 24
      You forgot to mention that the “mattress workers” still had slightly more of the same (archivally documented) cases of panic shock...
  55. Capt.stryker
    -2
    27 June 2013 23: 57
    Quote: Nitup

    _____________________

    Shurygin pleased me a little with his more or less objective commentary about the F-35. wink True, it seemed to me that he has a distant idea of ​​generations.
    FIFTH GENERATION - these are only fighters. Well, maybe even engines for them.
    For a fundamentally new bomber, this will only be the THIRD generation! The Americans have had the 3rd generation bomber in service for more than 20 years - this is the B-2A, it is still not available in Russia. The FIRST generation of bombers is the B-47 and B-52 for them and the M-4, 3M and Tu-95 for the USSR, THE SECOND is the B-1B for Shatov and the Tu-160 for the USSR/Russia. As far as attack aircraft are concerned, they are finally “backward” - both the Su-25 and A-10 belong to the SECOND generation. Well, and so on...................
  56. -1
    28 June 2013 00: 03
    Remembering Venechka Erofeev... and paraphrasing...

    “What does this fill me with???” -
    - not joy, that's for sure. The author is right - and the piano will fly, for such and such money, especially since the surfaces are already well mated
    - no..., not envy. However, I am envious of the conditions in which science works THERE.
    - regret.
    They walked and then ran. And we have been “at the maximum angle of attack” for 30 years.
    - and admiration - for our aircraft manufacturers.
    1. Capt.stryker
      -1
      28 June 2013 00: 15
      Quote: Chen
      They walked and then ran. And we have been “at the maximum angle of attack” for 30 years.

      “THEY” could fly at extreme and extreme angles of attack earlier than 30 years ago! “We” could only dream about this then. Now “their” planes can fly at such angles of attack WITHOUT UHT, at which any Russian plane goes into a fatal tailspin!
      1. 0
        28 June 2013 17: 13
        Quote: Capt.Stryker
        Now “their” planes can fly at such angles of attack WITHOUT UHT, at which any Russian plane goes into a fatal tailspin!

        So maybe you can write the angles of attack of the F-35.
        Last year it was 22 degrees and this year it should be 55 degrees, and now the question is - what is the angle of attack of the Su-35?
      2. 0
        28 June 2013 19: 42
        Quote: Capt.Stryker
        “THEY” could fly at extreme and extreme angles of attack earlier than 30 years ago! "


        Yes, I mean figuratively!!!! fool
  57. +2
    28 June 2013 02: 59
    No matter what they say, the F-35 is far from a Chinese-made toy. It is foolish to think that Americans are not a progmatic people. And they always knew how to make airplanes. After all, there is no need to remind that the Su-27 was made against the already completed F-15, and the Mig-29 against the already flying F-16 (neither one nor the other achieved comparable parameters at first). You can criticize the Lightning as much as you like, but since it went into production, it means the plane is definitely not bad. Besides, Jews are also far from being fools to buy just PR products, but they take the F-35, and unlike many others, they will definitely have these cars fight, and not to ride around exhibitions. And the Hornets will still serve in the USMC; they won’t go anywhere.
    1. Hug
      +1
      1 July 2013 15: 35
      These are the thoughts of a sober person.
      I really hope that the “fathers” of the state, the Ministry of Defense, science and the military-industrial complex who actually have the power to make decisions think at least in a similar way. And all this jingoistic noise is either trollism or imbecile.
  58. Cat
    +1
    28 June 2013 03: 31
    Personally, I do not understand the very concept of the F-35 wunderwaffle.
    All other things being equal, VTOL aircraft are definitely superior to conventional fighters - lower combat load, higher fuel consumption, etc. Not to mention the aerodynamics specific to such vehicles (which are already sacrificed to the stealth ideology), as a result - problems with maneuverability and, again, excessive fuel consumption. Plus, the limitation on possible theaters of operations - what are the costs of "verticals" in the highlands or in the tropics - Soviet pilots experienced this the hard way =) In Afghanistan, for example, there is no point in rocking the boat with such an airplane, it doesn’t fly much there, and other potential targets, such as Iran and other oil-bearing “under-democracies” - are within the range of carrier-based aircraft. Plus there are also airfields in the territories of “democratic absolute monarchies” friendly to the United States. That is, it is quite possible to perform all the necessary tasks using the F-22.
    What if it’s not even there... maintaining such a sophisticated toy as the F-35 will in any case require serious infrastructure, the equipment of which will require a lot of effort, money and time, that is, working “from scratch” will not work. And if you create this infrastructure, then quietly rolling up a normal runway is not a problem, since modern construction technologies make it possible to do this quickly and efficiently.
    As for innovative technologies, what prevents you from testing them on the same Raptor, which has long been put into service? Like any other machine, it will be improved, modernized, etc. over time, why not test on it all these “all-seeing” helmets, avionics, weapons systems, and so on and so forth. Anything would be cheaper than inventing a completely new airplane, which is also inferior in basic parameters to the existing F-22? It's a mystery, though.

    In addition, it could easily happen that this whole concept of “stealth” is a dead end. Moreover, the ever-memorable invisible F-117, from which it all began, as it turned out, is very “visible”, and for relatively ancient radars. What will happen to all these stealth fighters if they run into not some uneducated Arabs with rusty equipment, but a serious enemy with competent echeloned air defense? That's right - there will be a bunch of high-tech scrap metal.

    So why not spend all these lards of dollars on developing a fundamentally new technology, and not on trying to cram something that cannot be fit into an existing scheme? Again - a mystery.
  59. EGORKA
    0
    28 June 2013 08: 36
    Quote: Capt.Stryker
    Quote: Aspeed
    Well, that's no longer true.


    It was the REAL war that showed that the MiG-29, unsurpassed in maneuverability, showed that in a REAL war, it sucks!!!

    In which real one?) is this when the Americans crush some third world country with their roller? having total superiority in everything! or maybe the Israeli pilots, I’m so sure it’s about pilots with straight arms. And the last real wars, so to speak, were in Korea and Vietnam, and our planes and pilots showed themselves at a decent level, so don’t talk nonsense about a REAL war)
  60. +1
    28 June 2013 09: 14
    And the X-32 reminds me of a flying vacuum cleaner.
  61. Adilhan_kz
    +1
    28 June 2013 13: 45
    What can I say, as they say, “if you’re in a hurry, you’ll make people laugh.”
  62. +1
    29 June 2013 00: 21
    I read the article with interest, but even more so - the comments :) .
    Completely for the Russian Federation, but, unfortunately, the states are ahead for printed dollars - in development, implementation, and application.
    And progress without mistakes is impossible.
    Hopefully we will have an easier and cheaper way to counter the F-35.
  63. 0
    29 June 2013 21: 05
    There’s no point in pouring money into where we’ll catch up in 20 years. In my opinion, it’s better to actively develop radio suppression and other tricks so that the (invisible) enemy himself becomes blind, deaf and dumb from the joy of flying on heavier-than-air vehicles.
  64. +1
    30 June 2013 11: 36
    The main thing for us is not to rush with the T-50. And to release truly breakthrough, new generation technology.
  65. +3
    30 June 2013 16: 07
    The MiGs also need to think about a fifth-generation aircraft, especially since there are already developments (MiG-1.44).
  66. 0
    1 July 2013 12: 05
    Majors!)))) they threw away the money on the development of the F-35. Bullshit. They will print more. Not the first time!.
  67. 0
    1 July 2013 13: 37
    The universal is always worse than the specialized in a specific application. Making a universal plane and a Shvets and a Reaper and a player on the pipe is fraught.
    As the development of an airframe that can be stuffed with various special missions, the idea of ​​the F-35 is clear. There are still questions about implementation.
  68. Hug
    +1
    1 July 2013 14: 02
    American money is American money, and why does it bother the patriots so much? Neglecting the performance characteristics of a hypothetical enemy and belittling his capabilities is not the essence of patriotism. The US Defense Ministry and military-industrial complex do not sit, the F-35 is a concept, a base that will develop and improve, and, in the future, may be our headache. No one knows what stage hypersonic development is at in the United States. What appears in the public domain is not the actual state of affairs. Do not forget that the possibilities for financing breakthrough developments in the United States and in Russia differ like heaven from earth. An engineer and military specialist must think before writing anything on this forum. Otherwise, he is an amateur.
  69. Inok_10
    -3
    2 July 2013 19: 39
    Quote: Kram
    American money is American money, and why does it bother the patriots so much? Neglecting the performance characteristics of a hypothetical enemy and belittling his capabilities is not the essence of patriotism. The US Defense Ministry and military-industrial complex do not sit, the F-35 is a concept, a base that will develop and improve, and, in the future, may be our headache. No one knows what stage hypersonic development is at in the United States. What appears in the public domain is not the actual state of affairs. Do not forget that the possibilities for financing breakthrough developments in the United States and in Russia differ like heaven from earth. An engineer and military specialist must think before writing anything on this forum. Otherwise, he is an amateur.

    ... Dear, there is no F-35, there is technical documentation sold for the Yak 141, including the design of the rotary nozzle .. the Americans couldn’t even get this “product” that was almost ready to just be modified with a file .. :) :) .. ah, about hypersonic, it’s easier for them to remain silent in general, a brief information about the armament of the TU-22M3 “up to 10 hypersonic (M = 5) aeroballistic missiles X-15 for hitting ground targets and enemy radars (6 missiles in the fuselage on a drum launcher and 4 missiles on external nodes under the wing)" .. so here, as they say further, the Americans have nothing to comment on .. :) :)
  70. Inok_10
    -2
    2 July 2013 20: 47
    ... well, “this product” is really the “fruit” of the highest American engineering thought in the form of a 5th generation prototype, so they were very lucky with the collapse of the Union and the bacchanalia that was going on at that time .. :) :)
    1. Hug
      +2
      3 July 2013 00: 12
      Dear Inok_10, I am tormented by vague doubts about the fact that here they are persistently trying to convince people of the complete intellectual incapacity of the most powerful and most important probable enemy. I am not ready to overestimate his achievements, but I was not born today, and, by the way, while still serving in the Soviet army, I came across their weapons. So, with full responsibility I affirm that they are not!
      And very often I caught myself thinking that in many things, not we (the USSR), but they (the USA) are ahead of the rest. And some photos say absolutely nothing. R&D and individual test samples of military equipment do not always immediately produce the required result. However, why explain the truisms!?
  71. Inok_10
    -3
    3 July 2013 19: 01
    .. that’s really Dear, why explain that any judgment must be confirmed by facts .. in this case, you are simply engaged in “fortune-telling” and outright demagoguery .. I cited specific facts that are in the public domain and can be verified by anyone. . so, alas, I think you are “deeply wrong” (it took me a long time to choose a censorship expression) .. :)
    1. Hug
      0
      4 July 2013 04: 12
      Inok_10 writes: ...I think you are “deeply wrong” (I spent a long time choosing a censorship expression)



      Well, this is necessary - so patient and tolerant. Probably, he attended a kindergarten if he thought in time that unparliamentary expressions are not an argument even for an officers’ meeting. ...Or am I wrong?
  72. iksanoff
    0
    15 July 2013 10: 03
    Hi all! In fact, this is an interesting topic, for example, the approach of the guys from Boeing reminded me of Tupolev’s policy, why come up with something radically new when you can work on and use the resources of what has been done (for example, their competition with Sukhoi’s T-4). After all, there was also a car stuffed with new products of that time, so what? As in any business, there must probably be an accumulation of experience and knowledge and then its transition to new developments...
  73. Inok_10
    -2
    15 July 2013 20: 16
    For reference: .."A report to Congress by Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon's Department of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), dedicated to the fifth-generation fighter F-35, has appeared online.

    The author of the report concludes that the decision to begin training US flight school pilots on the F-35 is “premature.”

    Gilmore argues that until the many shortcomings of the new aircraft are addressed, there is nothing to teach pilots. He writes: "The limitations, 'patches', temporary solutions of this system make learning on it meaningless."

    The report said that aircraft radar, a helmet display, and a cockpit interface that controls radio and navigation systems need to be improved.

    The report said that the F-35 is impossible to fly at night or in the clouds. An ejection system has not been tested on the aircraft and a lightning protection system has not been installed.

    Pilots who have tested the aircraft write that in close combat conditions it turns into a "flying target" - due to the limitations of the pilot's field of view both in the bow and in the stern of the aircraft. One of them states: "In close air combat the F-35 has no chance."

    AESA radar raises particular criticism: "The radar system demonstrates flaws that reduce the ability to survive in combat and even affect flight safety. Problems with the radar begin with the fact that it suddenly" freezes "and stops responding to pilot commands, stops showing targets, suddenly loses targets, or "slows down" in tracking targets. " Military analysts suggest that the nature of the problems identified is indicative of software flaws.

    “35 billion dollars have already been spent on the creation of the F-396” and the lag in adoption is already more than 7 years... what other comments can there be? .. :) :)

    .. and also for reference: .. this is a Yak-201 model 1997 .. here, as I understand it, the comments are even more inappropriate on the part of the Americans and their ass-lickers .. :) :)

    .. their maximum was enough to “compromise” the drawings of the glider and the rotary nozzle .. and that’s all .. further on as “blind kittens” .. even the “Great and Terrible” head of Apple Steve Jobs (Kingdom of Heaven to a Bright Mind), when asked by their President why Mac and other Apple products are not assembled in the USA, he answered frankly: .. there is no one to assemble, there is no qualified mid-level personnel ..
  74. +1
    8 August 2013 15: 43
    On August 3, Lockheed Martin's F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOL) fighter (b/n BF-1) performed its 500th vertical landing, ASDNews reported on August 7. The first vertical landing was performed in March 2010 (Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland).
    Next week, the second stage of the F-35B testing program (Developmental Test 2) is scheduled aboard the USS Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. The first stage of testing of the DT-1 was completed in October 2011 (on October 4, 2011, the aircraft first landed on the deck of the USS Wasp (LHD-1) UDC).
     Successful completion of deck testing will be one of the key milestones in the development of the F-35B on the path to achieving initial combat capability, planned by the US Marine Corps in 2015.
    http://www.asdnews.com/news-50547/Ready_Fo...cal_Landing.htm
  75. 0
    27 August 2013 01: 13
    More numbers

    “The estimated cost of keeping the entire US F-35 fleet operational over the next 50 years, including the cost of parts, maintenance and various improvements, is expressed at $1510 billion, or about $618 million per aircraft. Other countries, e.g. Norway estimates it will cost $769 million per aircraft. The U.S. Navy refuses to pay the cost, which is $442 billion more than preliminary estimates. The Pentagon has threatened that unless those estimates are lowered, it will wrest control of the aircraft from Lockheed. supplies of spare parts"
    Follow us: @inosmi on Twitter | InoSMI on Facebook