Military Review

F-35B for the first time performed the night landing on the deck of a ship

36
F-35B for the first time performed the night landing on the deck of a ship

A test pilot of the US Marine Corps for the first time performed a night landing of a fighter with a short takeoff and vertical landing of the F-35B on the deck of the USS Wasp multipurpose assault ship, flightglobal.com reports. Landing performed by Lieutenant Colonel S. R. (CR Clift).


The second series of sea trials of the fighter began on March 12, landing performed on August 14. “Everything went very well. The 8 successful landings were completed overnight, so we are very optimistic about the prospects for training combat pilots, ”he says.

The program is designed for 18 days. During the tests, the boundaries of the permissible wind during landing and take-off will be expanded; stories F-35B performing the entire flight program at night and evaluating the aircraft's behavior when landing on a moving surface, storage parameters in the hangar, according to the F-35 Unified Program Guide. Then the third stage of the sea tests will be completed (the first stage was completed in October 2011 of the year). The F-35B fighter as part of the USMC must acquire the status of initial combat readiness in October 2015.

During the implementation of the first stage of marine tests, it was revealed that the UDC "Uosp" needs some improvements to receive and take off the F-35B. As a result, the ship received a new composite deck coating with increased heat resistance from the impact of the gas jet engine of a fighter. It was also decided that some signal lights and sensors on the ship should be moved to new locations.
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 19 August 2013 09: 47 New
    +1
    What can I say .. sad and enviable. ((
    1. afire
      afire 19 August 2013 09: 48 New
      -1
      well done, well done, that they had a long opportunity to rob my country, well done, that at this expense they could afford even more, well done, that they invested in this kind of development. BUT! one who once allowed himself what is described above will never reach the top of perfection, because - in the first there is none, and in the second in the brain money, instead of thoughts.
      + who worked with thieves and vile methods, instilled in his person (persons) persistent hatred and disrespect, loss of self-confidence and all faith.
      Based on all this - these planes will not bring what they expect from them, weapons will act against their creators, and the earth will burn underfoot.
      straight some kind of spell. ugh
      1. Vashestambid2
        Vashestambid2 19 August 2013 15: 20 New
        -1
        So what did you want to say? smile
        1. afire
          afire 19 August 2013 16: 05 New
          +1
          A good thief got a good plane, if it weren’t for a hunchback with a bore, we would probably have already designed the sixth generation.
          Cons are put by one who cannot catch up with obvious things?
          1. Vashestambid2
            Vashestambid2 19 August 2013 17: 37 New
            -2
            It seems this time I understood your position, although I'm not sure. smile Who is a thief? Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman? and another 6 generations? tongue

            PS The generation of fighter was invented by the press for the masses far from knowledge in Aeronautics !! smile
    2. Vashestambid2
      Vashestambid2 19 August 2013 15: 23 New
      -1
      I understand that it is enviable, but I do not understand why it is sad)). Rejoice, you need a great plane moving !! smile
  2. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 19 August 2013 09: 49 New
    +2
    Campaign, still bring it to mind. Well, you can envy the Americans in their tenacity.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 19 August 2013 10: 05 New
      -1
      Quote: Kibalchish
      Campaign, still bring it to mind. Well, you can envy the Americans in their tenacity.

      Having the ability to take off and land vertically does not give advantages in battle. 4 ++ on maneuverability is 2 orders of magnitude better. Matrasnikov’s aeronics are better, but I think we will soon eliminate this short gap.
      PySy: In order for mattress makers to compare with our airplanes, they need by 2016 when the Russian Air Force will receive their first planes to get themselves already the 6th. Here they can somehow compare. At the moment, Matrasnikov has an advantage in quantity and on the fly. The bombing of the Papuan republics I do not take into account.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 19 August 2013 15: 24 New
        +1
        Oops. They took minus slapped. And to motivate?
  3. user
    user 19 August 2013 09: 56 New
    +1
    On the site, I often criticize critically about our aviation industry and the Air Force, in particular because I imagine what is happening there. But when I read messages of this kind, there is a desire to yell WHO AT US RESPONSIBLE. And the most interesting thing is that you will not find such a person, you will find anyone, and for anything responsible, but there is no one responsible for the general condition and development of our aircraft industry and the Air Force, although any sane person understands that this is one.
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 19 August 2013 10: 01 New
      +1
      greetings to all hi

      stock footage in the topic
      1. Vashestambid2
        Vashestambid2 19 August 2013 15: 27 New
        -1
        Is it a bird? Is it a UFO? no it's F-35B Lightning 2 !! drinks
  4. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 19 August 2013 10: 24 New
    +1
    The adversaries are training, let's see how the land starts under s400.
  5. Tver
    Tver 19 August 2013 10: 28 New
    0
    There is no critical gap from the amers. A terribly expensive car, there are no visible (or tangible advantages) over 4 ++, the prospects are unclear ... Now drones are rapidly progressing - and then where will this “F” be? And if vigorous weapons are used, then the place of the F-35 is absolutely indefinable.
  6. Hey
    Hey 19 August 2013 10: 54 New
    -1
    The enemy is getting ready. And we are squeezing money.
  7. Knowing
    Knowing 19 August 2013 11: 53 New
    +1
    I don’t understand - how did he not turn upside down?
    the nozzle is not in the center, but at the back
    1. Letnab
      Letnab 19 August 2013 12: 28 New
      +2
      take a look, there are fans behind the cab
  8. nikolas 83
    nikolas 83 19 August 2013 15: 58 New
    +1
    The F-35 has one engine, which seems bad to me for a jet airplane. Our dryers and twigs have 2 engines each. In case of failure of one, the airplane will fly on the second. Our technique is better.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 19 August 2013 16: 56 New
      +1
      There was another project at the same time with the T50. With one engine. How easy. But the T50 went to work. And the construction of both options was implied. Fighter of conquest of dominance in the sky T50 and this light front-line fighter.
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 19 August 2013 18: 29 New
    +4
    what can I say, the Americans are trying to bring the fighter to a clean 5-ki ... you can draw as many advantages as you like to the 4-ki, but it will still be a fourth-generation airplane! Where is our so hotly promised t-50? What happened to him when Does the army even see him? Do the Americans have shelves equipped with raptors and f-35, and in Russia there is one t-50 in the test version ... the backlog is obvious and it grows ... it reminds me of the story with the black eagle tank ... even the Americans he was recognized as the best tank in the world, and what? where is he? Yes, my comment is angry and pessimistic, but on at this stage of time, these are the realities of life ... our cars are the best in the world, like the pilots ... but for now, if Russia does not scratch and accelerate with new machines of a new generation
    1. Arabist
      Arabist 19 August 2013 18: 34 New
      +2
      Russia does not have 1 PAK FA, but 5. If these fighters (5th generation, at least F-22) are so good, then why didn’t they iron Libya?
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 03 New
        +1
        Afraid of losses.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 19 August 2013 19: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Arabist
        If these fighters (5th generation, at least F-22) are so good, then why didn't they iron Libya?

        A strange question. Why did the Mig-31 in 33 years have never been used in the database?
        You need to be crazy to send the Raptor to Libya - he had absolutely nothing to do there. F-35, according to Amers, will reach combat readiness in 2015.
        1. Arabist
          Arabist 19 August 2013 19: 36 New
          +1
          Well, at least because the Mig-31 is a high-altitude interceptor, and the F-22 multi-role fighter and are slightly different from each other in application. In addition, the f-22 should replace the f-16, which is used very widely.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 58 New
            0
            American F-22 Raptor fighters do not take part in the military operation of the Western coalition in Libya. According to Defense News, citing Loren Tompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, the U.S. Air Force decided not to release the aircraft into the Libyan sky, because it was not designed to strike ground targets and could not exchange information with other fighters participating in operations, since it is created to operate mainly in conditions of radio silence.
            When creating the F-22, engineers had to choose between the stealth of a fighter and its ability to exchange information. The choice was made in favor of greater stealth. For this reason, only a communication system is installed on the aircraft, allowing the exchange of information in flight with other F-22s. A fifth-generation American aircraft is also equipped with a Link-16 communication system, but it only works on reception - it can receive information from other planes and helicopters using the F-22 system, but cannot transmit data to them.
            In addition, the F-22 fighter can be armed with two 450 kilogram JDAM adjustable bombs, which are capable of hitting stationary, but not moving objects. Previously, it was planned to replenish the F-22 weapons range with SDB bombs of 113 kilograms, which can also affect moving objects, but this program was not implemented. In addition, the F-22 is not able to map the terrain, as is done by synthesized aperture radars, and for this reason it cannot independently select ground targets.
            Currently, the US Air Force intends to modernize the F-22 as part of the Increment 3.1 program, which provides for the improvement of avionics, avionics and software. Thanks to this program, the fighter will learn to map the terrain, select ground targets and use new SDB bombs. However, after modernization, the aircraft will still be able to simultaneously select no more than two targets for pointing eight SDB bombs. Earlier, the possibility of modernization under the Increment 3.2 program was considered, which would expand the aircraft's communication capabilities, but in 2010 the Air Force refused to finance it.
            The Western military operation in Libya, dubbed the Odyssey. Dawn, began on March 19, 2011. From the coalition side, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Rafale and Tornado air forces of the USA, Great Britain, France, Canada and Italy take part in it. Muammar Gaddafi’s electronic suppression of radar and air defense systems is provided by the US Navy's EA-18G Growler aircraft.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 58 New
              0
              April 6, 2011. Despite the fact that the United States actively advertises the merits of its F-22 Raptor fighter and calls it the best in the world, it was not allowed to participate in the operation conducted by the Western coalition forces in Libya. Despite the fact that for the most part this issue was not of particular interest to anyone, US representatives explained the reasons for the absence of their best aircraft in the sky of Libya. Moreover, representatives of the US Air Force even explained why they would not upgrade the communications equipment installed on the F-22, and also because of the problems identified during the test flights, they cut down the maximum permissible flight altitude of the aircraft by almost half. Given the fact that the fighter has never taken a direct part in hostilities over the course of its six-year existence, such statements by the US military make us think about the real capabilities of the Raptora.
              US justifies for the absence of the F-22 fighter in the coalition air force

              The military forces of the Western coalition began their military operation in Libya on March 19, 2011. The main participants in the coalition were the Air Force and Navy of Great Britain, Italy, Canada, the USA and France, and the main combat missions were assigned to the fighter Dassault Rafale, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and Panavia Tornado GR4. Even before the start of the special operation, code-named "Odyssey. Dawn," some European and American analysts were looking forward to the direct participation in it of the widely publicized American fighter F-22 Raptor, which is currently the only fifth-generation combat aircraft in the world.
              But, despite the expectations and assumptions made by experts, the F-22 did not appear in the sky over Libya, and, according to the US Air Force, it will not appear in the future. Despite the fact that the remaining members of the Western coalition F-22 did not expect active participation in the military operation, the United States suddenly decided to justify itself, citing a number of reasons why the illustrious "Raptor" were not oriented towards providing a no-fly air zone over Libyan territory .
              One of the first on this issue on March 22, 2011 was expressed by Lauren Thompson, a well-known analyst at the Lexington Institute. According to him, the most advanced American combat aircraft to date is simply not designed for the high-quality fulfillment of military tasks similar to those that were realized in the sky of Libya at the very beginning of Operation Odyssey. Recall that the main goal of the first stage, which faced the participants of the military operation, was to ensure a no-fly air zone over the territory of the North African state, for this it was necessary to destroy all air defense systems that were under the control of troops loyal to Gaddafi. In this case, the possible confrontation of Libyan aviation in the main calculation was not accepted.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 59 New
                0
                Thompson also noted that the F-22 Raptor is not physically designed to deliver accurate strikes against ground targets. A fighter can be equipped with two JDAM-type adjustable bombs weighing 450 kilograms, which can only hit stationary, but not moving targets. Another problem is that the F-22 radar is unable to map the terrain, just like radars with a built-in synthesized aperture do it, which means that it cannot independently select targets located on the ground. This means that in practice, if the F-22 in its current form is used for bombing any object, information about the targets will be entered into the on-board computer of the fighter before takeoff.
                The above problems, this is not the whole list of shortcomings of the fifth generation US Air Force fighter. It turned out that the aircraft has extremely limited communication capabilities. The fighter is able to exchange operational information only with other F-22s that are on the link. The Raptor is equipped with a significantly “stripped down” Link 16 communication system, which is widely used by the military of NATO and the United States, but it works only to receive operational information from other planes and helicopters. When creating the F-22, engineers deliberately limited the aircraft’s communication capabilities in order to ensure its even greater stealth - it is assumed that in combat use the aircraft will always operate in radio silence mode.
                Of course, you can not pay much attention to Thompson's conclusions - it so happens that analysts give arguments that subsequently never go beyond guesswork and speculation or are refuted by the military, which indicate a lack of factual evidence. As an example, it is worth familiarizing yourself with the statement of the US Air Force commander Norton Schwartz: “If the F-22 were stationed at one of the bases in Western Europe, they would undoubtedly take part in the Libyan operation. Since the military operation in Libya began relatively quickly, it was accepted the right decision to use available resources located nearby. " As you know, according to the US Air Force, the American F-22 Raptor is currently based in Alaska, Virginia, California, New Mexico, Florida and Hawaii. At the end of his speech, Norton Schwartz said that "despite the fact that the F-22 did not participate in a specifically Libyan operation, this is not a confirmation of its futility."
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 19 August 2013 20: 01 New
                  0
                  On the same day, Schwartz spoke at the hearing during a meeting of the subcommittee on appropriations of the US House of Representatives. In his speech, Norton Schwartz tried to explain the reasons why the Air Force in 2010 decided to completely abandon the modernization of the communication systems of the F-22 aircraft, which was planned as part of the Increment 3.2 program. On the F-22, it was planned to install modules of a communication system of the MADL standard. This type of communication is currently being created for implementation on promising F-35 Lightning II fighters. The new MADL communication system at the moment has not been tested in terms of combat use, which means that its use on F-22 fighters means extra costs and certain risks that the Air Force cannot take. But as Schwartz noted, all other parameters for the Increment 3.2 program will be implemented soon. David Deptula, a former U.S. Air Force foreign intelligence chief who attended the hearing at the House of Representatives, strongly criticized the refusal to install MADL on F-22 aircraft. According to him, it was completely pointless to create "the most modern and perfect fighter in the world today", so that then he would not be able to exchange operational data with other aircraft. "In this decision, wisdom is a penny, and absurdity is a pound," - with these words, David Deptula commented on the voiced decision of the US Air Force to abandon the installation of MADL communication systems on F-22 fighters.
                  Despite all the shortcomings in terms of communication with other aircraft, the US Air Force still developed a special complex to ensure the interaction of the F-22 with other aircraft. It consists of six special versions of advanced unmanned aerial vehicles of the type - RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 20. With these devices, the fighter is capable of exchanging data. At the same time, unmanned aircraft can relay data received from the F-22 to other aircraft equipped with the Link 16 communication system. Such an operational link was created in case of participation in large-scale military operations, but there has not yet been any practical application at the moment.
                  In the event that the specified complex exists, the US Air Force actually confirms the need for data exchange to F-22 pilots. But why it was necessary to create a separate communications center for the F-22, and later refuse to upgrade the installed communications systems of the fighter, it is completely incomprehensible. It is likely that the main focus is still on ensuring stealth - by exchanging operational information with the communication center, the fighter gets wider access to information and remains invisible.
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 19 August 2013 20: 01 New
                    0
                    An interesting fact is that the F-2005 fighter adopted by the US Air Force in 22 did not take part in any of the armed conflicts in which the US armed forces took part. On the one hand, it must be recognized that an American fighter is too expensive to participate in such hostilities as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Somalia. But another arises, and how else can one check all the technical and combat capabilities of the aircraft, which so far has not proved its "power" in business.
                    Another blow and, perhaps, the most tangible blow to the image of the fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor was delivered at the end of March 2011. As it became known, the US Air Force imposed a significant limitation on the maximum permissible altitude of a fighter. According to the order of the US Air Force, the maximum flight height of the fighter should not exceed 7,6 thousand meters - despite the fact that, according to the previously stated technical specifications, the Raptor’s “ceiling” is about 20 thousand meters. The reason for making this decision was an investigation, the purpose of which was to check on-board systems responsible for oxygen generation (OBOGS), which are installed on many fighters of the US Air Force.
                    According to the information provided by the ACC, the OBOGS system used by the military may be defective. In particular, it is assumed that the probable cause of a loss of F-22 Raptor 17 on November 2010 of the year during a test flight in Alaska could be a malfunction in OBOGS. This system controls the generation of oxygen and the subsequent supply of the breathing mix to a special pilot mask during a flight at a significant height. Due to the failure of OBOGS, the pilot of the F-22, who fell, Jeffrey Haney, during the flight, may have experienced oxygen starvation and, as a result, lost consciousness. Introducing a restriction on regular flights, the US Air Force clarified that it does not apply to the sorties of American fighter jets, which are still not limited in their movements.
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 19 August 2013 20: 02 New
                      0
                      Restrictions in the ACC were explained by the fact that when flying at an altitude of 15 thousand meters or more, the pilot has only ten seconds to lose consciousness if the supply of oxygen to the mask ceases. Obviously, this time is not enough to reduce the plane to the point at which it becomes possible to breathe without a mask. An altitude of 7,6 thousand meters was considered by the command to be the safest, since in the event of a stop of oxygen supply, the pilot has the opportunity to lower the aircraft to 5,4 thousand meters - a height at which it is already possible to breathe without a mask.
                      It should be noted that the authority of the F-22 was undermined much earlier. So, at the end of winter 2010, the US Air Force intentionally suspended for some time the flights of all F-22 - it turned out that the body of the fighter is unstable to moisture, as a result of which it easily corrodes. Traces of corrosion on airplanes were detected before, but in the specific case it turned out that the installed system for removing excess moisture from the aircraft canopy was structurally poor and could not cope with the assigned task. Because of this, rust appeared not only on some details of the aircraft lantern, but also inside the cockpit, it is worth noting that the resulting corrosion could subsequently cause the ejection system to fail.
                      As an experiment in 2009, the U.S. Air Force sent 12 F-22 fighters from a military base in Alaska to Andersen base on the island of Guam. As it turned out later, the rainy weather of the island affected the stability of the electronic systems of aircraft, and the cooling system of computer systems in a humid atmosphere refused to serve at all. At the moment, it is not known whether this shortcoming has been eliminated.
                      Also in 2009, former Lockheed Martin engineer Darrol Olsen indicted an American company for creating a defective F-22. According to Olsen, several completely superfluous coatings were applied to F-22 fighters. This was done so that the fighter could pass unhindered all the necessary radar test checks. The marriage lies in the fact that the applied radar absorbing coating of the fighter is quickly and easily erased from the fuselage under the influence of fuel, oil and even water. At Lockheed Martin, all of Olsen’s allegations were rejected, saying the aircraft were manufactured using a high-quality and durable radar absorbing coating.
                      The US Air Force indicated that starting in 2012, $ 22 million annually will be spent on upgrading F-500 fighters. In particular, the program of modernization Increment 3.1 will begin to operate, which involves the installation of new advanced avionics, software and avionics. Thanks to this program, the aircraft will learn to map the terrain, use SDB bombs and choose ground targets. The implementation of the program related to the modernization of Increment 3.2 will begin in 2014. According to unconfirmed reports, as a result of the modernization of this program, the F-22 will receive improved software, new computing systems, as well as some advanced structural elements.
                      In 2007, a somewhat amusing problem was detected in the on-board computer installed in F-22. This happened during the first withdrawal of the fighter from the United States in February 2007 of the year, having overtaken several aircraft to the Caden Air Force base located in Okinawa. The link, consisting of six F-22, flew from Hawaii, after crossing the famous 180-th meridian - the international date-changing line - completely lost its navigation and partly - communication. Fighters were returned to the Air Force base in Hawaii, visually following the accompanying refueling aircraft. The cause of the failure was an error in the installed software, in which there was a problem when changing time.
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 19 August 2013 20: 02 New
                        0
                        It is necessary to take into account the fact that the above problems are only those that the US Air Force and the Department of Defense have officially announced. It is possible that there are flaws in the aircraft, which are carefully hidden. Malfunctions or omissions of complex military equipment do not seem extraordinary, since it is impossible to take into account some of the operating properties in advance. These kind of early "childhood diseases" are eliminated during use and are taken into account when conducting new developments. But in the story of the F-22 fighter there is a lot of inexplicable and hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Indeed, in fact, it is completely incomprehensible why the USA, in the history of the Libyan operation, unexpectedly for all, including the allies, began to make excuses for the absence of a fighter in the military operation, although in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan, such attempts were not made.
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 19 August 2013 20: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: Arabist
            and F-22 multirole fighter

            F-22 is not a multi-purpose fighter, but a fighter of gaining air supremacy. Until recently, he could not work on the ground, and even now his capabilities in this are extremely limited. Actually, the F-22 was the last "clean" fighter. Exactly the same "clean" fighters were the Mig-31 or Su-27. Therefore, use A raptor in Libya is absurd.
            PS For reference, the Su-27 for 30 years has also never been used in the database (except for the "epic" war of Ethiopia and Eritrea with semi-mythical clashes with the MiG-29)
            Quote: Arabist
            In addition, the f-22 should replace the f-16, which is used very widely.

            You have all mixed up. F-16s are replaced with F-35s, not F-22s.
            1. Arabist
              Arabist 19 August 2013 20: 28 New
              +3
              I admit my mistake.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 19 August 2013 20: 46 New
                0
                Quote: Arabist
                I admit my mistake.

                No question, everyone can make a mistake.
                By the way, the fact that the F-22 fortunately does not work on the ground is the subject of a constant headache for amers.
                In fact, they created a “toy” that has nowhere to use. True, it acts as a “projection of power,” but nothing more.
                Despite all its shortcomings, given the aggressive foreign policy of the United States, the F-35 will, unfortunately, be used much more often.
                1. Arabist
                  Arabist 19 August 2013 20: 52 New
                  +1
                  I completely agree, probably not 1 banana republic is democratizing yet, well, at least we are not.
            2. Alex 241
              Alex 241 19 August 2013 20: 36 New
              +2
              In the Abkhaz conflict, the SU-27 was raised to intercept a pair of SU-25, shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. There is also an incident over the Norwegian Sea with Orion, but this is from the category of curiosities.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 19 August 2013 20: 56 New
                +2
                Quote: Alex 241
                In the Abkhaz conflict, the SU-27 was raised to intercept a pair of SU-25, shot down by an anti-aircraft missile

                Is it in 1993? Rather, he crashed himself. But I agreed that the application was.
                PS Interesting material about F-22 you posted.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 19 August 2013 21: 06 New
                  +1
                  He wrote from memory that there was still an incident in the same conflict, the four SU-27 forced three Georgian MI-8s to land. Here's the info on the downed SU-27: on March 19 there was a case that still causes controversy. At 4:30 in the morning, Major V. Shipko took off from the Gudauta airfield towards two targets that were approaching Sukhumi from the east from Tbilisi on the Su-27SK fighter. According to the luminous marks on the locator screen, the speed of their movement, the operational duty of the air defense systems suggested that it could be the Su-25.

                  Earlier, a radio interception was received at the command post of the Russian troops on the preparation of the Georgian offensive under the guise of attack aircraft on the airborne battalion located in Sukhumi.

                  Shipko instructor Shipko received the task: to clarify the nature of the targets, and if it is really attack aircraft, to prevent their bombing of the sleeping city. But in the Sukhumi region, the pilot did not find targets.

                  Apparently a couple of attack aircraft were informed from the ground that a fighter had flown across them and they had gone to their airfield. The latest recording of the negotiations with the major, made at the CP in Guadaut, reads:

                  - Height 800, under the clouds┘ I don’t observe goals .. I’m doing a U-turn.

                  But the height of the Su-27 did not have time to gain. He made a turn to the left, towards the mountains, there he was overtaken by a rocket such as an "arrow" or C-75. Her blow was so strong and unexpected that the pilot did not even have time to eject. He pulled the catapult lever almost simultaneously with the moment the plane met the ground. The body was thrown out of the cab, and it remained literally a few meters next to the plane on a wooded mountainside eight kilometers north of Sukhumi, on the southwestern outskirts of Shrom.

                  To this it is worth adding that Vaclav Alexandrovich Shipko was born in 1958 in the Myadel district of the Minsk region. By nationality √ Belarusian. He graduated in 1980 from the Kachin Aviation School. He was a pilot √ instructor in the training aviation regiment of the Krasnodar Higher Military School of Air Force pilots. Had 1st grade. He flew 220 hours, including 27 on the Su-131. He performed 15 sorties in the skies of Abkhazia. Link to material: http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/xussr/abhazia/abhazia.html
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 19 August 2013 21: 17 New
                    0
                    Here is another version: LOSSES of the Russian Air Force in Abkhazia
                    Su-27:
                    11.11.92, the Su-27 fighter, when performing a loop in the Gudauta area above the sea, did not calculate the height and crashed into the edge of the coastline. Pilot Captain Seksar A.A. died.
                    27.03.93/27/25, the Su-66 pilot Vaclav Shipko crashed into a mountain near Sukhum during a night flight. Georgians claim that he flew to intercept their Su-49266 attack aircraft. And they also say that they shot down a fighter, but still, the plane at low altitude touched the trees with its wing and crashed. http://djon.livejournal.com/XNUMX.html
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 19 August 2013 21: 20 New
                      0
                      And here is Vaclav Shipko himself. Photo of November 1990.
            3. NEXUS
              NEXUS 19 August 2013 20: 39 New
              +4
              the question is not which fighter is better or worse, or what the Americans will adopt ... the question is what Russia has at the moment and what it will have in the near future ... in fact, Russia has no 5 generation fighter It will only happen when it goes into the series! And when it happens, this is a big question with a bunch of unknowns. To be a leader, you don’t need to watch who runs nearby, but you just need to run faster than the others ... and today, we are marking time and it saddens
              1. Arabist
                Arabist 19 August 2013 20: 48 New
                +2
                Well, it will be with us, but from cries he will not appear faster. Airplanes and we are quite combat-ready plus excellent air defense.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 19 August 2013 20: 58 New
                  +4
                  I agree, the cars are cool ... and our asses are the best ... but my komenty is not hysteria, but an attempt to take a sober look at this current situation ... and sit boasting that we have all the best stupid now, maybe tomorrow everything can change because of the lag ... but we are lagging behind not yet fatally, but significantly
                  1. Arabist
                    Arabist 19 August 2013 21: 09 New
                    +1
                    Nobody says that we have no problems in the 90s and even the first half of 00s xx obviously did not benefit us. Planes go to the troops, but of course they are slowly going. The situation with the fleet is now suggestive of sad thoughts, but everything will work out. Not the first time.
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 19 August 2013 20: 11 New
        +5
        5 pieces? Yes, that’s enough for Russia ... and everything is in a test version ... and how long does it take for the t-50 to be put into the series and equip the army? M ... Yes, maybe the raptors and f-35 are flying while they are irons, but these have long been serial machines and I admit with disappointment that they will not bring them to mind with the brains of the money allocated for them ... Russia needs squadrons and air regiments of these machines both in the standard version and in the sea based ... and now the question is, how long does it take, given the theft, gouging and disruptions in financing? m ... in p the glider troops fly back to the Yak-38 and the moment of 29 of the release of the 80-s ... and ambitions like a superpower ... so that to be such, one must have a well-equipped, mobile and combat-ready army. Do not hang out at the tail of this race.
        1. Arabist
          Arabist 19 August 2013 20: 37 New
          +2
          F-16 and F-18 are also of the 80s and nothing or America in your opinion is no longer a superpower. And how many f-22s and f-35s bring to mind? And they didn’t have 90s. The universe is not built 1 day.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 19 August 2013 20: 49 New
            +4
            you tell our "partners" this ... maybe they will listen and wait for us while we scratch ... the question of the 5 generation fighter has been hanging in the air for a long time ... Europe, America, China pour in masses of money without sparing ... and Russia has 5 probes of “raw” and incomprehensible ... to me, as a famous hero in the “white desert sun”, it’s a shame for the power ... and we know how to build extra-class cars, but until the roasted rooster pecks ...
            1. Arabist
              Arabist 19 August 2013 20: 56 New
              +1
              The rest of the situation with them is no better than us, well, except perhaps for the Yankees.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 19 August 2013 20: 40 New
          0
          Yak-38 in 91 was withdrawn from service.
  10. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 19 August 2013 18: 55 New
    0
    To be honest, these villains know how to make airplanes, starting with aircrabs and subsequently their airplanes were checked by wars, and they fought with ours in the sky more than once and showed themselves not from the bad side, what can I deny if they can sell the fies then they have enough money for both fine-tuning and building these machines. Our 50 has a number of advantages, including a lower cost, but the problem is in the engines, their bench tests are planned only for 2014, but the series will be released even later, we need to speed up the program, because we still need to train the pilots, make the UB version and conduct fine-tuning the car.
    Well, no one would bomb Libya with f22 or 35, because even the accidental loss of at least 1 aircraft is a cross on its global sales, not to mention the leak of secret technologies, and so it is full of 16 and 18.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 11 New
      +2
      R-39, Aerocobra when pulling the handle easily fell into a corkscrew from which it was difficult to get out the only plus layout, the engine was behind the pilot's back acting as a defense, the characteristics of the Me-109 could match the English Spitfire, and the American Mustang R-51
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 15 New
        +1
        Spitfire (irascible)
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 16 New
          +2
          R-51 Mustang.
  11. Kassim
    Kassim 20 August 2013 13: 58 New
    0
    all this stealth is too much advertised, the pilot wins the battle, and not all these clever details, the plane is only a platform for achieving goals.