Military Review

How the US and its allies got stuck with the worst new combat aircraft in the world

168

The single strike fighter was designed to improve the combat capabilities of the US Army, but weakened it instead.


"The program seems to have stabilized," Michael Sullivan of the United States Audit Office told Congress. “I am inspired by what I have seen,” echoes Lieutenant General VVS Christopher Bogdan, the head of the program on the part of the government. Lockheed spokesperson Laura Siebert says he expects “more positive” articles than usual in the light of what she put it, of the “substantial progress” of the program.

But the chorus of praisers is wrong. The single strike fighter (JSF) F-35, created by Lockheed Martin Corporation for overcoming enemy radars, bombing ground targets and destroying enemy combat aircraft is problematic, as before. All recent seemingly good news will not be able to change the fundamental flaw in the design of the aircraft, the roots of which lie in the conflicting requirements for the new fighter.

Due to the heavy compromises in relation to the aircraft being created, imposed mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is seriously inferior even to the old Russian and Chinese fighters, which fly faster and farther, and whose maneuverability is better. In the JSF lightning strike, “too heavy and too poorly armed,” says the director of the Strauss Military Reform Project for the Government Supervision Project, Winslow Wheeler.

And future enemy aircraft, designed specifically for air battles, may turn out to be even more deadly for the compromise JSF.

In fact, it does not matter how smoothly the work of the government and Lockheed are progressing over the new combat aircraft. Even a perfectly designed JSF is a second-rate fighter in air battles with the enemy for life and death. And this could mean a death sentence for American pilots flying the vulnerable F-35.

The inadequacy of F-35 was clearly apparent five years ago during a computer simulation organized and conducted by John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue, two analysts at the RAND research and development center in Santa Monica, California.
In the course of the simulation year 2008 held in August, numerous Chinese air forces and naval forces, amid growing tensions in the western Pacific Ocean, are piling on a long-standing Beijing rival, Taiwan. A sudden blow to the Chinese missiles destroy the tiny, outdated Taiwanese air force, leaving American fighters based in Japan and Guam to fight with Beijing's planes.

In this scenario, 72 Chinese fighter patrols the Taiwan Strait. Only 26 American combat aircraft - survivors of a missile attack on their airfields, could intercept them. Among them are ten X-NUMX-motive stealth fighter F-2, which quickly spent their ammunition, leaving 22 smaller, 16-motive F-1 to fight with the Chinese. When, within the framework of a mathematical model, they began exchanging fire, the results were shocking.

The latest American stealth fighters and the basis of the future Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps did not reach the level of Chinese military aircraft. Despite their vaunted ability to avoid detection by radar, JSFs were erased from the sky. “F-35 are twice as inferior,” conclude in his later leaked summary into the press Sillion and Perdue.

Analysts expressed indignation about the new aircraft, which, speaking in all fairness, played a small role in the whole simulation. "Inferring in acceleration, in the rate of climb, in maneuverable capabilities," they wrote. “It also has a lower maximum speed. He can neither maneuver, nor take off, nor accelerate. ”

And partly because of this, the USA as a result lost the simulated war. Hundreds of computer-simulated American crews died. Almost a century of American superiority aviation ended among the wreckage of simulated combat aircraft scattered across the Pacific Ocean.

Even if these results could be challenged, the 2008 war games of the year should have been a wake-up call. From the mid-90-x, the Pentagon is completely dependent on the F-35, intended to replenish the declining arsenal of combat aircraft built, for the most part, in the 1970-x and 1980-x. Even if there was a small chance that the aircraft could not fight, the Pentagon would have to be very, very concerned.

Among the pathologies inherent in the F-35 design, the most destructive is the result of a peculiar institutional obsession with one of the three main clients of the program. Already at an early stage, the marines managed to drag for their version of the aircraft the opportunity to take off vertically.

How the US and its allies got stuck with the worst new combat aircraft in the world

A single strike fighter JSF is created in three versions - for the Air Force, Navy and Marines - all three options have a single fuselage, engine, radar and weapons. Wings and equipment for vertical takeoff differ from each model.

Together, all three versions of the F-35 were intended to replace nearly a dozen older versions of the aircraft from half a dozen different manufacturers - from maneuverable air force models, supersonic F-16, or slow-armored A-10, and ending with AV-8B with vertical takeoff, whose unique characteristics are not very combined with the features of other aircraft models.

The engineering tradeoffs imposed on the F-35 in this unprecedented need for versatility have impacted the performance of the new aircraft. Largely due to the volumetric fan for creating lift, which the marines demanded, the JSF turned out to be wide, heavy, highly resistive, and even close to failing in speed with the F-16, as well as not complying with the structural strength of the A-10. Having promised all the virtues of other planes, JSF did not show one in the end.

After winning the 2001 competition for the right to create a multi-purpose JSF, Lockheed headed towards eventually becoming the only active manufacturer of American aircraft of a new generation, giving competitors like Boeing to promote designs of old aircraft.

Which means that the worst of the new fighters in the world, which, as one Australian military analyst, who later became a politician, said, “will be killed in battle like whip,” may soon become the only new American fighter.

And in the following decades, the US Air Force may completely yield to the air force of any country with the latest models of Russian or Chinese combat aircraft, one of which, ironically, seems to be an improved copy of JSF, minus all its flaws.


Chinese J-31 seems to be based on American F-35


The lift air blower developed at the beginning of 1980's by DARPA and Lockheed Corporation was the only ready solution for the aircraft’s ability to take off vertically, plus supersonic speed and the ability to remain invisible to enemy radar, the latter of which required the aircraft to have smooth outlines, and nothing was suspended outside.

But this mixture of characteristics cost dearly all three aircraft variants, although the two of them did not need the ability to take off vertically.

Adding a lift fan to the basic design of the F-35 turned out to be a cascade of problems that made it harder, slower, more complex, more expensive and more vulnerable to attack the enemy - which became more apparent as a result of a simulation of the war over Taiwan.

To reduce costs, all three aircraft options are essentially the same fuselage. And to meet the requirements of the availability of a hoist fan and bomb compartments presented in all three options, the “intersectional part” of the fuselage should have been “much more than those planes that we replaced”, reluctantly agrees Lockheed head Tom Burbage.

But the problems continued to arrive, and their solution was gradually eroding from the ability of F-35 to fight. The addition of a hoist fan forced to abandon the second engine, which is present in many other fighters. The bulky fan built into the fuselage immediately behind the pilot blocked the rear view from the cockpit - a drawback, which, as one of the pilots put it, would lead to the fact that "the aircraft will be shot down every time."

Lockheed Vice President Steve O'Brien said that the sensors of the aircraft, including video cameras built into the fuselage, which scan 360 degrees around the aircraft, more than compensate for the rear view limitations. Critics objected that the resolution of the video is much worse than the look with the naked eye, and it is completely insufficient to track and recognize tiny dark points in the sky, each of which can be ready to destroy the enemy fighter.

Many problems came together in the 2004 year, when Lockheed was forced to admit that the option for the marines was overweight, in part due to the addition of a lift air blower. Ironically, the addition of a fan and other equipment designed for vertical takeoff threatened that the plane would be too heavy to take off.

In a panic, Lockheed allocated more people, time and money (not forgetting to bill the government) for reconstruction, which allowed to get rid of most of the excess weight - in fact, by getting rid of safety equipment, and making the fuselage elements thinner and less durable.

O'Brien said that the weight loss ultimately benefited all three fighter versions. But the reconstructed Joint Strike Fighter, although somewhat lighter and more maneuverable, also became less durable and safe for flight. In particular, according to the Pentagon’s analysis, getting rid of valves and fuses made the fighter 25 percent more vulnerable to enemy fire.

The problems multiplied. Initially estimated to cost about $ 200 million for the development and design of 2900 aircraft, expected to debut in combat use in 2010, the cost of the fighter constantly increased, and commissioning was constantly postponed. Today, the cost of developing and producing 2500 new aircraft swelled to $ 400 billion, plus another trillion dollars in maintenance over the next five decades.

To help block overspending, between 2007 and 2012, the Pentagon wrote off nearly 500 existing A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, and F / A-18s - that is, 15 percent fleet air fighters, even before the F-35 would be ready to replace them. The naked and unarmed F-35s, with only half-finished software and only a few samples of compatible weapons, will not be ready for combat use before 2015, for which Boeing planned to discontinue the production of its F / A-18E / F-x - the only one besides JSF produced Pentagon fighter models (F-15 and F-16 fighters are still manufactured for foreign customers by Boeing and Lockheed, respectively).

When, after two years, the first ready-made F-35 finally makes its first normal sortie, it can really be the universally recognized worst new fighter in the world, and in the worst case scenario, still be the only new fighter that will be available for purchase by the US Army .

Instead of breathing new life into the Pentagon’s air arsenal as planned, the JSF devoured it little by little, which threatens the future strategy of the war. In 2012, an embarrassed chief of arms procurement for the Pentagon, Frank Kendall, called the F-35 "a negative practice of acquiring weapon models."

But Kendall meant only new program delays and cost increases. He did not mention the more threatening flaw that surfaced as a result of Stilion and Purdue’s 2008 military simulations: regardless of when and at what price the F-35 will go into service, because of its vertical takeoff equipment, it is the aerodynamic equivalent of flying brick - completely losing the latest Russian and Chinese fighters.

Wheeler advocates replacing the F-35 with the updated A-10 and F-16, as well as the new F-18 from the Boeing conveyor. These steps would “prevent the continued deterioration of our air force,” he argues.

Experienced design engineer Pierre Spray, who had a hand in creating agile F-16s and fighters tanks A-10, warned that it might take American engineers years to re-learn the ins and outs of creating supersonic fighters lost due to the growing F-35 monopoly, and the only way to do this would be to finance low-cost competition based on mock air battles between rival prototypes.

But this expenditure of time, talent and funds would be better than the continuation of the financing of an overgrown all the estimates and terms of a combat aircraft, which, being burdened by a lifting fan, can neither maneuver, nor climb, nor accelerate.

Replacing the useless universal American fighter would be, as Wheeler believes, a headache, but the continuation of the program is even worse. F-35, he writes, "will cost too many lives to our pilots."
Author:
Originator:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
168 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 21 August 2013 06: 57 New
    19
    Once V. Suvorov (with all the nuances in relation to him), well “shaved off” the critics of the Soviet amphibious tank (criticized for weak armor, weak weapons, etc.) offering to show another such tank ...
    According to F-35. I believe that all present evaluate it only from the standpoint of the messages of the "open press"? Personally, I accept this information only for lack of another.
    Yes, the 35th is probably very problematic. But all constructions have "childhood diseases", especially in such a complex one as this machine. They will bring it to mind or not, but it will give, albeit an expensive, but invaluable experience for creating new and breakthrough models. After all, it is obvious that the standard capabilities of traditional jet aircraft have been exhausted in the same way as the propeller capabilities were once exhausted - improvement, “licking” is possible, but the new will only be fundamentally new.
    1. Dmitriy69
      Dmitriy69 21 August 2013 07: 35 New
      21
      Quote: serge-68-68
      They will bring it to mind or not, but it will give, albeit an expensive, but invaluable experience for creating new and breakthrough models.

      With TAACOOM financing, they will certainly be brought to a more or less acceptable level.
      The experience will certainly be enormous, but could be much more if the priorities were chosen correctly.
      In general, they miss the time by giving us a head start, because in essence this model is not a “breakthrough” and the same is “licking”. It is important to manage this handicap grammatically.
      1. Refund_SSSR
        Refund_SSSR 21 August 2013 10: 26 New
        +1
        And in the following decades, the U.S. Air Force may be completely inferior to the air forces of any country with the latest models of combat aircraft in Russia or China, one of which, ironically, it seems, is an improved copy of JSF, minus all its flaws.
        What kind of nonsense ???
        Is this Chinese then a clone devoid of all the flaws of the original JSF? !! laughing
        What does the author smoke or eat?
        The DARPA agency and Lockheed Corp. developed a lift-out air blower in the early 1980s that was the only turnkey solution for the ability of an airplane to fly vertically.
        Oh come on! We know these "YOUR" developments from where feet grow ...
      2. Nick
        Nick 21 August 2013 18: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Dmitriy69
        In general, they miss the time by giving us a head start, because in essence this model is not a “breakthrough” and the same is “licking”.

        That's it!
        1. rodevaan
          rodevaan 22 August 2013 02: 15 New
          0
          - And this is good! The time they missed and expired is their problem, and we need to use it correctly.
    2. aksakal
      aksakal 21 August 2013 08: 12 New
      25
      Quote: serge-68-68
      But all constructions have "childhood diseases", especially in such a complex one as this machine.

      - Greetings. Perhaps you understand the issues of liberalism, but on airplanes, alas ... There are no childhood diseases, there is a systemic constructive flaw. This aircraft should not have gone beyond the concept, but it was put into series.
      Quote: serge-68-68
      They will bring it to mind or not, but it will give, albeit an expensive, but invaluable experience for creating new and breakthrough models.

      - and he has already given to F-22 a couple of Russians and Chinese, for it is unlikely that the Russians and Iktats will design their planes without taking into account this
      Quote: serge-68-68
      invaluable experience
      laughing Moreover, they also used insider (i.e., closed foreign information obtained not quite legally) information. So I already did it, for which many thanks to this F-35, it is free and can be sent for scrap.
      We will draw further invaluable experience on the basis of the operation of our created fifth generation aircraft.
      Quote: serge-68-68
      After all, it is obvious that the standard capabilities of traditional jet aircraft have been exhausted in the same way as the propeller capabilities were once exhausted - improvement, “licking” is possible, but the new will only be fundamentally new.
      laughing laughing
      - Dear, there are no other engines for aircraft even at the level of scientific speculation. Gravitsapps will not be very soon, if at all. Therefore, this discussion is generally pointless. You can check it with the VAF - it will confirm
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 21 August 2013 08: 28 New
        -26
        1. In general, I do not pretend to know "systemic design flaws" and not allowing the submarine to "go beyond the concept." Especially in a conversation with experts who designed aircraft and engines at least at the level of my knowledge of liberalism. After all, I suppose you designed it? :) :) :) :)
        2. Due to its meager knowledge of aviation, I will assume that just as a tank has long ceased to be a "means of delivery of a gun", so an airplane has long ceased to be a "missile with a man." And therefore - the airplane is not alive as a single engine ... :) :) :)
        3. The one who laughs last laughs well. F-35 flies, F-22 flies. What is crammed into them, how they fly, we guess what will be created on their basis - we do not know. But what is the T-50, and even more so for something Chinese there - even guessing is pointless.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 21 August 2013 08: 49 New
          15
          So the T-50 flies. Of course, not 50 pieces, but 5 pieces, it seems, are.
        2. fzr1000
          fzr1000 21 August 2013 08: 49 New
          17
          T-50s on summer h-cams are in any way better than the F-35, it is already visible on the video on the network, and hardly worse than the F-22. By e-mail and its capabilities, we will see.
          1. Joker
            Joker 21 August 2013 14: 51 New
            +6
            T-50 for summer x-kam any better F-35

            Yeah, you would still KA-52 with Cobra they compared them. These are completely different planes, the comparison of which is incorrect.
            The T-50 is an analogue of the F-22 aircraft gaining air superiority. F-35 can be compared with SU-35 and even with a stretch, then as F-35 is like everything in one, like a Swiss knife, and SU-35 for certain tasks. Who is right, time will tell, but for now we are still kuzyukatsya, and for amers F-22 200 pieces and the order for F-35 in the number of 60 pieces. This is how our riveted as many serials, then we'll talk, and even better when they both take part in hostilities, at least against the Papuans. While we are comparing the notes, neither of them has been used, what real x-ki we do not know.
            1. Patriot.ru.
              Patriot.ru. 21 August 2013 21: 59 New
              0
              We do not use MIG-31 against the Papuans. And against the F-22, that's it.
        3. aksakal
          aksakal 21 August 2013 11: 40 New
          20
          Quote: serge-68-68
          After all, I suppose you designed it? :) :) :) :)

          - In the past, a design engineer, we designed walking mechanisms in our design bureau on the basis of rectilinearly-guiding four-link and parallelogram mechanisms. This, of course, is much simpler than constructing combat aircraft, but this experience allows me to sufficiently judge as development of any product.
          Quote: serge-68-68
          By virtue of my meager knowledge of aviation, I will assume that just as a tank has long ceased to be a "means of delivery of a gun," so an airplane has long ceased to be a "rocket with a man." And therefore - the airplane is not alive as a single engine ... :) :) :)
          - did not understand the promise
          Quote: serge-68-68
          The one who laughs last laughs well. F-35 flies, F-22 flies. What is crammed into them, how they fly, we guess what will be created on their basis - we do not know. But what is the T-50, and even more so for something Chinese there - even guessing is pointless.
          - both of these planes fly, both of these planes are dangerous opponents, because the criticism in the SABZh concerned only directly the flight characteristics of the aircraft. We did not touch electronic stuffing at all, this is a very strictly guarded secret of the States, and I have no doubt that the F-35 has very good electronics - both avionics, and OMS and so on. In fact, this is the only thing that will save this plane. In the future, with further improvement of electronics, this F-35 can even be attributed to good aircraft, but, REPEAT, only thanks to the filling. The plane itself is a failure.
          Quote: serge-68-68
          But what is the T-50, and even more so for something Chinese there - even guessing is pointless.
          - you do not guess. And even more so, IN ADVANCE DO NOT WATER DIRT only with the created and tested aircraft. The Chinese will be there only in airplanes for China, but something will be in our models from the Indians. And I would not smile maliciously at the word "Indians", because So with some software stuff, the Indians in Bangalore are very good. And on the plane itself, namely the T-50 aircraft as such, it is already clear that he was born fame - Russians can be proud of. Look at the footage - some things that the T-50 does cannot be repeated by any aircraft! And these are just test prototypes.
          And on electronics - it's hard to say. while we judge the planes.
          1. serge-68-68
            serge-68-68 21 August 2013 12: 20 New
            +4
            I’ll explain the message: this is the answer to your remark about the gravitap, which is not yet available. Aircraft is not only a jet engine, but also a bunch of other components. However, my fault in your misunderstanding is of course. He wrote too literally about the ceiling of propeller and jet aircraft. Meant broader, of course, and not just engines.
            But there are new opportunities - our “Flurry” did it on the basis of cavitation. Therefore, I will assume that something similar is possible for airplanes. After all, a bumblebee, for example, flies, but it seems like it shouldn't ... :)
            And about the dirt - it's you in vain. There is nothing to water for now, no data. Neither for, nor against. Some laudatory odes.
            1. aksakal
              aksakal 21 August 2013 13: 07 New
              +6
              Quote: serge-68-68
              However, my fault in your misunderstanding is of course. He wrote too literally about the ceiling of propeller and jet aircraft. Meant broader, of course, and not just engines.

              - Well, excuse me when you posted like this:
              Quote: serge-68-68
              After all, it is obvious that the standard capabilities of traditional jet aircraft have been exhausted in the same way as the propeller capabilities were once exhausted - improvement, “licking” is possible, but the new will only be fundamentally new.

              - it’s difficult to understand you differently, just as you stated.
              Quote: serge-68-68
              But there are new opportunities - our “Flurry” did it on the basis of cavitation. Therefore, I will assume that something similar is possible for airplanes. After all, a bumblebee, for example, flies, but it seems like it shouldn't ... :)

              - while at the level of speculation these new opportunities. There is a hypothesis about the viscosity of the environment, on the basis of this hypothesis they dream of circumventing the law of conservation of momentum. There are still some reasons for the correctness of this hypothesis, because a bumblebee nevertheless does, it is an indisputable fact, and Maxwell's equations are nevertheless created on the assumption that the medium is viscous. But it is not yet possible to thoroughly prove this hypothesis; to create an artificial bumblebee on the basis of this hypothesis also fails - because for now, we admire what is available smile So far, there are five-generation aircraft with elements of stealth technology on the usual recreational thrust with the possibility of cruising supersonic sound.
              I think that it is unlikely that a person will go further into improving the process of flight as such. Most likely, in the near future he will focus on creating artificial intelligence for UAVs, comparable at least with a sparrow, that is, capable of recognizing a situation and making decisions independently. It is clear that perfect control of one’s own flight should be an integral option of this UAV, and what kind of propulsion it is - whether it’s jet, screw, with or without dynamical soaring, based on flapping wings - it will not be so important, only this mover would correspond to the tasks that this UAV will solve. For other types of equipment, armored vehicles and others - it will be exactly the same. My IMHO, I may be wrong.
        4. 77bor1973
          77bor1973 21 August 2013 17: 00 New
          0
          The problem is not in the design of the aircraft, but in the rearmament program - after all, they allegedly build one plane, but in fact there are three of them and all are "raw".
        5. aviator_IAS
          aviator_IAS 21 August 2013 22: 29 New
          0
          Quote: serge-68-68
          The one who laughs last laughs well. F-35 flies, F-22 flies. What is crammed into them, how they fly, we guess what will be created on their basis - we do not know. But what is the T-50, and even more so for something Chinese there - even guessing is pointless.


          And the SR-71 flew off, like the F-117 and the RAH-66 helicopter. But these were quite flying and technically advanced devices. But the principle of one-sided construction did not allow their efficient use. The SR-71, for example, had record data, but was extremely complex and expensive to operate. F-117 due to obsession with stealth received a completely ugly glider and flight data corresponding to its appearance. So the ability to fly should not be the only plus of the aircraft. In aerial combat, a slightly lower maneuver speed may cost the pilot his life, and unsatisfactory flight data will more than outweigh the benefits of vertical take-off.

          Any plane is the intricacies of many compromises. The designers have a difficult choice - which characteristics and capabilities are basic, and which are less important and can be sacrificed. There is no absolutely perfect aircraft, because the requirements are often conflicting. The task of designers is to get as close to this ideal as possible. In the case of the F-35, the designers clearly failed to do this. The problem is aggravated by the lack of a backup option, and so the Air Force, Navy and ILC will have to go all the way. By the principle - he began to s.ri s.ri in one heap.
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 22 August 2013 00: 17 New
            -1
            Quote: aviator_IAS
            And the SR-71 flew off,

            Moreover, inglorious enough. The speed with the MIG-31 is comparable, but the operating costs are 2 orders of magnitude higher. Not to mention its own value. Amer’s faith in the child prodigy is indestructible.
      2. 450096
        450096 21 August 2013 08: 29 New
        10
        Quote: aksakal
        This plane was not supposed to go beyond the concept, but it was released into series.

        Just overseas friends imagined themselves to be gods, everything is possible for them and everything they can, and what they do is the best by definition. It turned out not all, but they still do not want to understand this and we are only at hand.
        1. Airman
          Airman 21 August 2013 10: 53 New
          +6
          Quote: 450096
          Quote: aksakal
          This plane was not supposed to go beyond the concept, but it was released into series.

          Just overseas friends imagined themselves to be gods, everything is possible for them and everything they can, and what they do is the best by definition. It turned out not all, but they still do not want to understand this and we are only at hand.

          They crossed a snake (F-22) with a hedgehog (A-10) and received a skein of barbed wire.
      3. pensioner
        pensioner 21 August 2013 08: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: aksakal
        there are no other propulsion devices for aircraft, even at the level of scientific speculation. Gravitsapps will not be very soon, if at all.

        !!!! ++++++ Sorry - plus you can put only 1. I agree with all points. Completely.
    3. DEMENTIY
      DEMENTIY 21 August 2013 08: 21 New
      +3
      "Childhood diseases"? Why did everyone refuse him? request
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 10: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: DEMENTIY
        "Childhood diseases"? Why did everyone refuse him?

        And who specifically refused?
        1. DEMENTIY
          DEMENTIY 22 August 2013 18: 51 New
          0
          For example, Australia and Sweden.
    4. Metlik
      Metlik 21 August 2013 08: 48 New
      +2
      What will wonderful Chinese fighters do when the tomahawks knock out airfields? And f35 will fly from anywhere.
      1. Andrey57
        Andrey57 21 August 2013 09: 57 New
        +6
        Dear, take a closer look at the characteristics - the F-35 has a significantly smaller radius of action, subsonic cruising speed, and if it also takes off vertically, its radius of action will be further reduced due to the large cost overruns during vertical take-off. And this is only a small part of the problems of this aircraft. hi
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 21 August 2013 10: 10 New
        +4
        Like what. Take the freeways and take off from them. But digging all the highways in the territory of a likely enemy in America, no tomahawks will be enough.
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 21 August 2013 10: 10 New
        +6
        Tomahawks for incapacitation of airfields are from guns on sparrows. In general, it’s rather difficult to disable airfields if there is plenty of recovery equipment. Plus, there is a network of auxiliary airfields to which the dispersal of aircraft in wartime occurs. And there are such "airfields." On the Khabarovsk-Komsomolsk highway there is a long straight stretch of road with an expanded roadbed. In this section, the road is specially reinforced for use as a backup runway for military aircraft.
        1. Jin
          Jin 21 August 2013 13: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: alicante11
          Plus there is a network of auxiliary airfields


          Plus, there is an air defense system, covering these airfields, just in case, to combat such threats ... hi
      4. bif
        bif 21 August 2013 10: 41 New
        +7
        naivety in the flesh. f-35 can only take off vertically from the floor, because any specks caught in the fan of the lifting engine break the fragile blades.
      5. ed65b
        ed65b 21 August 2013 10: 59 New
        +6
        lightning took off vertically just a few times. Pilots are terrified as they do not like this option.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 12: 32 New
          0
          Quote: ed65b
          lightning took off vertically just a few times. Pilots are terrified as they do not like this option.

          This month was the 500th vertical take-off of the F-35V
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 21 August 2013 17: 04 New
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            This month was the 500th vertical take-off of the F-35V

            Can I have a link to the information? I just heard that he took off vertically at least an order of magnitude less ...
      6. Wedmak
        Wedmak 21 August 2013 11: 25 New
        +1
        And f35 will fly from anywhere.

        And it will be shot down, because can neither get away from the rocket nor keep up with the highly maneuverable Su and their Chinese clones.
      7. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 21 August 2013 17: 53 New
        +2
        Do not confuse "God's gift with fried eggs" F-35 does not vertically take off, but only sits down. And this is just an F-35V option
        1. Lone gunman
          Lone gunman 21 August 2013 22: 25 New
          +3
          do not load people! if he could sit down vertically, then if it’s impatient, then he can take off - one of the reasons for take-off is fuel economy, he eats a lot of fuel on a vertical take-off, and fuel is his problem ... in every way a remarkable airplane, and who says that you don’t have to fear him, that enemy of Russia, or out of ignorance is nonsense ...

          1. Jin
            Jin 21 August 2013 23: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: Lone gunman
            ..in all respects, a remarkable airplane, and whoever says that there is no need to be afraid of it, that enemy of Russia, or out of ignorance is nonsense ...


            I set +, because I just thought it myself ... the striped never, just do nothing and don’t invest in anything ... they’re very practical, outrageously. But they create a reserve for the really 5th generation ... if in the end it is possible to create a universal strike aircraft, it will be something. Let's not forget about the U-2 and SR-71 ... because the birds, for their time, really had no analogues in the world what
          2. Chervonets
            Chervonets 7 January 2014 14: 59 New
            0
            Well, I can personally believe you, but for the sake of truth, this video can not be used as an argument.
            Because it could have been filmed as a landing, but by reverse scrolling time.

            In exile, the plane takes off, but does not fly forward. Further, a piece is cut out from the video (at 0:54) and the landing is already shown.

            The argument would be video --- takeoff and then the sequential movement of the aircraft forward.
      8. poquello
        poquello 21 August 2013 19: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: Metlik
        What will wonderful Chinese fighters do when the tomahawks knock out airfields? And f35 will fly from anywhere.


        This tale is good for Arabs with Jews, and that is - many years ago.
        Tomahawks need to fly, fly need to ... etc.
        And since that time no one has studied anything, only he has prepared a rake.
        1. Jin
          Jin 21 August 2013 23: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: poquello
          This tale is good for Arabs with Jews, and then - very many years ago


          Something did not understand your sarcasm, colleague, do you think the Jews are inhabitants of the dense closet? You can argue a lot about Zionism, but in Pithecanthropus you define them in vain. Better to overestimate than underestimate. Yes, and recognized their army and weapons, not the worst, the worst, and even a head start gives world competitors.

          Quote: poquello
          And since that time no one has studied anything, only he has prepared a rake.


          This masterpiece, explain, didn’t quite catch the line of your thoughts.
          1. poquello
            poquello 22 August 2013 00: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: poquello
            This tale is good for Arabs with Jews, and then - very many years ago

            Quote: Jin

            Something did not understand your sarcasm, colleague, do you think the Jews are inhabitants of the dense closet? You can argue a lot

            in no way. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, Jews bombed the airfields of Arabs.
            Hear - they are silent, they know what I mean.

            Quote: poquello
            And since that time no one has studied anything, only he has prepared a rake.

            Quote: Jin

            This masterpiece, explain, didn’t quite catch the line of your thoughts.


            "The almost complete destruction of Egyptian aircraft on earth was achieved not only due to the surprise of the attack, but also thanks to the use of an original bomb invented and improved by the Israelis to destroy the runways. When this bomb is dropped, its fall is slowed down by a return missile. Then an auxiliary missile wedges the bomb in the concrete of the runway, where the fuse is fired, which can fire instantly or after a certain time. "I believe that repairing the runways is not difficult, but the situation changes if bombs explode at different intervals."

            This bomb of an original design allows an aircraft that flies at low altitude and at high speed to hit the runways. A conventional bomb dropped for this purpose ricochets and does only superficial damage.
    5. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 21 August 2013 15: 50 New
      +3
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Yes, the 35th is probably very problematic. But all constructions have "childhood diseases", especially in such a complex one as this machine. They will bring it to mind or not, but it will give, albeit an expensive, but invaluable experience for creating new and breakthrough models. After all, it is obvious that the standard capabilities of traditional jet aircraft have been exhausted in the same way as the propeller capabilities were once exhausted - improvement, “licking” is possible, but the new will only be fundamentally new.

      So the fact of the matter is that there is nothing “fundamentally new” in f-35. This is a super bigmac, in which they tried to stuff everything interesting, and as a result received an inedible porridge at a golden price.
      F-35 is not a breakthrough research, but a banal cut of the budget. The United States played a superpower and thought that it could circumvent the laws of nature when creating its van der wafer. we see the result today. Any shit can be turned into gold, only gold will have to be spent many times more.
    6. Constantine
      Constantine 21 August 2013 17: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Once V. Suvorov (with all the nuances in relation to him), well “shaved off” the critics of the Soviet amphibious tank (criticized for weak armor, weak weapons, etc.) offering to show another such tank ...
      According to F-35. I believe that all present evaluate it only from the standpoint of the messages of the "open press"? Personally, I accept this information only for lack of another.
      Yes, the 35th is probably very problematic. But all constructions have "childhood diseases", especially in such a complex one as this machine. They will bring it to mind or not, but it will give, albeit an expensive, but invaluable experience for creating new and breakthrough models. After all, it is obvious that the standard capabilities of traditional jet aircraft have been exhausted in the same way as the propeller capabilities were once exhausted - improvement, “licking” is possible, but the new will only be fundamentally new.


      F-35 is based on a mixture of Yak-141 with F-22 Raptor. What is breakthrough in it?
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 21 August 2013 17: 57 New
        +1
        Here the Yak-141 is an order of magnitude more reliable and condo.
        1. poquello
          poquello 21 August 2013 19: 26 New
          +2
          Quote: 77bor1973
          Here the Yak-141 is an order of magnitude more reliable and condo.

          It’s funny, but they still couldn’t perceive it.
        2. DEMENTIY
          DEMENTIY 22 August 2013 18: 53 New
          0
          Yak - 141 is closed!
    7. maxvet
      maxvet 21 August 2013 19: 25 New
      0
      [quote = serge-68-68] Once V. Suvorov (with all the nuances in relation to him), well “shaved off” the critics of the Soviet amphibious tank (criticized for weak armor, weak weapons, etc.) inviting me to show another such a tank ...
      For what reason was there a bit, and now Serge, please describe the episodes of the successful use of Soviet amphibious tanks of the pre-war construction?
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 22 August 2013 15: 44 New
        0
        Quote: maxvet
        please describe the episodes of the successful use of Soviet amphibious tanks of pre-war construction


        This tank was created for a quick attack. Since it was not necessary to advance, but to restrain the advance of the enemy, the tank was not used for its intended purpose, in addition, the bulk of these tanks, like other equipment, were destroyed or captured by the Germans. Perhaps in German materials about the Second World War there are such episodes
    8. TuKta
      TuKta 21 August 2013 19: 34 New
      0
      as a consequence, they will not be brought to the forefront of errors inherent in the design. design features are crucial, versatility for all types of military operations - that is, fighter aircraft + front-line bomber + evacuation transport = most likely worthless device. YES, it can land vertically and take off, but its main task is to fight against enemy aircraft at least, and the sneaker as in the design was originally built with ONE engine only, which means that its thrust will be less powerful than fighters with TWO jet engines. ..
    9. 0255
      0255 21 August 2013 21: 41 New
      0
      But all constructions have "childhood diseases", especially in such a complex one as this machine.

      They planned to adopt the JSF in 2007, but it turns out that it will achieve combat readiness no earlier than 2015. Does it have a lot of “childhood diseases”?
    10. Patriot.ru.
      Patriot.ru. 21 August 2013 21: 50 New
      0
      They are trying to jump over a generation. There will be nothing good here.
    11. Su24
      Su24 21 August 2013 22: 54 New
      0
      Serge, maybe you're right. I’m already tired of messages criticizing the F-35, it seems that someone is hiding objective information intensely.
    12. bulvas
      bulvas 22 August 2013 15: 38 New
      0
      Even without knowing the reliable information, it is clear that the higher the goal bar - the higher the result, even if it does not reach the set level.
  2. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 21 August 2013 07: 07 New
    +6
    Oh, sorry Nastenka is not with her PPPP laughing What can I say, F 35 did not work, an urgent need to allocate 100 billion dollars to create f 55 bully
    1. a52333
      a52333 21 August 2013 09: 01 New
      +2
      The "controversy" of Serdyukov’s affair gave rise to overseas. good good lol
    2. klimpopov
      klimpopov 21 August 2013 09: 03 New
      +4
      Against the background of their mistakes, it is easier for ours to take into account the difficulties associated with the fifth generation.
      By the way, the fifth one seemed to be rolled out, but I didn’t find any pictures, so the 4
    3. slavik_gross
      slavik_gross 21 August 2013 09: 30 New
      +3
      100 milliliters will not be enough ... it is necessary to switch to trillions ...
  3. Predator-74
    Predator-74 21 August 2013 07: 24 New
    +4
    Flew a campaign of the US Armed Forces.
  4. kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 21 August 2013 08: 04 New
    20
    once again I am convinced of the correctness of this demotivator)))
    1. eplewke
      eplewke 21 August 2013 10: 01 New
      +6
      With that kind of money, $ 400 could be designed and equipped on a Mars ship with a living person. Or feed all the starving in Africa. wink
      And if there are design flaws in the plane with such a budget, then I wish good luck to the American aircraft complex.
      For such money, the plane should move like water strider through water, only through the air, and it is so “agile” that the American Air Force flies like plywood over Paris ...
      1. Jin
        Jin 21 August 2013 13: 14 New
        +7
        Quote: eplewke
        With that kind of money, $ 400 could be designed and equipped on a Mars ship with a living person. Or feed all the hungry in Africa


        With that kind of money, everyone starving in Africa would die from overeating, and the money would still be left to send their corpses to Mars)))
    2. Muadipus
      Muadipus 21 August 2013 10: 25 New
      +1
      No, not the right demotivator! On it, a plane generates a ton of money. but actually burns. Although the question is rhetorical. we can say that the plane effectively redistributes money from one pocket to another.
    3. Dilshat
      Dilshat 21 August 2013 14: 45 New
      +3
      1. For banana amers, how much will F35 cost? When you have 90% of the world in tributaries you can close a plane for 3 trillion dollars. 2. F35 is just one unit from the US military nomenclature. 3. Amerians have not fought in the classical way for a long time. They have their own methods of achieving goals, no less effective than the old ones.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 21 August 2013 15: 20 New
        0
        1. Yes to banana amers how much it will cost f35. When you have 90% of the world in tributaries, you can close up a plane for 3 trillion dollars.

        In fact, America’s foreign debt is the largest. Essentially, they owe it to everyone. Their green pieces of paper are nothing but a debt obligation. Nothing actually secured. If it is presented at the time, the United States will have to sell its territory in order to cover such enormous amounts.
        .F35 is just one unit from the military nomenclature of the US Army.

        Trying to become the most expensive and the most hopeless.
        .Amer has long been no longer fighting in the classical way. They have their own methods of achieving goals, no less effective than the old.

        That’s why, and that’s not to be taken from them. They learned a lot from this.
  5. Fofan
    Fofan 21 August 2013 08: 05 New
    +8
    all the same kmp well done. with only one requirement they ruined the entire project at the development stage.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 21 August 2013 08: 14 New
      +9
      Quote: Fofan
      all the same kmp well done. with only one requirement they ruined the entire project at the development stage

      - By chance there was no Russian spy in the US Marine Corps? Very professionally ruined everything laughing
      1. Andrey57
        Andrey57 21 August 2013 09: 59 New
        +4
        He probably commands the entire marine corps of mattresses laughing
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 21 August 2013 10: 12 New
        +6
        No professional intelligence officer can do as much as one fool with the initiative or, moreover, who has the power to advance his ideas.
        1. ziqzaq
          ziqzaq 21 August 2013 11: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: abrakadabre
          No professional intelligence officer can do as much as one fool with the initiative or, moreover, who has the power to advance his ideas

          When God wants to punish, he destroys the mind ......
        2. 77bor1973
          77bor1973 21 August 2013 20: 53 New
          0
          The F-35 in option B would be cheaper if it went just like a marine corps and replacing the Harrier.
  6. andru_007
    andru_007 21 August 2013 08: 25 New
    10
    What a nice article! How good the day begins!
  7. Krsk
    Krsk 21 August 2013 08: 31 New
    +2
    The diversionary work of an agent introduced into the bowels of the ILC is admirable))) ... It's just that the pisses have such a "brilliant" world policy that if they take hold of them, nothing will save them ... Neither the F 35 nor the Nimitse will simply be torn by the poor and hungry al kaids.
    1. KazaK Bo
      KazaK Bo 21 August 2013 09: 07 New
      +5
      Quote: KrSk
      if nothing is taken to take them for them ... Neither the F 35 nor the Nimitians will simply tear the poor and hungry al-Qaeda members.

      Everything great was created on an empty stomach ... The "well-fed" life of amers, the endless stream of "green rubles" ... alas, it is beginning to lose ground. Money, although evil, but they don’t refuse it ... but at the same time you can’t make a small lift fan or a powerful marching engine from the money itself. Money can only be an incentive ... but when there is a lot of this incentive, a glut of consciousness occurs ... and the system of these motivating motives already ceases to work ... ceases to modulate new non-standard innovative ideas. An easy and quick way out of this situation is not expected ...
      But I still like your situation - I like it! Continue on like this!
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 21 August 2013 10: 19 New
        +3
        In the history of mankind, it was more often that not a full life is the best stimulus, but hunger and deprivation. The level of motivation is much higher.
        Because (in the extreme version) to solve a problem or die is much more intelligible than you will have ten rolls for lunch or eleven.
      2. Krsk
        Krsk 21 August 2013 13: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: KazaK Bo
        ! Continue on like this!



        Join
  8. SmacXnumx
    SmacXnumx 21 August 2013 08: 35 New
    +3
    "The program seems to have stabilized," Michael Sullivan of the United States Audit Office told Congress. “I am inspired by what I have seen,” echoes Lieutenant General VVS Christopher Bogdan, the head of the program on the part of the government. Lockheed spokesperson Laura Siebert says he expects “more positive” articles than usual in the light of what she put it, of the “substantial progress” of the program.

    A good mine with a bad game. Spend money, try to make from g ... a candy
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 21 August 2013 09: 27 New
      +2
      “I am inspired by what I saw”
      Perhaps he saw a beautiful check for a beautiful amount, if only the conclusion of the state of the program would be beautifully voiced.
    2. eplewke
      eplewke 21 August 2013 10: 06 New
      +1
      And what should they spend then? They will turn on the printing press and you have grandmas ...
  9. wetr
    wetr 21 August 2013 08: 37 New
    +5
    Of course it’s nice to read about F35, but I think it's not worth believing everything that is written, they have huge funding and they will fix most of the problems. The main thing is that we succeed.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 21 August 2013 08: 46 New
      +2
      Quote: wetr
      t, they have huge funding

      So I say, more money, more money laughing F 35 - it will be yours for only $ 999.999.999 lol
      1. True
        True 21 August 2013 09: 26 New
        +1
        What's the problem? Draw as needed.
  10. Zhenya
    Zhenya 21 August 2013 08: 40 New
    13
    The US Air Force is in service (as of May 2012) was 184 F-22, it is only slightly inferior to the new PAK FA, of which Russia has 5 (!) Pieces and then pass the tests. Of course, the F-22 is still being finalized, there are problems, but in general there are a lot of planes and they can be upgraded, thereby updating your resource for another 10 years ahead. So the problems with the F-35 are not as great as they are trying to inflate.
    Also, the U.S. Air Force has 753 F-18 aircraft of various modifications, which are also in service and do not plan to decommission them (they wrote off the earliest F-18 models that were produced back in the 80s) In 1996, all aircraft of the series passed modernization.
    Summing up:
    So, to be honest, the United States has a huge fleet:
    1 F-184 + 22 F-753 (various modifications)
    2. Combat helicopters 14 Viper + 741 AH-64.
    1.1 Outdated fighter F-15 \ F-16 - 249 + 1018
    2.1 Obsolete A-10 attack aircraft - 294
    Currently, the US Air Force has new \ updated 937 fighters + new \ updated 755 helicopters of the F-18 \ F-22 \ Viper \ AH-64
    Outdated 1551 fighter \ attack aircraft models F-15 \ F-16 \ A-10
    Total: New updated destroyers \ helicopters about 1692, outdated attack aircraft \ destroyers 1551 = about 3200 (55% updated \ new models)

    For comparison, let's take the air fleet of the Russian Federation of the main models of fighter / attack aircraft
    1. The new MiG-29SMT / MiG-29UBT - 34, the new \ updated Su-27SM / Su-27SM3 - 113, the new Su-30 / Su-30M2 / Su-30SM-12, the new Su-35S - 6, the new Su -34 - 29, Yak-130 (as it can be equipped with a light attack aircraft) 32, updated Su-24M2 - 40, Su-25SM - 67, MiG-31BM -16 = total 349 new / updated aircraft / attack aircraft
    2. New combat helicopters Mi-28N \ Mi-35M \ Ka-52 \ Mi-8AMTSh / Mi-8MTV-5 - 141
    1.1 Outdated fighters \ attack aircraft Su-24M \ Su-25 \ Su-27 \ MiG-31 \ MiG-29 - 1143
    1.2 Obsolete helicopters Mi-24P / Mi-24PN / Mi-24VP-M \ Ka-50 - 603
    Currently, the Russian Air Force has new \ updated 349 fighters + new 141 helicopters.
    Outdated 1746 exterminator / attack aircraft / helicopter
    Total: New updated destroyers \ helicopters \ attack aircraft about 490, outdated attack aircraft \ destroyers \ helicopter 1746 = about 2246 (20% updated \ new models)

    So, in the next 10 years, the USA may not pay attention to problems with the new plane at all, but can easily launder money on it.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 21 August 2013 08: 51 New
      -1
      Just a gigantic job done, Mr. Analyst. And men don’t know.
    2. Zhenya
      Zhenya 21 August 2013 08: 58 New
      +2
      I forgot to add that by 2020, new airplanes / attack aircraft / helicopters in the Russian Air Force will be put on current contracts for about 360.
      The US plans to deliver a huge number of aircraft in the US Air Force 2443 F-35, timing not specified.
      Currently, 71 F-35 aircraft are being exploited.
      1. Russ69
        Russ69 21 August 2013 12: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: Marrying
        The United States plans to deliver a huge number of aircraft to the US Air Force 2443 F-35, the timing is not specified.

        The term is 25 years. Recently, someone from the leadership of the company manufacturing the f-35 said that by 2018 they want to achieve a production pace, such as up to 100 aircraft per year.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 14: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Russ69
          The term is 25 years. Recently, someone from the leadership of the company manufacturing the f-35 said that by 2018 they want to achieve a production pace, such as up to 100 aircraft per year.

          After all the tests and the adoption of the aircraft will go into service a large series (3100) of 2443 aircraft for the United States, the rest for companions. So the Americans say that the pace of aircraft construction will be 20 units per month, that is, 240 units per year, plan to complete construction in 2034.
        2. novobranets
          novobranets 21 August 2013 19: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Russ69
          by 2018, they want to achieve a production pace of up to 100 aircraft per year.

          If they build 100 plants. laughing
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 21 August 2013 09: 03 New
      +7
      So the question is not in numbers, but in the fact that all the Amer aircraft you wrote about, with the exception of the F-22 and maybe the last F-18s, should be replaced with F-35 in the near future. Which will lose in melee to any aircraft of generation 4 and 4+. The only option is to attack with a phalanx from a long distance, until they have been discovered. True, we have the A-50, which will not allow them to do this, and they also have the Chinese. So the advantages in detection devices against modern air forces are completely useless, and are intended to drive all Papuans under the skies. That is, the amers, having spent tremendous money, did not receive an improvement in their Air Force, but on the contrary received in many respects their regression.
      1. Zhenya
        Zhenya 21 August 2013 09: 07 New
        +3
        alicante11 The number also plays an important role, it is one thing when 3-30 links F-4 \ F-5 flies into 15 Su-16 links, I think the outcome of the battle will be obvious. But when 12-4 units of F-5 flies on all these current 22 aircraft, I think there are no options.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 21 August 2013 10: 06 New
          +2
          I think that if they "fly", i.e. If 4-5 units of F-22 enter into close combat, then on the earth it will become more than 2-3 units of F-22 more, and in the air by as much less. The doctrine of the Amer’s Air Force has recently been built on the ability to detect the enemy earlier, remaining undetected by the stealth technology itself. And so hit the enemy while he still does not suspect anything. In a maneuvering battle that the 22nd, the 35th amers do not look very good.
          Plus, I note that the Red Army Air Force numerical superiority did not help to deal with the Backlash in the summer of 1941. The thing is simply that in the sky you can easily avoid battle in the event of power inequality and superiority in performance characteristics. And attack when the enemy will not have superiority, and then he, losing in the performance characteristics, already ns can avoid defeat. Now the situation is even worse for the mass air force, losing in the performance characteristics. The presence of a powerful air defense based on the air defense system and good ground-based detection means give even more opportunities to the weakest side to avoid combat in an unfavorable tactical situation.
        2. Dmitry 2246
          Dmitry 2246 21 August 2013 10: 33 New
          0
          Eugene, thanks for the numbers.
          It is good that all this armada cannot speak out against our interests at once.
          We will take into account possible theaters of operations and hope for the C 500.
          Although when you consider the allies of the United States it becomes a little alarming.
          Here we hope for a alignment (Spain, England, Greece, Turkey, etc.)
          Again, China will not give them peace for good reason to transfer ships to the Pacific Ocean.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 21 August 2013 13: 11 New
            +3
            What are you afraid of? Amers simply do not have the opportunity to deploy their Air Force against the Russian Federation. For this we need airfields. I have already said that, in fact, we have no place to intersect with the amers and NATO. They can deploy their Air Force in the Baltic states, Poland, Guzia and Japan. And ... that's it. What does Poland first need to overcome Belarus. And on the Baltic patch, the Air Force can be made operational-tactical missile systems directly at the airfields. In Georgia, airfields are also not rubber. In total, there remains only an air battle over Belarus, in which our and Belarusian air defense systems will lively participate.
    4. eplewke
      eplewke 21 August 2013 10: 10 New
      +1
      I repeat! Big Sam has a printing press !!!! Which day and night prints green candy wrappers, fueled by government bonds, which in turn are worth nothing!
    5. ed65b
      ed65b 21 August 2013 11: 00 New
      0
      already laid out yesterday, today I repeat
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak 21 August 2013 12: 16 New
        +2
        For some reason, the Tu-95MS aged up to 50 years. And the Su-27SM from modernization became new aircraft
        1. Zhenya
          Zhenya 21 August 2013 12: 31 New
          0
          1. Not new, but updated. (Su-27MS)
          2. The start of operation of the Tu-95 April 1956
          1. Windbreak
            Windbreak 21 August 2013 16: 41 New
            +3
            And here is the start of operation of the Tu-95? Tu-95MS made its first flight in 1979 and was built in series from 1981 to 1992
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 August 2013 12: 27 New
        +4
        A wonderful table, only here are a number of nuances - you will select combat-ready vehicles from the total number of Russian cars.
        Fir-trees, it’s only now ... Why are you misleading the Orthodox? Where did you get there for three hundred Su-27СМ when they were modernized a hundred of everything? Where did the half-mig MIG-29СМТ come from when we have them - exactly from the Algerian contract ?!
        1. Zhenya
          Zhenya 21 August 2013 12: 35 New
          0
          I'm afraid 30% are not combat-ready, but these are hundreds of planes .. which are most likely on conservation or have exhausted their resources.
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas 21 August 2013 18: 30 New
        +4
        Quote: ed65b
        already laid out yesterday, today I repeat

        Edward, the tablet is frankly untrue. As already indicated especially delusional data on the Su-29CMT ...
    6. bif
      bif 21 August 2013 11: 11 New
      0
      It’s good to add numbers, but military equipment and your accounting are not compatible things. without even going into details, here are a few comments.
      1.f-22 in the number of 184pcs ... are as useless as PAFFA ... while the Raptors have proven that they can fly and occasionally shoot, but the "childhood diseases" have not passed.
      2.f-18 as many as 753 units, it’s hard to believe about the modernization of all, if you add the number of f-16 (both refer to light source), then the air force base is clearly visible consists of machines of this type, and the Russian air force base is heavy Su, each of which "stands in battle" is much more than one lung, so you are our mathematician - enter the coefficient.
      3. About the calculation of the Russian Air Force: for some reason, the Su-24 and 34 bombers were pulled together and recorded in obsolete Ka-50 (yes, he is younger than the Raptor).
      If you really wanted to sort out and compare, then you need to compare the equipment of one class (light f-18 and f-16 fighters with MiGs, f-15 with Sushki, etc. and not put everything in a heap.
      1. Zhenya
        Zhenya 21 August 2013 12: 06 New
        -1
        bif
        1. About Ka-50, I’ll say straightforward 11 pieces, 11 were produced, half have already been decommissioned or used for benefits.
        2. Su-24 and Su-34 attack aircraft, which can also take an air battle.
        3. With this approach, the T-50 can also be called a bomber.
        4. Yes, the diseases did not go away, but everything goes precisely to their passage, and when the F-22s pass, it will be too late and 184 planes are the air fleet, does this mean something to you?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 August 2013 12: 30 New
          +2
          Su-24 and Su-34 Attack aircraft, which can also take an air battle.

          These are bombers. Moreover, the first in the BVB is simply doomed - it has neither the ability nor the armament for such a battle. And the second one will turn a little more, because although there are missiles and the origin of the Su-27 allows.
          but everything goes precisely to their passage and when the F-22 pass, it will be too late and 184 aircraft are the air fleet, does this mean something to you?

          184 aircraft, each of which costs 150 million bucks. Knock down a dozen, amers will strangle themselves from such losses of green candy wrappers.
          1. Zhenya
            Zhenya 21 August 2013 12: 39 New
            0
            Dear Wedmak, in my opinion the amers have already proved that they are ready to push fabulous money into the war.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 21 August 2013 13: 32 New
              0
              In my opinion, the amers have already proved that they are ready to push fabulous money into the war.

              I am not so sure. If this were so, they would have bombed them with might and main and threw tomahawks into Syria and Iran. That's just ... they already barely pull two wars. And then, by some miracle, while the buck is alive. Already gone cuts in the military budget. But besides money, we also need resources, people. And they are also not enough.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 August 2013 12: 33 New
        +4
        Quote: bif
        f-22 in the number of 184pcs ... as useless as PAFFA ... while the Raptors have proven that they can fly and occasionally shoot

        To whom and where?
        Quote: bif
        and the base of the Russian Air Force is heavy Su, each of which "stands in battle" much more than one light

        better correct for the fact that:
        1), since the modernization of the Su-27 almost did not affect the electronics, by radar, electronic warfare and so on, they never left the 80's, when we (sadly) were inferior to our sworn friends, and now their electronics look and completely anachronistic
        2) Ask Sergey VAF how many of the planes indicated in the table are now “on the wing” I guarantee, after that the desire to compare the Russian Air Force and the US will disappear for a long time.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 15: 28 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Ask Sergey VAF how many of the planes listed in the table are now “on the wing”

          Hello Andrei, respected VAF with no less respected Ustin is now celebrated in Zhukovsky since the 18th drinks and until MAKS is unlikely to appear on the site, I personally can only envy them with white envy.
          I think VAF would again curse the frivolity of many members of the forum and the underestimation of the US military aircraft industry.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 August 2013 23: 19 New
            +3
            Nuuuu, MAX will someday end all the same :))))))
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            I think VAF would again curse the frivolity of many members of the forum and the underestimation of the US military aircraft industry.

            I am sure of this for all 120%. And the problem is not that the “Penguin” is good (because it is not good) but that we are doing very well .... We essentially have nothing to oppose to the mass of not so old F-15 / 16 / 18 What do we have? A hundred Su-27СМ, which were modernized very economically, as a result of which their avionics do not correspond to the American aircraft of the 90 release. The rest is with a minimal resource and very ancient equipment. The X-MUM-29 of the first series were more than competitive with the F-16 produced at the same time, but how to compare the same old, un-upgraded Mig (which are in the reserve) with the F-16 block 50 / 52 of the 1990 model? The USA has riveted over 800 of such machines since the beginning of the 90's, and we have everything about everything - 24 of Algerian Mig-29CMT. Yes, the avionics of our latest Su-30 / 34 / 35 is already a completely different calico, but there are too few of them.
            What about weapons? If something happens, what are we going to fight? Of the medium-range missiles, only the P-27 is semi-active, it is basically an analogue of the ancient Sparrow, but the Americans have long had AMRAAM, but what about us? In theory, we have the RVV-AE, an analogue of the American amraham, but in practice these missiles were not supplied in series. All that remains is the P-73, an excellent short-range missile, and it seems to be even the best in the world at the time of its appearance, but firstly, you still need to get to this very range, and secondly, the Americans are not sitting in their place either, and their sidewind has been tightened .
            Organization of hostilities? The United States, alas, is clearly superior to us here. They have a large fleet of aircraft AWACS, electronic warfare and so on, and most importantly - great experience in large-scale use of aviation, the same Iraq. And they can draw conclusions.
            Pilot training? We are not on a horse here, yes, the situation has improved greatly in comparison with the beginning and the middle of the two thousandth, but still ... Sergey does not praise modern exercises, he says that there are no such difficult tasks as in the USSR for pilots - if I understood him correctly, of course.
            Yes, if the Russian Air Force saturate hundreds of Su-34 / 35, modernize the A-50, launch the production of A-100, expand the production of reconnaissance aircraft and other assignments, saturate the Air Force with the latest missiles, all kinds of RVV-SD, DB and MD and others to the heap , and at the same time already chasing our air warriors, putting them the most difficult training tasks ... tady oh. But so far, none of this in our troops
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 22 August 2013 01: 26 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              A hundred Su-27SM, which were upgraded very economically

              You wrote everything correctly. Only the Su-27SM was not a hundred, but 55, now 52. Moreover, these are all aircraft of the 80s.
              Su-27SM3 (new construction) -12.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 August 2013 07: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: Odyssey
                Only Su-27СМ we have not a hundred, but there was 55, now 52.

                Pancake. And for some reason I thought that 100 ...
    7. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 August 2013 11: 32 New
      +1
      Thanks for the analytics.
      But here's the trick: in Russia, the production of new aircraft and helicopters has begun and their number is growing. Moreover, specialized machines are produced. And in the US, the release of new ... um ... only the F-35. The rest are either modernization or extension of the resource. As a result, the United States has no options for the development of its Air Force other than the adoption of the F-35. And old planes, how many do not repair them, have their own resources, after which they are written off. As a result, instead of very good specialized A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, they will receive one mediocre F-35 in three modifications ...
      1. Zhenya
        Zhenya 21 August 2013 12: 13 New
        0
        Wedmak I agree, BUT if there is a war, it is easier for them to launch the F-35 at all enterprises, since there simply is no other aircraft. And we have? Mig, Su, Yak and everyone is doing his own thing, Mig is fighting, Su is bombing, Yak is teaching. Remember the Second World War, the USSR Air Force was armed with Yak, IL, MiG, p39, p40, La, Lagg, etc., etc. And the Germans? BF and Fw, which gave optimization of production.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 August 2013 12: 34 New
          +1
          Remember the Second World War, the USSR Air Force was armed with Yak, IL, Mig, p39, p40, La, Lagg, etc., etc. And the Germans? BF and Fw, which gave optimization of production.

          Is it optimization? The Germans had more than two dozen models of these aircraft. And the first half of the war, we just lost in the quality of our machines.
          But already in 1943 there was a complete dominance of our cars in the air. And this is not least due to the diversity of aircraft models. There were light and heavy, and attack aircraft, and dive-bombers. Making a specialized plane is easier, simply because it is simpler and cheaper.
          1. Zhenya
            Zhenya 21 August 2013 12: 57 New
            0
            Dear wedmak do not agree!
            I will explain:
            1. It is no secret that sometimes in one link of La-5, there were essentially different aircraft, of various modifications. What was the difference between bf C and D? Formally, nothing. Only a more powerful engine was installed, of course, if you do not compare bf E with bf G, then of course you are right, but the problem is that E was produced in 1939-1941, and G has already been running since mid-1942.
            So that was precisely the optimization of production, since there were not enough resources, and old modifications were instantly replaced by new ones.
            2. a) In 1943, the dominance was not so great, but in 1944 already yes.
            b) But this was not due to the types of aircraft, the USSR aircraft became better, I agree that the same new Luftwaffe Fw aircraft was also very good, and what about the G-2 \ G-6 modifications were also excellent.
            c) The war for Africa was lost
            d) The Allies were already crushing Italy.
            e) The submarine war was not so successful, which means that the resources of the same England had more
            f) New pilots did not have time to study, they were simply shot down (like ours in 1941)
            g) German resources are depleted
            Many factors.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 21 August 2013 13: 58 New
              +1
              What was the difference between bf C and D? Formally, nothing.

              So do nothing? Yet this is not an optimization. Reducing the production of old fighters is just a modernization. But back to the F-35.
              BUT if there is a war, it is easier for them to launch the F-35 at all enterprises, since there is simply no other aircraft.

              Yes, the USA has no other plane and they will finish this by any means. But this does not mean that it will be cheap, possess excellent characteristics and weapons. This is a pretty complicated car. Mostly because of these same options A, B, C. They wanted to make a universal aircraft for the three branches of the army, but got mediocrity.
              1. ed65b
                ed65b 21 August 2013 15: 03 New
                +1
                I downloaded the table from neta, the article was translated amersky.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 21 August 2013 18: 39 New
                  +1
                  Quote: ed65b
                  I downloaded the table from neta, the article was translated amersky.

                  Just because she’s amer’s doesn’t mean that she’s faithful, if they give their data crookedly, then what can we say about ours. For example, the F-18 of all modifications is indicated as much as 753, and as of January 2012. they were in the US Navy F / A-18A / C - 212, F / A-18E / F - 269 (79 - confirmed order) and EA-18G (REP) - 50 (64 - confirmed order). Boeing company in 2012 produced 48 F / A-18E / F and EA-18G, and for two quarters of 2013. 24 F / A-18E / F and EA-18G.
    8. Odysseus
      Odysseus 21 August 2013 18: 05 New
      +3
      Quote: Marrying
      1.1 Outdated fighters \ attack aircraft Su-24M \ Su-25 \ Su-27 \ MiG-31 \ MiG-29 - 1143

      Your information about the Russian Air Force does not correspond to reality.
      Reality is much tougher.
    9. Krsk
      Krsk 27 August 2013 11: 45 New
      0
      And remember, Suvorov said to fight not by number but by reduction ... So not everything is so bad
  11. aud13
    aud13 21 August 2013 09: 05 New
    +4
    Yesterday I came across a video about the optical-location system installed on the MIG-35. Allows you to see even planes invisible in radar measurements at a distance of 15 to 40 km.
    If you think about it, it can equip them with “obsolete” MiG Su, etc., and will they be quite competitive?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmyBrmP6nck
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 21 August 2013 09: 09 New
      -1
      aud13Too expensive pleasure.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 21 August 2013 10: 15 New
        +2
        I think it’s no more expensive than riveting new planes?
    2. denson06
      denson06 21 August 2013 10: 34 New
      +2
      I agree that in our time maneuverability and speed are very cool ... but much more important is what is inside .. what makes it inconspicuous, unbreakable (EW, REP) and so on .. and perform energetic maneuvers to avoid missiles are an extreme and far from the most effective security measure ..
      In all other respects, the article added moods .. it’s nice to realize that not only do we have lobbying interests, a waste of budget funds and so on, but also our Western “partners” ..
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 21 August 2013 13: 14 New
        0
        . but what’s much more important is what’s inside .. what makes it inconspicuous, unbreakable (EW, REP), and so on .. and energetic maneuvers to avoid rockets are an extreme and far from the most effective security measure ..


        Well, invisible planes are a myth. As for detection, the presence of AWACS aircraft plays a role in many respects. Which we still have. EW remains, but here I am not particularly competent, so I can not say.
  12. Jack122
    Jack122 21 August 2013 09: 13 New
    +4
    Americans! Do not retreat! Saw it to the end and buy in bulk, I will morally support. If they had more such projects am
  13. kkenkkk
    kkenkkk 21 August 2013 09: 16 New
    0
    people yesterday found a service for checking fines in the traffic police by the state number of the car, otherwise I had a bit more fines than I thought. By the way, there they can be appealed, I was canceled two fines :). You can check your fines yourself, here is the site - http://redir.ec/mvdbaz
  14. aud13
    aud13 21 August 2013 09: 49 New
    +2
    Quote: Marrying
    aud13 Too expensive a pleasure.

    Eugene, do you think that it is better to build a new T-50 than to equip the already existing Mig-29 and Su-27 with instruments to help them detect stealth-invisible?
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 21 August 2013 09: 52 New
      +4
      aud13 The plane has become obsolete and these machines are morally obsolete, and physically, which means there is a risk of losing equipment with the plane, it cannot fly forever (MIG-29 has been flying for 30 years, Su-27 for 28 years). There are more promising models like the Su-30, on which it is worth installing this equipment:
      1. The plane is new
      2.Can be upgraded
      3.Cheaper T-50
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 21 August 2013 10: 19 New
        0
        MIG-29 with the new avionics turns into MIG-29СМТ. Which is no longer considered obsolete. And if you give him enemy detection devices superior to the F-22, then the F-22 will only have to use its speed to escape.
    2. novobranets
      novobranets 21 August 2013 19: 58 New
      0
      Quote: aud13
      Do you think that it is better to build a new T-50 than to equip the already existing Mig-29 and Su-27 with instruments to help them detect stealth-invisible?

      Any aircraft, and indeed any equipment has its own modernization limit. When the limit comes, when the base model is no longer able to pull the "awnings". And it turns out that the old model is hopelessly outdated, but the new one has not been created. Therefore, the T-50 should be developed, if only in order to have a promising machine with a margin of opportunities for subsequent and inevitable modernization. hi
  15. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 21 August 2013 10: 19 New
    +4
    The next F-35 funeral? Although for mnu, it is increasingly beginning to resemble a smokescreen in the style of oh it hurts, and there the tail fell off again ... and Vaska listens and eats (the US Air Force) and they put a big bolt on screams about their stupidity and wretchedness.
    And now a good saying: In my city, the runway was restored at the airport that was killed in the 90s and now flights Moscow, Novosibirsk and Irkutsk are again becoming a reality. The point is small, rebuild the new GLASS, AEROVOKZAL and HOTEL + to restore all associated infrastructure for receiving international transporters for refueling, including Boeing 747-class monsters in any weather conditions ... I have dejuu and the engine rumble again over the city (for now, the cousin and An-24)
    One masturbating ugliness from power was killing, killing my city, but not killing hi
    1. Tver
      Tver 21 August 2013 12: 13 New
      +1
      happy for you and your city
  16. The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 21 August 2013 10: 43 New
    +1
    They know how to cut loot in America!
  17. sasha.28blaga
    sasha.28blaga 21 August 2013 10: 44 New
    0
    And for me they need it.
    Not out of anger, out of joy.
  18. fedorovith
    fedorovith 21 August 2013 10: 46 New
    0
    Ours at one time did not finish the 141st (the Union collapsed), did not have time, well, they "bought" and bring, well, the flag to them ...
  19. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 11: 14 New
    +1
    F-35 inscribed in a single information space will be a new concept for the use of combat aircraft and the 35-g operational overload is declared on the f-9A, which will drive the 2nd UAV, whose operational overload will be 20g, it will be very difficult to resist this.
    The statements of the Boeing designer are understandable, the f-32 was out of work. Everyone speaks according to interest.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 August 2013 12: 13 New
      +4
      f-35A declared operational overload of 9g which will drive the 2nd UAV operational overload of which will be 20g, it will be very difficult to resist this.

      And how can one pilot not only control his 35th, but also two more UAVs? Yes, still maneuvering with an overload of 20g ?? By the way, where did you find such an overload? This only happens in rockets. But UAVs are still very vulnerable, because maneuverable and slow.
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 21 August 2013 14: 21 New
        +2
        I had 8 seconds in an anti-loading suit, and the insides almost became externals. For more trained people, overloading 9 for a few seconds is the norm. And when landing in a capsule without a brake propulsion system, almost 11 happened, and people survived.
        http://otvet.mail.ru/question/17950802 При десяти g, летчик превращается...превращается летчик... в страдающий организм, лишенный зрения и почти лишенный дыхания, через короткое время (при не меняющейся нагрузке) потеря сознания и смерть.request
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 15: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        And how can one pilot not only control his 35th, but also two more UAVs? Yes, still maneuvering with an overload of 20g ?? By the way, where did you find such an overload?

        From an interview with the Deputy Chief Designer of the Design Bureau named after P. Sukhoi, Doctor of Technical Sciences A.Kh. KARIMOV.
        - The most trained pilot withstands a maximum of 9-fold overload. An unmanned aerial vehicle can withstand an overload of 20 - 25 g. In addition, you do not need to make a pressurized cabin, install a life support system.
        “But, in doing so, the control of the aircraft is probably getting worse?”
        - Not at all. I will say even more: surveillance tasks or military operations now require that hundreds of sensors located on an airplane be analyzed. The pilot is already physically unable to cope with the observation of all these indications, especially under conditions of overload, at high altitude. And if so, then let it be on the ground, in comfortable conditions and in extreme cases, take control, taking, for example, decisions about when to use the weapon and which one.

        I put it a little incorrectly, not to control but to direct, to aim.
        The United States will have one information field at any time the target will be transferred to the operator. Something like this, algorithms are now being developed and improved.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 August 2013 15: 24 New
          +1
          And now it’s clear. But the weakest link in this chain is the connection with the UAV. In addition, autopilots learned to drive passenger liners and even land them without the participation of the pilot, but in combat in the air
          other conditions. I strongly doubt that today the robot can successfully conduct actions in a three-dimensional environment with a rapidly changing environment. The operator may simply not have time to give a command.
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 21 August 2013 15: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            I strongly doubt that today the robot can successfully conduct actions in a three-dimensional environment with a rapidly changing environment. The operator may simply not have time to give a command.

            I agree with you, recalling the experience of the Second World War, we will see that the main guarantee of pilots' victories was non-standard, often risky, piloting on the verge of possible. How can a robot, having a set of standard programs, replace a person? Of course, he will be able to combine these programs, but for (I’m not afraid of this word) creative work, and combat is art, he is not capable. But the operator, not seeing the whole picture of the battle, will be powerless. It is one thing to see everything with your own eyes and another, through the monitor. yes
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 21 August 2013 22: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            The operator may simply not have time to give a command.

            In this case, he is likely to lose UAVs, AI in the next 20 years is just Wishlist. With F-35 radars, the operator will have a pretty good picture and the rest is like a computer game.
  20. Sobol
    Sobol 21 August 2013 11: 41 New
    0
    If everything described in the article is true, then for US it is very good.
  21. nikolas 83
    nikolas 83 21 August 2013 11: 51 New
    +1
    Our planes are in every way better than the Amirikosovskie planes. What’s the only thing that engines with ovt are? It's just a bomb. Not one plane can do such aerobatics. We look forward to the patience of the T-50 in the troops. Well, let the mattresses swell headstock into your F-35.
  22. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 21 August 2013 12: 30 New
    +2
    For decades, from the very beginning of their statehood, Americans have carefully avoided any kind of democracy in making important decisions. There can be nothing more destructive than managing a serious project with the help of a committee. And so...
    There are no words how joyful it is to see that our enemy is finally experiencing what he has successfully fed the whole world - stagnation, decay, destruction ... Democracy destroys any real business with absolute efficiency. Instead of authoritarian decision-making, allowed lobbying for the interests of various parties? Receive, sign. This brick will not fly and there is no "invaluable experience" here.
    What is the experience? In the destruction of shut-off valves and bypass circuits? In the "licking" profiles? So they always knew how. As the "Asian tigers" at one time captured markets cheapness. You take the receiver and you start to solder all the "extra" - Conders, filters, whole circuits ... until the receiver dies. Silent - solder the last torn Conder into place and sell it like that. It was possible to reduce the prime cost five laughing
    Things are going very well, just fine.
  23. egor 1712
    egor 1712 21 August 2013 12: 37 New
    0
    Stuck - that’s putting it mildly. The Americans ran into a problem that Soviet designers refused in the early 90s. What served, the collapse of the union, economic confusion, but the fact is as follows. Vertical take-off technologies hit Lockheed Martin Corporation.
    In the early 70s, Soviet intelligence conducted an operation and information was provided in the United States on technologies for creating an invisible aircraft. Everyone knows how this story ended. Spent billions of US dollars and a downed plane in Yugoslavia.
    I will not gloat, but their problems benefit Russia. And PAK FA is an aircraft that will carry the properties of the F-35, as the ability to hang in the air (with a new engine).
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 August 2013 14: 08 New
      +2
      And PAK FA is an aircraft that will carry the properties of the F-35, as the ability to hang in the air (with a new engine).

      Choi that ??? How does it hang? T-50 with new engines will receive only efficiency and increased traction.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 21 August 2013 18: 57 New
      0
      Not even funny, ignorance is the scourge of Russia ...
  24. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 21 August 2013 12: 46 New
    0
    Neksel, And what is it that you have almost all been messing up posts, but you yourself haven’t spoken out? Do you have a separate opinion on this issue? Then voice it. We are also interested. Do not make us think that you are a stupid pro-American troll with only enough minus to set intelligence.
  25. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 21 August 2013 12: 49 New
    +3
    With regard to this topic, then, of course, I am not an aviator, but from my own experience I was perfectly convinced that any, even branded universal tool is obviously worse than a tool intended for any one specific function
  26. Tartary
    Tartary 21 August 2013 13: 22 New
    0
    Quote:but the continuation of the program is even worse. The F-35, he writes, “will cost the lives of too many of our pilots.”

    "... alien (enemy) grief - triple joy!"
  27. july
    july 21 August 2013 13: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: wetr
    but I think it's not worth believing everything that is written, they have huge funding and they will fix most of the problems.

    Useful article about wunderwaflu. I doubt that they will be able to fix conceptual flaws. There is such a beast-Uchu - he runs a little, jumps a bit, flies a little and swims a little. And as I understand it, this device is from the same area. Well, what’s up, the guys got pierced ... And about the huge funding, because the whole world is scratching turnips, how they will solve their financial problems and the fact that now they have sharp cuts in funding in the Pentagon makes us think. And the fact that our Air Force is lagging behind them, we hope that this is temporary, we have a prospect, everything is dedicated to the development of other wunderwaffles, lasers, space ... but this is another song, I think everything will become clear before the year 20, I think while we still have several years.
  28. PureGUN
    PureGUN 21 August 2013 13: 26 New
    0
    [b] [b] no matter when and at what price the F-35 goes into service, because of its vertical take-off equipment, the new fighter is the aerodynamic equivalent of flying bricks - completely losing to the latest Russian and Chinese fighters. [/ b]

    Can not but rejoice ...
  29. USNik
    USNik 21 August 2013 13: 41 New
    +1
    Due to difficult compromises regarding the aircraft being created, imposed, for the most part, by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is seriously inferior even to the old Russian and Chinese fighters, which fly faster and further, and whose maneuverability is better.

    "The queen gave birth to the night
    Not a son, not a daughter;
    Not a mouse, not a frog,
    And to the unknown animal "(c)
    As an SVViP, it’s no better than Harier, as a fighter-interceptor it is worse than the F-15, as a multi-purpose fighter it is on a level with the F-18, as an attack aircraft it’s not even funny to compare it with the A-10, at a price it can soon be compared only with the hryaptor ...

    Complete success, they thought up a cool feeding trough, well done! I suggest Lockheed to design a five-seater inexpensive, comfortable and high-speed off-road dump scooter! And replace them with the entire US auto industry.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 August 2013 14: 13 New
      0
      I suggest Lockheed to design a five-seater inexpensive, comfortable and high-speed scooter dump truck!

      They stupidly will buy a license for KAMAZ from us.
  30. july
    july 21 August 2013 13: 41 New
    0
    Quote: viktor_ui
    viktor_ui (

    The case is not G. Altaysk? Tady fellow countrymen!
    1. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 21 August 2013 14: 53 New
      0
      Ust-Ilimsk, Irkutsk region drinks
  31. Cherdak
    Cherdak 21 August 2013 14: 03 New
    +3
    ОФИЦИАЛЬНО:
    Yak-141 was taken to the international air show in Le Bourget, then - to the same in Farnborough. Foreigners examined him, opening their mouths in amazement. Allegations have appeared in a number of Western newspapers that in the creation of aircraft with vertical take-off and landing, the Russians were ten to fifteen years ahead of them. The short-term cooperation of Yakovlev Design Bureau with the American company Lockheed Martin in 1995 also did not lead to anything. The Russian Navy refused further work on the deck "vertical lines", which almost half of the fuel spent on vertical take-off and landing. As a result, the combat radius of this Soviet carrier-based attack aircraft did not exceed 195 kilometers, and the Navy focused on aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing (Su-33, MiG-29K, Su-25UTG). There was also a project to install the Yak-141 on a tracked platform based on an army tractor. From it, the attack aircraft could quickly move off-road and take off from anywhere and suddenly for the enemy. There is no information on the development in modern Russia of new projects for vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
    UNOFFICIENTLY:
    Glory to the fighters of the invisible front and personally to Peter Yakovlevich Ufimtsev. What people!
  32. Vtel
    Vtel 21 August 2013 14: 33 New
    +1
    The article is good, pleasing to the ear, but keep the ear open. Shaw us their F-35, we have our own handsome T-50, the main thing is to grow it into a full-fledged Eagle, that's what the thought is about.
  33. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 21 August 2013 15: 37 New
    +2
    By and large, in Russia it was necessary to start a company praising the F-35. Say "uber craft", to which we can not oppose anything. Let them stamp packs. But in general, FIG knows him, over the years and billions invested, he still becomes more lethal. The Americans can still afford the luxury of such costs with uncertain prospects. But Russia has no right to make a mistake. But as always.
  34. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 21 August 2013 16: 01 New
    0
    Thanks to the Amerov sawflies and haulers for a peaceful sky all over the world.
  35. Powder donut
    Powder donut 21 August 2013 17: 15 New
    0
    Yeah, our Serdyukov is just a boy compared to his American counterparts. Everywhere the same thing, the military-industrial complex, due to its closeness, turns into one large feeding trough for dishonest businessmen ...
  36. Horde
    Horde 21 August 2013 17: 41 New
    0
    I don’t know, and that everyone rested on f35 if there is f22? which is much better and more stealthy, and more responsive, and more maneuverable than the 35th .f22 almost finished and waiting for a worthy opponent, and 35? Well, to hell with him ...
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 August 2013 17: 51 New
      0
      I don’t know, and that everyone rested on f35 if there is f22?

      F-22 actually can not work on the ground. He has surface mapping, he has problems with target recognition on the background of the earth (although maybe it’s finished?), They are few and their production is completed. This is a pure fighter for gaining superiority in the air.
      1. Horde
        Horde 21 August 2013 19: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        F-22 cannot actually work on the ground


        it’s vryatli, by definition, if the airplane is of the 5th generation, then it is also a bomber. Now there are no clean destroyers.
        1. yanus
          yanus 21 August 2013 19: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Horde
          Quote: Wedmak
          F-22 cannot actually work on the ground


          it’s vryatli, by definition, if the airplane is of the 5th generation, then it is also a bomber. Now there are no clean destroyers.

          Do not argue, just look at the performance characteristics and armament nomenclature
  37. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 21 August 2013 18: 12 New
    0
    strange, amers are obsessing their new development. this is some kind of surprise, we won’t believe them
  38. Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 August 2013 18: 45 New
    +3
    Always seriously questioned criticism of the F-35 program. For
    1) Despite the fact that the desire to save money (creating one aircraft instead of three) and complete universality really led to a number of controversial design solutions, the F-35 does not see any particularly global technological problems. It is criticized for its low speed and thrust-weight ratio (although in combat configurations of thrust-weight ratio), as well as for poor visibility. However, it is not entirely clear why a mass strike fighter needs Mig-31 speed. It’s not an interceptor. In the BVB (which had not been seen for 20 years), it’s not going to climb either. Yes, there are difficulties, let's see how they solve them. But this is not fatal. The problems with the price are more relevant, since this can affect the mass production. If the program is significantly cut, then yes, we can say that the F-35 program has big problems .
    2) No opponents are visible. More or less massively, 5-generation fighters can be produced only by the PRC, but the adoption of the J-20, J-31 is not possible before 2018-2019 due to engine problems.
    3) The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy have an alternative. Silent Ilg, Silent Hornet, F-16 block 60. If the US military were very unhappy with the F-35 they would just buy other planes. In fact, only for the KMP F-35 is uncontested .
    However, although Boeing, of course, is actively promoting its products, this does not happen.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 21 August 2013 19: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Odyssey
      Always seriously questioned criticism of the F-35 program.

      And rightly so. At one time, all US military programs were subjected to heated discussion in the press and were accompanied by dissatisfied exclamations about rising costs and the characteristics obtained. This is a normal process, criticism is important, it causes pressure on the manufacturer, forcing him to be more responsible for the project. We have nothing to criticize, the military-industrial complex is a priori innocent. Nothing really is known about the same T-50, whether it has problems, whether it corresponds to the TTZ, and only the practice of rewriting the TTZ due to the fact that it was not possible to achieve the required parameters is practiced in full ...
      PS: with regards to ridiculed F-35. 26.07.2013/100/126 There was news that the XNUMXth car was put on the final assembly line. This aircraft is one of XNUMX that are located in the workshops of Lockheed Martin and are currently at various stages of construction.
      1. Sobol
        Sobol 21 August 2013 22: 52 New
        0
        2 Nayhas: So, after all, this does not mean that the F-35 is a Wunderwafer. Look at AvtoVAZ - these are also building. I understand that the comparison is not entirely correct, but it is possible to discern an analogy (if desired). As for the T-50, it’s better to see someone else’s mistakes and not make them, than to step on the same rake.
  39. spirit
    spirit 21 August 2013 19: 10 New
    0
    Yeeeee **** and Marines to the program) We would have done a better deep modernization of the harrier, or created a hotel program, but decided to save some money) everyone has their own requirements and wishes, sometimes contradicting each other, it’s difficult to push all this into 1 plane)
  40. poquello
    poquello 21 August 2013 20: 02 New
    +1
    "The F-35's inferiority became apparent five years ago during a computer simulation organized and run by John Stillion and Harold Scott Purdue, two analysts at the RAND Research Center in Santa Monica, California."

    It’s nice to read that the likely enemy’s planes are bad, but they don’t inspire confidence in simulations. About the best warriors, the TV show periodically goes on, like a simulation of a fight between a Spartan and a Chingachguk - such crap.
    1. TRAFFIC
      TRAFFIC 21 August 2013 20: 24 New
      0
      That kind of simulation is there, you can see for yourself http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.p
      df
      in those conditions, no country would be able to do anything, well, if China really attacked American bases, its east coast would turn into a nuclear ashes, so the value of this simulation would tend to zero. And many questions cause data for comparison, take characteristics planes from Janes magazine are somehow not serious. laughing
      1. poquello
        poquello 22 August 2013 00: 13 New
        +1
        in another simulation
        “According to the results of research by the Andreson Swedish Military Research Center, the J-11B in the simulated air battles, the J-11B surpassed the Su-35BM, the American F22 and the Russian fighter were also compared. The representatives of the Sukhoi company were unsatisfied with the results.

        http://www.inosmi.ru/fareast/20100905/162670138.html#ixzz2cdN4la00 "
      2. poquello
        poquello 22 August 2013 00: 16 New
        +1
        My apologies, I pressed the wrong way, my wife with the south took out my brain, I'll put it in another place.
  41. Irokez
    Irokez 21 August 2013 22: 17 New
    +2
    Well, then compare it.
    Maximum take-off weight:
    - F-35A: 31800 kg
    - F-35B: 27000 kg
    - F-35C: 31800 kg
    - MiG-35 23500 kg
    Maximum speed:
    - F-35: 1700 km / h (1,6 M)
    - MiG-35 2100 km / h
    Flight Range: Maximum:
    - F-35A: 2200 km
    - F-35B: 1670 km
    - F-35C: 2520 km
    - MiG-35 2000 km without PTB
    The combat load:
    - F-35 8100 kg
    - MiG-35 6500 kg
    Like an F-35 melee fighter in a loser.
    At distant distances (up to 130 km), the MiG-35 with the FAR will see the F-35, and the previously launched missile with the F-35 still does not mean anything and whether it will ever stand on it. The missile defense and maneuvers give a great chance for the MiG-35 to survive, and besides, it also has decent electronics and even better electronics than the Europeans (well, at least they say so).
    The F-35 tactic is thought to be similar to the Jackal or Hyena in nature. Either crush a lot, or sneak quietly, play a little and quietly carry off your legs (although this is a justifiable tactic). And most likely at the African Theater of Action where there are no normal radars or they have long been suppressed. With serious countries, they are jackals and hyenas and will always fly with special aircraft suppressing radars and using electronic warfare, as well as use long-range radars such as Avax and the like.
    The stuffed electronics can quickly be leveled by a rocket explosion with high-frequency radiation of radio waves (as in a nuclear explosion) and from the 5th extinction a normal 4th will turn out.
    Of course, there are advantages - this is a longer flight time and a greater load (1,7 tons more), but it seems to me that the SU-34 can eat it.
    1. vm68dm
      vm68dm 22 August 2013 06: 20 New
      +1
      On the MiG-35 there is a radar with AFAR Jacques-A works in the X range. This range is made f35 and hard to see. Another thing is the Su-35s with headlamp radars in the wings working in the L range. Can see f35 for 80-90 km ! And of course both have OLS!
  42. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 21 August 2013 22: 52 New
    0
    There is one film, Contact is called. So there was built an object at the price of one. So maybe in the case of the F-35 the same story (in the movie about the second object knew only selected personalities wink ).
  43. AlexMH
    AlexMH 21 August 2013 23: 40 New
    0
    It turns out that having created a very effective and advanced, but extremely expensive and highly specialized F-22, the Americans said "No, such an aircraft cannot be the main fighter, let's make a cheap 5th generation universal single-engine aircraft that can be sold for reasonable money to all allies " And again they stepped on exactly the same rake plus the costs of universalization. This is what leads to incorrectly compiled TK, lack of competition and undercover games. They, of course, will bring it (otherwise too many goals will fly there, and you need to fly on something), but it will be something like the F-16 - the advertised "cheap" plane, inferior to slightly more expensive contemporaries.
  44. Witold
    Witold 22 August 2013 00: 02 New
    -1
    Quote: Marrying
    So, in the next 10 years, the USA may not pay attention to problems with the new plane at all, but can easily launder money on it.


    They are engaged in money laundering in the Russian Federation, and in the United States they report to Congress for every dollar. Do not hang your sores on others. And actually, for the manner of counting other people's money.
  45. Witold
    Witold 22 August 2013 00: 08 New
    0
    Wedmak-F-22 cannot actually work on the ground. He has surface mapping, he has problems with target recognition against the background of the earth (although maybe it’s finished?), They are few and their production is completed. This is a pure fighter for gaining superiority in the air.

    You designed it, did you fly it? What are the unsubstantiated allegations.
  46. scientist
    scientist 22 August 2013 02: 33 New
    0
    In his youth as a RTVshnik for a long time he provided flights and guidance of the MiG-31 and I understand perfectly that heavy fighters are not intended for close maneuverable combat. In fact, this is an air defense missile system designed to deliver long-range missiles and this must be done very quickly. I think the same main task and the F-35 so it should be evaluated, delivery speed, number and probability of targets being hit.
    The polemic about stealth is also not clear to me, it is important for front-line aviation and air defense breakthroughs, but F-117 is impossible to solve this problem for m / dm bands in Yugoslavia, and as soon as it turns on the radar the most primitive RTR system, including including airborne, will detect it for at least 600km.
    In my opinion, all 5th generation aircraft should be unmanned altogether, because the reliability and secrecy of modern communication and control systems, navigation and computer systems have long allowed this to be done.
  47. rodevaan
    rodevaan 22 August 2013 04: 43 New
    0
    By the way, about the vertical take-off and landing - it was not for nothing that someone mentioned that pilots do not like this function. I have an uncle pilot - I used to fly Sushki, I somehow asked him about the function of vertical take-off / landing aircraft. He told me that crap is all that is for an airplane - this is an absolutely unnecessary option, since there is more harm from it than any good. 1. The vulnerability of an aircraft increases tenfold, and not only from air-to-air missiles, but also from banal cannon armament of aircraft and ground targets - in this semi-dependent position, the aircraft is an immovable or inactive ideal target. 2. Mare fuel consumption, and as a result, a sharp narrowing of the radius of the aircraft. This factor is very important both for aerial combat and for actions against ground targets, and in general for gaining air supremacy - a sharp limitation of the time of attack and combat, a decrease in the chances of a second attack, etc. 3. The very system of vertical take-off and landing on airplanes is still expensive equipment that is very demanding on operating conditions, weather, windiness, humidity, climate. Due to adverse conditions, this system often fails, which leads to a large accident rate and the risk of death of the crew.
    I remember in the USSR there was once a Yak-38, a deck aircraft with vertical take-off and landing. The project was unsuccessful for the same reasons that I mentioned, and this aircraft was abandoned.

    F-35 suffer the exact same problems. The project is very expensive and, as a result, unprofitable. It will all end with the fact that either they will be removed from service, or they will simplify the design features and abandon many functions as imperfect.
  48. vm68dm
    vm68dm 22 August 2013 05: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: serge-68-68
    Once V. Suvorov (with all the nuances in relation to him), well “shaved off” the critics of the Soviet amphibious tank (criticized for weak armor, weak weapons, etc.) offering to show another such tank ...
    According to F-35. I believe that all present evaluate it only from the standpoint of the messages of the "open press"? Personally, I accept this information only for lack of another.
    Yes, the 35th is probably very problematic. But all constructions have "childhood diseases", especially in such a complex one as this machine. They will bring it to mind or not, but it will give, albeit an expensive, but invaluable experience for creating new and breakthrough models. After all, it is obvious that the standard capabilities of traditional jet aircraft have been exhausted in the same way as the propeller capabilities were once exhausted - improvement, “licking” is possible, but the new will only be fundamentally new.
    - There are different points of view. Time will tell who is right.
  49. Irokez
    Irokez 22 August 2013 17: 47 New
    +2
    Something dumb some. I saw this video a while ago, but for some reason Published on 09.07.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX. Just re-published and horror stories with superiority catch up.
    Here is an excerpt from the description of the MIG-35.
    When working on the electronic board, several goals were pursued at once. First of all, achieving real multifunctionality of using the aircraft both day and night in any weather conditions.
    Secondly, a sharp increase in survival in aerial combat due to the developed radio-electronic and optoelectronic warning and counteraction systems.
    Thirdly, the increase in the range of the multi-channel (radar plus optical systems) information-aiming system.
    Finally, providing, on the one hand, a sufficiently high degree of autonomy of the fighter in solving combat missions, and on the other, the possibility of its inclusion in existing and prospective combat “systems of systems” similar to the F-35. As you know, all these tasks are characteristic of the fifth generation of fighters, but since the MiG-35 was created on the fourth-generation aerodynamic platform, it is classified as a “4 ++” aircraft.

    Nobody says that in electronics we will surpass the generally recognized leader, but we will not throw our hats and are not going to give way to the flying F-35.
    By the way, all this general information system for the troops works well only in peacetime, during conflicts, for some reason, the satellites all fall to the ground and communication starts to somehow suddenly junk and only individual training and own electronics on the plane will survive with a small fraction of support from third-party auxiliary systems.
  50. Army strong
    Army strong 22 August 2013 21: 59 New
    0
    F-35B fighter first sat on deck of a ship at night
    A promising American fighter for the first time performed a vertical night landing on the deck of the Uosp universal landing ship.