Military Review

"Don't shoot the pianist!" F-35 protection

144



- Gentlemen of the jury, the defendant did not admit his guilt and did not repent. But look at his face! Fat plump muzzle with traces of technology "stealth" ... in my opinion, he simply does not understand what we want from him.

Do you understand me, sir? Kan du tale Dansk? Türkçe konuşuyor musun?

- I assure you, gentlemen, F-35 speaks excellent English and Danish, and Turkish. The young polyglot perfectly understands Hebrew, Italian and Norwegian, and recently began to learn Japanese.
But he can not understand the main thing - what is he to blame?

Yes, F-35 is not holy righteous. An aircraft worth more than 100 million is worthy of harsh criticism and must comply with the most stringent customer expectations. He suffers heavily from "childhood diseases" and for the seventh year, since his first flight, he cannot reach operational readiness. The kid initially took on too much - in the dashing attempt to replace the F-16, F / A-18, AV-8 and A-10, he could not become either a nimble fighter, a formidable bomber, or a survivable attack aircraft.

But why so cruelly trample it in the dirt? Why break the life of the unfortunate young man? Where is your mercy and common sense, gentlemen? Who of you in your youth did not make mistakes?

Understand, ladies and gentlemen, the guy has a heavy inheritance. All of his imaginary "flaws" - the consequences of our difficult era. You blame the F-35 for not meeting the requirements of the “fifth generation”, while you yourself are not able to clearly articulate the requirements for the “fifth generation of fighters” ...



You claim that the F-35 does not have a cruising supersonic flight speed. But who said that this parameter plays such an important role in a real combat situation? Cruising supersonic is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of the creators of the “fifth generation of fighters”. As the “fifth generation” itself: in fact, the level of modern technologies does not allow creating a fundamentally new design; the only parameter that surpassed the characteristics of fourth-generation machines is the price.

Unable to give the plane at least some useful skills that could be claimed in the present conditions (unmanned control in battle or absolute invisibility in the electromagnetic spectrum), sly top managers and marketers came up with a brilliant advertising move - to set the requirements for "new »Generation of fighters. Thus, the “formless supersonic” (an interesting but far from the most important function), the hazy concept of “multifunctionality” (yeah, tell F-15E about it), the “glass cabin”, “inconspicuousness” and “super-maneuverability” ...

Stop! The last two parameters are clearly mutually exclusive paragraphs. Made with the technology of "stealth", the fuselage and the wing of the aircraft will not be effective from the point of view of the laws of aerodynamics.

For this reason, a comparison of Lightning with the Russian fighter of the 4 ++ generation Su-35 looks completely absurd. The large twin-engine Su-35 (empty weight 19 tons) and the lighter single-engine F-35A (empty weight 13 tons) are already in different “weight categories” and have different tasks, functions and purpose.

Su-35 can be confidently classified as a “fifth-generation fighter”, but with one single caveat: the heavy, multi-purpose Su-35 is the Russian view of the problem of a promising fighter. Being a direct heir to the T-10 platform - an unsurpassed masterpiece in the field of aerodynamics, Su-35 took the path of further developing its maneuverable qualities, “scoring” on the remaining requirements of the “fifth generation”, including the inconspicuous.



In turn, the program Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is an analogue of the unimplemented domestic program "Light Front Fighter" (LFI). The American solution of the “fifth generation” theorem, in which priority is given to stealth and some national features of the American aircraft industry (an impressive on-board electronics complex and advanced shock skills, the so-called “bomb carrier”).

The result is obvious:

Su-Xnumx. The plane that is capable of jokingly perform the "pancake" and "Pugachev's cobra". The brilliant Russian machine, abolishing the very concept of "turn radius", is exceptionally strong in melee combat, and in terms of its "maneuverability" today has no analogues in the world.

F-35A, on the contrary, demonstrates objective advantages at long and medium distances, while able to carry tons of bombs. But “dog dumps” are clearly contraindicated in him.



Whose decision is right - only a real fight in the sky will clarify. However, it is known that during the air war against Yugoslavia, all 12 air victories of the NATO Air Force were won in long-range and medium-range combat with the aid of the AIM-7 and AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range missiles (the last UR with a range of 100 + km and active gos actually refers to arms long range).

In this situation, a clear advantage remains for the F-35.

“Lightning” has a smaller visibility compared to “Dry” - its small dimensions affect (shorter than 7 meters, wingspan less by 4 meter) + full set of stealth technology attributes: skidless flashlight, internal suspension of armament, radio absorbing coatings and minimum radio-contrast elements on the outer surface of the fuselage and wings. Computer-based 3D-design based on the CATIA package made it possible with utmost precision to ensure the mutual positioning of large-size fighter design panels, reduce the number of seams and gap sizes, and reduce fastener volumes.

All this indicates a marked decrease in the EPR of the American F-35 in comparison with any of its existing competitors of Russian, Chinese or European production. The “American” will be the first to detect the enemy even if the capabilities of the F-35 and Su-35 detection tools are equal (which is unlikely - after all, on board the Lightning, in addition to the radar with active phased array AN / APG-81, an infrared system is installed AN / AAQ-37 detections from six opto-electronic sensors interacting with the EW and RTR AN / AAS-37 complex and IR / ANQS-40 sighting IR cameras, providing the pilot with an unprecedented level of environmental monitoring: navigation and piloting at night location detection Positions of working anti-aircraft weapons, warning of incoming missiles and enemy aircraft).

"Don't shoot the pianist!" F-35 protection

Radar image of the terrain, made using radar AN / APG-81

From the point of view of on-board electronics capabilities, Lightning fully meets the customer's expectations: the aiming and navigation complex will allow the fighter-bomber to equally effectively strike air and ground targets.

The AN / APG-81 radar can simultaneously operate in air-to-air and air-to-surface modes, carry out high-resolution mapping, and perform functions of electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare.

The AN / AAQ-37 optic-electronic system looks equally impressive - the system is able to automatically fix the positions of anti-aircraft weapons and detect enemy ballistic missile launches at a distance of up to 1300 km - it is no coincidence that the F-35 will be introduced into the US Navy anti-missile defense system.

The Yankees hope that every F-35 will become a cluster in a single information space of the Armed Forces - now every fighter is equipped with a MADL (Multifunction Advanced Datalink) broadband data line, specially designed for F-22, F-35 and B-2 stealth machines . In the future, it is planned to equip the F-35 with a highly secure infrared data transmission channel IFDL (Infra-Flight Data Link) for communication with US Air Force aircraft over short distances.

Frankly, an excellent tactical reconnaissance with an impressive array of tools for radar mapping of the terrain, visual, IR and RTR reconnaissance could grow out of Lightning.



Of the other positive qualities of the F-35, the most advanced information field of the cabin should be noted today. Panoramic multifunctional PCD display (Panoramic Cockpit Display) with 20 x 8 inches dimensions (50 x 20 cm), instead of the HUD, a HMDS computerized helmet guard sight (in the future, the aircraft can become “transparent” for the pilot) and a voice control system - all this gives its specific the advantages of the F-35 pilot, simplifies the assessment of the air situation and has a positive effect on the speed and accuracy of the decisions made.

In general, in all that relates to the field of on-board electronics, the F-35 is confidently ahead of even its older brother, the Raptor.



Gentlemen, after all that has been said above, it would be extremely incorrect to mock the F-35, calling it a worthless project, created only for cutting the American budget. Should Lightning be “defamed” for failing to perform a “pancake” (turning in the air at 360 ° with almost no loss of speed), if the American concept of the “fifth generation lightweight fighter” did not initially envisage the creation of a “super-maneuverable” aircraft with an OBE?

In exchange, Lightning received a number of specific advantages related to stealth and combat informational support. In addition, created as a replacement for the F-16, "Lightning" is trying to become a multipurpose fighter-bomber. Internal weapons bays were originally designed for the suspension of guided bombs and air-launched cruise missiles. And if the situation permits - in the course will go six external points of the suspension arms. It is no coincidence that the declared combat load of the F-35A exceeds 8 tons - more than that of a solid tactical bomber Su-24.

In comparison with the promising Russian fighter aircraft MiG-35, Su-35 or PAK FA, the F-35 Lightning II is not a bad or good aircraft. He is just different. A completely different concept of air combat, virtually eliminating the possibility of “knife fights” (knife fight), a completely different purpose and function, largely related to striking ground targets, as well as working as a guided combat unit in a single Pentagon intellectual space.

Carefree childhood

Throughout his youth, Lightning fought relentlessly in the seizures of childhood diseases, regularly surprising its creators with various tricks from its high-tech "stuffing". It seems that it has become annoying to many - so much so that in the West there are already high-profile proposals from senior officials that it’s time to stop this whole circus and channel money to more sensible projects.

Among other things, Lightning suffers severely from “split personality” - as conceived by the designers, a fighter for the Air Force, a carrier-based aircraft for the Navy and a “vertical line” for the Marine Corps were built on the basis of a single F-35 design.

If the requirements for the deck F-35C could be combined with the requirements for the ground F-35A, without much damage to the designs of both machines, then an attempt to build an VT-planter F-35B in the body of a conventional fighter turned out to be a disaster. Due to the need to accommodate a hoist fan, the Lightning fuselage was too wide, which further worsened the already low LTX for the entire F-35 family of fighters.

It's amazing how such a “wagon” managed to get up in the air!

The illusion of the collapse of the F-35 program is skillfully supported by media that is susceptible to sensation, in which the clumsy lodger cannot fly at heights above 7000 meters, fears thunderstorms and cannot land on the deck due to the extremely short landing hook. Electronics junk, pilots choke, guns do not shoot ... well, the end!

However, despite the deafening whistles and insults to the JSF program, it is worth noting that None of the 72 F-35s built (August 2013 data) were lost in flight accidents.

The Yankees methodically correct the identified problems and with admirable perseverance push their Über-plane on the world market, simultaneously managing to improve the design. F-35 has not yet been adopted by any of the combat squadrons and has not participated in any of the military conflicts, and the developers are already thinking about the promising composition of equipment and weapons of the new generation.

Popular opinions about the "buggy" electronics and insurmountable difficulties that allegedly arise when trying to integrate all the "most complicated" F-35 systems into a single on-board information complex are not without a good reason. The machine, of course, difficult, but the main thing with its operation - high-quality software. And with this, as usual, there are no critical problems, especially given the efforts that Lockheed Martin spends on developing software for its new technology.

The reasoning in the “robots will destroy the world” style is worthy only of junior students of humanitarian specialties. But anyone who has ever come across real engineering knows that electronics is the most reliable and unpretentious component of any system. All the rest: mechanics, electricians, hydraulics cause much more trouble and problems - for example, the main rule when creating spacecraft (where reliability is key): as few as possible moving mechanical parts. Especially not in respect of the progressive movement, if possible, try to convert it into a rotational.


AL-41F1С - one of the variants "117 Products" (engine of the I-th stage for fifth-generation Russian fighters)

For this reason, the operation of the “high-tech” F-35 in the front-line units is unlikely to be more difficult to operate the Su-35 with the AL-41F1С engine with thrust vector control. Creating an engine with a shock wave (or at least OVT) requires remarkable efforts, high technologies and unique structural materials, which for a long time retain their physical properties in a raging blue flame of a jet stream.

Repair of such a machine in the "field" conditions, without the presence of high-class specialists (welders, mechanics assembly work), in principle, impossible. The operation of a fighter with a UHT (CLE) will require an exceptionally high "technical culture" among pilots and support personnel of air bases and, as usual, will cost you a lot of money.

Horizons of innovation

It is fair to admit that in the form in which it exists, the F-35 is not particularly needed by the US Armed Forces. The JSF program is pure American-style “divorce”: everything is very bright, powerful, colorful, just breathtaking. But in fact: all the promising technologies implemented in the Lightning design — super-radar with AFAR, all-IR-detection systems, multifunctional PCD displays, helmet-mounted sights and elements of the stealth technology — all this could be successfully implemented (and already implemented !) on 4 + generation machines

Otherwise, the F-35 is an ordinary fighter with rather mediocre LTH and very high cost.

Due to the relatively small number of F-35s, and the low rates of procurement of these aircraft, the Lightning will not be able to completely replace the aircraft of the previous generation: this is especially evident in naval versions of the F-35C (only 260 vehicles - and this is for 8-10 aircraft carriers of the US Navy!)
The conclusion is obvious: F-35C will serve side by side with proven F / A-18, especially since Boeing (the main competitor of Lockheed Martin) has already announced the development of a new version of its F / A-18E / F - the new The aircraft, which received the unofficial name "Silent Hornet", has most of the signs of a "fifth-generation fighter", including a "glass cabin" and a hanging stealth container for armament.

At the same time, the JSF program has become a powerful generator of innovative technologies. Nowadays, the creation of technological masterpieces like the F-35 is much more difficult than taking a satellite to near-earth orbit.
It is clear that the Yankees in the coming 5-10 years will bring their "Lightning" to the mind and launch it into mass production. Our task is to find a worthy answer.

Author:
144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 26 August 2013 08: 36 New
    +2
    The answer is the C500 system - if you place these installations in dangerous directions and combine them into a single automatic system that will shoot down any foreign object WITHOUT HUMAN PARTICIPATION, then you can forget about the F-35 RAPTORS ADVANTAGES and other super duper aircraft.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 26 August 2013 08: 56 New
      27
      A dislike of America should not mean the indiscriminate chattering of all American technology. Attacks on the F-35 and F-22 are unfair. Of course, "Lightning" is not without childhood diseases. But what technology doesn’t have them? As for maneuverability, "dog dumps" are a thing of the past. Aircraft will smash each other from a distance, and the one with a “long arm and sharp ears” will win. There is already a line of people who want to buy this equipment. Although they are members of NATO three times, nobody will buy very expensive equipment for beautiful eyes, which means that rappers and lightnings are literally crammed with state-of-the-art electronics and the most advanced weapons. One vertical takeoff is what the modifications have. Underestimating someone else’s technology has never led to good.
      1. Argon
        Argon 26 August 2013 09: 41 New
        13
        We already talked about “Dog landfills” - in the late 50s, as a result, in Vietnam, we and Amers had to hang up containers of PASs and then in a hurry to create modifications with full VPU. Another thing is that air-to-air ASPs managed at the present stage may well to compensate for the lack of maneuverability of the platform that they are using. In general, the general tone of the article pleases despite some emotionality and opuses in the design, but an understanding (although not yet complete) of the situation as a whole comes.
        1. Airman
          Airman 26 August 2013 11: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: Argon
          We already talked about “Dog landfills” - in the late 50s, as a result, in Vietnam, we and Amers had to hang up containers of PASs and then in a hurry to create modifications with full VPU. Another thing is that air-to-air ASPs managed at the present stage may well to compensate for the lack of maneuverability of the platform that they are using. In general, the general tone of the article pleases despite some emotionality and opuses in the design, but an understanding (although not yet complete) of the situation as a whole comes.

          Not everything is as simple as the author writes. Aircraft alone do not fly into battle, and not everything depends on the pilot. Postulate: saw first - won is not always true. The most powerful locator, allowing the first to see the enemy’s aircraft, you can see a passive radar from an even greater range. Do not forget about ground-based radars and AWACS aircraft, which can direct fighters. The one to whom the coordinates of the goal were transmitted first will have a better chance of winning. And about the close maneuverable battles ..... so not only planes are in the air, because there are also air defense systems.
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom 28 August 2013 22: 08 New
            +2
            I don’t understand who needs to defend this miscarriage of the American military-industrial complex, while belittling our achievements?
            guns don't shoot

            But he doesn’t have cannons, he’s not adapted for close combat.

            promote their uber plane in the world market

            they just forgot to say that Russia came out on top in the world in the sale of fighter jets.

            Where it says
            mechanics, electromechanics, hydraulics cause much more trouble and problems

            for some reason, by chance, there is a photo of the best Russian engine for fighters ...
      2. avt
        avt 26 August 2013 09: 51 New
        11
        Quote: xetai9977
        As for maneuverability, "dog dumps" are a thing of the past. Aircraft will smash each other from afar, and the one with a "long arm and sharp ears" will win.

        It seems that it used to be, planes, rockets, down with the guns, I don’t remember when and where, but some old pictures with planes and rockets and guns above the jungle pop up in my memory. laughing
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 26 August 2013 12: 55 New
          +3
          But here it’s not so much a matter of close maneuverable combat, but the fact that the machine’s over-maneuverability is an additional security, because if the pilot knows that he cannot enter the plane into modes from which there is no way out, he will focus on to ensure flight safety, and over-maneuverability gives the pilot the opportunity not to focus on speed indicators, etc., but to concentrate on solving the target problem.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 26 August 2013 13: 32 New
            0
            Only super maneuverability is limited by the capabilities of the human body.
            1. vjhbc
              vjhbc 26 August 2013 23: 52 New
              +4
              but it makes it possible to escape from the attack with a short-term loss of consciousness and physical activity while the aircraft continues to pilot and fight and the pilot is brought into condition with an anti-loading suit and automatic medication intervention, and if he escaped from a missile attack you can already attack from a favorable distance and foreshortening
              Quote: Pimply
              Only super maneuverability is limited by the capabilities of the human body.
          2. brace
            brace 26 August 2013 23: 43 New
            -6
            Well yes, like 10 T34 and a royal tiger. With all the maneuverability, only rare Heroes survived the opportunity to slap the beast. 10 to 1 or more? This dispute was then resolved when the ax came to replace the light rapier. Sorry for the messy examples.
            1. tomket
              tomket 27 August 2013 08: 20 New
              +2
              in the end, who hoisted the flag over the Reichstag?
              1. user1212
                user1212 18 December 2013 12: 39 New
                +1
                Well, a comparison. Why T-34 with Pz.Kpfw. II do not compare? They did not count how many Germans needed Pz.Kpfw. III to fill up one Kvshku? By the way, list ka cases of collision of the T-34 and the royal tiger? How many were there?
        2. tomket
          tomket 27 August 2013 08: 19 New
          0
          It’s time to switch to drones, by the way the question is, why doesn’t anyone create unmanned tanks ???
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 26 August 2013 16: 05 New
        0
        Quote: xetai9977
        Of course, "Lightning" is not without childhood diseases. But what technology doesn’t have them?

        You really don’t understand? The requirements for airplanes for various purposes are different and often contradictory; one does not have to justify oneself with "childhood illnesses."
        1. vjhbc
          vjhbc 27 August 2013 00: 03 New
          0
          Yes, this plane is not superman in our understanding, but there is one thing, but are there any prerequisites that the United States will have to wage a war to deplete such people in the next 20 years? I don’t see this first. it follows the third us can experiment to develop technologies and now look, as soon as there are more than 200 the us will unleash small wars to develop these technologies, and we would have to cough up blood to keep up with them
          Quote: Setrac
          Quote: xetai9977
          Of course, "Lightning" is not without childhood diseases. But what technology doesn’t have them?

          You really don’t understand? The requirements for airplanes for various purposes are different and often contradictory; one does not have to justify oneself with "childhood illnesses."
      4. Veles25
        Veles25 26 August 2013 16: 30 New
        +3
        ..................
      5. TSOOBER
        TSOOBER 26 August 2013 17: 12 New
        +9
        “Dog dumps” have been buried since long-range missiles appeared — and things are still there, depriving a plane of “confident” melee and in return you will get enemy tactics - close combat! Each aircraft has both strengths and weaknesses, and knowing the weak spot, the enemy uses this knowledge with maximum benefit for himself!
        1. Santa Fe
          26 August 2013 17: 57 New
          +4
          Quote: TSOOBER
          "Dog landfills" have been buried since long-range missiles appeared, and things are still there

          not so categorically

          Fights in the sky over Lebanon (debut of the 4-th oath) - the main part of the victories was achieved with the use of Sperrow (medium-range SD)

          Yugoslavia, Iraq - 100% of all air victories - SD medium and long range

          As for the Phantom and the hot sky of Vietnam - the Yankees acted recklessly. In those days, air-to-air missiles, radar systems and computers did not yet achieve the necessary efficiency
          1. Witold
            Witold 27 August 2013 20: 47 New
            -1


            Fights in the sky over Lebanon (debut of the 4-th oath) - the main part of the victories was achieved with the use of Sperrow (medium-range SD)

            Over Lebanon in 1982 used Piton with a range of up to 80 km. For 2 days, 88 MiGs 23-25 ​​without loss.
      6. Siberian German
        Siberian German 26 August 2013 21: 20 New
        +2
        I wrote about this somehow, and although I was instructed then I will repeat the minuses - 35 flies in the combat units, they lick it now and pack fa while testing - this is the main minus of our aircraft and the biggest plus of the American. Nobody can cancel them for dog dumps opinion
      7. Hug
        Hug 27 August 2013 03: 10 New
        +1
        I agree with you 100%! And, literally, almost word-for-word he wrote already at the forum dedicated to the F-35, however, he underwent an almost universal "Atu it!"
        In general, sometimes when you read comments, there is a feeling that the majority of forum users are trying to replace the balanced discussion with patriotic ecstasy.
        But, actually, I’m not talking about this, but about the article and its author: I put 5+ for excellent analysis, easy syllable + humor!
    2. Civil
      Civil 26 August 2013 09: 11 New
      +6
      F 35, they have already released about 100 pieces, this is a given and it took place, as if some experts had not buried some cheers.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 26 August 2013 10: 56 New
      +6
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      The answer will be the C500 system - if you place these installations in dangerous directions

      An adequate response to an enemy aircraft can only be your own aircraft with no worse performance. Even the USSR, not to mention the Russian Federation, lacked the ability to block all dangerous areas with ground-based air defense systems.
      1. Santa Fe
        26 August 2013 11: 00 New
        -2
        Quote: Nayhas
        Even the USSR, not to mention the Russian Federation, lacked the ability to block all dangerous areas with ground-based air defense systems.

        Why do this?
        is someone going to bomb Russia using conventional weapons?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 26 August 2013 11: 21 New
          -12
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          is someone going to bomb Russia using conventional weapons?

          It seems not, in tales that "NATA and Iya" sleeps and sees how to enslave us, I do not believe.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 26 August 2013 12: 13 New
          +3
          It is likely in the future - China.
        3. Lone gunman
          Lone gunman 26 August 2013 12: 21 New
          0
          A normal article (Oleg Kaptsov?), I put a (+) article, although it is controversial, but the one closest to reality, I think that Pogosyan initially focuses on over-maneuverability, and not on stealth (our country is not the richest), don’t you think that their stealth is very visible on our radars ?! As you rightly said, “is someone going to bomb Russia using conventional weapons?”, and this confirms that the F-35 is mainly against third world countries I made and am making such a conclusion, but the plane is good, there are already a lot of innovations in it.
      2. Airman
        Airman 26 August 2013 11: 47 New
        +6
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
        The answer will be the C500 system - if you place these installations in dangerous directions

        An adequate response to an enemy aircraft can only be your own aircraft with no worse performance. Even the USSR, not to mention the Russian Federation, lacked the ability to block all dangerous areas with ground-based air defense systems.

        Now we don’t even have enough radars to create a continuous radar field at least from a height of 500 m, not to mention active air defense systems.
    4. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 26 August 2013 11: 18 New
      +6
      It is clear that in the case of the beginning of the database at the positions of C500, airfields and the entire air defense will be hit by drones and KR. The strikes will continue until the complete destruction or exhaustion of the capabilities of the air defense system and aviation. And only then the f-35 will appear and begin to finish off the remnants of the ground army.
      Hope only for nuclear weapons.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 26 August 2013 12: 59 New
        +8
        As for maneuverability, "dog dumps" are a thing of the past. Aircraft will smash each other from afar, and the one with a "long arm and sharp ears" will win.


        The truth is somewhere in the middle. Here several factors will play: whether the air defense system has been preserved, whether there is target designation from satellites, how good the E35 enemy EW protection is. One thing is clear if the F35 goes to the “dog dump” with Russian dryers. Therefore, firing rockets, he will dump to support his air defense and fighter cover. The tactics and technical capabilities of the warring parties come to the fore. hi
    5. berimor
      berimor 26 August 2013 15: 26 New
      +5
      Nonsense and illiteracy are complete !!!! You comrade Lech from ZATULINKI absolutely do not have knowledge of modern air defense! Once the infamous General Secretary Khrushchov had already proposed cutting aviation and replacing it with missiles. But ... no matter how super duper the air defense system may be, it is, in the end, “punched” and the strike groups of the enemy aviation rush into the hole that has formed !!!! It takes place in the first grade in the "science" "Air Defense" !!! And in spite of any innovations, so far nothing new has been invented in this “science”!
      1. Lech from ZATULINKI
        Lech from ZATULINKI 27 August 2013 03: 27 New
        0
        berimor - well let's say we do not have a C500, but there are mainly SU and MIG of different classes.
        Do you really think our aviation will chase after every drone with a massive airstrike, your professorial reasoning does not withstand any criticism.
        I remember the story of the destruction of YUGOSLAVIA-the famous f-117 who shot down? That's right - our S-200 missile launcher.
    6. Joker
      Joker 26 August 2013 20: 22 New
      0
      С500-if you place these installations on dangerous directions and integrate them into a single automatic system that will knock down any alien object WITHOUT HUMAN PARTICIPATION, then you can forget about the advantages of F-35 Raptors and other super-duper aircraft equipment.

      Yeah, they will launch a swarm in front of the drones and there won't be these C-500, will they recharge from the air?
    7. vjhbc
      vjhbc 27 August 2013 00: 06 New
      +1
      Well, for us, I think the best air defense is our tanks at their airfields
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      The answer is the C500 system - if you place these installations in dangerous directions and combine them into a single automatic system that will shoot down any foreign object WITHOUT HUMAN PARTICIPATION, then you can forget about the F-35 RAPTORS ADVANTAGES and other super duper aircraft.
  2. Cormorants
    Cormorants 26 August 2013 08: 41 New
    0
    To feel sorry for him, this impudent youth wants to take hold of the sky, our sky. T-50 besiege him.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 26 August 2013 11: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Cormorants
      T-50 besiege him.

      Little is known about the T-50, how many problems have arisen and what difficulties there are. They say nothing to us, only enthusiastic slogans. And there can be no problems, if in Soviet times the creation of each car was accompanied by rummages, crashes and an endless transfer of delivery of the car to the fuel and lubricants, and then a long fine-tuning in the troops, now the general likelihood that the T-50 will pass the traffic police at all is fairly low .
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 26 August 2013 12: 14 New
      +5
      Do not make me laugh. F-35 fiefdom now, and in the future - Africa, Asia, the Middle East. Poking in Russia in this way doesn’t make sense to the States.
  3. 31231
    31231 26 August 2013 08: 45 New
    0
    Oleg of course well describes many topics, but something fed up with this topic with the F-35.
  4. avt
    avt 26 August 2013 08: 47 New
    +4
    Here in the rating article is not enough where the F-35 is the best, well, maybe after the F-22. Let it be the best and even to Oleg’s horror - deck laughing . If only he wouldn’t be brought to mind for longer, well, “allies” - probable friends soon received in this form.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 18: 46 New
      -1
      Quote: avt
      Let it be the best and even to Oleg’s horror - deck

      The Best - F-35A

      Deck 35C - cheap, just compare their performance characteristics and combat load with the F-35A
      I am silent about F-35B VTOL
  5. ramsi
    ramsi 26 August 2013 08: 53 New
    +4
    the main problem, as I see it, is the saturation, on our part, of the battle zone with long-wave locators
  6. Krsk
    Krsk 26 August 2013 08: 55 New
    +2
    Nothing is clear ... Blah blah blah figures facts all the best everything is innovative and the fly ... AVNO. The same thing to bring to the ring of the middleweight champion of WBA and champion of tekken computer ... I think the chances of weighing are pointless. Everything is just there, either you are a high-class fighter or they will tell you: this is our sky. And scare dear Papuans prodigies ... Well, frivolously like that

    PS ... he plays as he can
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 26 August 2013 09: 31 New
      +4
      heated debate over a given topic


      1. Krsk
        Krsk 27 August 2013 11: 30 New
        +1
        Well, if the raptor in the computer game is stronger, then we don’t have any chances ... In vain we come up with a construct ... But the raptor bang bang and then from the machine gun tra that and the whole war is over The Russian Air Force is completely defeated ... But to hell to you bald our dear pissing "drugan" If your superfood wafer F 117 Yugoslavs from 125 ki have failed then in our sky you won't even have 2 rest.
  7. vinni
    vinni 26 August 2013 09: 59 New
    +2
    The author is right !!! The problem must be approached comprehensively. Indeed, the F-35 is a different airplane and a completely different application concept. First of all, the F-35, like the F-22, are “invasion” aircraft, i.e. for actions on foreign territory, which, in fact, is what the Anglo-Saxons are aiming for with amers at the head ... They never planned military operations on their own territory ... We are not going to invade anywhere, so the emphasis is on creating powerful and rich layered air defense ( Now-East Kazakhstan). In such conditions, there is no need to implement all the F-35 bells and whistles in our machines, although some elements are still being implemented ... If only our defense industry got up from its knees in order to produce air defense means normally. Good luck to our specialists !!!
  8. Midshipman
    Midshipman 26 August 2013 10: 05 New
    +3
    Something I do not catch up with, how in the radar image you can see the shadows from the trees ??? what no
    1. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 10: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Midshipman
      Something I do not catch up with, how in the radar image you can see the shadows from the trees ???

      ))) These are the subtleties of decoding radar images

      The higher the spatial resolution, the closer, according to the first impression, the visual perception of natural objects on radar images approaches optical images (although there are a lot of caveats because of the unusual for our visible spectrum of radar signal reflection / absorption / scattering)

      For example, the radar image of the pyramids in Giza
      1. Santa Fe
        26 August 2013 10: 45 New
        +2
        Here is another picture on this topic
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 26 August 2013 12: 00 New
          0
          funny, the shadow is really obtained when the satellite is on the side
    2. Basileus
      Basileus 26 August 2013 14: 31 New
      +1
      It’s just that the objects cover some part behind which the radar no longer sees. This is such a "radar" shadow)
      1. Santa Fe
        26 August 2013 17: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: Basileus
        cover up some part behind which the radar no longer sees. This is such a "radar" shadow)

        If the radar does not see this area, then how does it see “shadow from the object” there?))

        In fact, everything is much simpler - in a nutshell: if we could see the world in the radio range, we would see the “kingdom of crooked mirrors” - the radio waves are reflected (partially absorbed, partially scattered) from any structure having other electromagnetic parameters

        The “shadow” in the radar images is the area of ​​the secondary reflection of the signal, while this strange “shadow” can be directed directly to the radiation source - as the wave lies

        Deciphering such images (especially with a low resolution radar) is not an easy task, it requires ingenuity
  9. 0255
    0255 26 August 2013 10: 16 New
    +7
    Nevertheless, it is known that during the air war against Yugoslavia, all 12 NATO air victories were won in battle at long and medium distances using medium-range missiles AIM-7 and AIM-120 AMRAAM (the last UR with a flight range of 100+ km and active GOS actually refers to long-range weapons).
    In this situation, a clear advantage remains for the F-35.

    The Yugoslavs simply could not have long-range missiles. It is foolish to create concepts of close combat in a war where only 16 failed MiG-29s could oppose Serbs against hundreds or several hundred NATO fighters, which plus they flew individually. The Americans are proud of such “victories,” although it was impossible not to win. And we say or write in the comments - the Americans are so super-mega cool, they shot down as many as 16 MiGs. By the way, according to Serbian data, 5-6 Mig were shot down, the rest they wrote off.
    During exercises in Germany in the late 1980s, serviceable MiG-29s themselves conditionally shot down Western fighters at long distances. If there was a war, they would bring down for real.
    Remember how Rafal did Raptor in close combat. Remember Vietnam when the United States thought that Phantoms would shoot enemy (i.e. Soviet) planes from afar. Perhaps in vain they again refuse melee? It would be interesting to see the F-35 training battle with the Su-35, PAK FA, MiG-35. If the F-35 so famously knocks down the Su-35, as in an advertisement from Northrop-Grumman on YouTube, then it will be possible to claim its superiority.
    And why the United States does not suit the B-52, F-16 and F-15E as killers of the cities of oil-bearing and dissenting countries? Ordinary residents could be bombed with corn maize type Soviet U-2. U-2 is also invisible to radars)))
    1. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 10: 33 New
      -3
      Quote: 0255
      Serbs could oppose only 16 of faulty MiG-29

      malfunctioning?
      Quote: 0255
      And we say or write in the comments - the Americans are so super-mega cool, they shot down as many as 16 MiGs. By the way, according to Serbian data, 5-6 Migov was shot down

      the Serbs were not only MiG-29
      Quote: 0255
      Remember how Rafal did Raptor in close combat

      But no one intercepted him from a long distance
      Quote: 0255
      It would be interesting to watch the F-35 training battle with the Su-35, PAK FA, MiG-35.

      MiG-35 - will fly in the first round
      Su-35 - 50 / 50
      PAK FA - a car of another class and another "weight category"
      Quote: 0255
      And why the United States does not suit B-52, F-16 and F-15E as killers of the cities of oil-bearing and dissenting countries?

      Who told you that?

      When the war begins, the show-offs end, and the proven F-15E and F-16 killers go into action.
      1. Lone gunman
        Lone gunman 26 August 2013 12: 49 New
        0
        "MiG-35 - will fly in the first round
        Su-35 - 50 / 50
        PAK FA - a car of another class and another "weight category"

        The controversial statement, the Su-35 and the PAK FA are twin brothers one older, another younger, and the weight categories are the same as for the MiG-35, and not because our “flyers” didn’t want to buy it ?! I think that he is being finalized, but as the main rival of the F-35 I see our modified MiG-29OVTM234CUDKB))), in short - MiG-29!
      2. 0255
        0255 27 August 2013 17: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: 0255
        Serbs could oppose only 16 of faulty MiG-29

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        malfunctioning?

        all systems were denied flight in Serbian Mig, there were no accessories to them due to US sanctions.
        Quote: 0255
        And why the United States does not suit B-52, F-16 and F-15E as killers of the cities of oil-bearing and dissenting countries?


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Who told you that?

        When the war begins, the show-offs end, and the proven F-15E and F-16 killers go into action.

        Since the F-35 is being developed as a fighter with the function of a bomber, it’s probably all the same to replace the proven F-15E and F-16 killers.
      3. 0255
        0255 27 August 2013 17: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: 0255

        Remember how Rafal did Raptor in close combat


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But no one intercepted him from a long distance

        F-22s were not intercepted, because the United States did not dare to use it in its dirty wars, even against Libya. While he is fighting in cheers-patriotic American computer games and films as the United States is fighting with evil Russians, terrorists and aliens, like the F-35
    2. ankh-andrej
      ankh-andrej 26 August 2013 13: 54 New
      +4
      Yugoslav MiGs “suffered” due to an imperfect avionics. Simply put, they turned out to be blind to the recently modernized enemy aircraft. What is there to guess. The Yugoslavs also did not have AWACS systems, which cannot be said about the opposite side. And in the article here MiGs are buried. I wanted to put +, but I went too far.
  10. Rash
    Rash 26 August 2013 10: 27 New
    +3
    Quote: Midshipman
    Something I do not catch up with, how can one see shadows from trees on a radar image ??

    Exactly! Maybe it's still a thermal imaging shot of the area?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 10: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Rash
      Exactly! Maybe it's still a thermal imaging shot of the area?

      No.
      A little higher, I attached a couple of pictures on the topic of radar imaging of the Earth's surface

      Radar imagery is one of the promising types of remote sensing; the properties of radar images for forest decryption are still poorly understood. Examples of decoding by radar images of various categories of lands are known, separation into classes (coniferous, deciduous) of forest-covered lands, calculation of the height of stands based on measuring the length of the radar shadow of the forest canopy. The presence of shadows contributes to the visual perception of landscapes on radar images in the form of a three-dimensional terrain model.. When mixing radar images of the same territory, taken when shooting using different wavelengths and planes of polarization, color synthesized images are obtained that emphasize the features of the forest canopy (overgrown logging sites, stands of different densities, rock composition, etc.). Similarly to the materials of other surveys, multi-time radar images can be used for forest monitoring.

      And here, for example, the radar image of the airfield
  11. Nayhas
    Nayhas 26 August 2013 10: 40 New
    +1
    The article is definitely a plus. I would like to add that according to Lockheed Martin, the test process proceeds normally and all the required characteristics are confirmed. For example, on August 20, the F-35C first refueled in the air from the KS-135. In addition, Lockheed Martin, due to the fact that the production of F-22 was discontinued and production was reduced, F-16 increased the production of F-35. On July 26, it was reported that the final assembly of the 100th F-35, number AF-41, had begun, and another 125 vehicles were in varying degrees of readiness.
    The assertion that the F-35 will have to serve alongside senior comrades for a long time is undoubtedly true, but this cannot be attributed to shortcomings. For example, the first FA-18s began to arrive in the U.S. Navy back in May 1980, and the last flight of the F-14D squadrons VF-31 and VF-213 was completed on March 10, 2006, i.e. the process of re-arming from F-14 to F-18 (of course, all options are meant including SuperHornet) took 26 years and no one reproaches the United States for this.
    1. 0255
      0255 26 August 2013 21: 29 New
      +2
      I would like to add that according to Lockheed Martin, the test process proceeds normally and all the required characteristics are confirmed. For example, on August 20, the F-35C first refueled in the air from the KS-135.

      But no, Lockheed Martin admits: "we are pulling money from US taxpayers and half the world for a new flying iron." One might think that they have already accomplished the feat - they refueled from KS-135 13 years after the first flight, that’s the achievement.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 26 August 2013 22: 47 New
        0
        Quote: 0255
        One might think that they have already accomplished the feat - they refueled from KS-135 13 years after the first flight, that’s the achievement.

        Not just refueling. Achievement of critical and supercritical angles of attack, both with the open wings of the weapons compartment and with the external sling, vertical landing at night, flying at night in the “shutter” mode, real launch of the AIM-120 from the internal compartment ... In general, the plane so far confirms the characteristics...
        1. 0255
          0255 27 August 2013 17: 28 New
          +1
          Not just refueling. Achievement of critical and supercritical angles of attack, both with the open wings of the weapons compartment and with the external sling, vertical landing at night, flying at night in the “shutter” mode, real launch of the AIM-120 from the internal compartment ... In general, the plane so far confirms the characteristics...

          And all this 13 years after the first flight. Look at YouTube what the MiG-29 OVT and Su-37 are doing, which they abandoned. The F-35 never dreamed of.
          Air refueling and rocket launch were a sensation in the 1950s, when jet aircraft was booming. And to brag about the fact that in 2013 the flying iron finally refueled and launched a rocket is silly. What happened to the F-35 that from 2000 to 2013, he could not do this?
          And, again, it is foolish to conclude the concept of air combat after the Yugoslav war, where NATO won by quantity.
        2. 0255
          0255 27 August 2013 17: 33 New
          0
          For example, the first FA-18s began to arrive at the U.S. Navy back in May 1980, and the last flight of the F-14D squadrons VF-31 and VF-213 completed on March 10, 2006, i.e. the process of re-arming from F-14 to F-18 (of course, all options are meant including SuperHornet) took 26 years and no one reproaches the United States for this.

          The light F / A-18 was created as an addition to the heavy F-14, the type of ground-based "heavy F-15 + light F-16." The Grumman company was going to create a competitor F / A-1990E on the basis of the F-14 in the 18s, but it did not work out.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 27 August 2013 18: 20 New
            0
            Quote: 0255
            Light F / A-18 was created as an addition to the heavy F-14,

            F-14
            Empty weight: 18191 kg
            Curb weight: 26632 kg
            Maximum takeoff weight: 33720 kg

            F-18
            Empty: 11 200 kg
            Curb: 16 850 kg
            Max. take-off: 23 kg

            F / A-18E / F Super Hornet
            Weight empty: 13 387 kg
            Curb weight: 14 790 kg
            Normal takeoff weight: 21 320 kg
            Maximum takeoff weight: 29 937 kg

            F-18 light fighter?
            1. Santa Fe
              27 August 2013 20: 29 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              F-18 light fighter?

              10 tons of difference!

              The F / A-18 was originally designed as a multi-purpose attack aircraft to replace the A-6 and A-7 and was never positioned as a replacement for the heavy Tomcat interceptors.

              The opportunity to abandon the Tomcat appeared only in the early 2000s with the advent of F / A-18E / F
              F / a-18E / F - this is another car altogether, from the previous "Hornet" in it remains only the name
  12. Kipish
    Kipish 26 August 2013 10: 59 New
    +4
    “Stop! The last two parameters are clearly mutually exclusive paragraphs. Made with the use of stealth technology, the fuselage and wing of the aircraft will not be effective in terms of aerodynamic laws.”
    Tell me this T-50, it seems to me not to be tasteful.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 11: 09 New
      -4
      Quote: Kipish
      Say it T-50.

      What can I say. And so it is clear that "stealth" in relation to the T-50 is nothing more than a convention

      The protruding "ribs" of engine nacelles, protruding nozzles and a tail boom, a lot of radiocontrast details on the wing and fuselage - compared to the "sleek" sleek F-22
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 26 August 2013 11: 36 New
        -3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Sticking "ribs" of engine nacelles

        It seems that the creators of the T-50, for the sake of "super-maneuverability", sacrificed stealth, so delivering engines. Pretty dubious decision.
        1. Santa Fe
          26 August 2013 11: 57 New
          -1
          Quote: Nayhas
          so smashing engines.

          Here the opinion has already been voiced - for what reason the axes of the PAK FA engines do not coincide with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (it is even visually noticeable that they are “deployed” in different directions)?
          Thrust on the cosine of the angle. What for?

          It seems that the T-50 uber plane is a big scam from Sukhoi Design Bureau, a military version of the Superjet. Only a little was safeguarded: stealth, over-maneuverability, and as a result ...
          Quote: Nayhas
          that the creators of the T-50 for the sake of "super-maneuverability" sacrificed stealth,

          At the same time, the T-50 will merge dry Su-35 by maneuverability
          Especially with identical engines of the "first stage" - the so-called product 117

          After all, the Su-35 is lighter, it has a statically unstable layout, the shapes are ideal from the point of view of aerodynamics

          Unlike the T-50, where elements of stealth are introduced - or does someone naively believe that jokes with "parallel faces" have a positive effect on the aerodynamics of the aircraft?
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 26 August 2013 12: 05 New
            0
            as I understand it, parallelism of faces negatively affects visibility
            1. Santa Fe
              26 August 2013 12: 16 New
              0
              Quote: ramsi
              parallelism of faces negatively affects visibility

              on the contrary, positively

              one of the key elements of stealth technology

              but this is hardly effective in terms of aerodynamics and aircraft layouts
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 26 August 2013 14: 44 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Quote: ramsi
                parallelism of faces negatively affects visibility

                on the contrary, positively

                one of the key elements of stealth technology

                but this is hardly effective in terms of aerodynamics and aircraft layouts

                sorry, I didn’t understand: parallelism ... positively - in the sense is more noticeable? .. For some reason, it seems to me that parallelism of reflecting surfaces increases the area of ​​the total reflected surface
                1. Santa Fe
                  26 August 2013 18: 59 New
                  0
                  Quote: ramsi
                  sorry, I didn’t understand: parallelism ... positively - in the sense is more noticeable? .. For some reason, it seems to me that parallelism of reflecting surfaces increases the area of ​​the total reflected surface

                  second generation stealth machines

                  The meaning of "parallelism of faces and edges" - a stealth plane has only one (several) critical directions, when irradiated from which its ESR increases significantly. When irradiated from all other directions, the EPR is minimal - such a solution was first implemented in the design of the "Reptor"

                  As for the "sawtooth" joints of the external stealth panels, a different effect is here - direct gaps are strong reflectors, because they are deliberately broken into many small segments
                  1. ramsi
                    ramsi 27 August 2013 08: 48 New
                    0
                    I understand the logic of splitting one long line into several short and broken ones, but it’s definitely better not to be parallel in any plane (if possible, of course)
                    1. Santa Fe
                      27 August 2013 11: 43 New
                      0
                      Quote: ramsi
                      so that they are not parallel in any planes (if possible, of course)

                      Then get the "lame dwarf" F-117

                      Developing the second generation (B-2, F-22, F-35, PAK FA), aircraft designers and the military felt that it was more profitable to leave several potentially dangerous directions, but to keep the aerodynamics of the aircraft
                      1. ramsi
                        ramsi 27 August 2013 18: 07 New
                        0
                        perhaps, perhaps ... Although, judging by the underlined faces, the variable sweep could be a good compromise
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 26 August 2013 12: 26 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It seems that the T-50 uber plane is a big scam from Sukhoi Design Bureau, a military version of the Superjet. Only a little was safeguarded: stealth, over-maneuverability, and as a result ...

            There are already statements about the start of the development of a 6th generation fighter, "About this, as reported by RIA Novosti, the former commander in chief of the Russian Air Force Army General Peter Deinekin. According to him, the new aircraft will be unmanned." It’s just not clear why this is voiced by the retiree Deinekin, it casts doubt on the seriousness of the statement, although what is the demand for it? You can declare about the 7th generation and the tenth ...
          3. Avenger711
            Avenger711 26 August 2013 13: 20 New
            +1
            Su-35 is not easier. The success of SSJ has long been proven by the number of orders. As for the statically unstable layout, I did not hear any information about whether the T-50 was made on it, you can’t limit the aerodynamic focus point by eye.
            1. recrut6666
              recrut6666 27 August 2013 19: 43 New
              +1
              and how many orders does he have ??? the cat cried! sucked in Aeroflot superjets they cry over them there!
          4. postman
            postman 26 August 2013 23: 48 New
            +3
            I read the title ... Kaptsov? Looked exactly CAAAAPTSOV. You’ll soon regurgitate Dashka Dontsova (for sure)
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            for what reason do the axes of the PAK FA engines not coincide with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft

            We did not argue, but I forgot to answer (well, this is my opinion that there is no truth)
            1. To reduce the radar visibility from the back hemisphere (opponents are screaming) - take two circles (draw) and two cuts, sweep a bit cut from the axis = BODY OVERLAP (partially) the most radar can be seen - TURBINE AND COMPRESSOR
            2. Something does not fit into the internal compartment of weapons (but it is necessary)
            3. Something tricky can be placed to repel an attack from behind
            4. This requires all-round control of the thrust vector (Schaub did not rub against each other and did not knock, during evolution)
            5. maybe 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 (well, or variations of these)

            About Raptor and Rectangular, Rationale:
            1. the same as No. 1 above, a decrease in the radar signature (and very strong = circle closed / closed by square
            2. Americans for over-maneuverability (in their understanding) lacked UVT only in ONE plane, and a technologically flat nozzle is simpler, both in production, in maintenance, in durability
            3. What are they cunning (blowing and organizing the flow) used to smooth the transition from cylinder to rectangle, compensating for traction loss
            ========
            To replace B-2, there will be round nozzles, or (most likely) slotted, the so-called EXTERNAL NOZZLE with a central body
            ==============================
            about the F-35 radar you did not write the most important thing:

            passive operation by noise received by reflection from two side lobes, for the development of software of which the American Japanese almost received the Nobel
            ===============================================
            pro CFTs "conformal fuel tanks providing intercontinental flight range."
            rummaging in their literature, you come to the conclusion that CFTs not only provide these long-range am BUT and significantly RL reduce the visibility of the old men F-16, F-15, F-18.
            This is clearly indicated by articles and calculations about the form, materials, and a sharp decrease in it (RLZ)
            An article for the health of the F-35, but the past:
            http://topwar.ru/30082-f-35-proigral-boy.html
            was for peace.
            What is that supposed to mean?
            Thinking Flexibility?
            1. Santa Fe
              27 August 2013 01: 36 New
              0
              Vasily, this dashed brick ... right now I will write the answer - 30 minutes of life were spent ... not in vain wink
              Quote: Postman
              for what reason the axes of the PAK FA engines do not coincide with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft ... We did not argue, but I forgot to answer (well, this is my opinion that there is no truth)

              A cool comment is left somewhere below (for the authors of that post, Pativen has already left)))
              Quote: Postman
              Americans for over-maneuverability (in their understanding) lacked UVT only in ONE plane, and a technologically flat nozzle is simpler, both in production, in maintenance, in durability

              Good idea
              By the way, I continue to insist that the flat stream cools faster (S of the jet surface is larger - heat transfer is more intense)
              Quote: Postman
              passive operation by noise received by reflection from two side lobes, for the development of software of which the American Japanese almost received the Nobel

              in more detail is where to read?
              Quote: Postman
              pro CFTs "conformal fuel tanks providing intercontinental flight range."

              surrendered to you "intercontinental range"
              From the UK to Libya? Chtd
              Quote: Postman
              Oh and significantly RL reduce the visibility of the old men F-16, F-15, F-18.

              Who would doubt that.

              CFT - bomb Libya from Europe, the EPR in this case is not important
              Quote: Postman
              An article for the health of the F-35, but the past:
              http://topwar.ru/30082-f-35-proigral-boy.html
              was for peace.
              What is that supposed to mean?
              Thinking Flexibility?

              Are there any contradictions in them?

              “for peace” - the general situation of the F-35 program on a global scale. Competitors are not asleep
              "for health" - a private description of the program, since. points of view
              1. postman
                postman 27 August 2013 02: 44 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                somewhere below a cool comment

                ?
                Opinion editor of the magazine Aviation Week, Bill Sweetman (Bill Sweetman): This?
                I didn’t read an opinion or an article. On TV, I asked a question about 10 times, none of the Veterans of AirForset answered. Sam, all by himself on long white nights
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                in more detail is where to read?

                I have more details on the mainland, a bit more details in my comments about f35- where ... then. with my internet you need to spend 1/2 day to find your own comments
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Are there any contradictions in them?

                Well, in the early one it’s like, but in the last one it seems not ...
                Well, I see it like an oatmeal case
        2. roma-belij
          roma-belij 26 August 2013 12: 02 New
          +5
          The spacing of the engines in theory should save when a rocket hits, one engine should remain, at least to reach its territory. And the brake parachutes in the central gondola are traditionally located here.
          1. Santa Fe
            26 August 2013 12: 09 New
            0
            Quote: roma-belij
            The spacing of the engines is supposed to save when a rocket hits

            It’s not about distribution. PAK FA engines are in V shape

            Why are they deviated from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft?
            1. Nitup
              Nitup 26 August 2013 14: 01 New
              0
              I am not a specialist, but my assumption is this: perhaps this is done to direct the heat fluxes from the engine nozzles as far apart as possible, so that the air behind the plane is cooled faster and the infrared seeker is more difficult to visit the target
            2. Lone gunman
              Lone gunman 26 August 2013 14: 34 New
              0
              seem for over maneuverability, although I'm far from special ...
            3. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 26 August 2013 20: 07 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              It’s not about distribution. PAK FA engines are in V shape

              The engines on both the Su-27 and the MiG-29 are also not parallel, but at an angle. And the reason for this arrangement is one and the same: if one engine fails, it is possible to maintain the ability of the aircraft to move in a straight line.
              1. Santa Fe
                26 August 2013 20: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: Bad_gr
                The engines on both the Su-27 and the MiG-29 are also not parallel, but at an angle. And the reason for this arrangement is one and the same: if one engine fails, it is possible to maintain the ability of the aircraft to move in a straight line.

                Really?

                By the way, it is interesting to know - if the axis of the engines are parallel to the axis of the aircraft - what is it, if one of them fails, the plane is not able to fly directly?))
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 26 August 2013 22: 24 New
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Really?

                  According to MiG-29:
                  ".... The engines are installed at an angle of 4 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft with a turn in the vertical plane. ...." http://army.lv/ru/mig-29/502/132

                  According to the Su-27, I have not met such a description now, but in all the photos below it is clear that the engine nacelles are parallel to each other only by their internal surfaces (the corridor between the engines), while the outer sides diverge.


                  Perhaps I’ll correct my statement “to keep the plane moving in a straight line”, to “make it easier to control the plane when one engine fails.”

                  We have professional pilots on the forum, if I am mistaken in what, please correct.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    27 August 2013 01: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    According to MiG-29:
                    ".... Engines are installed at an angle of 4 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft with a turn in the vertical plane. ...." http://army.lv/en/mig-29/502/132

                    According to the Su-27, I have not met such a description now, but in all the photos below it is clear that the engine nacelles are parallel to each other only by their internal surfaces (the corridor between the engines), while the outer sides diverge.

                    Interesting thanks

                    But here we are talking about 4 degrees - in the case of the T-50, this is clearly noticeable visually, which is why they raised the topic on the forum
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    "in the event of a single engine failure facilitate aircraft control."

                    unlikely, there is already a minimal "shoulder"

                    It’s interesting how in such a situation they are struggling with a turning point on Boeings (they probably lie chest on helms)
            4. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 26 August 2013 22: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              PAK FA engines are in V shape

              Below it looks like this:

          2. postman
            postman 27 August 2013 02: 32 New
            +1
            Quote: roma-belij
            one engine should stay

            And what's the difference if the engines are TWO?
            Do you know the figurine and the size of the cloud of fragments that result from the undermining of the warhead?
            (There it doesn’t matter whether they are spaced or not, it will be solved by diametrically located wings) ..
            Well, if you aim accurately at the engine, with a kinetic generator from THAAD, yes
        3. Rudy
          Rudy 26 August 2013 12: 42 New
          +4
          I'm certainly not an expert, but nevertheless the terminology should not be confused with stealth and invisibility, it’s also “stealth”. As far as I understand different things, if an airplane is inconspicuous, then in my understanding it’s harder for enemy radars to detect, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to frolic and get frustrated over the enemy and you can get a splash. And the "stealth" is completely invisible to the radars, that is, the radar will not see them and it is not possible to track the plane at all figuratively flew bombed, rocket simply did not give a shit to everyone and flew away and the enemy wonders what it was. It turns out the T-50 maneuverability was left, but made minimally noticeable, and the F-35 maneuverability was removed, but they are trying to make it invisible. Although, as far as I know, the "stealth" dead end since it is impossible to make the plane invisible, there are always various inexpensive ways to detect the undetectable. Although maybe I'm wrong.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 26 August 2013 13: 13 New
            +2
            Quote: Rudy
            and F-35 maneuverability removed, but try to make it invisible.

            The fact that the F-35 flies like a felt boots is nothing more than speculation. According to TTZ, the achievement of an angle of attack of 55 degrees is laid, which is not so small oooooochen.
            “On May 17, the F-35A completed trials for flights with large angles of attack. Flights were carried out in the stealth configuration without external suspensions. Then flights were performed with external suspensions and with open wings of the internal compartment of the weapon. Flights with maximum angles of attack began in the fall of 2012. All flight tests with access to exorbitant angles of attack and exit from them were 100% successful (without the use of anti-stop parachute, providing maximum flight safety) "
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 26 August 2013 13: 33 New
            +3
            No one talks about invisibility. They talk about stealth. And the Americans succeeded in this.
            1. Krsk
              Krsk 26 August 2013 18: 35 New
              +3
              I think the Yugoslavs would argue ...
        4. Avenger711
          Avenger711 26 August 2013 13: 17 New
          -4
          No, there is a decent size bombard. F-22 nervously smokes on the sidelines.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 26 August 2013 12: 17 New
        0
        Oleg, take into account that they still saw him
        1. PLO
          PLO 26 August 2013 12: 54 New
          +5
          What can I say. And so it is clear that "stealth" in relation to the T-50 is nothing more than a convention

          how did you turn it interesting

          stealth is generally a conditional concept.
          and talking about the conventionality of a conditional concept is an oxymoron.
  13. Muadipus
    Muadipus 26 August 2013 11: 57 New
    +1
    In comparison with the promising Russian fighter aircraft MiG-35, Su-35 or PAK FA, the F-35 Lightning II is not a bad or good aircraft. He is just different. A completely different concept of air combat, virtually eliminating the possibility of “knife fights” (knife fight), a completely different purpose and function, largely related to striking ground targets, as well as working as a guided combat unit in a single Pentagon intellectual space.
    That's right - it's just another machine and tactics of use will be appropriate. Nevertheless, the machine has tested many innovations that are worth taking (stealing), exploring, improving and implementing. F-35 is still raw, but for now, maybe it will remain a prototype and on the basis of developments will create other less universal machines, wait and see.

    Shl .. all the hype around f-35 that they say a bad plane - this is nothing more than a banal not fair competition. The market dictates its own rules of the game. Nothing personal just business.
  14. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 26 August 2013 11: 57 New
    +5
    The chances will be weighed by someone who has something to answer, and Russia has only plans for the number of S-500 (while ZERO) and Su-35 (ten times less than the F-35). Industry needs to work faster (every day there is a growing feeling that we may not be in time).
  15. Pimply
    Pimply 26 August 2013 12: 15 New
    +6
    Oleg, at the moment - your best article. Competently, weighed, advantages and disadvantages. Bravo.
  16. rudolff
    rudolff 26 August 2013 12: 25 New
    +4
    I am impressed that the Americans do not hide the problems that arise when creating and testing new technology. Everything is widely publicized. Up to small nuances. We have everything under the veil of secrecy. What in aviation, what in the navy, what in the creation of armored vehicles. Moreover, first of all, we are secreting not so much new technologies and achievements as shortcomings, deficiencies, and sometimes even blunders. When Severodvinsk was launched and mooring trials began, the crew and the factory crew grabbed their heads; in general, almost no system wanted to work normally. But the people were bravuraly informed that everything was in order, everything was according to plan. Here are just the deadlines for putting the box from year to year moved. If it were not for the surge of the T-50 engine at the last air show, then one would have thought that the car was flying around without a hitch. F-35 sooner or later they will bring to mind and the car will be very dangerous.
  17. _KM_
    _KM_ 26 August 2013 12: 29 New
    0
    In the article "Our task is to find a worthy answer." and "It’s fair to admit that, in the form in which it exists, the F-35 is not particularly needed by the US Armed Forces. The JSF program is a pure" American-style "divorce: everything is very bright, powerful, colorful, just breathtaking."

    Those. do we need to prepare a similar money scam ?! Ches-a word I do not understand! The plane is useless, but we need the same !?
  18. gena7777777
    gena7777777 26 August 2013 12: 32 New
    +1
    There is a problem, but we need to bring the SU-35 to mind, and not scream that everything is bad
  19. denson06
    denson06 26 August 2013 12: 38 New
    +4
    What article do not take - the most important thing, for me, still comes down to stealth, early detection tools, REP and electronic warfare. I understand many who are of the opinion that maneuverability may not help and it may not even come to close combat .. I hope that this is understood and taken into account in our General Staff ..
  20. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 26 August 2013 12: 52 New
    +3
    The first one. It is not the first time that Americans plan to fight in the middle and long distances, but it all ends in a dog dump.
    The second one. If the F-35 is not going to engage in close combat, then why would he need an air gun?
  21. abuyanovus
    abuyanovus 26 August 2013 13: 07 New
    +4
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What can I say. And so it is clear that "stealth" in relation to the T-50 is nothing more than a convention

    Nothing like this. Stealth in the radio range can be achieved in different ways, and not just "straight straight planes." Now there is a bunch of radar absorbing and discharge coatings and polymeric materials that are not only not visible on the radar, but also able to hide for the time being what is under them. This is a tribute to the difference of approach to "invisibility." Of course, the Stealth technology will be better, it has been developed in the Yankos since the 80s, but it doesn’t turn out to be so that our ANALOGO REFUSED TO APPLY when developing PAK FA. And this means that they have an advantage of no more than 10-15%, which, taking into account the speed and maneuverability, is coming to naught. In addition, in order for this notorious invisibility to remain, the pilot must be controlled and the aircraft accordingly, otherwise it is worthless, that is, it is effective only in horizontal flight at cruising speed so as not to violate certain approach angles to air defense systems. If, for example, you look for a plane from the air and, God forbid, from a different angle ... the reflection will be far away. These are the properties of all planes and no matter what the light covers them, it will still be. Therefore, all this invisibility, what is overseas, what is ours, is a purely conventional thing and depends on a number of parameters and does not give a decisive advantage. And when it comes to super-maneuverability, and even just maneuverability, then this same Stealth technology is not just sideways, but the most natural coffin for American fighters ... And they don’t have a saving advantage in range when fighting with modern aircraft 4- generation, meaning, the parameters of missile weapons are approximately the same for all. smile

    Regarding electronic systems, including radar and decryption programs. I do not think that they are very different from that of the F-35? What is PAK FA? Everything is, in my opinion, quite traditional here, if ours are not able to develop such a thing, which I personally doubt somewhat, then they will simply steal from that he Lockheed, for all two hundred cars. Well, the gag also probably put as a backup system. In addition, all new aircraft are now being built on the principle of "open architecture", so that the electronic filling can be changed without any problems. Significantly.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 26 August 2013 17: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: abuyanovus
      Now there is a bunch of radar absorbing and discharge coatings and polymeric materials that are not only not visible on the radar, but also able to hide for the time being what is under them. This is a tribute to the difference of approach to "invisibility."


      This is not a difference. It is an integrated approach. An airplane will be much more difficult to detect if stealth is embodied in both the structure and the coating. They have implemented both.
  22. elk
    elk 26 August 2013 13: 19 New
    +5
    Thanks to the author for an adequate approach. Tired of endless articles about how bad things are with this project, and most importantly, the joyful comments of visitors about the budget cut and the impasse of engineering.
    Indeed, someone thinks that a corporation such as Lockheed will not fly into the sky and put on the wing the much-needed US Armed Forces? In which so much money, effort and time has been invested, that today it is uncontested. The US is not in a position to afford failure and the military-industrial complex is in a position to solve problems. Any board in the concept of warfare is a unit integrated into the information field. You will appreciate its actions in the complex, given the qualitative and quantitative content, and not as a single artifact.
    And we like to imagine how the pilot smoked on the field, sat down at his 35th and flew off to look for adventure, and then PAK FA and the harrow came to him, because we are all the strongest .... This is to say that I also want to get adequate in the comments. The enemy must be studied and respected.
  23. Nayhas
    Nayhas 26 August 2013 13: 21 New
    -1

    A video that refutes the myth that the F-35 is not capable of maneuvering the BVB.
    “In May, tests were completed for flights with large angles of attack (at a TTZ of 55 degrees). The aircraft reached positive and negative angles of attack, including displaying modes with the control system turned off in several configurations. Flights were carried out in stealth configuration without external suspensions Then, flights were carried out with external suspensions and with open wings of the internal compartment of the weapon, flights with maximum angles of attack began in the fall of 2012. All flight tests with access to exorbitant angles of attack and exit from them were 100% successful (without the use of anti-tear parachute, ensuring maximum safety). "
    1. Kipish
      Kipish 26 August 2013 15: 05 New
      +5
      I’m certainly a complete delivant, but in my opinion no one said that he can’t conduct a maneuverable battle, he is simply not capable of over-maneuverable combat, and the video shows that he performs maneuvers of somolets of the 50s
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 26 August 2013 15: 55 New
        -1
        Quote: Kipish
        and the video shows that he performs the maneuvers of somolets of the 50s

        The angle of attack of 4-generation aircraft does not exceed 30 degrees, then uncontrolled stall begins. The Su-27, making the “Cobra Pugachev”, went 120 degrees, but this was far from achievable for everyone, besides there were limitations on the mass of the aircraft.
        1. Kipish
          Kipish 26 August 2013 17: 42 New
          +3
          Show on the video the angle of attack of 55 degrees, in our village they say that chickens are milked.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 26 August 2013 19: 32 New
            0
            Those. message about the successful completion of the test at maximum angles of attack is not enough? Do you think that Lockheed Martin hangs noodles with the US military?
            1. Kipish
              Kipish 27 August 2013 09: 53 New
              +1
              You wrote "A video that refutes the myth that the F-35 is not capable of maneuvering the BVB."
              But there is nothing in this video, which means. Yes, I think it's noodles !!!
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 27 August 2013 00: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      A video that refutes the myth that the F-35 is not capable of maneuvering the BVB.

      Su-35, at the Paris Air Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3h2PIo0tt0#t=59
  24. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 August 2013 13: 31 New
    0
    Call the F-35 light bomber and there will be no questions. But then the question is, who will work in the air defense, since the production of the F-22 is on conservation.

    During the bombing of Serbia, medium-range missiles were not particularly effective even against broken-broken Serbian MiG-29s, a similarly low percentage of hits during the Ethiopian-Eritrean war. That is, when repelling an air strike, shelling from distances of tens of kilometers is unlikely to make the enemy stop the task. The time available is too long for a reaction to a rocket, which will already be near the target.

    There is one more psychological moment, the fighter must disrupt the enemy’s task at any cost, if all tactics involve guerrilla attacks from medium distances, then you won’t make pilots even on an adequate plane engage in close combat, it’s the same as cold steel combat in Compared to firing from automatic.
  25. Vlad_Mir
    Vlad_Mir 26 August 2013 14: 38 New
    +1
    F-35 is created as a strike aircraft, not for defense, but for hidden massive strikes. Compare it with the Su-35 - incorrect! This is a more powerful and more versatile weapon than the F-117, to replace which the F-35 will come.
  26. Basileus
    Basileus 26 August 2013 14: 43 New
    +1
    You read such articles, and it becomes sad for the domestic aviation industry. Zagobil Poghosyan MiG, and his analogue of the 5th generation LFI was never offered by Sukhoi. Of course, it is unlikely that the state would have had enough money for two programs of a promising fighter, but the fact remains.
  27. Kipish
    Kipish 26 August 2013 14: 44 New
    +5
    “Specially for the F-35 fighter-bomber, General Dynamics created the 22-mm GAU-25 / A four-barreled aviation gun.”
    Haha goat bayan, if they are not going to fight in close combat?
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 26 August 2013 18: 10 New
      +1
      Stupid question. For an extreme case.
      1. papik09
        papik09 27 August 2013 07: 39 New
        0
        And there are raaaznye cases .... wink
      2. cherkas.oe
        cherkas.oe 28 August 2013 00: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: patsantre
        Stupid question. For an extreme case.

        to shoot yourself.
  28. user
    user 26 August 2013 15: 30 New
    +1
    Nobody says that we do not have the appropriate aircraft. Just by avionics, we are lagging behind specifically, the cost of the F-22 radar - any liberal economist will shoot himself immediately, and the Stealth technology is also not free.
    As a result, a situation may arise that we simply don’t have enough money for such things and in such quantities, and the Fed is not in Russia. Although of course it is a pity (in the sense of the Fed)
  29. rudolff
    rudolff 26 August 2013 16: 29 New
    +7
    Many do not quite correctly understand the role of the F-35 in armed conflicts of the foreseeable future. It cannot be regarded strictly as an independent combat unit. This is only a separate element of the new concept of network-centric wars, when the combat capabilities of promising formations increase due to the achievement of information superiority and the unification of combatants into a single network. It is a high degree of integration into such a network that is the main feature of this machine, and not cruising supersonic, over-maneuverability, the presence of stealth technologies, etc. All information coming from satellites, UAVs, AWACS aircraft, other aircraft and ground reconnaissance equipment becomes available online to the pilot, moreover in a processed form, in the form of specific target designations. Whatever sophisticated equipment is, there are always ways to destroy it, but to destroy the network ...
  30. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 26 August 2013 17: 34 New
    +4
    Cabin at F-35 with binding. PAK FA is a serious plane, but the question is, will they bring it to mind? Its stealth with the F-35 is slightly different in contrast to the F-22. We will find out real opportunities in 30 years if there is no war. At PAK FA, engine spacing both in horizontal and in vertical planes is probably not accidental. The plant is preparing to release a huge series of F-35 (3100 pieces), for 2 decades. I read the article as always with pleasure, thanks.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 18: 02 New
      -2
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Cabin at F-35 with binding

      without

      You have some strange design in the photo. Moreover, f-35 has no ILS in the cockpit
      1. Santa Fe
        26 August 2013 18: 03 New
        0
        Here in detail
        1. vinni
          vinni 26 August 2013 20: 43 New
          0
          Actually, this is not a binding, but a reinforcing insert ... The flashlight of the F-35 is integrally formed. But there is really no ILS, it is replaced by a helmet-mounted display system ...
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 27 August 2013 18: 02 New
            0
            Quote: vinni
            Actually, this is not a binding, but a reinforcing insert ...

            I wonder why this insert?
            On the F-16 and on the F-22, they can do without it:


            By the way, their cabin lights are made of polycarbonate, and we have glass.
            1. Santa Fe
              27 August 2013 20: 32 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              On the F-16 and on the F-22, they can do without it:

              No, the F-16 has an insert at the rear of the flashlight.
            2. vinni
              vinni 29 August 2013 11: 57 New
              0
              From the technical description of the serial F-35 (not to be confused with the prototype!): "... The F-35 has a seamless, non-binding lantern with an arc of stiffness. This change (compared to the prototype) reduces the visibility of the aircraft while maintaining low weight. The stiffness arch is shifted back to improve the view from the cab ... "
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 26 August 2013 22: 15 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Here in detail

          Yes, it seems you're right.
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 26 August 2013 18: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      At PAK FA, engine spacing both in horizontal and in vertical planes is probably not accidental.

      The spacing of the engines in the T-50 is only in the horizontal plane.
      1. Santa Fe
        26 August 2013 18: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Nitup
        The spacing of the engines in the T-50 is only in the horizontal plane.

        It is much more interesting why they are installed in the form of the letter V (nozzles stick out in different directions)
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 26 August 2013 18: 19 New
          0
          logically, it should improve dynamic stability, but Sukhoi always boasts of dynamic instability ...
          1. Santa Fe
            26 August 2013 18: 41 New
            0
            Quote: ramsi
            logically, it should improve dynamic stability, but Sukhoi always boasts of dynamic instability ...

            There is logic, of course, in this - when the PAK FA is irradiated “in the forehead”, the enemy radar will not see the compressor blades

            Commonly used are S-shaped channels and radar blockers (gratings / radar absorbing materials) - F-22, F-35
            PAK FA has a funny solution to the problem: why do we need high technology, if you can install engines crookedly - and that's all. True, such a decision will inevitably affect the traction (The initial value x is the cosine of the engine mounting angle).
            secondly, how will this affect the EPR of the aircraft itself - when irradiated from other angles? (rule of parallelism of edges, faces and sagging)

            F-117 air intake grilles
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 26 August 2013 20: 32 New
              0
              Oh damn, rotary nozzles actually. Loss of thrust may not be due to the cosine, but on the curvature of the path, but the flat nozzle also loses 5 percent thrust due to the geometric transition.
        2. Nitup
          Nitup 26 August 2013 19: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          It is much more interesting why they are installed in the form of the letter V (nozzles stick out in different directions)

          Read my version above. I can also assume that this was done in order to have greater maneuverability at near-zero speeds, because the farther the nozzle is from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, the less effort is required to rotate the aircraft
          1. Santa Fe
            26 August 2013 20: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Nitup
            Read my version above

            I have seen. I don’t agree with your point of view (cooling) - the angle of the “solution” of a few degrees will not work even in theory

            there is only one reason - the desire to hide compressor blades from the eyes of enemy radars
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Santa Fe
                26 August 2013 21: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: Nitup
                So the blades are located in front of the engines

                Yes, that's why curved air intakes are used on American Raptors.

                Sukhoi solved the problem more fun - without touching the air intakes, he changed the position of the engines inside the airframe (so that when looking into the air intake, the compressor was not visible), now they stick out in different directions

                At least, this is the only more or less logical explanation why the axis of the engines of the T-50 is not parallel to the axis of the aircraft
                1. loft79
                  loft79 26 August 2013 23: 52 New
                  +2
                  I read a branch. Interesting.

                  Well, firstly, the t-50 also has S-shaped ducts

                  And here is what the constructor says:
                  http://paralay.com/pakfa/pakfa.html

                  "The engines are located in nacelles spaced horizontally from each other, and the engine axes are oriented at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft in the direction of flight. The influx includes controllable rotary parts. The invention is aimed at reducing radar visibility, increasing maneuverability at large angles of attack and aerodynamic quality on supersonic.
                  The invention relates to multi-mode aircraft operating at supersonic and subsonic flight speeds in a wide range of flight heights. The preferred field of application of the invention is multimode super-maneuverable aircraft with cruising at supersonic speeds and a low level of visibility in the radar range "
                  1. Santa Fe
                    27 August 2013 01: 16 New
                    0
                    Thank you, extremely informative
        3. postman
          postman 27 August 2013 02: 55 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Much more interesting


          you're wrong critically
          It would be much more interesting to look at the aircraft with the "spacing" of the remote control in the VERTICAL plane, at an angle ...
          Chur Tu 154 not to offer
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 26 August 2013 19: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: Nitup
        Engine spacing of the T-50 only in the horizontal plane

        Opinion of the editor of the magazine Aviation Week, Bill Sweetman (Bill Sweetman):
        "Sukhoi engineers have identified several shortcomings of the American F-22 fighter, in particular, the limited angles of deviation of the engine thrust vector. F-22 engines are too close to each other, which makes it impossible to deflect the yaw draft. This design also does not allow internal compartments of the weapon in the same plane on which the engines are located, they should be around or below the intake channels of the air intakes.S-channels to reduce the EPR add length and weight to the air intakes.When you enter the corkscrew, thrust vector control is not so effective, so the aircraft needs large control surfaces (keels and stabilizer) ... The main design feature of the T-50 is the presence of weapon compartments along the entire length of the central section of the airframe.F-22 and F-35 fighter compartments are located strictly in front of the power plant and wing. the rigidity of the center section when bending the wing at the peak of loads will be a very difficult task whose for the creators of the T-50. Therefore, in the center section at the junction between the engine nacelles and the inner part of the wing there are eight spars that distribute the loads on the center section and help reduce the influence of peak loads along the center line. "
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 August 2013 22: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Nitup
        The spacing of the engines in the T-50 is only in the horizontal plane.

        Probably I was misled by this little scheme (clickable)
      4. postman
        postman 27 August 2013 02: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: Nitup
        The spacing of the engines in the T-50 is only in the horizontal plane.


        Sorry, I didn’t “catch up”.
        But is there a spacing of dvigately in the vertical plane?
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 27 August 2013 08: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Postman
          Sorry, I didn’t “catch up”.

          Nitup answered my statement.
          Do you deny the possibility of engine spacing in the vertical plane in the presence of ATS?
  31. de bouillon
    de bouillon 26 August 2013 18: 08 New
    +3
    here wink the most beautiful review in RuNet about the F-35 program

    in fact, weekly news is laid out. eats including reports

    http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/tag/f-35
  32. Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 26 August 2013 18: 21 New
    +4
    And again Oleg is pleased with analytics with banter criticism ... or critical banter? request Not the point. The main thing is that it is stated intelligibly and, which is atypical, without obvious raids on the subject of discussion. How often was this?
    We are waiting for the article “F-35” multiplied by the imaginary US carrier power! ”This is where the author will have the opportunity to deploy to the fullest. hi
  33. vinni
    vinni 26 August 2013 20: 51 New
    +1
    The main purpose of such gizmos (such as F-35, etc.) is to operate in a space saturated with various air defense systems, i.e. over enemy territory: air defense breakthrough - dropping combat load - and quickly going home ... Nobody is going to spin in "dog dumps" there (close combat option is possible, but not desirable), only long-range actions! They are preparing for this ...
  34. Odysseus
    Odysseus 26 August 2013 21: 01 New
    +3
    Competent article: Although, as we know, a respected author is a fan of 4+ aircraft (F-15E, Super Hornet), he was still able to maintain objectivity in evaluating the F-35. I will note several controversial points.
    1) In melee combat, the F-35 is not at all the kind of ax they like to represent it (especially in version A). Yes, it is not the king of such a battle and will probably concede to Rafal or Typhoon in the BVB, but in case of obtaining a numerical advantage according to the results of DVB, it is quite capable finish off opponents in the near.
    2) In the Su-35 program, they did not “score” on stealth. The Su-35 along with the Su-34 are the first of the Su-27 family aircraft where close attention was paid to reducing ESR. I can’t say that any phenomenal success was achieved, but this was the result not of lack of attention to this topic, but rather of the fact that the Su-27 initially had a very large EPR and it is difficult to significantly reduce it without fundamental structural alterations. Yes and the pleasure is very expensive and technologically difficult.
    3) On the other hand, the “super-maneuverability” of the Su-35 in the BVB is doubtful. As long as we see the Su-3 being heavier by almost 27 tons. Yes, the engines are more powerful and there are UVTs. But how much this will affect the increase in maneuverability in combat modes with such an aircraft weight only practice can show.
    As for the Su-27, we know that it didn’t exceed the MiG-29 in the near one (and definitely lost 60-70% with refueling) .In fact, the only chance for the Su-27 was to take it to a height and use its advantage in the amount of fuel .With Western fighters, he did not meet in battle.
    4) It is not clear why the respected author speaks of a small number of F-35s. They also plan to build them in a number of 2400 (!!!) pieces. The F-35 will not be enough only in the fleet, which is understandable from behind it is "supported" by the Super Horn, and the X-47C comes in front.
    5) As regards counteraction, there are unfortunately no alternatives to bringing the T-50. Russia will not pull up such a second project now. We should bring the T-50 to the construction of a large series.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 August 2013 21: 25 New
      -1
      Greetings, Odysseus! hi
      Quote: Odyssey
      It is not clear why the respected author speaks of a small number of F-35s. They also plan to build them in a number of 2400 (!!!) pieces. The F-35 will not be enough only in the fleet, which is understandable from behind it is "supported" by the Super Horn, and the X-47C comes in front.

      According to Wiki:
      2400 units - 1760 F-35A, 320 naval (including ILC), 350 vertical units

      the only decent modification is F-35A, an analog of F-16
      Odysseus, how many F-16s have the arsenal of the US Air Force over the past 30 years? More than 3000 Falcans passed through the hands of the Americans! (and in total more than 4,5 thousand pieces riveted them)

      And at the same time, the F-35s are positioned as an upcoming replacement for the A-10 attack aircraft and, in the future, the Strike-Needles

      with deck F-35C everything is clear

      Vertical F-35B - replacement of the AV-8 and F / A-18 Marine Corps.

      it is clear that all these plans are IMPOSSIBLE - the Yankees will continue to operate the 4+ generation along with the f-35 - for example, the same AV-8 VTOL aircraft are planned to be used until 2030!

      ps / here we say - 1760 F-35A ... Raptors also promised 700 at one time, then reduced the order to 350, and as a result built 187

      Strike Needles carry gifts to Assad
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 26 August 2013 23: 11 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        it is clear that all these plans are IMPOSSIBLE - the Yankees will continue to operate the 4+ generation along with the f-35 - for example, the same AV-8 VTOL aircraft are planned to be used until 2030!

        Oleg, the Americans never simultaneously changed their fleet, their replacement always stretched for decades, it’s enough to remember how many years they operated:
        F-4 Phantom II since 1962 ro 1996. (His replacement for the F-15 Eagle began to arrive in 1976.)
        F-14 Tomcat from 1972 to 2006 (His replacement F / A-18 Hornet began to arrive since 1980.)
        A-6 Intruder from 1963 to 1997 (and Proler still flies!)
        At the same time, cars regularly underwent modernization in order to remain modern ...
        Therefore, it is clear that the F-35A / B / C will fly with its older comrades for decades.
        1. Santa Fe
          27 August 2013 01: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          their replacement has always stretched for decades

          Less, much less.
          Quote: Nayhas
          F-4 Phantom II since 1962 ro 1996.

          - Last "Phantom" Air Force (F-4E) was withdrawn from service combat units in 1990
          - The last "Phantom" Navy was withdrawn from service in 1986 (The last F-4 take-off from the deck of the US Navy aircraft carrier took place on March 24, 1986.when the F-4S of the VF-151 and VF-161 left the Midway aircraft carrier)
          - The last American user of F-4 fighter jets was the KMP VMFA-112 squadron, which was decommissioned last Phantom in January 1992.

          Until 1996, only the F-4G served - the shock version for the breakthrough of air defense

          4th generation fighters for 10-15 years completely replaced Phantoms
          Quote: Nayhas
          F-14 Tomcat from 1972 to 2006 (His replacement F / A-18 Hornet began to arrive since 1980.)

          The F / A-18 was not originally planned as a replacement for the heavy F-14 interceptors.
          "Tomcat" instantly replaced the F / A-18E, which began to arrive in the early 2000s
          Quote: Nayhas
          A-6 Intruder from 1963 to 1997 (and Proler still flies!)

          Survival of the Cold War + they quite satisfied the Pentagon on the criterion of cost / efficiency - a lot of these machines were not required

          Proler is in a special category, like the B-52 - in this niche the movement of time is almost imperceptible, obsolescence does not threaten them for decades. But these are not first-line fighters!
          Quote: Nayhas
          F-35A / B / C will fly with its older comrades for decades

          True, because the F-35 is too small, and their "senior comrades" are in no way inferior to the "youths"
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 27 August 2013 08: 34 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            True, because the F-35 is too small, and their "senior comrades" are in no way inferior to the "youths"

            Not only is this a relative concept.
            For example, the F-35A should be replaced by the A-10 Thunderbolt II, of which there are approximately 352 of all options, but all A-10 Thunderbolt II are being upgraded to the A-10C under the SLEP up to 2030 program. 178 F-15C / D are undergoing modernization under the radar with AFAR AN / APG-63 (V) 3, will also be operated until at least 2025, until that time they will leave 224 F-15E. That is, until 2030. Lockheed Martin should launch the mass production of the F-35, which is achievable. For example, in 2012. the company produced 30 F-35s, this year LM produced 12 aircraft for the first half of the year (only 2012 for the same period of 5), at the end of July there were 126 aircraft of various readiness levels in the workshops. Even if LM will produce only 50 cars a year, then by 2030. 800 cars will be manufactured, but LM is capable of more. In addition, a factory in Italy will operate. So there is nothing to worry about.
            1. Santa Fe
              27 August 2013 11: 52 New
              -1
              Quote: Nayhas
              For example, the F-35A should be replaced by the A-10 Thunderbolt II, of which there are approximately 352 of all options, but all A-10 Thunderbolt II are being upgraded to the A-10C under the SLEP up to 2030 program. 178 F-15C / D are undergoing modernization under the radar with AFAR AN / APG-63 (V) 3, will also be operated until at least 2025, until that time they will leave 224 F-15E.

              F-15C / D is still a question for the Raptor, he was also a tough guy, and in the end 30 years will serve side by side with veterans

              How about F-16 workhorses?
              Quote: Nayhas
              . Even if LM will produce only 50 cars a year, then by 2030. 800 cars will be manufactured

              All modifications! This is without taking into account operational losses and resource consumption.

              And this is for replacing the F-16, F-15E, A-10, AV-8 and F / A-18!
              Yes, old cars will be more than half of the fleet of the Air Force, Naval Aviation and the ILC even 25-30 years, and there can be no talk of any "replacement"
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 27 August 2013 18: 17 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                How about F-16 workhorses?

                At the beginning of 2012 F-16C, there were 857 vehicles, both in the Air Force and in the NG. I honestly don’t know how many of them are of which modification, and what order of replacement will be carried out. The most logical of course, of course, is the replacement, first of all, of the F-16C, they will most likely be written off, converted into targets or transferred to the allies.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                And this is for replacing the F-16, F-15E, A-10, AV-8 and F / A-18!

                Oleg, I gave relative figures, 50 cars a year for LM is not a volume, the company is able to do more.
                1. Santa Fe
                  27 August 2013 21: 06 New
                  0
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  At the beginning of 2012 F-16C, there were 857 vehicles, both in the Air Force and in NG

                  + 160 more F-16D

                  in addition, the F-35 allegedly intends to replace the A-10 (more than 300 vehicles in service) and the F-15E (~ 200 units), and so more than 1500 units came out in the end. aircraft - baby F-35 takes too much on itself

                  And you also need to put the aircraft on the fleet (320 deck F-35C for 20 years - it’s clear like a day: they will not be able to close out the F / A-18E / F, of which more than 500 have already been riveted and are going to do the modernized Silent Hornet)

                  + it is planned to replace 100 AV-8 and about 200 KMP Hornets

                  Here, the rate of 100 cars per year is not enough to renew the fleet by 100% over the next 20-30 years, especially taking into account the natural decline in cars for those. reasons and combat losses
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  The most logical of course, of course, is the replacement, first of all, of the F-16C, they will most likely be written off, converted into targets or transferred to the allies.

                  Or maybe they will upgrade to version V (viper) and extend their service in the US Air Force until the 20th ... year
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  50 cars a year for LM is not volume, the company is able to do more.

                  As a joke about a goldfish and three desires: the main thing is that there is enough money for this)))

                  From the story of another superhero:
                  Serial production of the aircraft began in 2001. On January 14, 2003, the first F-22 entered the Nellis military base, located in the Nevada desert. A total of 2004 aircraft were built by 51

                  In 2006, it was planned to purchase 384 aircraft to equip seven squadrons of combat alert, in 2008 the procurement plan was reduced to 188 aircraft, 127 of which were already built.

                  By 2009, a total of 141 F-22 aircraft were produced. By 2011, a total of 188 aircraft were expected to be produced, after which it was planned to stop production, however, at the initiative of Robert Gates, the US Congress excluded funds for the purchase of this fighter from the 2010 military budget.
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 27 August 2013 21: 24 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                . Even if LM will produce only 50 cars a year, then by 2030. 800 cars will be manufactured

                LM announced the pace of construction of F-35 aircraft 20 units per month, 240 per year
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Santa Fe
                  27 August 2013 21: 54 New
                  +1
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  LM announced the pace of construction of F-35 aircraft 20 units per month, 240 per year

                  What year is it planned to achieve such indicators? wink

                  What about allies? because almost a third of the 3100 ordered cars are planned for export

                  I remember that LM announced about 700 (later about 384) Reptors)))
                  in real life, he made them at a rate of 20 cars a year and was finally blown away by the 188th car
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 28 August 2013 14: 49 New
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    What year is it planned to achieve such indicators? wink

                    What about allies? because almost a third of the 3100 ordered cars are planned for export

                    Oleg, you are undoubtedly right in the sense that volumes depend on financing ... Will the F-35 fall victim to a reduction in the US military budget? HZ, because in spite of the rubbish rubbing the palms of the “hate America” situation in the USA is better than in Europe ...
                    If you do not take into account the financial side, then I am sure that LM is capable of mass production of a machine. Regarding the Allies, there is already a factory in Italy, maybe there will be a factory in Japan, so ...
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 28 August 2013 04: 15 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Odysseus, how many F-16s have the arsenal of the US Air Force over the past 30 years? More than 3000 Falcans passed through the hands of the Americans! (and in total more than 4,5 thousand pieces riveted them)

        Welcome hi I could not immediately answer.
        Yes, the total number of Falkenov is about 3 thousand (or rather, slightly less), but the capabilities of one F-35A are not comparable to the capabilities of the F-16A. And then unmanned aerial vehicles take on more functions. For example, the 174th fighter wing of the National Guard replaced the F-16 with Ripers.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yankees will continue to operate generation 4+ along with f-35

        It will be, especially for Strike Ilga. It’s stupid to start an expensive modernization with the setting of AFAR if you are going to write off the plane soon.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For example, the same VTOL AV-8 is planned to be used right up to 2030!

        Well, until 2030 this is already too much ... It will fall apart))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        ps / here we say - 1760 F-35A ... Raptors also promised 700 at one time, then reduced the order to 350, and as a result built 187

        Now if this happens, this will be the “beginning of the end” for the F-35. The cost of one aircraft will creep up, and the capabilities of the US Air Force down.
        We'll see.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Strike Needles carry Assad gifts

        Assad, of course, is not an angel at all, but Strike Ilg is a technically beautiful plane.
        But still it is better to do without such "gifts" ....
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 26 August 2013 23: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      3) On the other hand, the “super-maneuverability” of the Su-35 in the BVB is doubtful. As long as we see the Su-3 being heavier by almost 27 tons. Yes, the engines are more powerful and there are UVTs. But how much this will affect the increase in maneuverability in combat modes with such an aircraft weight only practice can show.

      The issue of weighting the Su-35S compared to the Su-27 is not an easy one. Sukhoi Design Bureau claims that it used a lot of composite materials in the construction of the Su-35S, if so, with what mass increased by 3 tons? Perhaps the mass has grown due to the strengthening of the fuselage to achieve super maneuverability with a larger mass.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 28 August 2013 04: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        The issue of weighting the Su-35S compared to the Su-27 is not an easy one. Sukhoi Design Bureau claims that it used a lot of composite materials in the construction of the Su-35S, if so, with what mass it grew by 3 tons

        As for the Su-35S, I won’t say for sure, but in the first generation Su-35 (Su-27M) the weight increase was due to the increase in the mass of the equipment. There the alignment changed, I had to change the layout a bit, strengthen the landing gear, etc.
        I strongly suspect that the Su-35S (last generation) has the same garbage.
        So about some special increase in maneuverability compared to the Su-27 (with normal take-off weight and in combat modes), I would be careful not to talk yet. We will certainly hope for the best.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 28 August 2013 14: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Odyssey
          We will certainly hope for the best.

          Oooooooooh ... I am an incurable pessimist ... Hindus have already expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that composite materials are used too little in the FGFA, as the reason is the inability of the Russian industry to produce them ...
  35. GUSAR
    GUSAR 26 August 2013 21: 09 New
    +1
    A little modify and the bird that will need to ...
  36. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 26 August 2013 21: 48 New
    0
    I agree with the author, F-35 - the desire to create a 5th generation shock station wagon and the states campaign will succeed!
    And to gain superiority in the airspace there is an F-22, something like that !!
  37. Bosun
    Bosun 26 August 2013 23: 11 New
    +2
    It remains to wait until the aircraft is in combat units. How it will be cared for and cherished, time will tell. This is not in test centers located where it is licked.
  38. shvindin2012
    shvindin2012 26 August 2013 23: 53 New
    +1
    talking about inconspicuousness will be possible only with the introduction of Smart Skin - a smart shell on the surface of an airplane, anology with human skin. Such a shell can be made using nanotechnology. She will perform an intelligence, protective function. Such "skin" will be installed on airplanes and not only in the 2030s. Only then could you talk about the maximum stealth of the aircraft in the radar, infrared and other frequency ranges. Therefore, the presented requirements for aircraft of the 5th generation: over-maneuverability, over-stealth, versatility, etc. they will be sold as much as possible only in sixth generation aircraft, but not by any means. 5. Modern aircraft can only be attributed to the next modification of 4th generation aircraft.
  39. 2sila
    2sila 27 August 2013 00: 51 New
    0
    The Americans themselves are skeptical of this project, and voices to bury it sound more and more distinctly before it is too late.
    ... more than 100 million ...., just as accurately it was possible to write more than 50 million, also it seems to be true, but something sounds crooked. But how really?
    “The F-35 is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons system. The estimated cost of the purchase program for 2 F-443 aircraft is $ 35 billion, which is 391,2% higher than the planned costs announced in 68. And more and more in the US those who condemn such a "wastefulness" of the Ministry of Defense in the current budget economy, reports RT. "
    Yeah! It turns out that it means we must say that ..... more than 160 million!
    The author is illusory ?!
  40. 2sila
    2sila 27 August 2013 00: 56 New
    0
    According to Bloomberg, citing a source in the US military, the possibility of stopping further purchases of the F-35 was considered on July 31 during a meeting of the Department of Defense on the subject of sequestration of the military budget. Details of the military’s decision are not known.
  41. 2sila
    2sila 27 August 2013 01: 36 New
    0
    Is the JSF Really a Fifth Generation Fighter?
    Modern fighters
    Current threat
    5th Generation Fighter Capabilities
    F-22A Raptor T-50 PAK-FA J-12 / J-XX F-35 JSF
    Lightning II Gen 4 ++
    Su-35s
    USA Russia China International Russia
    Super cruise yes
    > 1.7 Mach
    (0) 2.0 Mach Design Target
    (+1) Yes
    (0) No
    (-1) Yes
    (0)
    High Agility Supersonic /
    Subsonic yes
    (0) Extreme Agility
    (+1) Yes
    (0) Neither
    (-1) Extreme Agility
    (+ 1)
    High Specific Excess Power - Ps Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) No
    (-1) Yes
    (0)
    Thrust Vectoring Control - TVC Yes
    2-D
    (0) Yes
    3-D
    (+1) Yes
    (0) No
    (-1)
    Yes
    3-D
    (+ 1)
    Highly Integrated Avionics Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0)
    Electronically Steered Array (ESA) Radar High Power Aperture
    (+1) High Power Aperture
    (+1) Yes
    (0) Medium Power Aperture
    (0) High Power Aperture
    (+ 1)
    Sidelooking ESA Apertures Fitted For But Not With (FFBNW)
    (0) Yes
    (+1) Unknown
    No
    (-1) Yes
    (0)
    High Situational Awareness (SA) -
    Onboard / Offboard Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) Likely
    Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0)
    Supersonic Weapons Delivery Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) Yes
    (0) No
    (Bomber Doors)
    (-1 Yes
    (0)
    Large Thrust to Weight
    Multi engine
    Thrust growth yes
    2 Engines
    Large growth
    (0) Yes
    2 Engines
    Large growth
    (0) Yes
    2 Engines
    Large growth
    (0) Middling T / W
    One engine
    Little growth
    (-1) Yes
    2 Engines
    Large growth
    (0)
    High combat ceiling
    (> 7 deg / sec turn rate, sustained) Yes
    > 55 kft
    (0) Yes
    > 55 kft
    (0) Yes
    > 50 kft
    (0) No
    <45 kft
    (-1) Yes
    > 55 kft
    (0)
    Very Low Observable Stealth /
    Low Observables All Aspect, Wideband
    (+1) All Aspect, Wideband Design
    Target
    (0) Yes or Partial
    (0) Yes but Partial
    (0) No
    (-1)
    Large Internal Fuel Load
    lbs Yes
    > 18 klbs
    (0) Yes
    > 20 klbs
    (0) Unknown
    Yes
    > 18 klbs
    (0) Yes
    > 25 klbs
    (+ 1)
    Internal Weapon Carriage Hard Point Stations Yes
    6 + 2
    (0) Yes
    8-10
    (0) Highly Likely
    Nos. Unknown
    (0) Yes
    4
    (0) Partial
    (Tunnel Pod)
    2-4
    (-1)
    ZOCT Scoring
    by 5th Gen Metrics +2 +5 0 -8 +2
    Table © 2009, Peter Goon, Air Power Australia, Peter Goon & Associates.
  42. 2sila
    2sila 27 August 2013 01: 39 New
    0
    The plane that peeled the Pentagon like sticky

    ("Foreign Policy", USA)

    F-35 is a waste of time and money. It's time to throw it in the trash can

    Winslow Wheeler


    Read more: http://inosmi.ru/usa/20120501/191264544.html#ixzz2d76JHCBO
    Follow us: @inosmi on Twitter | InoSMI on Facebook
  43. 2sila
    2sila 27 August 2013 01: 55 New
    +1
    And with a photo

    "Radar image of the area, made using radar AN / APG-81"

    some kidnyak!

    I’ll immediately make it clear that I’m not an expert in the field of radar and mapping, but I hope that understanding people will explain and correct.
    Well, I admit that the AN / APG-81 radar has different operating modes, but I do not admit how a shadow from objects formed on the RADAR image, more precisely, I can suspect that there is also a radar shadow (not sure), but at the moment of the image supposedly F-35 with its radar AN / APG-81 is located above the object, almost at its zenith and this is clearly visible, then who does this shadow do for him?
    Right! Second F-35 with its AN / APG-81 radar!
    So for such a simple task you need two aircraft.
    Of course I’m exaggerating, but maybe someone will explain.
    1. Santa Fe
      27 August 2013 02: 15 New
      0
      Quote: 2sila
      some kidnyak!

      Shadow is a common occurrence in radar imagery.
      But this is not at all the shadow that we are accustomed to in the visible range. This is not a shadow at all, in our understanding

      Aerodrome radar image
  44. 2sila
    2sila 27 August 2013 02: 05 New
    0
    I admit of course that the reflected signal has been going on for so long, but I'm not sure.
  45. Urri
    Urri 28 August 2013 01: 43 New
    0
    The only thing that Russia needs to invest in if there is a Su-35 is to operate the container of an individual laser KAZ for it. The whole concept and strategy of the US Air Force will then fly into a pipe in one MIG, I apologize for the pun. At least from another continent you find yourself and get around with long-range missiles. Welcome back to dogfight. And the philosophy of the F-22, and F-35 at this end
  46. papik09
    papik09 28 August 2013 02: 59 New
    0
    The article is very informative. To the author for the article +. But for the name, +++ +++++ (plus in the period) laughing
    "Do not shoot the pianist!" "And where is the pianist?" "Yes, you see, yesterday a cowboy came in who could not read ....." wassat
  47. sdohnisuka
    sdohnisuka 28 August 2013 13: 13 New
    -4
    Russia as always get around.
    1. papik09
      papik09 28 August 2013 13: 52 New
      0
      And who, sir, will you call smart? hi