Military Review

This is the way the air power of Russia forges: the fifth PAK FA joined the flight test program

155



Before our eyes, the air power of Russia is being forged - this is the fifth PAK FA to join the flight test program. So, consistently and purposefully, we are aggressively moving forward.

From Komsomolsk-on-Amur, a series of photographs were sent specifically for Igor Korotchenko's Military Diary about the first flight of the fifth PAK-FA - it lasted 50 minutes and passed in full accordance with the flight task, the aircraft was piloted by honored 1-grade Roman Kondratyev.

The fifth PAK FA is the first car from the installation party, whose appearance is already as close as possible to that of a serial fighter. After a cycle of factory acceptance tests, the aircraft will fly to the State Flight Test Center of the Ministry of Defense in Akhtubinsk for state tests.



































Author:
Originator:
http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/
155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Predator-74
    Predator-74 6 November 2013 08: 53
    21
    Now it remains to wait until the tests are over and the plane will guard our borders in order to moderate the ardor of our "well-wishers".
    1. True
      True 6 November 2013 10: 00
      +1
      Well-wishers already have drones on aircraft carriers landing. This is not for you to pump oil but money with families in the hill to dive!
      1. Bogdarin
        Bogdarin 6 November 2013 10: 49
        12
        Yes, even if they have drones landing on something else, the main thing is that this is OUR plane, and unlike the rattles (he fought and stood in the stall for several years), the tests are going as they should (pah-pah-pah). And you won’t be able to throw it with guan - the covering is non-metallic, guanoprotective wassat
        1. Versed
          Versed 7 November 2013 02: 45
          -3
          Nobody throws it "guan", let the pepelats fly, it's just that this plane belongs to the 4 ++ generation, like the Eurofighter - which has been in service for a long time, but this one ... no laughing
        2. Versed
          Versed 7 November 2013 03: 09
          0
          Here you can add, 5 aircraft were assembled and not a single one laughing
          meanwhile, the F-22 was put into service ten years ago, they are taking into service the F-35 of which 72 have already been built.
          1. True
            True 7 November 2013 09: 13
            +2
            And these cheers patriots in the drum! They sing their mantras. Any of your arguments will be broken by their slogan!)
            1. Yars
              Yars 8 November 2013 13: 44
              -1
              Argument?! You are mistaken, this is not an argument; it is either envy or paid trolling!
              1. Altair
                Altair 9 November 2013 15: 20
                0
                What is the air intake covered in the first photo?
                It's a shame to show the turbine blades, because of which T-50 will glow on radar F-22 / F-35 like a christmas tree?
                With this “stealth”, the F-22 / F-35 will erase the T-50 into dust.
                T-50T-50

                T-50_2
          2. Alex toll
            Alex toll 7 November 2013 13: 57
            +2
            Of course, I'm sorry, but our cancer technology will pump all this elite. The main thing is that our airplanes are designed to work in such conditions - climatic - military with wild overloads - rather than these greenhouse eagles from which you only need to blow off dust particles and do not wipe devices with an oil rag, and even about the flight school and the unpredictability of the Russian brain in general, you should not compare . And yet - if there are five different ones - it means development is underway - this time, 5 - different! - it means that a large team is working and there is a choice, but they would not have to do it because they said it from above, which means that it will be a mega cool in the serial version + it means they are testing new equipment and it can be applied elsewhere.

            And note - not one has fallen !!! pah pah pah
            1. True
              True 10 November 2013 21: 05
              +1
              Well yes, an uber plane. Contrary to the last 30 years of our history, Contrary to Serdyukov and Yeltsin, WITHOUT new personnel, in conditions of constant underfunding. ... You will excuse me, but I can’t ask: can you? ... Or a child? Or write a comment for the salary?
          3. Yars
            Yars 8 November 2013 13: 43
            -3
            and your F22 is in the hangars because of constant breakdowns, and even with the T50 it’s not even near! Yes, and do not forget with the help of which constructors f35 was made, the second time they will not go to your aid, since already in their homeland in Russia they are filled up with work!
        3. True
          True 7 November 2013 09: 11
          +2
          the main thing is that this is OUR plane and unlike raps
          And what about ours? I don’t have it yet as a fighting vehicle! But you can already speak about its superiority now.
          P.S. Dwarfs will not take you with them, despite the fact that your language ...
          1. Yars
            Yars 8 November 2013 13: 46
            -2
            but what is the use of your f22 if it does not fly, and if it flies then it is not higher than 10km
      2. bolonenkov
        bolonenkov 6 November 2013 11: 32
        12
        Quote: True
        Well-wishers already have drones on aircraft carriers landing

        And their missiles fly on our engines, because they themselves could not be assembled under a license, the technological base was not enough
        You probably don’t know that one such drone costs like two Borreias, and C-400 knocks it down at a time?
        1. me
          me 6 November 2013 16: 30
          -15 qualifying.
          Private companies are already launching shuttles into space, and state-owned enterprises cannot normally produce rockets in us, probably every time they start to baptize and think if they have spoiled something this time.
          1. Yars
            Yars 8 November 2013 13: 48
            0
            it’s precisely because of this that you have everything private, you have private power, which acts not in the interests of the people, but purely in the interests of a handful of aligarchs who, as you see, have already decided the fate of your United States!
        2. iConst
          iConst 6 November 2013 20: 11
          +4
          Quote: bolonenkov
          And their missiles fly on our engines, because they themselves could not be assembled under a license, the technological base was not enough
          You probably don’t know that one such drone costs like two Borreias, and C-400 knocks it down at a time?

          More details about "their" rockets and our engines, please.

          And how much it costs is another question.

          It is important that the Americans launched a serious program aimed at creating a concept and a wide range of UAVs linked to it.

          There are also so-called "quiet" UAVs, which practically do not give themselves away and are extremely difficult to detect.

          In any case, a specialized drone will be cheaper than a manned combat aircraft. And if you take into account the training of a high-class pilot, then in general a diamond tandem will work.

          "Smart" drones can be riveted in thousands a month, pilots - no.

          But the dispute does not make sense - drones and manned aircraft have their own tasks.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 47
            +9
            Quote: iConst
            More details about "their" rockets and our engines, please.



            Private Antares rocket company Orbital Sciences. At the first stage of the Antares rocket, two AJ-26 engines are installed - an Aero-Jet developed by the Aerojet company and a US-licensed modification of the NK-33 engine created by Nikolai Kuznetsov for the Soviet lunar rocket H1. It was simply cheaper for them to buy these engines than to develop them from scratch. The engines have been modified.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 November 2013 20: 56
              +2
              This is the second engine. Interesting thing ... A bad trend for the Americans. Previously, they coped.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 02
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                This is the second engine. Interesting thing ... A bad trend for the Americans. Previously, they coped.

                What is bad? The fact that they know how to save money, and that they have different engines, there are not one or two? You, such a feeling, according to Soviet habit, think that everything should be developed internally, and exclude the possibility that external contractors can be used, and free money can be directed to more urgent goals.
          2. ed65b
            ed65b 6 November 2013 21: 58
            0
            Bullied, UAV-for Bantustan.
          3. Nick
            Nick 7 November 2013 00: 12
            +1
            Quote: iConst
            More details about "their" rockets and our engines, please.

            Our RD-180s for their Atlas-5 ...
        3. Pimply
          Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 40
          +4
          Quote: bolonenkov
          And their missiles fly on our engines, because they themselves could not be assembled under a license, the technological base was not enough
          You probably don’t know that one such drone costs like two Borreias, and C-400 knocks it down at a time?

          Do not bullshit. One of the PRIVATE space companies in ONE of the rockets in ONE stage used engines because it is cheaper. How to develop this engine from scratch. They know how to count money and not spend it where there is no need for it.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 November 2013 20: 53
            +2
            Quote: Pimply
            Do not make bullshit. One of the PRIVATE space companies in ONE of the rockets in ONE stage used engines because it is cheaper.

            And therefore, a contract was signed for 50 pieces of RD-180 with an option for another 51 engine?
            The Atlas-5 missiles in which it is used have already been launched 40 pieces.

            By the way, I would not write so derogatory about the Boeing-Lockheed alliance
            Quote: Pimply
            One of the PRIVATE space companies
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 59
              0
              Quote: Spade
              And therefore, a contract was signed for 50 pieces of RD-180 with an option for another 51 engine?
              By the way, the Atlas-5 missiles, in which it is used, have already launched 40 pieces.

              Shovels, yes, therefore. Because it is cheaper. Because it makes no sense to invest tens of millions of dollars in development and production, when you can buy these engines from a subcontractor. Apple, for example, buys processors from Samsung and Intel. AND?


              Quote: Spade
              By the way, I would not write so derogatory about the Boeing-Lockheed alliance

              What is derogatory in ONE OF? There are several of them, and they are currently competing with each other. Someone chose their own development, someone bought a finished product.
              1. iConst
                iConst 6 November 2013 21: 08
                +1
                Quote: Pimply
                Apple, for example, buys processors from Samsung and Intel

                Since when has Intel released ARM processors?
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: iConst

                  Since when has Intel released ARM processors?

                  Apple only produces smartphones and iPads, please forgive me?

                  Well, on the arm, they will begin to release proces in 2014.

                  Intel in 2014 will begin to release processors based on ARM architecture. This was announced at the ARM TechCon conference on Tuesday, October 29, by Intel partner, Altera, Forbes reports.

                  The future chip will form the basis of the 64-bit "system-on-chip" Stratix 10. It will include four Cortex-A53 cores. Stratix 10 is intended for Altera and will be used in the PCM (user programmable gate array).

                  The processor will be manufactured using the 14-nanometer process technology using Tri-Gate transistors.
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 6 November 2013 21: 11
                +5
                Quote: Pimply
                Shovels, yes, therefore. Because it is cheaper.

                Cheaper is cheaper, but the cessation of supply will lead to the fact that the Americans simply will not have heavy launch vehicles. And that’s it.


                Quote: Pimply
                What is derogatory in ONE OF? There are several of them, and they are currently competing with each other.

                You have mixed up these small private companies that design rockets to replace shuttles with a powerful alliance that has not only vast experience in the space sector, but is also the largest player in the world and almost a monopoly in the USA
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  Cheaper is cheaper, but the cessation of supply will lead to the fact that the Americans simply will not have heavy launch vehicles. And that’s it.

                  Why would supplies stop at the moment? They have a long-term contract, and engines have been purchased for many years to come.

                  And again - this is one of the companies.
                  Quote: Spade
                  You have mixed up these small private companies that design rockets to replace shuttles with a powerful alliance that has not only vast experience in the space sector, but is also the largest player in the world and almost a monopoly in the USA

                  Why confuse. All the companies that are currently doing this and have contracts with NASA are no longer so small.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 6 November 2013 21: 29
                    +3
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Why would supplies stop at the moment? They have a long-term contract, and engines have been purchased for many years to come.

                    Until 2015. And ours are thinking about not renewing the contract because of the possible use of missiles for military purposes.


                    Quote: Pimply
                    Why confuse. All the companies that are currently doing this and have contracts with NASA are no longer so small.

                    But comparing them to the United Launch Alliance is like comparing the corner wine shop to McDonald's.
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 33
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      Until 2015. And ours are thinking about not renewing the contract because of the possible use of missiles for military purposes.

                      Know how many engines they bought?


                      Quote: Spade
                      But comparing them to the United Launch Alliance is like comparing the corner wine shop to McDonald's.

                      Why? You are not comparing those areas.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 November 2013 21: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Know how many engines they bought?

                        They were not "purchased" by putting them in the warehouse. Engines of this type are not stamped like cars. Until now, deliveries under the contract are underway.


                        Quote: Pimply
                        Why? You are not comparing those areas.

                        And which ones should be compared? What is the combined annual turnover of Boeing and Lockheed Martin?
                      2. Pimply
                        Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Spade

                        They were not "purchased" by putting them in the warehouse. Engines of this type are not stamped like cars. Until now, deliveries under the contract are underway.

                        Firstly, the same Aerojet, which produces engines for Orbital Sciences Corporation, produces not only AJ-26, it is also NK-33. Secondly, in the mid-1990's, Aerojet already bought from SNTK about 40 NK-33 engines for 1 million dollars. She now has 30 engines. Physically. RD-180 sell at 6 million dollars.


                        Quote: Spade
                        And which ones should be compared? What is the combined annual turnover of Boeing and Lockheed Martin?


                        For example, the company "Pepsico" belongs to KFS. Are you comparing McDonald's to KFS, or to Pepsico? Usually FSC with Mac, because there is such a concept - subsidiaries. There is such a concept - a conglomerate. Don't go into this jungle, don't.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 November 2013 22: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Secondly, in the mid-1990s, Aerojet already bought from SNTK about 40 NK-33 engines for $ 1 million.

                        And what, they will be installed instead of the RD-180 on the Atlas? We're talking about a completely different engine.


                        Quote: Pimply
                        For example, the company "Pepsico" belongs to KFS. You are comparing McDonald's to KFS, or to Pepsico. There is such a concept - subsidiaries. There is such a concept - a conglomerate. Don't go into this jungle, don't.

                        A lot has been written, but off topic. You’d better tell how you can put a monopolist and a trifle like SpaceX on one board
                      4. Pimply
                        Pimply 6 November 2013 22: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And what, they will be installed instead of the RD-180 on the Atlas? We're talking about a completely different engine.

                        Tell me, why are you confusing different rockets? I spoke about Atlanis initially. Atlas - other rockets, and were developed on other conditions, having no relation to private astronautics.

                        Quote: Spade
                        A lot has been written, but off topic. You’d better tell how you can put a monopolist and a trifle like SpaceX on one board

                        Such that in the area you are talking about, the "monopolist" is overtaken by a trifle like SpaceX.
          2. iConst
            iConst 7 November 2013 11: 32
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Cheaper is cheaper, but the cessation of supply will lead to the fact that the Americans simply will not have heavy launch vehicles. And that’s it.
            The purchase of these engines is a temporary measure and a consequence of the miscalculation of the course on space exploration using reusable shuttles.

            So do not really rejoice - they simply did not develop liquid engines for this direction.

            Now there is a systematic replenishment of this shortcoming - for a couple of years they cannot even raise such a topic.

            And then - only fools are trying to catch up in the back of the head, this deliberate lag. Cut off on the corners.

            Most likely scenarios:
            1. China will be the first to launch new engines and space technologies
            2. Amerikosy will create (100500 - a matter of time) their engines.
        4. ed65b
          ed65b 6 November 2013 22: 02
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Shovels, yes, therefore. Because it is cheaper. Because it makes no sense to invest tens of millions of dollars in development and production when you can buy these engines from a subcontractor

          Popyrchaty you at your leisure take an interest how they tried to create it and created 15 of years. but alas they couldn’t. the thought of a Russian designer and technology is unattainable by today's USA.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 November 2013 22: 03
            0
            Quote: ed65b

            Popyrchaty you at your leisure take an interest how they tried to create it and created 15 of years. but alas they couldn’t. the thought of a Russian designer and technology is unattainable by today's USA.

            More details, pliz. Well, especially considering the degree of development of the space industry in the United States.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 November 2013 22: 08
              +1
              And what is needed here in more detail? They have no analogue. That's all.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 November 2013 22: 15
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                And what is needed here in more detail? They have no analogue. That's all.

                Given how many different missiles are being manufactured, what are three large companies engaged in rocket engines in the US alone?
              2. iConst
                iConst 6 November 2013 22: 21
                0
                Well, there are pussies to be measured. We, too, sometimes could not do what they had. Lockheed "blackbird", for example.

                What matters more here is not what is not, and why not.

                Well, Tajikistan does not have a navy!
            2. ed65b
              ed65b 8 November 2013 11: 36
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              Quote: ed65b

              Popyrchaty you at your leisure take an interest how they tried to create it and created 15 of years. but alas they couldn’t. the thought of a Russian designer and technology is unattainable by today's USA.

              More details, pliz. Well, especially considering the degree of development of the space industry in the United States.

              In the 1990s, at the very beginning of working with us, they realized that in the energy field we were far ahead of them and we needed to adopt these technologies. For example, our RD-170 engine in one start due to a larger specific impulse could take out payload two tons more than their most powerful F-1, which meant at that time $ 20 million in gain. They announced a competition for a 400-ton engine for their Atlases, which our RD-180 won. Then the Americans thought that they would start working with us, and in four years they would take our technologies and reproduce them themselves. I immediately told them: you will spend more than a billion dollars and ten years. Four years have passed, and they say: yes, it takes six years. Years passed, they say: no, it takes another eight years. Seventeen years have passed, and they have not reproduced a single engine. Now they only need billions of dollars for bench equipment. We have stands at Energomash where you can test the same RD-170 engine in a pressure chamber, the jet power of which reaches 27 million kilowatts.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Versed
    Versed 7 November 2013 03: 36
    -2
    Which ones on your engines? does the Falcon rocket fly on your engines too? laughing

    F-35 has already been adopted, 70 units are currently built.
    The USA is the only country in the world that has 5th generation aircraft, F-22 and F-35 in service. (NATO countries with F-35 will be added soon)

    T-50 generation 4 ++ and it is not in service

    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 7 November 2013 07: 05
      -2
      Quote: Versed

      F-35 is already in service

      Really, even when he was accepted, if only the other day he threw off a bomb in the first. Tests go in full, but not acceptance.
      Quote: Versed
      T-50 generation 4 ++

      Of course 4 ++, where to us before amers, yes wink
      I don’t understand how a person can be proud of someone who does not consider him a person. You have nothing of your own, but it remains to praise someone else’s laughing
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 7 November 2013 14: 29
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Really, even when he was accepted, if only the other day he threw off a bomb in the first. Tests go in full, but not acceptance.

        Sasha, you must be able to read and understand information, the right word.
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz 6 November 2013 12: 02
    +9
    Novodvorskaya !!! Is that you???
  • vthrehbq
    vthrehbq 6 November 2013 12: 19
    +9
    =)) Do you really think that a drone can replace a plane with a pilot? All this reminds a story with lasers. Every month, Americans are promoting that they’ll create a combat laser, that it will be on planes and tanks, and blah blah blah .. the story is predictable. like they passed tests, well, yes, the laser showed the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles, and the program was immediately closed. Americans have wasted billions. because in the 80s both the ussr and the usa already tested laser weapons, and even then they refused to use them. So when drones are promoting the usa immediately it becomes clear that the main thing is to get more money out of congress.
    1. me
      me 6 November 2013 16: 37
      -1
      UAVs in the future will be highly maneuverable and will fly with great overloads, and here they will give odds to ordinary fighters. And yet, the Americans do not throw words into the wind if something is conceived, they usually bring it to the mind, whether the invention will take root or not is another question, in any case, invaluable experience has been gained and will be applied in the future. And in the future, after the discovery of a new energy source using the hadron collider, both lasers and blasters and railguns will pop up, which you and others who like to pironize on these topics will not seem enough.
      1. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 6 November 2013 21: 22
        +1
        Quote: i
        In the future, drones will be highly maneuverable and will fly with large overloads,


        That's when they will then see.
        And NOW nothing will replace the manned aircraft.
        1. iConst
          iConst 6 November 2013 21: 28
          0
          Quote: JIaIIoTb
          That's when they will then see.
          And NOW nothing will replace the manned aircraft.

          That would not be too late. And then life accelerates, as in the 41st there will not be that time either.

          On the second - untruth. Already in the second Chechen unmanned scouts helped pretty well. Especially in winter - thermal imaging helped a lot.
      2. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 7 November 2013 07: 06
        0
        Quote: i
        And in the future, after the discovery of a new energy source using the hadron collider, both lasers and blasters and railguns will emerge,

        Oh, here comes the victim of computer games laughing
        1. me
          me 7 November 2013 17: 04
          +1
          If Giordano Bruno was sentenced to be burned now, you would probably be one of the first to bring the torch.
    2. iConst
      iConst 6 November 2013 20: 26
      -2
      Quote: vthrehbq
      =)) Do you really think that a drone can replace a plane with a pilot?

      The question is not so - you can remove part of the tasks from the pilot and assign them to the drone.

      And in the long run - yes, replacing manned aircraft with different types of drones.

      For example, on-duty missile carriers can be replaced with drones. Let them be smaller and carry one missile, but for the same cost (compared with the missile carrier) there will be several of them and they don’t know the rest.

      If you fantasize, then for example, next to a manned aircraft, a pair of nimble drones with their brains can fly and cover the pilot when necessary. laughing
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 6 November 2013 20: 37
        +4
        Quote: iConst
        The question is not so - you can remove part of the tasks from the pilot and assign them to the drone.

        And in the long run - yes, replacing manned aircraft with different types of drones.

        For example, on-duty missile carriers can be replaced with drones. Let them be smaller and carry one missile, but for the same cost (compared with the missile carrier) there will be several of them and they don’t know the rest.

        If you fantasize, then for example, next to a manned aircraft, a pair of nimble drones with their brains can fly and cover the pilot when necessary.
        And in case of interception of the control channel?
        1. iConst
          iConst 6 November 2013 20: 50
          -4
          Quote: Alex 241
          And in case of interception of the control channel?

          Control channel what?

          And then - I just wrote about drones with brains. They will not need to explain anything - they themselves will do what is needed.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 53
            +5
            Quote: iConst
            And then - I just wrote about drones with brains. They will not need to explain anything - they themselves will do what is needed.


            Do you think drones with brains will not have a control channel?
            1. iConst
              iConst 6 November 2013 21: 01
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              Do you think drones with brains will not have a control channel?

              Then it would be about remote-controlled aircraft.

              A channel, or rather a communications system, will certainly be. But just the main task is to create largely autonomous unmanned systems.

              Look at the topic wider.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 03
                +1
                Quote: iConst
                A channel, or rather a communications system, will certainly be. But just the main task is to create largely autonomous unmanned systems.

                Look at the topic wider.

                I look. Just in this case, interception through the control channel is eliminated. Why?
                1. iConst
                  iConst 6 November 2013 21: 07
                  -1
                  Quote: Pimply
                  I look. Just in this case, interception through the control channel is eliminated. Why?

                  And how do you imagine this?
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 12
                    +2
                    Quote: iConst
                    And how do you imagine this?

                    Imagine silently. Technology does not stand still.
                  2. iConst
                    iConst 6 November 2013 21: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Imagine silently. Technology does not stand still.

                    Well then, the possibility of interception is silently excluded. After all, as you rightly noticed, technology does not stand still! laughing

                    But seriously - if it’s not about the dumb jamming of the radio channel, then to intercept control you need:
                    1. know for sure this is that channel
                    2. crack encryption
                    3. steal a control code system
                    4. write a control system for these codes

                    That's just a glimpse of the problem.

                    And if you consider that the encryption codes and keys are constantly changing (do you know anything about ZAS?), Then go ahead - intercept ...
                  3. Pimply
                    Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 22
                    +3
                    Quote: iConst
                    But seriously - if it’s not about the dumb jamming of the radio channel, then to intercept control you need:
                    1. know for sure this is that channel
                    2. crack encryption
                    3. steal a control code system
                    4. write a control system for these codes

                    I do not argue. But in this case, you say as if there is no channel.

                    Indeed, at the moment, autonomy at the level that you are talking about is also not achieved.
                  4. iConst
                    iConst 6 November 2013 21: 25
                    +1
                    Quote: Pimply
                    But in this case, you say as if there is no channel

                    Where did I state this?
                  5. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 6 November 2013 21: 27
                    +3
                    Quote: iConst
                    Control channel what?
              2. Alex 241
                Alex 241 6 November 2013 21: 25
                +3
                Now, offhand, describe to me the problems for creating an UAV with artificial intelligence?
              3. iConst
                iConst 6 November 2013 21: 34
                +2
                Quote: Alex 241
                Now, offhand, describe to me the problems for creating an UAV with artificial intelligence?

                And, as I understand it, this is for me.

                The main problem is our lack of natural intelligence. laughing
                This is a joke, but every joke has a share ... (I will not send it).
    3. Botanologist
      Botanologist 6 November 2013 22: 21
      +2
      Quote: iConst
      the main task is to create largely autonomous unmanned systems.


      Until the first virus program. And then all autonomy will end in one minute.
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 6 November 2013 20: 58
    +4
    That is, you excluded a person from the control chain? And a basin with weapons dangles in the air by itself?
  • Altair
    Altair 9 November 2013 17: 19
    0
    Quote: vthrehbq
    All this reminds a story with lasers. Every month, Americans are promoting that they’ll create a combat laser

    Scientists from Jefferson's laboratory showed reporters the record power of the new injector Free Electron Combat Laser (FEL) US Navy.
    http://rnd.cnews.ru/army/news/line/index_science.shtml?2011/02/25/429567

    The company Boeing has created a powerful laser that can provide a "laser revolution" in the military
    http://topwar.ru/34341-kompaniya-boeing-sozdala-moschnyy-lazer-kotoryy-mozhet-ob
    espechit-lazernuyu-revolyuciyu-v-voennom-dele.html
  • Grifan
    Grifan 6 November 2013 12: 28
    0
    Well-wishers already have drones on aircraft carriers landing.


    what progress, and they already and they already use laser screwdrivers? wassat
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 6 November 2013 16: 00
    +6
    Recall in which year the unmanned flight and landing of the Buran were made.
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 6 November 2013 21: 24
      -2
      We’ve got a buran ... And technologies in Israel and the USA .. have also been stolen in 90 = x .. it’s not for nothing that it’s made in vain .. (I think not everyone left for Israel something left ..) We still laugh ...
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 26
        +2
        Quote: MIKHAN
        We’ve got a buran ... And technologies in Israel and the USA .. have also been stolen in 90 = x .. it’s not for nothing that it’s made in vain .. (I think not everyone left for Israel something left ..) We still laugh ...

        And then Ostap suffered (c) you know when UAVs appeared in Israel. And what is the fundamental difference between unmanned Buran and modern UAVs?
  • GHG
    GHG 6 November 2013 17: 13
    +1
    The answer is "truthful." My country closed this topic in 88, blocking the current situation of all your beloved Israelis, stopping at times.
  • Heccrbq .2
    Heccrbq .2 6 November 2013 22: 51
    -1
    On this site do not like the truth wink
  • Watchman
    Watchman 9 November 2013 14: 43
    0
    Their drones still in Iran against their will land ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Zubr
    Zubr 6 November 2013 09: 00
    +3
    All the same, our cars have always been beautiful. We hurry slowly so that we don’t break firewood.
  • DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 6 November 2013 09: 43
    +6
    I agree, our steel birds are beautiful. Not a beautiful plane, it will not fly well. Beautiful and toothy. I hope these winged predators will not depart from the traditions laid down in past machines. and will be a formidable adversary for anyone who decides to cross our borders.
    1. True
      True 6 November 2013 10: 03
      +1
      Yes there! Tomorrow all five Washington bombs are sent!
      1. Grifan
        Grifan 6 November 2013 12: 30
        +7
        Yes there! Tomorrow all five Washington bombs are sent!


        Stupidly, fatly and sadly negative
        1. True
          True 7 November 2013 09: 17
          +3
          I hope these winged predators do not depart from the traditions laid down in past cars. and will be a formidable adversary for anyone who decides to cross our borders
          No, but here without any pathos, a person wrote! And me, and what am I? I wrote this sarcasm as I just got up from under the table and stopped laughing.
    2. iConst
      iConst 6 November 2013 21: 48
      +2
      Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
      I agree, our steel birds are beautiful. Not a beautiful plane, it will not fly well.

      There is an observation - if a thing is beautiful, this also applies to military vehicles, weapons, then it turns out to be effective. A kind of severe formidable beauty.

      In a person, a certain instinct works at the level of the subconscious. It's unexplainable...
  • slavik_gross
    slavik_gross 6 November 2013 09: 58
    +3
    We look forward to launching the series !!!
    1. VAF
      VAF 6 November 2013 10: 24
      11
      Dear Mr. Korotchenko!

      You minus (it’s clear that you are on this minus lol ) but ... a matter of principle!
      And all the more so since you are positioning yourself as WTCAO or whatever ... I don’t read, I just heard.
      So here is the MINUS for this quote: "
      "The fifth PAK FA is the first vehicle from the pilot batch, whose appearance is already as close as possible to the appearance of a serial fighter."

      Do not wishful thinking, this time.

      If you put next 52,53,54,55 without numbers .. then you are unlikely to determine .. where which, these are two

      Here it is clear. 4 and 5 wink Photos .. well, very LARGE, so that even the "urya propagandist" can see wassat







      Installation batch, in accordance with the SRPP standards, produce not before, but after the ICG, and adjusting the CA based on the results of the GSI with the assignment of lit. "O1" is three.

      But the 7-ka (while the plans are such) will already be the first car from the experimental batch (CD letter "O").
      GSE in Akhtuba will be carried out on an experimental batch of four flying machines in 2014-2016, with the assignment of CD lit. "O1", approximate terms, may move upward by years, that's four.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 6 November 2013 22: 12
        +1
        ......................................
        1. VAF
          VAF 7 November 2013 13: 13
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          ......................................


          Hi Sanya! Specially wrote that the PHOTO is BIG .. so carefully look at the 4-ku the same lower 101 KO-0 has long been wink

          But since I didn’t see it ... hold ... here is very large drinks



          But what is the difference, or rather the difference between the 5s and the rest ... so this ... there are more "patches" bully

          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 7 November 2013 13: 23
            +1
            Hi Seryozha, looked at him.
  • Salavatsky Ministry of Emergency Situations
    +1
    And where his weapons are suspended, the pylons are not visible. Is it located inside? Explain who is the specialist. Wikipedia says: "It can be assumed that air-to-air missiles are located inside two identical internal compartments." What is the real situation?
    1. bolonenkov
      bolonenkov 6 November 2013 11: 34
      +3
      And where he hangs weapons, pylons are not visible

      All weapons hidden in internal compartments to reduce visibility
      1. Salavatsky Ministry of Emergency Situations
        +1
        Got it, thanks for the info.
  • ReifA
    ReifA 6 November 2013 10: 13
    +2
    More to them, but soon.
  • major071
    major071 6 November 2013 10: 13
    +7
    The fifth PAK FA is the first machine from the installation batch, whose appearance is as close as possible to the appearance of a serial fighter.

    Apparently they will still make some minor changes in the appearance of the aircraft. And so a good "bird" turned out. Now the most important thing: trials for troops and more.
    1. VAF
      VAF 6 November 2013 10: 44
      +3
      Quote: major071
      And so a good "bird" turned out.


      And we have all the "birds" are very good fellow , that's only when it comes to turning a "bird" into a Hawk or Kite .... a lot of problems arise and it turns out. that "bird", then "bird", that's just not the War bird ... but the "Dove of Peace" recourse , Unfortunately request

      ZY The times of the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam, Egypt and later cannot be cited as an example, although already in Korea and Vietnam it was .... not very "ice" soldier
      1. avg
        avg 6 November 2013 12: 24
        +4
        I do not know that there was no "ice" in Korea and Vietnam, but since
        insist, I will give an example of the first world:
        "The world's first RBVZ-16 fighter aircraft was built in Russia in January 1915 at the Russian-Baltic Shipyard, where the heavy airship Ilya Muromets was previously built. At the suggestion of the famous Russian pilots A. V. Pankratyev, G. V. Alekhnovich and other group of designers of the plant created a special fighter aircraft to accompany the "Muromtsev" during combat flights and to protect bomber bases from enemy attacks from the air. The RBVZ-16 aircraft was armed with a synchronous machine gun that fired through the propeller. In September 1915 the plant began serial production of fighters.
        Also, Russian designers have the honor of creating the world's first multi-engine aircrafts - the first-borns of heavy bomber aviation. "
        I don’t know what will happen with the T-50. But any country would raise a 5th generation fighter into the air unconditionally be proud of this fact alone. hi
        1. VAF
          VAF 6 November 2013 16: 33
          +2
          Quote: avg
          but kol
          insist, I will give an example of the first world:


          And here is my quote- ".... The times of the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam, Egypt and later do not give an example "
          There is a problem with Russian letters, just ... you can’t read it? request

          Then such a "concept" as .. "to understand" is not considered a priori tongue
        2. VAF
          VAF 6 November 2013 16: 40
          +2
          Quote: avg
          5th generation fighter


          That's when it rises into the air truly a 5th generation fighter, and not experimental prototypes, with "intermediate" motors and normal armament ... that's when we will fellow

          In the meantime, we have what ... what we have .. so the slogans .. this is in another place hi
      2. viktorR
        viktorR 6 November 2013 14: 26
        +3
        MiG-15 was inferior to Saber? Well, 21 I will not compare with a phantom, there are different concepts. For me, the tag is definitely no worse than a saber. In your opinion, we should have surpassed amers by 2 times in the steepness of the aircraft))? For me, the "price / quality" was far ahead of us. Well, or 27 which is worse than F-15? What does "..not very ice" mean?
        1. VAF
          VAF 6 November 2013 16: 48
          +6
          Quote: viktorR
          Mig-15 inferior to saber?


          Super? Definitely !!!

          Quote: viktorR
          Well, I will not compare 21 with the phantom, there are different concepts.


          So take the F-5 wink 21st and didn’t stand nearby, with all my patriotism recourse

          Quote: viktorR
          For me, the "price / quality" was far ahead of us.


          Price - here we naturally come first, but if you consider what we give .. "for free" so in general wassat

          About "quality" ... it's better not to even remember about it crying

          Quote: viktorR
          What does "..not very ice" mean?


          When will you realize that ICE is when COMPLEX, and not when the glider and engines, then we will communicate.

          Or do you want to argue about the "coolness" of the R-27 missile family wassat
          Why with them? Yes, because this is the BASIS (which is already years old ... like me) and until the turn, the possibility of using the P-73's can be just .... do not fly soldier
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 48
            0
            Quote: vaf
            When you understand that ICE is when COMPLEX, and not when glider and engines, then we will communicate.

            Namely, and to many, Sash, it simply does not reach. Hats are more important to them.
          2. viktorR
            viktorR 7 November 2013 12: 42
            0
            Super? Definitely !!!
            Tokda already compare with 15bis)
            So take the F-5 21st and didn’t stand nearby, with all my patriotism
            And what is it better? Judging by the distribution of the 21s, they are all the same better. I won’t argue about 27, not Amraham, but we didn’t manage to put 77 into the series normally, as they remained in an independent one.
        2. iConst
          iConst 6 November 2013 20: 44
          +2
          Quote: viktorR
          For me, the "price / quality" was far ahead of us.

          That's for sure. They always took money.
          And ours often found a cheaper, but adequate, and often superior answer due to the originality of the solution.

          I'm afraid it's lost.
  • Bogdarin
    Bogdarin 6 November 2013 10: 50
    +2
    I wonder when they will show aerobatics with maximum overload?
    1. VAF
      VAF 6 November 2013 11: 17
      +4
      Quote: Bogdarin
      when will aerobatics with maximum overloads be shown?


      Not very soon bully, but they will show +! But ask the author of the article .. may be among the "shouts-cheers" will answer, why at the moment NONE of the T-50 is flying? wink

      And then blah blah blah and fellow it's them ... can wassat where are they without .. slogans lol
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 6 November 2013 11: 18
        +1
        IMHO again with a glider they got a nod.
        1. VAF
          VAF 6 November 2013 11: 22
          +5
          Quote: leon-iv
          again with the glider they got naughty


          And not only bully n..mainly found the cause and effect .. now they are intensively "eliminating" .. soon again in the sky drinks
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 6 November 2013 11: 29
            +6
            So always. It’s better to catch taracons right now than to arrange dances with a tambourine in the fuel and energy sector and in factories.
            1. VAF
              VAF 6 November 2013 17: 04
              +1
              Quote: leon-iv
              So always.


              Truss truth buddy request When there was still a great MAP, even then the military was imposed such a concept ..... "experimental exploitation" (you have already described everything else in your second sentence to the comment).
              And in theory there should be a letter 01, and then with the military 02, and it all ends heap lists and additions with intentional restrictions and so on for 10 years minimum.

              And in fact it seems to be like on paper and all the BG, but in practice .... okay, let's not talk about sad things.
              And I look at such a system ... all over the place ... that Boreas without Clubs, that Ash trees without Onyx, etc. etc.
              1. Russ69
                Russ69 6 November 2013 17: 48
                +3
                Quote: vaf
                that boreas without maces

                The order for their production is not withdrawn. They’ll fix it, the rocket is not a plane, you won’t land it after launch to modify or fix it ... smile
          2. Russ69
            Russ69 6 November 2013 12: 32
            +4
            Quote: vaf
            n..mainly found the cause and effect .. now they are intensively "eliminating" ..
            For this, there are prototypes to find sores. Workflow ... and no more.
            1. VAF
              VAF 6 November 2013 16: 56
              +3
              Quote: Russ69
              For this, there are prototypes to find sores. Workflow ... and no more.


              Naturally +! I'm trying to tell about this, but the afftor and those who "joined" him " fellow "-the patriots are already the installation party and the GSI and in general .. tomorrow in the troops lol fool
          3. silver_roman
            silver_roman 6 November 2013 13: 42
            0
            I understand that most of the information is not subject to universal access, but if possible, in a nutshell about the shortcomings, causes and effects. We will be very grateful!
            1. VAF
              VAF 6 November 2013 17: 08
              +3
              Quote: silver_roman
              but if possible


              Sorry, dear, but .. bully , and why you yourself answered at the beginning of your comment drinks

              if in short, if they do not "drive" and try to "pull by the ears" to the terms declared by the Great "miracle workers", then everything will be good

              And the storming ... it’s in Africa .. the storming. I personally. The prospect of having the same plane .. like Khryapa .. well, not at all smiling soldier
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 6 November 2013 17: 33
                +3
                Understood. Otherwise, if you disclosed at least some terms or specific details, then according to the classics of the genre of the "holy forest", you would have to kill me lol
                But for a piece of optimism and thanks for that:
                All will be
              2. TSOOBER
                TSOOBER 6 November 2013 17: 47
                +2
                Hello hello, the optical target designation system is closed in the photo, and there was infa that the prototype was designed for weapons testing as well - the question is not ready, or I just don’t understand something! Thank you in advance! drinks
                1. VAF
                  VAF 6 November 2013 19: 04
                  +3
                  Quote: TSOOBER
                  the question is she is not ready


                  Ready, you just don't get it. wink Now they almost always fly with caps bully
                  1. TSOOBER
                    TSOOBER 6 November 2013 19: 34
                    +1
                    Thank you Sergey for the answer! hi
      2. viktorR
        viktorR 6 November 2013 14: 34
        +2
        Waf, I don’t know why, but all your posts in relation to the pack are saturated with some kind of incomprehensible hostility. Tell me honestly, you envy that you don’t have to fly at them))? (joke)
        But seriously, it does not look like constructive criticism, but like criticism, as if you like failures (although this is not a failure, but rather a workflow) and you use the slightest opportunity to suck on any problem and spit it out like a terrible miscalculation and "all-out-of-the-box"

        Threat do not call me urapatriot, I'm just a patriot
        1. VAF
          VAF 6 November 2013 17: 54
          +5
          Quote: viktorR
          but all your posts with respect to the pack are saturated with some kind of incomprehensible hostility.


          Dear Victor .. wrote, wrote you a detailed answer to all your "reproaches", but he ..yats .. and did not fit in .. and naturally disappeared, so I will repeat very briefly .. directly according to your suggestions:
          1. You are very much mistaken, because. either you don't read it carefully or confuse it with a super-duper ... yes .. this is my "favorite" ... "masalet" wassat (The locals call him Super-Bobby lol and what .. I like it .. and capaciously and everything ... reflects wassat ).
          2. Of course I envy ... but with white envy, but repeatedly stood next to him and "clapped" and "stroked" on his side wink so you are the same .. I envy.
          3. I have never criticized the T-50, but blah-blah-blah from Verchnik and their "pearls" (including this article) is yes. Since there is nothing with reality, these statements and fellow Dont Have soldier
          4. Don't like that. what I write as it is. and not as "cherished" by the media?
          So for God's sake .. don’t read.
          Like "noodles" request for God's sake .... I do not impose.
          5. Call as you want .. but I sincerely upset soldier all ..... next photo wassat

          1. viktorR
            viktorR 7 November 2013 12: 45
            +1
            I apologize, did not want to offend. I will not call names anymore))).
  • The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 6 November 2013 11: 03
    0
    Rather, new engines for PAK-FA and weapons would have been ready.
  • The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 6 November 2013 11: 03
    +1
    Rather, new engines for PAK-FA and weapons would have been ready.
  • Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 6 November 2013 11: 18
    +4
    It would be good if these birds took into service in the required quantity and not in batches of 1 pc. at 2 years old.
  • Bongo
    Bongo 6 November 2013 11: 38
    +4
    It is a pity that the author limited himself to beautiful phtography and optimistic comments to them. But it would not hurt to tell you and with what difficulties this aircraft is being built, as well as about the situation at the Komsomolsk aircraft plant.
  • badger1974
    badger1974 6 November 2013 12: 17
    -2
    at exactly who to whom, and Seryoga knows what is there and how, here is the current I will not understand, which direction of this apparatus? what should he replace? interceptors? battlefield aircraft? or even to demonstrate at MAKS and various EXPOs? at the August MAKS I did not see anything that would be remembered in the flight demonstration, since I remembered when the Su-27 and MiG-29 "burst" into the history of aircraft masterpieces, it seems to me that the T-50 is complete mediocrity, and even without its own engine, with an onboard equipment of yesterday, undoubtedly expensive,
    1. vthrehbq
      vthrehbq 6 November 2013 12: 22
      +2
      I advise you to read more about the 5th generation airplane and not make stupid conclusions in advance ..
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 24
        +1
        what are stupid?
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 7 November 2013 11: 33
          +2
          Given that your arguments are nonsense like this
          T-50 mediocrity
          nothing reinforced, then probably concretize at the expense of pluses it makes no sense.
          In addition, the important point is that in fact there is no plane. There is only a project and there are prototypes that will definitely be brought to production cars for a long time to come. It seems to me that if we were living in the USSR now, then no one knew about the creation and design of the T-50. Su-27, or rather T-10 sawed in strict confidence and appeared in public as a finished machine.
          Therefore, it is still at least too early to argue about the qualities of the future 5th generation aircraft.

          Well, if we talk about the role, then as you noticed, with the introduction of all new types of weapons, the developer and the customer himself pursues the idea of ​​unification, i.e. when one combat unit will be able to perform the maximum number of roles without prejudice to its other capabilities.
          Another issue in application tactics ...
          And at the expense of the engine, we have already begun to develop the fifth generation engine (second stage). Product 117 is already being put on the su-35 and on the T-50. According to developers, the new engine will give the aircraft 15-20% power. But again the words - a finger to the sky. In general, we are waiting and believing in our OKB, the Air Force and the army as a whole.
          P.S. Happy holiday to you, comrades !!!
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 7 November 2013 13: 06
            +1
            on the Su-35 in the Su-37 there are afterburner "cradles", according to the T-50 project, the mother should have a non-afterburning slot-nozzle engine, the question is where is it? Second, at the expense of unification, units like the MiG-29 and modifications in service the load will initially give a head start to the 50th, and the Su-30, and even more so, without reducing the effectiveness in air combat, the Su-35 too, so what did you find such a revolutionary one in the T-50? In the course of Russia, a solid attack aircraft is required to replace the "comb", and not a "parquet" unnevirsal, by the way, YOU ARE HAPPY ALSO, I will celebrate in the evening
      2. iConst
        iConst 7 November 2013 17: 27
        -1
        Quote: vthrehbq
        I advise you to read more about the 5th generation airplane and not make stupid conclusions in advance ..
        Yes, and who can correctly list the signs of a 5th generation aircraft? Or at least the main differences between the 4th and 5th?
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 7 November 2013 17: 46
          -1
          The United States has outlined that the sign will be advanced developments in "invisibility", to facilitate the design due to materials like fullerene and carbon fiber (Kevlar), and electronics itself, I agree with the latter, but the first two are a huge question, for me and other people right away the question arises, why the hell is such a toy, an attack aircraft is needed, so that it would be durable, powerful, reliable, unpretentious to airfields, and could act in conditions of harsh EMP (electromagnetic pulses)
  • clidon
    clidon 6 November 2013 13: 28
    0
    And I’m wondering when we will begin to create an analogue of the F-35, that is, an inexpensive single-engine fighter, based on PAK FA technologies.
    1. aviator65
      aviator65 6 November 2013 15: 06
      +1
      Is this F-35, jack of all trades, inexpensive?
      1. clidon
        clidon 6 November 2013 17: 21
        +1
        I did not write, "the same universal", we can easily abandon the vertical version and design only sea and land vehicles. This will provide significant savings and will allow more fifth-generation vehicles to be delivered to the troops and offer the market an alternative to the F-35.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 6 November 2013 20: 39
        -1
        Quote: aviator65
        Is this F-35, jack of all trades, inexpensive?

        Yes, inexpensive. MIG-29, 5th generation. The question is normal, why yernichat?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 52
          +5
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          MIG-29, 5-th generation.

          ??
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 6 November 2013 21: 16
            +2
            Quote: Pimply
            ??

            In the sense? Don't you understand the comparison? Or did you cling to the number 29? I meant the logical continuation of this series. MIGs are cheaper than SUSHKI, and I don’t understand why all the money and applause are only one way.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 21
              +1
              The fifth generation 29 is what surprised me. Fifth generation light fighters so far seem not to be planned in Russia.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 6 November 2013 21: 27
                0
                Quote: Pimply
                Fifth generation light fighters so far seem not to be planned in Russia.

                This is what angers me. I really wanted to plan and release. SUSHKIs are chic cars, but their goals are narrowish for real military operations.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  This is what angers me. I really wanted to plan and release. SUSHKIs are chic cars, but their goals are narrowish for real military operations.

                  What will it cost and why?
              2. badger1974
                badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 34
                0
                "wrap" the MiG-29 in fullerene covered in fiberglass in fairings, and here is a new miracle weapon, or do you think that the missile weapons hidden inside and everything is hidden, read the air defense news 30 years ago, EPR with 20mm per square for a long time detectable
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 November 2013 23: 24
                  0
                  Quote: badger1974
                  "wrap" the MiG-29 in fullerene covered in fiberglass in fairings, and here is a new miracle weapon, or do you think that the missile weapons hidden inside and everything is hidden, read the air defense news 30 years ago, EPR with 20mm per square for a long time detectable

                  Of course. One hundred pounds, Mig - this is not the fifth, this is the sixth generation.
                  1. badger1974
                    badger1974 7 November 2013 13: 23
                    +2
                    well, with what fright to hide a fat body in the cliffs, if detection is guaranteed, recent events have been repeating about it, it’s strange not to notice
            2. badger1974
              badger1974 7 November 2013 13: 20
              +2
              usually talk about modifications like the MiG-29 and Su-27, generation 4+, or 4 ++++
      3. badger1974
        badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 29
        +1
        I would like to see how it goes through BUKEY, not to mention S-kah
      4. badger1974
        badger1974 7 November 2013 13: 17
        +1
        The 35th is the forgotten Yak-141 in the 80s, the entire layout 35 was bought for money from Yakovlev Design Bureau when there was a mess of the 90s
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 7 November 2013 14: 29
          +4
          Not 35 is not Yak, of course, but Americans borrowed a lot of things from it.
        2. clidon
          clidon 7 November 2013 16: 44
          0
          Do not make up. The Americans were interested in the 141st nozzle. The rest of the aircraft turned out to be completely different.
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 7 November 2013 17: 56
            -2
            very similar, put a picture of one and the other, and inside the complete gas-dynamic scheme of Yak
            1. clidon
              clidon 7 November 2013 18: 24
              0
              The engine layout is similar between the two keels ... Then the differences begin. Does Yak have a lift fan? Does it have an S shaped bend in the air intakes? Does the engine look alike? Is there an internal weapons compartment?
              So where is the "similar internal scheme"?
              And this only applies to the vertical - most F-35s do not.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 November 2013 15: 21
      +2
      F-35 ... inexpensive ... fighter ...

      amused, thanks dear hi
      1. clidon
        clidon 6 November 2013 17: 18
        0
        It is cheaper than a twin-engine F-22, respectively, and our single-engine and lighter car will be cheaper.
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 36
          -1
          What is your single engine?
          1. clidon
            clidon 7 November 2013 05: 47
            0
            For the creation of which I speak.
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 7 November 2013 17: 57
              -2
              dead end branch, I say those
              1. clidon
                clidon 7 November 2013 20: 03
                0
                What is it deadlock?
                1. badger1974
                  badger1974 8 November 2013 10: 30
                  -1
                  survivability, look at the pictures when they fired on a single-engine aircraft and twin-engine, I'm sure there are no single-engine foty
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 8 November 2013 16: 39
                    0
                    The whole world quietly flies and flies on single-engine machines. Vitality is certainly lower, but reliability is higher and the cost of production and operation is lower. Therefore, the demand for them will always be.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 6 November 2013 20: 54
        0
        Quote: cth; fyn
        amused, thanks dear

        And what's funny? In the operation and production of the series - yes, relatively inexpensive.
        1. JIaIIoTb
          JIaIIoTb 6 November 2013 21: 25
          +1
          When the United States "presents" you with a couple of dozen of these "inexpensive" fighters, then you will immediately count everything and cry. Only on the forum you will be "modestly" silent about this.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 November 2013 21: 30
            0
            Quote: JIaIIoTb
            When the United States "presents" you with a couple of dozen of these "inexpensive" fighters, then you will immediately count everything and cry. Only on the forum you will be "modestly" silent about this.

            Let's do it this way. You claim that "they are expensive." Go ahead, justify.
            1. JIaIIoTb
              JIaIIoTb 7 November 2013 09: 00
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              Let's do it this way. You claim that "they are expensive." Go ahead, justify.


              Aircraft cost

              Today, F-22 is the most expensive fighter in service in the world. The production cost of one aircraft is estimated at $ 146,2 million (for 2008), and the full price, taking into account all indirect costs and with the expected production volume, is 350 million.

              Sometimes they say about the F-22 that it is "worth its weight in gold", which literally corresponded to the financial markets in February 2006 - the cost of 19,7 tons of pure gold (the weight of an empty F-22A) during this period was the same $ 350 million.
              At the same time, the F-22 is not the most expensive aircraft in the world - the most expensive is the inconspicuous B-2 Spirit bomber, each of which cost the US Air Force $ 1,157 billion without R&D, and $ 2,1 billion with R&D. .
              According to the United States General Audit Office (GAO), at the end of 2010, the full price of one F-22 aircraft reached $ 411,7 million

              Operating costs

              The operation of the F-22 is also very expensive, which is largely due to the vulnerability of the radio-absorbing coating, defects on which even ordinary rain can cause. The Washington Post, citing an unnamed US military, reports that the cost of an F-22 flight hour is $ 44. However, the complexity of the service at the F-22 is not excessively high - 30 man-hours for 1 hour of flight. For comparison, the F-4 Phantom II fighter of the third generation had 35 man-hours, and the F-104 Starfighter, which was considered difficult to maintain, had 50 man-hours.
              http://3mv.ru/publ/mnogocelevoj_istrebitel_f_22_raptor/5-1-0-9208

              Although I may not be right and Israel considers such amounts "not expensive"?
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 7 November 2013 14: 35
                0
                To begin with, if you had tracked the comment, you would have understood that it was about the F-35 fighter, and not about the F-22. You have to be more careful. Next - it was about the operation of the machine. This is what I asked to prove - that he is F35, and not F22, dear.
                1. JIaIIoTb
                  JIaIIoTb 7 November 2013 14: 42
                  0
                  Hm. Yes You're right. But as far as I read the f-35 is not much cheaper. Plus, this is an incomplete generation. That is, it is advertised as the fifth, but in fact it is rather weak.
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 7 November 2013 20: 04
                    0
                    One and a half times cheaper. Well, then the different ads can be read. Something in which he will be more advanced than the F-22.
                2. badger1974
                  badger1974 8 November 2013 11: 56
                  -1
                  Zhurik "Jane" described that the F-35 is a concept for "the personal needs of the Marine Corps" and only because the licensed Harrier does not meet the needs and requirements of this, and this military formation of the US Armed Forces is the most privileged, but there is difficulty in adopting f-35-it is the same as with the Yak-141, unreliable operation of the nodes, even the concept was expressed that "let it not be a VTOL aircraft but an SUVVP (an aircraft with a shortened takeoff and landing)
    3. badger1974
      badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 27
      +1
      35 is based on Yak-141 technologies, it's time to know
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 November 2013 23: 29
        +1
        Quote: badger1974
        35 is based on Yak-141 technologies, it's time to know
        It's time to know that there the Yak-141 cat wept. Have you even compared the principles of lifting the Yak-141 and F-35? One jet stream, the other a lift fan. The only thing that is more or less similar is the design of the nozzle. Documents on the Yak allowed the Americans to abandon dead ends.
        1. I think so
          I think so 7 November 2013 00: 20
          0
          Documents have nothing to do with it, and they themselves have been tormented for a long time in that impasse, they also have carrier-based YAK-type aircraft ...
          1. aviator65
            aviator65 7 November 2013 02: 02
            +1
            What did you mean? They only produced "harrier". But, unfortunately, for Jacob nothing like their "Pegasus" we have not created. Therefore, they dragged on themselves two additional lifting engines, which ate their combat load and range to the smallest amount. An impasse arose when the question arose about a swiveling supersonic nozzle. It was here that we overtook them in the Yak-141.
        2. Know-nothing
          Know-nothing 7 November 2013 06: 42
          +1
          The nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls-Royce based on their experience (they first developed such a nozzle for the German VJ101E in 1965).
        3. badger1974
          badger1974 7 November 2013 18: 01
          -2
          it’s strange how you didn’t notice the gas pipelines at the ends of the planes, and the lift is not a fan, but the real gas turbine engine, don’t confuse a finger with a finger, they will laugh at the design bureau
          1. alex86
            alex86 7 November 2013 18: 48
            +1
            Sorry, but the F-35 really has a lifting fan, they were still proud of the unique gearbox and (EMNIP) disconnect device (clutch, simply, but I'm not sure about the wording and principle of operation here ...)
            I must say that such a scheme is more suitable - more traction, no hot jet destroying the runway, less likely that hot exhaust gases will get into the air intake.
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 8 November 2013 12: 13
              -2
              this is the work of the ejector, air suction, behind the fan the air density is created there fuel is added (boost), is there an e-turbine? is there a gas mixture? is there a nozzle set? there is, so it’s not GTE, another thing on Harrier Pegasus stupidly the air was taken from the second circuit without forcing, and the rear two nozzles, due to the bend, took about 40% of the energy of the outgoing gases, for the curious, in the second world from the Japanese there was such a thing as MX7 OKA22, the Americans called it BAKA, look at what the jet engine of this apparatus consisted of
              1. alex86
                alex86 10 November 2013 17: 55
                +1
                Forgive me, the F-35 has a vertical-axis lift fan, fuel is not added anywhere, there is no need to interfere with the turbojet compressor with a lift fan - it is separate, it works only when lifting, Pegasus is a completely different story. No offense, look at the F-35 scheme, everything is clear there. A similar scheme (sorry for the repetition) is clearly better than that adopted in the Yak-141, and Yakovlev’s design bureau came in the same way, though they didn’t implement it in metal.
                1. badger1974
                  badger1974 10 November 2013 20: 41
                  0
                  it is something like this
  • Budilnik
    Budilnik 6 November 2013 13: 38
    +3
    the pace is very low and the enemy is on the verge of ....
    1. I think so
      I think so 7 November 2013 00: 17
      +1
      The enemy is on the doorstep, but until he unfolds his own about the entire ocean ... For us, the landmark is the end of the deployment of at least 1-2 thousand anti-missiles ... that's when they will start ... By the way, by this time on alert in The Strategic Missile Forces may no longer have combat missiles - they will be replaced by Bulava, Topol, YARS ...
  • Andreitas
    Andreitas 6 November 2013 14: 35
    0
    Small by little, little by little. And only over the years of production did we learn the essence.
  • basil200
    basil200 6 November 2013 14: 44
    +1
    Quote: True
    Well-wishers already have drones on aircraft carriers landing. This is not for you to pump oil but money with families in the hill to dive!

    Their drones land, our BURAN land, this is not a drone for you.
    1. I think so
      I think so 7 November 2013 00: 14
      0
      And that there were pilots (cosmonauts) in "Buran" when it landed?
  • e3tozy
    e3tozy 6 November 2013 17: 12
    0
    The car is beautiful, with great potential and promise. By the way, if everything that was planned will be implemented, it will be the first in the world truly multi-purpose complex, in the sense in which military experts of the powers wanted to see it. Only the states did not succeed, as we see. To the creators, factory workers, pilots, respect to the author! Agree, the sky looks powerful.
  • Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 6 November 2013 19: 21
    0
    , all is well, but rivets ... more than the stars in the sky ...
    1. VAF
      VAF 6 November 2013 20: 17
      +2
      Quote: Lone gunman
      but rivets ..


      This is not rivets dear, but .. bolts wink
      1. atalef
        atalef 6 November 2013 20: 22
        +3
        Quote: vaf
        This is not rivets dear, but .. bolts

        Sasha. Hi !!! On the occasion of you - the October Revolution - I don’t know who should celebrate, friends of Russia or enemies?
        So for fun - the rivet bolt can be put belay
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 49
          0
          I celebrate, tomorrow's shift, therefore Happy holiday !!!
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 6 November 2013 21: 38
      +6
      There are a lot of bolts on the F-22, as well as on the F-35 .... Look how they work with the mount ... and in shoe covers ...
  • e3tozy
    e3tozy 6 November 2013 22: 18
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    And in the long run - yes, replacing manned aircraft with different types of drones.

    Do not get carried away, you will not make a fighter a drone, because a fighter is always an improvisation and you give at least ten brains to a drone, he will never have this thing. Everything should be in moderation. Russia, the USA, China and other countries with missile technology will first of all try to disable space groups, to which the same drones are 100 percent tied. When Soviet and American experts agreed to reduce nuclear weapons, the states said they had SDI. Ours answered: ,, And we have Proton of nails ,,.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 6 November 2013 22: 22
      +1
      Yes, I just don’t get carried away laughing
    2. I think so
      I think so 7 November 2013 00: 10
      0
      A fighter, of course, cannot be made a drone, but a drone is not so difficult as a fighter ... soon there will be such "drones".
  • iConst
    iConst 6 November 2013 22: 39
    0
    Quote: e3tozy
    Do not get carried away, you will not make a fighter a drone, because a fighter is always an improvisation and you give at least ten brains to a drone, he will never have this thing. Everything should be in moderation. Russia, the USA, China and other countries with missile technology will first of all try to disable space groups, to which the same drones are 100 percent tied. When Soviet and American experts agreed to reduce nuclear weapons, the states said they had SDI. Ours answered: ,, And we have Proton of nails ,,.
    Well, we all heard about nails, however. Fighter - what are his tasks? Can you list at least the basic ones?
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 6 November 2013 22: 51
      0
      I also wanted to know about it
  • Vlad_Mir
    Vlad_Mir 6 November 2013 23: 32
    -1
    Something the trolls look divorced!
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 6 November 2013 23: 38
    +1
    Cool!

    Fifth - JOINED ...

    And the four previous ones (according to VAFa) - DISCONNECTED, I want to believe temporarily ...
  • I think so
    I think so 7 November 2013 00: 07
    0
    Are the engines on this plane new? Is it stock electronics? Is she there her own or "potential opponents"? It is not a question to make the frame and wings itself ...
    1. aviator65
      aviator65 7 November 2013 02: 13
      +2
      Dear, "frame" is a bike. And as far as "not a question" - look through, at least, a textbook on "aircraft production technology" for technical schools.