Military Review

F-35B Marine Tests

72
A small selection of photos and videos from the tests on the deck of UDC "Wasp" that began on August 12. Several pilots and boards BF-01 and BF-05, both from the test center, are taking part. Fleet to the Patient River.
According to a report on the website of the corporation, 40 flights were performed in the first week.







Approach.

12 August. Landing BF-01. The DT-II Marine Test Series has begun.

12 August. The first landing board BF-05.
F-35B Marine Tests



Both.

BF-05 landing.

BF-01 at the start.

Takeoff.

12 August. Sunset after the first day of testing.


13 August. Historical moment - for the first time since 2010, an English pilot takes off on an airplane from an aircraft carrier. In the cockpit, squadron leader of the FAC of Great Britain Jim Sheveld.



13 August. Approach.

Landing.

14 August. The brothers are on deck.


Evening 14 August. Before night flights.

Night from 14 to 15. Takeoff...

... and landing.










Originator:
http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/416044.html
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. biglow
    biglow 2 December 2013 08: 25
    +1
    another PR of Western technology, beautiful of course, but nothing more ..
    1. Professor
      Professor 2 December 2013 10: 02
      22
      Quote: biglow
      another PR of Western technology, beautiful of course, but nothing more ..

      Do not underestimate the enemy. This papelats will be brought to mind and dozens of 40000 tons of landing ships will become almost full-fledged aircraft carriers and formidable force.
      1. 123dv
        123dv 2 December 2013 11: 04
        -11 qualifying.
        Soon they will give us Alaska for free!
        The wait is not long!
        If they had the strength, they would FOREVER launch the device in a series .... But no!
        1. Professor
          Professor 2 December 2013 12: 09
          15
          Quote: 123dv
          If they had the strength, they would FOREVER launch the device in a series .... But no!

          Soon, only cats will be born. There is no doubt that he will go into the series.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 3 December 2013 23: 18
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            Soon, only cats will be born. There is no doubt that he will go into the series.

            But the question is what series it will be.
            1986-750

            1991-648

            1993-442

            1997-339

            2003-279

            2005-178
        2. rolik2
          2 December 2013 12: 39
          +3
          Quote: 123dv
          If they had the strength, they would FOREVER launch the device in a series .... But no!

          More than 80 boards were produced, of which 60 small-batch vehicles.
          1. Professor
            Professor 2 December 2013 12: 45
            +6
            Quote: rolik2
            More than 80 boards were produced, of which 60 small-batch vehicles.

            Apparently the citizen is referring to the modification of the F-35B.
        3. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 2 December 2013 16: 18
          +4
          Quote: 123dv
          Soon they will give us Alaska for free!
          The wait is not long!
          If they had the strength, they would FOREVER launch the device in a series .... But no!

          Go down to Earth.
        4. Revolver
          Revolver 2 December 2013 20: 46
          +3
          Quote: 123dv
          Soon they will give us Alaska for free!

          Do not expect.
          Yes, and why Russia Alaska? Gold there is already almost everything that is available mined. Will they put rockets there? So this is another reason not to give.
          And again, what shisha are you going to master Alaska? You first master Siberia and the Far East, otherwise the Chinese squint at them very suspiciously. So it is necessary to take measures so that the Chinese do not begin to master.
          1. 123dv
            123dv 2 December 2013 21: 38
            0
            What are the trolls of the noncha evil, they are just no way for us to toss Alaska. laughing
            And minus, and minus ....
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 3 December 2013 04: 34
            +2
            Quote: Nagan
            Yes, and why Russia Alaska? Gold there is already almost everything that is available mined. Will they put rockets there? So this is another reason not to give.

            But one of the most oil-bearing regions.
      2. iwind
        iwind 2 December 2013 12: 53
        +7
        And if you add that the Osprey V-22 is being tested as a tanker, then it’s quite an easy aircraft carrier.
        And they have a lot of such ships.
      3. Slon1978
        Slon1978 3 December 2013 03: 29
        +3
        It seems to me that it is nevertheless necessary to distinguish between the real combat effectiveness of the system and the development of funds - this is exactly the case. A priori, increased accident modification for vertical take-off, reduced combat load and combat radius, initially poor maneuverability and mediocre flight qualities of a base aircraft - for these and other reasons, IMHO F-35B is a welcome client of any fighter, even 4 generations. I think it is impossible to let him into a cannon shot to areas where there can be any enemy aircraft. As a plane of gaining superiority in the air, it cannot be considered in his right mind at all, while like any fighter, he is bad in the role of an attack aircraft, his only role is limited bomber work. But in this role, the F / A-18 is much better, more reliable and cheaper. Bad plane - there will be no sense from him.
  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2013 09: 12
    +4
    Amazing photo.
    There is a saying: "A camel is a horse made in England." The Americans did VTOL aircraft - it turned out a penguin, however laughing .
    1. 123dv
      123dv 2 December 2013 09: 40
      -7
      Oh, something reminds me of everything ... lol
      We threw off our deadlock branch in aviation to our partners, now let them hammer themselves ...
      They have a lot of extra pilots, probably ....
    2. Nexus 6
      Nexus 6 2 December 2013 12: 54
      +5
      Yes F-35 course penguin! But he's just a swallow, compared to that fat loser penguin Boeing X-32. laughing
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2013 13: 35
        +4
        X-32 is not a penguin, but a slaughterhouse
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. evgenii67
    evgenii67 2 December 2013 09: 25
    +1
    American "Yak"
    1. 123dv
      123dv 2 December 2013 11: 27
      +2
      Here is a joke about how a yakoxal sold.

      It’s worth selling a yak.
      Another hokol approaches and asks - how yak?
      Shrugging his shoulders and spreading his arms, the first one answers - like a yak - like a yak ....

      - Yak yak?
      - Yak yak, yak yak!
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. JonnyT
    JonnyT 2 December 2013 09: 31
    +4
    Iron iron ...... but flies ....
  7. de bouillon
    de bouillon 2 December 2013 09: 33
    0
    Quote: biglow
    another PR of Western technology, beautiful of course, but nothing more ..



    PR?

    PR is PAKFA "unparalleled" a typical product of modern Russian eyewash flying without afar radar,
    lack of an afterburner engine, riveted fuselage. In a word, Stalin: cadres decide everything ...
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 2 December 2013 10: 35
      +4
      Uncle, you d ... to?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2013 10: 44
      +9
      Quote: de Bouillon
      PR is PAKFA "unparalleled" a typical product of modern Russian eyewash flying without a radar

      M-d ... Comrade stuck in 2011, :)
      In 2012 EMNIP, the third instance flew with the native AFAR
    3. nikolaxp
      nikolaxp 2 December 2013 16: 02
      14
      Before you write nonsense, you need to at least read something clever before it, so as not to look like a fool in front of others.
      1. At PAK FA there is an AFAR, and it was created even before the pack and at first they began to install su35, su30, su34 on drying
      2. All engines manufactured earlier and developed have afterburner mode, both in our country and in the USA and in the west
      3. All fuselages of any aircraft, whether American or European, or what ours do "on rivets". Without rivets, you can only glue an aircraft model ...
      clickable photo (F35 - no painting, everything is riveted)
    4. Russian sniper
      Russian sniper 2 December 2013 16: 08
      +7
      Why are you so negative about domestic aircraft in demand on the world market. PAK FA or T-50 as you prefer to be only in the experimental phase, as well as vaunted and abused by many F-35s.
      Quote: de bouillon
      Quote: biglow
      another PR of Western technology, beautiful of course, but nothing more ..



      PR?

      PR is PAKFA "unparalleled" a typical product of modern Russian eyewash afar flying without radar,
      lack of an afterburner engine, riveted fuselage
      . In a word, Stalin: cadres decide everything ...




      On the prototype T-50, as well as on the first production samples, which should go into service with the Russian Air Force in 2015, the engines of the first stage - “AL-41F1” (Item 117) were installed. This is an aviation turbojet dual-circuit engine with an afterburner and a controlled thrust vector, created by NPO Saturn by order of Sukhoi Design Bureau, which meets all the engine requirements for a fifth-generation fighter, including the ability to develop supersonic speed without using afterburner, and It has a fully digital control system and a plasma ignition system.


      According to some foreign experts, the PAK FA will be equipped with the new OLS-50M optical-location station, which will provide an advantage in detecting subtle air targets and can become the primary sensor in an air battle with F-22 and F-35 aircraft.
      The composition of the Sh-121 radar system includes: the front-view antenna system Н036-1-01, the L-range antenna system Н036L-1-01 and the side-view antenna systems - Н036Б-1-01Л and Н036Б-1-01Б.
      Radar - designed H036 with an active phased array antenna. The use of the H035 Irbis radar in the early stages is impossible due to the mismatch in size, however, some of the technologies used on the H036 Irbis are used in the developed H035.


      Starting from the third flight model, a radar is installed.


      Who has rivets there, who do not like them ?? laughing
  8. FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 2 December 2013 10: 32
    +8
    Not as beautiful as the Raptor or T-50, but the infection flies :-)
    1. Ahmed Osmanov
      Ahmed Osmanov 2 December 2013 11: 12
      +6
      Let him fly with them and they will be in large numbers, there is no doubt about that. They will also advise their ally. This fact, of course, is alarming, but I am more concerned with our PAK FA: how, when, in what quantity.
    2. Wiruz
      Wiruz 2 December 2013 12: 07
      +1
      A beautiful plane cannot fly badly. The converse is also true.
  9. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 2 December 2013 11: 51
    +2
    You don’t like it, but I would take a couple if no one needs it.
  10. Wiruz
    Wiruz 2 December 2013 12: 07
    +7
    It's a shame that no one in the West knows that their "ultramodern" is, in fact, the Soviet Yak-141 in a more beautiful package.
    1. alexng
      alexng 2 December 2013 16: 19
      +3
      Stopudovo, don’t even go to your grandmother. Here is a photo of the Yak-141.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 2 December 2013 17: 01
        +3
        Quote: Wiruz
        It's a shame that no one in the West knows that their "ultramodern" is, in fact, the Soviet Yak-141 in a more beautiful package.

        Have you ever looked at the principle of vertical take-off engines on these aircraft? And they are radically different. Yak allowed Americans to save on research. But COPY ?! Do not make me laugh.
        1. alexng
          alexng 3 December 2013 02: 49
          +1
          Well, yes, of course, they installed a fan instead of the second engine.
          Well, I'm sorry, I completely forgot, the "pimples" of the FU-35 make it invisible and "very elegant." But, if we consider that these invisibles are very clearly visible in the meter range, then its effectiveness remains only in the pimples themselves, and it can be safely transferred to the 3 ++++++++ class. hi
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 December 2013 04: 50
            +2
            Quote: alexneg
            But, given the fact that these invisibles are very clearly visible in the meter range, then its effectiveness remains only in the bumps themselves, and it can be safely transferred to class 3 ++++++++.

            How good, specify. Which of the F-35s do you have in mind right now?
      2. Wiruz
        Wiruz 2 December 2013 17: 02
        +3
        The Yaks do not even hide that they advised Lockheed Martin on the creation of vertical thrust.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 2 December 2013 17: 27
          +4
          Quote: Wiruz
          The Yaks do not even hide that they advised Lockheed Martin on the creation of vertical thrust.


          They transferred the developments and technical documentation. Only here the Americans, if you deign to finally look at the project, went a completely different way.
          1. poquello
            poquello 2 December 2013 19: 59
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            Quote: Wiruz
            The Yaks do not even hide that they advised Lockheed Martin on the creation of vertical thrust.


            They transferred the developments and technical documentation. Only here the Americans, if you deign to finally look at the project, went a completely different way.

            And they yak then managed to repeat? Maybe they didn’t manage to do something like "grenades of the wrong system"?
            1. Beck
              Beck 2 December 2013 21: 22
              +8
              Quote: poquello
              Did they manage to repeat that?


              They had no plans to repeat. The F-35 is a completely new aircraft and does not come from either Harier or the Yak-141.

              Quote: poquello
              Thank you, the same is not necessary, it’s better, yes, maybe based on the yak.


              The base itself is now obsolete. To create a modern aircraft based on the Yak is the same as creating the newest jet aircraft based on Messerschmitt 262. And today in the F-35 class it has no other analogues, even in projects.

              And generally speaking. The Yak-141, which made its first flight in 1987 and adopted in service sometime in the year 90, is the pursuit of Harier who went into production in 1983.

              All TTX F-35 orders of magnitude higher than the TTX Yak. I will not talk about stealth technologies, modern electronics, etc., but the main structural difference between the F-35 and the Yak and Harier is the way to create vertical thrust. At Harier, the jet stream from the engine was distributed over additional nozzles. At Yak, behind the cockpit, there were two additional engines that created vertical thrust downward. The use of a jet stream, in addition to complexity, required additional mass and high fuel consumption. And most importantly, security suffered. Spent engine jets, without oxygen, reflected from the concrete, were sucked into the air intakes, which caused a sharp decrease in engine power, and in some cases the engines stopped working at all. The F-35, behind the cabin, houses a banal fan, but a large one, with a motor drive. He then gave a stream of clean air from top to bottom. The same air also served as a screen against ingress of engine exhaust gases into the air intakes.

              If the F-35 wore the abbreviation MiG or Yak or Su and would be created in Russia, then the enthusiasm on this page would not have borders. It is necessary to be objective, and not blaspheme something that they themselves do not have.
              1. poquello
                poquello 2 December 2013 22: 06
                +1
                Yes, of course, a fan is a thing, I respect fans since I saw Carlson's panties with a propeller. Well, back to the planes.
                picture here
                http://takie.org/_nw/30/s64093347.jpg
                read here
                http://aftershock.su/?q=node/25659

                I’ll add on my own, I watched somehow on TV an interview with one of our designers, where a dense failure of Americans with yak nozzles was mentioned
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 3 December 2013 04: 38
                  +3
                  Quote: poquello
                  Yes, of course, a fan is a thing, I respect fans since I saw Carlson's panties with a propeller. Well, back to the planes.

                  If the fan stood on the Yak, you would squeak about the genius of Soviet design thought.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. SkiF_RnD
                SkiF_RnD 3 December 2013 00: 15
                +2
                About delight, you are definitely wrong. Are you saying you have to be a US citizen to enjoy an American plane? But US citizens don't like him any more than ours! I went to YouTube somehow, to watch a video about the F-35, I thought maybe something new appeared. And ofigel. There their own, Americans, obscenities cover it (well, without cursing, basically, but the meaning is about the same everywhere, they say, this is the most expensive pile of rubbish on the planet). And the criticism is justified, the emphasis on "stealth" goes. And all competitors are now focusing on the detection of "stealth". And if the calculation for stealth is not justified, the F-35 will indeed be the worst aircraft of the 4th generation (and this is 4 ++, not 5, I think the Europeans are right in this, or then write the Su-35S also in the fifth). Speed ​​is unforgivably low. Maneuverability - like a log. The range is not up to par and close. "A platform for delivering high-precision weapons to the desired square", in one word (they themselves say so, in general terms). So why is he like that?
                1. Beck
                  Beck 3 December 2013 15: 25
                  0
                  Quote: SkiF_RnD
                  The Americans there are laying it on their own floor (well, without swearing, basically, but the meaning is almost the same everywhere, they say, this is the most expensive pile of trash on the planet).


                  Any process, any phenomenon, any thing, in Any Country, will have its supporters and opponents. And the site you visited is not all of America. And as I understand it, they scold F-35 for their high cost. And that is understandable. Craving for savings is one of the components of the human essence.

                  And how I feel the subtext of criticism on that site was like that. America is not going to fight with anyone, there are no obvious enemies, there is no threat of invasion, so it's a waste of money on new military technologies, it would be better if new schools were built. And such thoughts as all ordinary people of the planet.
                  1. SkiF_RnD
                    SkiF_RnD 15 December 2013 16: 41
                    0
                    No, you didn’t understand anything. Nobody asks you to invent you. The context was this. The price is sky-high, and the effectiveness is doubtful, as a rule, its performance characteristics are questioned, its capabilities, the price is only the background for such reasoning.
            2. Pimply
              Pimply 3 December 2013 04: 36
              +2
              Quote: poquello
              And they yak then managed to repeat? Maybe they didn’t manage to do something like "grenades of the wrong system"?


              Meaning to them to repeat the project and engage in copy test, can you tell me which one?
              1. poquello
                poquello 3 December 2013 20: 17
                +1
                Quote: Pimply
                Quote: poquello
                And they yak then managed to repeat? Maybe they didn’t manage to do something like "grenades of the wrong system"?


                Meaning to them to repeat the project and engage in copy test, can you tell me which one?

                Of course I’ll tell you, the creation of an analogue in the presence of documentation begins with the creation of a copy, mind you I asked, not argued.
          2. Alex 241
            Alex 241 2 December 2013 21: 11
            +6
            In 1995, Lockheed Martin announced a partnership with Yakovlev Design Bureau. The knowledge and experience of Russian technical specialists accumulated during the development of the Soviet Yak-141 vertical take-off and landing fighter was used to develop the F-35. The demo version, Lockheed Martin X-35B, in many respects resembles the Yak-141.The design of the F-35B largely repeats the Yak-141. This is due to the collaboration of Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev Design Bureau in the 90s. However, it has significant differences. On the Yak-141, two turbojet engines were used to create vertical thrust. The use of a lifting fan on the F-35B allowed to reduce the loss of thrust of the main engine from the ingress of combustion products into the air intake and reduced the thermal load on the landing pad. But the designs of both aircraft have common drawbacks: during a normal flight, the aircraft carries “dead weight” in the form of lifting units. They also take a significant amount for themselves inside the fuselage, where fuel tanks are usually located. The result of such constructive decisions is a significant reduction in flight range (F-35B from the entire 35-x series has the lowest flight range) F-35B (modification of the F-35 with GDP) is very close to the Yak-141 in design and layout. A combined power plant is also used here (1 PMD + 1 lift fan), the compartment with the lift fan (it performs the same function as the PD on the Yak) is also located behind the cockpit, and the lift-sustainer engine nozzle is also covered by tail beams although their length is less.
            1. studentmati
              studentmati 2 December 2013 22: 40
              +2
              The car is beautiful and solid! It would not be a shame for the Power. But if you imagine that if at one time the Yak-141 would get the same billions, then the result would be a hundred times superior! good With that Patriotism, enthusiasm and faith in Russian Aviation.drinks
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Jet
      Jet 2 December 2013 21: 29
      +1
      It's a shame of course, but what's the point? as they say, not the father who conceived, but the one who raised (who had the intelligence, prudence and money for it). But a good lesson for everyone. In any case, it turned out to be a unique, and 100% unparalleled vehicle, which can be considered not as a combat unit of a potential enemy, but simply as an AIRCRAFT, a technological and simply very interesting product. And it’s not so much like many (lovers of faulting everything foreign) write here, I personally like it. At least the Yak-38 is much prettier (and more practical), and we did not build others, apart from the experimental samples.
  11. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 12: 15
    -5
    Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
    but I am more concerned about our PAK FA: how, when, in what quantity.

    dear Ahmed Ottomans, don’t worry about the packfac, he will fly happily ever after at all air shows and exhibitions with fanfares and exclamations that there are no analogues to him ... the truth is in single copies, but these are trifles ... if only he was lost and there was nothing they didn’t refuse themselves ...
    1. poquello
      poquello 2 December 2013 20: 11
      +3
      Quote: Jedi
      Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
      but I am more concerned about our PAK FA: how, when, in what quantity.

      dear Ahmed Ottomans, don’t worry about the packfac, he will fly happily ever after at all air shows and exhibitions with fanfares and exclamations that there are no analogues to him ... the truth is in single copies, but these are trifles ... if only he was lost and there was nothing they didn’t refuse themselves ...

      I’m gonna be on this branch too. We are not so rich that we can stamp 300 defective fives, and then repair and upgrade them.
  12. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 12: 15
    -2
    Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
    but I am more concerned about our PAK FA: how, when, in what quantity.

    dear Ahmed Ottomans, don’t worry about the packfac, he will fly happily ever after at all air shows and exhibitions with fanfares and exclamations that there are no analogues to him ... the truth is in single copies, but these are trifles ... if only he was lost and there was nothing they didn’t refuse themselves ...
  13. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 12: 19
    0
    and lightning is certainly handsome. it’s a pity that it’s not ours ... I heard that he is the last of the manned ...
    1. Jack7691
      Jack7691 2 December 2013 13: 50
      +6
      Comrade, you probably won’t get out of computer games ...

      And the sound of the headphones in computer games must be set to a minimum - otherwise it will not be heard ...
  14. La-5
    La-5 2 December 2013 12: 20
    +2
    "Birdie" looks not bad, but its price does not correspond to efficiency.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 2 December 2013 13: 59
      0
      And what is its price?
  15. La-5
    La-5 2 December 2013 12: 20
    0
    "Birdie" looks not bad, but its price does not correspond to efficiency.
  16. Beck
    Beck 2 December 2013 12: 31
    +2
    And why do weavers? From impotent envy or what?

    You must be upset and learn. And YAKs are completely different aircraft, they have a completely different design and performance characteristics are several orders of magnitude lower.

    We must not give a damn, but we must strive to make the same as the F-35 and better in the future.
    1. poquello
      poquello 2 December 2013 20: 20
      +2
      Quote: Beck
      And why do weavers? From impotent envy or what?

      You must be upset and learn. And YAKs are completely different aircraft, they have a completely different design and performance characteristics are several orders of magnitude lower.

      We must not give a damn, but we must strive to make the same as the F-35 and better in the future.

      Thank you, the same is not necessary, it’s better, yes, maybe based on the yak.
    2. 31231
      31231 2 December 2013 21: 09
      +1
      And you can strive to do the same as Abrams, as Minutman, as F-117.
      "Zin, will you give me money?" (C)
  17. USNik
    USNik 2 December 2013 12: 36
    +3
    Quote: JonnyT
    Iron iron ...... but flies ....

    You know, it’s better to iron with a poor and expensive iron than to not be able to do ironing at all. The same Mistrals would benefit from such semi-aircraft.
    1. JonnyT
      JonnyT 2 December 2013 13: 49
      0
      I agree about the ironing!
      Well, as for the semi-planes and semi-ships, no ...... why do we need a little effective attack tool with a containment strategy and even very expensive and technically difficult?

      P.S. Moreover, we have things and abruptly

      At the Pacific Vision-2008 secret exercises held in August at the US Hickem air base, virtual computer battles took place between the American F-35 fighter and the Russian Su-35.

      In virtual battles, the Russian fighter defeated the fifth-generation American fighter. The exercises were attended by a representative of the Australian military, which made the victory of Russian weapons in the press. A number of publications have appeared in the media around the world in which the combat effectiveness of the aircraft, positioned by the Americans as the best in the world, is called into question.

      "Black PR" did not appear at the right time from the point of view of Lockheed Martin - the aircraft manufacturer. In a number of countries, a decision has already been made to purchase this aircraft, and information that there are aircraft that are both better and cheaper than the F-35 casts doubt on the feasibility of such transactions. Lockheed Martin is also suspicious of the support of the black PR company Lockheed, which persistently offers its F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighters to foreign buyers.

      As a result, the Pentagon stood up for the honor of F-35. Pentagon officials said the exercises posed completely different tasks than comparing the combat capabilities of aircraft from different countries and the F-35 was still the best in the world. Whether such statements are true, only real air battles between the latest American and Russian aircraft can show.
    2. 31231
      31231 2 December 2013 21: 12
      +1
      And if with vertical take-off and landing problems on the plane
      will happen, but the combat mission must be completed ?! How to take off and land?
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 2 December 2013 21: 19
        0
        ...........................................................................
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 3 December 2013 04: 41
        +2
        Quote: 31231
        And if with vertical take-off and landing problems on the plane
        will happen, but the combat mission must be completed ?! How to take off and land?

        And if there are problems with the engine on the plane - on any - but do you need to complete the combat mission?
  18. Yeraz
    Yeraz 2 December 2013 13: 14
    +3
    Very beautiful.
    And most importantly, people are given the opportunity to monitor the development of this device, how many flights, what died out, what broke, how many flew by and a lot of things.
    But Pakfa, except for The best of the best, but nothing else.
  19. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2013 13: 29
    +3
    Quote: USNik
    The same Mistrals would benefit from such semi-aircraft.

    Quote: Beck
    We must not give a damn, but we must strive to make the same as the F-35 and better in the future.

    We do not need this "beaver".
    Why do Americans need F-35? Exclusively for marines, so that when landing it is possible not to bother with full-fledged airfields, but to have an aircraft suitable for operation from short helicopter sites, even. This is understandable, the U.S. ILCs have thousands of people under 200 and are expeditionary forces, quick reaction forces, almost comparable in strength to the army.
    Our role is played by the Airborne Forces. Given our territory and possible threats, it’s right, but they don’t particularly need them to support VTOL — if the Americans plan to operate in a foreign and non-equipped theater, then we will fight, if something happens, at our borders.
    And for the war on the sea, F-35В is completely useless - the Americans themselves intend to use the F-35С for this purpose, which is not a VTOL once. And whose performance characteristics will be better than that of Ф-35В. So why do we already at the very initial stage to lag behind the United States?
    Those who advise "to develop VTOL aircraft for Mistrals" will not understand in any way that the development and production of our VTOL aircraft will cost much more than all the costs of these Mistrals. In other words, as a tank is a vehicle for a cannon, so an aircraft carrier is a self-run airfield for an aircraft. And it is necessary to make a cart for a cannon, an airfield for an airplane, but in no case a cannon for a cart and not an airplane under an airfield.
    It would seem - one glance, and even on Wikipedia - and it will be obvious that the cost of developing the F-35 family cost the Americans about the time it took them to build all their aircraft carriers combined. And spending huge amounts of money from a small, by and large, Russian military budget to develop an expensive VTOL toy is not even funny. If there are funds, then you need to make full-fledged aircraft carriers on them for the numbed version of the PAK FA, and not create an ersatz for Mistral. The amount of costs is quite comparable.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 2 December 2013 14: 00
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Our role is played by the Airborne Forces. Given our territory and possible threats, it’s right, but they don’t particularly need them to support VTOL — if the Americans plan to operate in a foreign and non-equipped theater, then we will fight, if something happens, at our borders.


      Sure? More and more often, situations arise in Russia when it must fight outside its borders.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2013 14: 27
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Sure?

        Sure.
        Quote: Pimply
        Russia increasingly has situations when it must fight outside its borders

        Where is it?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 2 December 2013 17: 02
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Sure.

          Strange.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Where is it?

          Syria, Georgia, Africa, Latin America - a little, apparently.
          1. 31231
            31231 2 December 2013 21: 17
            +1
            Could you tell me more about Syria and Africa ?! When did the Russian Army manage to fight there?
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 3 December 2013 04: 42
              0
              Quote: 31231
              Could you tell me more about Syria and Africa ?! When did the Russian Army manage to fight there?

              Naturally, I didn’t. Does she have active expeditionary capabilities for this?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 08: 30
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            Strange.

            Let's see a list of your countries
            Quote: Pimply
            Syria, Georgia, Africa, Latin America - a little, apparently.

            Of which - in Georgia, VTOL is not needed at all, since Georgia is within the reach of the Russian Air Force - they must work accordingly. With sufficient equipment and training, they are quite capable of destroying the air force of a given country.
            As for Africa and Syria (as well as, to some extent, Latin America), our Air Force simply cannot reach those parts. Accordingly, the presence of VTOL aircraft on the same Mistral does not help much, since VTOL aircraft are still inferior to conventional takeoff and landing aircraft of an equal technological level. Those. off the coast of the same Syria and Africa, it would be much better to have an aircraft carrier with a full-fledged air group + landing ships with helicopters than Mistrals with VTOL aircraft.
            Given that, I repeat, the aircraft carrier construction program and the VTOL aircraft development program are quite comparable in terms of their costs.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 3 December 2013 15: 46
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              As for Africa and Syria (as well as, to some extent, Latin America), our Air Force simply cannot reach those parts. Accordingly, the presence of VTOL aircraft on the same Mistral does not help much, since VTOL aircraft are still inferior to conventional takeoff and landing aircraft of an equal technological level. Those. off the coast of the same Syria and Africa, it would be much better to have an aircraft carrier with a full-fledged air group + landing ships with helicopters than Mistrals with VTOL aircraft.
              Given that, I repeat, the aircraft carrier construction program and the VTOL aircraft development program are quite comparable in terms of their costs.


              That's right, they will not reach. Because there is really nothing to reach.
      2. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 2 December 2013 14: 44
        0
        And our border is very long ... I don’t know, there are enough airfields along it in all directions? And then flying time and all that ... The fact that everything is in order from the side of Western Europe is understandable. And in the Far East, for example? In addition, the coordinates of the adversary are already driven ... To be safe, would. This is, among other things (marine, unmanned aspects of application) But of course, if there are enough airfields, caponiers are set up, air defense expands endless spaces without holes, then another thing wink Well, in advance! It is clear that in and the enemy in the great forces of the wind will not pass.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2013 14: 56
          +4
          Quote: Nexus 6
          And our border is very long ... I don’t know, there are enough airfields along it in all directions?

          VTOL aircraft requires almost everything that an ordinary aircraft of ordinary take-off and landing :)) In order to "work" effectively, it needs a lot of trained personnel to carry out all types of maintenance, and stocks of aviation fuel and ammunition, and air defense coverage and so on and so on and so forth. As for the caponiers - well, if they exist, that's great, but if they don't exist, then the stability of the site and the survivability of aircraft on the ground are somewhat reduced, right? Thus, the absence of an extended runway does not save much money for the deployment of these very VTOL aircraft.
          In addition, the transfer of large airborne forces with heavy weapons is practically unrealistic without the use of heavy transport aircraft, but no one has come up with heavy transport VTOLs :) So, airbases are still needed to quickly build up forces. So without a network of airdromes, it’s all the same anywhere.
          1. Nexus 6
            Nexus 6 2 December 2013 15: 34
            +1
            MI-26. Although, of course, a tank or an armored personnel carrier cannot be transported on it. But: "a bunch of trained personnel to carry out all types of services, and stocks of aviation fuel and ammunition" - all this may well provide. For this, among other things, it was created. And no one disputes that it will be cheaper to build new airfields than to develop and produce VTOL aircraft. The point (in my opinion) is some additional tactical flexibility, which now, it turns out, the owners of the flawed F-35 have and we do not ... Well, time will tell. Amers is not the first time to screw up on a large scale, For example, the Nortrop "Flying Wing" program at one time failed ... But! technologies were later useful for the B-2 (it seems to be quite combat-ready))
    2. Beck
      Beck 2 December 2013 17: 54
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      We do not need this "beaver".


      Sorry, but you are somehow from the belfry in the interests of the volost and momentary moment. The very essence of vertical take-off and landing aircraft is the next stage in the improvement of all aviation. I am confident in the future of such aircraft in civil aviation, when experience is gained in F and new technologies arise. The planes of the future are without runways. And advanced countries are going in this direction, and you - If it’s foreign then at least some, yourself with a mustache. And so they lag behind in technological development.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Our role is played by the Airborne Forces. Given our territory and possible threats, it’s right, but they don’t particularly need them to support VTOL — if the Americans plan to operate in a foreign and non-equipped theater, then we will fight, if something happens, at our borders.


      Well, the Airborne Forces is for the local theater of operations. Thrown to the rear for a hundred kilometers, three days later the main troops approached. Airborne as KMP do not use. The wrong equipment, the wrong structure, the wrong tasks. What boundaries are you talking about, on which the clouds go gloomy, so this is the first third of the 20th century. Now in the era of globalization, the interests of the leading powers are global. And if the leaders want to remain leaders, they must watch over their interests anywhere in the world. Airborne regiment in Africa can be dropped, but how then to provide. Example - The muscles of Russia would have looked a lot worse if they had sent a couple of Mistrals with VTOL aircraft to the Syrian coast than heels of landing, outdated barges.

      In the modern world, sitting on its borders honoring its interests only inside. but not from the outside, it's like sitting at a trough.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 08: 36
        +1
        Quote: Beck
        The very essence of vertical take-off and landing aircraft is the next stage in the improvement of all aviation

        No. This is an innovation that is paid very dearly "from the purse" of other aircraft performance characteristics.
        Quote: Beck
        I am confident about the future of such aircraft in civil aviation as well, when they gain experience in F and new technologies arise

        At least until the advent of engines on new physical principles, conventional takeoff aircraft will be more efficient and cheaper than VTOL
        Quote: Beck
        Well, the Airborne Forces is for the local theater of operations. Thrown to the rear for a hundred kilometers, three days later the main troops approached. Airborne as KMP do not use

        The Airborne Forces have long been no longer regarded as purely landing troops. Now it’s more like a mobile quick reaction force, and under that they are sharpening it, slowly
        Quote: Beck
        The muscles of Russia would have looked a lot worse if they had sent a couple of Mistrals with VTOL aircraft to the Syrian coast

        The muscles of Russia would look much more inflated if we would deploy a full-fledged grouping with the aircraft carrier and full-fledged aircraft on it, as well as landing helicopter carriers off the coast of Syria. I repeat, at a price, the development of VTOL aircraft is comparable to the cost of creating domestic aircraft carriers
        1. Beck
          Beck 3 December 2013 15: 16
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          No. This is an innovation that is paid very dearly "from the purse" of other aircraft performance characteristics.


          If there is money, then why not try to create a new one. I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but there is no desire. You have the opportunity to buy a Mercedes and there is a desire too. You and buy. And what kind of money can we talk about, you. And of course I have problems with money that interfere with the desire to buy a Mercedes.

          Current VTOL aircraft are only the first steps. It is not known what new technologies will appear tomorrow. Which will provide a balance between costs and innovations. Future VTOL aircraft may have very different principles for vertical take-off. And the creation of aircraft without runways is just the next step in the aircraft industry.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The muscles of Russia would look much more inflated if we would deploy a full-fledged force with the aircraft carrier and full-fledged aircraft on it, as well as landing helicopter carriers, off the coast of Syria.


          So I, under your influence, did not stutter about full-fledged aircraft carriers, it is certainly better, but I danced from what will happen in the near future for Russia.
        2. atalef
          atalef 3 December 2013 15: 27
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The muscles of Russia would look much more inflated if we would deploy a full-fledged grouping with the aircraft carrier and full-fledged aircraft on it, as well as landing helicopter carriers off the coast of Syria. I repeat, at a price, the development of VTOL aircraft is comparable to the cost of creating domestic aircraft carriers


          What for ? To bomb the bandits? For what ? If Russia really needed it, it would have introduced a contingent (by the way, at the request of a legitimate government). so why? Hanging Alone Near Syria Alone? If you noticed there has long been no alien ship there. So to whom and what to prove?
          If Russia somehow removed all the Russian citizens fighting there from Syria (on the side of the SSA), there would be more sense. Kadyrov needs to be attracted - Chechens are not measured there. Experience is probably recruited
          1. samoletil18
            samoletil18 3 December 2013 22: 38
            0
            If Russia somehow removed all the Russian citizens fighting there from Syria (on the side of the SSA), there would be more sense. Kadyrov needs to be attracted - Chechens are not measured there. Experience is probably recruited

            And the supporters of Assad are destroyed.
        3. Pimply
          Pimply 3 December 2013 15: 47
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The Airborne Forces have long been no longer regarded as purely landing troops. Now it’s more like a mobile quick reaction force, and under that they are sharpening it, slowly

          And that is precisely why they are still so actively promoting the topic of airborne equipment, which in its characteristics, to put it mildly, is much inferior to conventional technology.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. rolik2
    2 December 2013 15: 17
    +3
    Quote: JonnyT
    In virtual battles

    That's exactly what in virtual battles, get to the bottom of the real ones, it is not known who will come out the winner. After all, the F-35 at the moment is more than the same Su-35.
    1. JonnyT
      JonnyT 2 December 2013 16: 03
      0
      yes I don’t argue ...... and a lot of time has passed .... and more of them have been made than dryers, but the design and technical solutions, and most importantly the avionics used in the SU, are superior to the F-35 ... but this is not decisive factor .... a trained fighter with a knife is much more dangerous than a fool with a gun
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 2 December 2013 17: 03
        +2
        Quote: JonnyT
        and most importantly, the avionics used in the SU surpass the F-35 ..

        Is it possible to learn more here? 8)
      2. And Us Rat
        And Us Rat 3 December 2013 06: 06
        0
        Quote: JonnyT
        and most importantly, the avionics used in SU surpass the F-35 ...


        Uncle's puffing? lol
      3. And Us Rat
        And Us Rat 3 December 2013 06: 12
        +1
        Quote: JonnyT
        ... a trained fighter with a knife is much more dangerous than a fool with a gun


        In an open area or in a room full of innocent people, I still prefer to fight against a professional with a knife than against a fool with a machine gun, and even more so - against a monkey with a grenade, explain why? request
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Yankuz
    Yankuz 2 December 2013 15: 45
    +5
    High-tech, perfect technology! What can I say ... And the jambs ... they always were, are and will be in order to avoid them later.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 18: 51
    -1
    Quote: JonnyT
    .... a trained fighter with a knife is much more dangerous than a fool with a gun

    truth??? you are a trained fighter with a knife, and I am with a machine gun .. let's meet in the desert ...
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 18: 59
    -1
    Quote: Jack7691
    Staff Sergeant
    Jack7691 RU Today, 13:50 ↑

    Comrade, you probably won’t get out of computer games in any way.


    what does computer games have to do with it ??? I serve on a ship. and my father was a pilot on the Tu-16 and Tu-95 ...
  28. Saburo
    Saburo 2 December 2013 20: 11
    +1
    And I like Lightning. It looks pretty stylish and futuristic. And I also like it rather small, which means it has less EPR.
  29. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 20: 24
    -4
    Quote: Saburo
    And I like Lightning. It looks pretty stylish and futuristic. And I also like it quite

    I agree with you ... a great airplane .. I repeat once again - it’s bad that not ours (we do not reach) we would concentrate on drones, but it’s unlikely with Putin-Pogosyan ...
  30. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 2 December 2013 20: 46
    +2
    Well, he gives a goat when landing. I have nothing to do with the Air Force, but at one time I watched our guys take off and land on the deck of the aircraft carrier "KIEV"
  31. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 20: 59
    +1
    Quote: coserg 2012
    Well, he gives a goat when landing. I have nothing to do with the Air Force, but at one time I watched

    nor what kind of "goat does he give", you want to think so. But the Yak-38 of which you posted a photo - he killed more than one pilot .. I am a witness to that .. I then served next to the skr "perky" ..
    1. coserg 2012
      coserg 2012 3 December 2013 20: 22
      0
      The last video of the article is 3-5 seconds, even the frame seems to have been cut out where it flopped down. The touch is already on. Did it wet the pilots from the personnel report? Or did they ruin it?
  32. 31231
    31231 2 December 2013 21: 00
    0
    Kurguzy plane, of course, but time will tell whether this "game" was worth so much money.
  33. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 21: 21
    -2
    here I agree - maybe it’s not worth it ... drones rule, but here we are behind ...
  34. Jedi
    Jedi 2 December 2013 21: 22
    0
    Hi, I'm going to ...
  35. Slon1978
    Slon1978 3 December 2013 03: 47
    +1
    Quote: studentmati
    The car is beautiful and solid! It would not be a shame for the Power. But if you imagine that if at one time the Yak-141 would get the same billions, then the result would be a hundred times superior! good With that Patriotism, enthusiasm and faith in Russian Aviation.drinks


    But I’m not offended - I’m even glad that we do not have such aircraft. I would be upset if for the money we could build more Su-30SM or Su-35S we would build a likeness of this pregnant penguin. I think in a completely different direction - the more bad planes a potential adversary has, the better.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 3 December 2013 22: 50
      +1
      Where can you find confirmation that this is a "bad plane"? And is it worth looking?
      We need to do something ourselves so that for less money this product of the American military-industrial complex will devalue.
  36. samoletil18
    samoletil18 3 December 2013 23: 03
    +1
    When I was little, in such moments of world history I indulged in childhood dreams. And, most likely, he would have dreamed of himself as an underwater saboteur with an "Arrow" or "Needle". And I would have fired at takeoff on the F-35, and back to the submarine, and to the Kremlin for the keys to the new "Volga", black, with velvet covers and a tape recorder. Yes, I forgot about the Order of the Red Banner. fellow