Military Review

How the US and the allies got the worst of the newest combat aircraft

350
How the US and the allies got the worst of the newest combat aircraft



Washington’s recent fanfare may suggest that the Pentagon’s expensive and most controversial combat aircraft program has overcome all problems and accelerated development.

The price of development, purchase of 2400 copies and operation is currently estimated at $ 1 trillion, and, apparently, confidently went downward. Production of dozens of aircraft per year for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps has become easier. Daily come news about flight tests that give planned results.

But official statements.

Michael Sullivan from the Government Accountability Office speaking in Congress: “The program seems to have stabilized.

Air Force General Christopher Bogdan and the head of the program from the government, in a telephone conversation, said: "I am glad that I saw."

When War is Boring asked the representative of Lockheed Martin, Laura Siebert, about F-35, she said that “everything is much better” and the program has made “significant progress”.

But these praises are not deserved.

F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin and capable of being invisible to enemy radars, destroying ground targets and shooting down enemy fighters, is a matter of concern. All the latest, good news can not change the fundamental flaws in design, rooted in past decades.

Due to the clutter of compromises included in the design, mainly for the Marines, the F-35 is a defective fighter, seriously inferior even to the old Russian and Chinese aircraft, which can fly faster, farther and have better maneuverability. In air battles at high speeds, the F-35 "is overweight and not manoeuvrable," according to a report by Winslow Wheeler, director of the Military Reform project in state control from Washington.

And promising enemy aircraft designed to gain air superiority may prove even more deadly for the F-35.

It does not matter how smoothly Lockheed Martin and officials are promoting a new combat aircraft. Even the most recent F-35s produced are second-rate fighters where there is a stronger and more determined opponent in the air. This means a death sentence for American pilots sitting at the helm of the F-35.



The inferiority of the F-35 became apparent five years ago in a computer simulation conducted by John Stillion and Harold Perdue, RAND analysts from Santa Monica, California. Founded in 1948, RAND maintains close ties with the Air Force. The air force provides them with some secret data, and in return, RAND analyzes and possible scenarios of wars for government structures.

Stillion and Perdue in August 2008, during a computer simulation, simulated a scenario with a massive attack by the Chinese air force and naval forces on Taiwan, amid rising tensions in the Western Pacific. Suddenly, the Chinese squall rocket wiped out the tiny, outdated Taiwanese air force, leaving only American fighters based in Japan and on GUAM, to battle with Beijing in the hope of preventing a bloody invasion.

In the 72 simulation, Chinese fighters patrolled the Taiwan Strait. At the same time, the 26 of American airplanes were destroyed by the second Flurry missile at the airfield, and the F-10 22 fighters quickly spent all their missiles.

Next, the F-35 entered into battle with the Chinese, which were smaller by 16 units. When they started the battle with the enemy aircraft in the framework of the computer model of the conflict, the results of this simulation were shocking.

The newest American stealth fighter and the basis of the aircraft for future decades for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, lost to Chinese aircraft. Despite its vaunted ability to be invisible to enemy radar, the F-35 was completely destroyed. F-35 twice lost in the simulation of Stilion and Perdue, as they reported in their written reports on simulations, which later leaked to the press.


I can not turn on, I can not get up, I can not work


Analysts opposed the new aircraft, which will play only a minor role in the future. “Inferring in acceleration, inferior in vertical speed, inferior in capabilities,” they wrote. - Also has a low maximum speed. Cannot attack in vertical planes. ” Sometimes the missiles and the gun were not ready for use because of this, except for the first few seconds of the battle. In other words, the F-35 was not able to withstand enemy planes.

And as a result, officials refused such simulations of military actions. American pilots died in those computer strings. Taiwan’s capacity has dropped from 1 to 0. Almost a century of American air superiority ended there among the wreckage of American computer warplanes scattered throughout the Pacific Ocean.

In September, Lockheed Martin shot 2008 in the back by the simulators, insisting that F-35 was able to "effectively perform tasks in aggressive conditions" in the presented Taiwan script. RAND conceded, claiming that they did not have the task of analyzing the capabilities of the fighters in aerial combat, and Stillion and Perdui soon left the department they headed.

Stillin now works at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Evaluations, in Washington. For the time being, it is currently listed as an employee of Northrop Grumman Corporation.



Steve O'Brien, vice-president of Lockheed Martin and a former fighter pilot, commented on computer modeling and spoke about its authors: “It was a policy, and the people who compiled the report did not have experience in piloting the aircraft,” he said, adding that many F-35 critics are self-appointed experts who live with their mom in the basement and put on slippers while going to work. ”

But Stillion and Perdue are both former pilots. Stilling flew RF-4, a reconnaissance aircraft, and Perdue flew the F-15 during the Gulf War. “I do not live with my mother in the basement,” answered Purdue.

Even if their results were controversial, the 2008 war simulation of the year should have been a wake-up call. Since the mid 1990-ies, the Pentagon has become extremely dependent on the F-35, which should replenish the declining arsenal of combat aircraft, built mainly in 70-x, 80-x years of the 20-century. If there is even a small chance that the new aircraft will not be combat ready, the Pentagon must be very, very concerned.

In fact, the military should have been concerned about this even 40 years ago.

“You need to understand that problems with F-35 are the result of the pathological decision-making practice of the military, which dates back to at least 60-s of the 20-th century,” explained Chuck Spinnay, a former analyst at the Ministry of Defense, whom one of the senators called the "conscience of the Pentagon."

Among the pathologies inherent in the F-35 today, the most destructive is a kind of obsession to get three planes in one. Already at an early stage in the Marine Corps (ILC) ordered the F-35 with vertical take-off and landing, like a helicopter. The fact is that the Marines have long insisted that their fighters be more unique. But this unique ability was rarely used in combat.

The F-35 is available in three versions, one for the Air Force, the Navy and the International Law Commission. The general in it mainly fuselage, engine, radar and weapon. Wings and vertical takeoffs vary by model.

All three versions of the F-35 are designed to replace about a dozen old types of aircraft, from a dozen manufacturers such as light F-16, armored attack aircraft A-10 and those AV-8B Harrier for the KMP, the first generation aircraft with vertical take-off, whose unique flight characteristics do not mix with the specifications of other types of aircraft.

The unprecedented need to make a super-versatile aircraft led to forced engineering tradeoffs in the F-35. Due to the large lifting fan for vertical take-off, the F-35 fuselage is wide, heavy, and has high resistance. It is not as fast as the F-16, nor as armored as the A-10. Jack of all trades, F-35 did not become the master of any.



And since the F-35 was specially created as a single, designed to replace almost every combat aircraft, the Pentagon has less and less choice of real alternatives. Winning 2001 in the competition for the creation of a multipurpose aircraft, the company Lockheed Martin was eventually to make it in the US the only current assembler of jet fighters of the new generation, leaving behind such a competitor as Boeing with its old models of combat aircraft.

As the Australian military analyst called it - this is the worst prospective fighter in the world. And he will soon become the only jet fighter for the US air force. Where once mighty American warplanes circled over the enemy, giving Washington a clear strategic advantage against any enemy, the United States Air Force arsenal is likely to be completely declassified in the coming decades, while any other country will have the latest Russian or Chinese fighters ( one of which, ironically, looks like an improved copy of the F-35, minus all its worst design elements).

If the unthinkable happens and a real war happens somewhere in the next 40 years, unlike computer modeling, it will break out either over Taiwan or in another hot spot of the world, many American planes will be shot down and many American pilots will die. Battles can be lost. Wars can fail.


The origins of the World War


The oldest of the approximately 50 prototypes of the F-35 currently in existence, which soared for the first time in December 2006, was barely seven years old. But the origins of the concept of the new aircraft are rooted much deeper in history, even before the time when China became a rising world power, and even before the advent of jet aviation. In many ways, the American universal fighter was born in the confusion and chaos of the bloodshed of World War II, in the jungle and battlefields.

In August 1942, the US marines landed on the shores of Guadalcanal, part of the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific. This happened less than a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The United States and its allies were still fighting against the Japanese forces. The landing on Guadalcanal was a surprise for the dumbass in Tokyo.

The lightly equipped marines defeated and pushed the Japanese forces into the jungle, capturing the unfinished airfield. Japanese ships, in turn, destroyed part of the Allied fleet. But nevertheless, during the battle, the Navy received an unsinkable aircraft carrier, and for several months the Japanese planes and ships were confronted by a small group of marines and a handful of American aircraft deployed to the island.

Morpeh Robert Lecky described one of the personal episodes on Guadalcanal. Having rushed to the machine gun, an absolutely ineffective weapon against airplanes, he tried to use it against the Japanese Zero, flying at low-level flight. “I rushed into the trench, while the Jap shot us like a dash,” wrote Lecky in his memoirs “Helmet on my pillow.”

Fortunately, the Marine experienced an almost suicidal confrontation with Zero. But the structure of the ILC has changed forever because of the events that took place at Guadalcanal. “The lesson is that the USMC needs opportunities that allow them to bring their air forces with them, because the Navy aircraft carriers cannot always be in the right place,” says naval historian Ben Christie.

In the 1950 and 60, the ILC bought hundreds of new products of that time - helicopters. But what he really wanted was to get a fighter that could take off with or without aircraft carriers. Large landing ships had flat helipads, but they had neither catapults nor long runways to take off, just like regular Navy aircraft based on aircraft carriers.



The infantrymen wanted to get a fighter capable of taking off from short helicopter carriers and capable of landing vertically on the ground later.

A concept called “vertical-shortened take-off and landing” (V / STOL) or “shortened take-off and vertical landing” (CF) by engineers has been the subject of extensive experimentation and disasters. During the first years at the time of the birth of jet aircraft, all CF or V / STOL prototypes from 1946 to 1966 broke. KMP became interested in the V / STOL attack aircraft project, which was created under the guidance of government agencies.

Then at the end of the 60-ies, the British company created a new aircraft with a component of rotating nozzles that turned down for vertical flight, thereby allowing the aircraft to take off from short runways or small ships. The Marines simply blindly fell in love with this newest aircraft, nicknamed the “Harrier” (Harrier), in honor of the low flying hawk, and immediately wanted to buy it for their air force.

But the Navy has become the biggest obstacle. The agency responsible for financing the weapons of the marines did not want to invest in the aircraft, which was needed only by the ILC. At that time, the Navy, together with the Air Force, took the first steps to create a single aircraft for all combat arms from the F-111, with which the Pentagon could replace almost all the old aircraft using a single multifunction model.

Still, a small group of KMP officers by cunning and deception convinced Congress, the Navy and the US aerospace industry to take a chance with the Harrier. KMP ultimately bought more than 1990 of these planes before 400.

The alluring concept was very attractive in theory, but it turned out to be a disaster in practice. Basically, the problem itself lies in the concept of vertical takeoff. The plane uses vertical takeoff as a secondary function. Vertical take-off and landing should fall on additional engine elements. The engine runs continuously in all modes. As a result, there are three design flaws: a large, hot engine, almost without a safety margin, an unsafe airframe that must be light and with small wings to hold the plane with a weight less than lifting jet of the engine, also in order to save weight, fuel is minimized and combat load.

As a result, in the vertical mode, the Harrier carries much less armament than a conventional fighter and has a short range. During vertical takeoff, the jet stream melts asphalt, and all the dirt flies in all directions, including the engine, making it impossible to take off from roads or even prepared ground sites. In the 1991 war of the year, in the Persian Gulf, at the beginning of the operation, the vertical did not participate, because they had to take off from long-range airfields or amphibious ships, due to their limitations.

Of course, they can take off quickly and provide support to the Marines in a short time, but they were extremely vulnerable to machine guns and man-portable air defense systems. Even when it’s not a vertical take-off and landing, the vertical is capricious and difficult to fly, due to the complex of vertical flight control and small wings. Until the early 2000s, a third of all vertical bars crashed, killing 45 pilots. "Harrier was based on an absolute lie," says Pierre Spray, an experienced military engineer who participated in the work on the successful F-16 and the killer tanks A-10. “The Marines simply mythologized him because they wanted their own unique plane, and they wanted to use the landing ships as their personal carriers.”

The CMP is stuck with the concept of vertical takeoff for pathological reasons. The catastrophes of verticals, which reduced the number of the park, and their physical aging, led the KMP in the early 80-x to cooperate with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) high-tech dreamers from R & D to create a new vertical. The plane was supposed to be supersonic, able to be invisible to the radar of the enemy, of course, take off and land vertically. In fact, three times better than the past, but false promises imposed additional requirements, which all were unrealizable.

After a decade of cash injections into Lockheed Martin and wind tunnel works, mainly through DARPA, the money flew into a black hole, and the dreamers came to the conclusion that the best way to bring the vertical to supersonic speed is to replace the rotating nozzles of vertical take-off engines with a large lifting fan mounted horizontally in the middle of the fuselage.

A new, but unproven concept took the idea aside at the beginning of the 1990-s, and the marines came out calling for Congress to begin a mega-program to purchase their supersonic, invisible and vertical fighter-takeoff and landing. In 1993 and 1994 The Navy and Air Force also wanted a new fighter jet, which had a similar design and the same invisibility for radar, like the F-117 and B-2. So there was a chance for all three people who wanted to get their car, and Congress, at about the same time, was allocating tens of billions of dollars for the development and purchase of new aircraft.

“Congress did not think that we could not afford it,” said Lt. Col. Harold Blot, a pilot of Harrier, who led naval aviation in the middle of the 90s. Lawmakers asked Blots and others involved — can they combine three new fighters into one universal model?



Such multi-role fighters had a different past, some were successful, but most were still unsuccessful. The F-111, the 1960's universal fighter, became too complex, heavy and expensive, as each task increased the amount of equipment installed in it. The Air Force eventually bought only a few hundred of the initially planned 1500 instances.

More massively, the Navy, the Air Force and the International Maritime Commission bought the less complex F-4, they fought with Vietnam and almost the entire Cold War. Congress hoped that it would be possible to create an F-4 heir for the 21 of the 20th century, which could equip all branches of the military and at the same time make it stealth, which would save a lot of money in the long run. But the concept of a new universal fighter, known as the “Single Light Fighter” (CALF), led to a fatal mistake. The F-4 was an ordinary airplane with a classic airfield take-off and landing. But, “we spent 40 years to get a plane that is more versatile,” explained Blot, which meant vertical takeoff and landing.

Despite the history of failures, Congress bought the idea of ​​a single stealth fighter. But the desire of the legislators who voted for the risky concept did not appear out of nowhere. This is partly the result of Lockheed Martin’s targeted lobbying campaign. Most likely, this company will then win the competition for the construction of a new aircraft.

Lockheed Martin made her name on the list of interceptors, reconnaissance planes, and bombers. F-117, the world's first combat stealth aircraft was a product of Lockheed Martin. Aggressive corporate acquisitions, as well as the release of the best-selling F-16, raised Lockheed Martin's profits by several times. These steps allowed Lockheed Martin to capture a larger market share.

Meanwhile, secret tests of DARPA allowed to prove that the vertical can also fly at serhzvukovyh speeds, and this laid the foundation of the company for the emergence of a universal fighter. Of course, the tests gave a lot of theories, but this is not work in real conditions. “The necessary technologies are still underdeveloped,” the official reports said. However, Lockheed Martin experimented with promising technologies that could in the future be adapted for the Air Force and Navy.

With just a replacement of parts for vertical takeoff, one aircraft turned into what the marines needed, remaining fast, and the Navy and Air Force received in the classical configuration a machine with a radius of action similar to that of ordinary aircraft.

I am sure that Lockheed Martin and DARPA already had a ready-made concept of a universal fighter to the beginning of the competition. In 1996, Congress gives instructions to the Pentagon to organize a competition for the construction of a new aircraft. General Dynamics, Boing and Lockheed Martin introduce concepts. However, Lockheed Martin has worked with DARPA since the 80s, and this is an obvious advantage. “This was not a truly competitive struggle,” Spray says about the competition for a new fighter. “Other companies were somewhere far behind.”

General Dynamics, whose main ideas were bought out by Lockheed Martin, dropped out of the competition. Boeing, with its awkwardly crammed supersonic prototype called X-32, which, because of its air intake, looked like a thick sea bass with an open mouth, in short, turned out to be inconspicuous.



But he started flying from September 2000 of the year. The vertical take-off test was to take place in June of the following year. Boeing engineers had to literally rip off non-critical elements in order to gain the desired weight, and this is a glaring drawback. The company made a lot of efforts to prevent this fact from getting into the press, but it could not pass by government services.

The Lockheed Martin X-35 had fewer crashes, it was sleeker and more efficient than the Boeing plane because Lockheed Martin had a head start in two decades and did not need to be reworked for tests with a vertical takeoff by June 2001. October 26 Pete Aldridge, head of armament procurement, said at a briefing at the Pentagon that Lockheed Martin won the $ 19 billion-dollar product development contract, now known as Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or F-35.

At the top-secret facility in Palmdale, California, Lockheed Martin’s 200 engineers were having fun at that moment. They had every reason to celebrate the victory. The Pentagon needed thousands of F-35 to begin deliveries from 2010 to the ILC, Navy and Air Force, replacing almost every model of aircraft in its fleet - in other words, to make it a monopolist. After the start of production, the program, as expected, should have cost at least $ 200 billion.

But this figure, even taking into account two decades of inflation, seemed unrealistically low. Among other problems, there were also fundamental flaws in the concept of vertical take-off, which inexorably spilled over into JSF after the 20-year development, which increased delays, complexity and cost.

fatal mistake

The last vertical was equipped with rotating nozzles for lifting thrusters, and the F-35 has a new type of lifting system that combines the turning main nozzle of the engine in the rear of the aircraft, 90 degrees down.



Simultaneously with this turn, a complex system of shafts and gears is launched, the hatches of the horizontal, lifting fan, installed in the center of the aircraft behind the cockpit, open. Together, the air jet and the nozzle of the turned engine produce more than 18,5 tons of thrust. This is enough to lift an almost 20-ton aircraft straight from the ground.

The lift fan developed by Lockheed Martin along with DARPA in the early 1980-s was the only acceptable solution that they could come up with to add to the vertical take-off and the possibility of supersonic flights with stealth capabilities that require nothing from the plane hung or stuck out of the case.

But this combination of characteristics was expensive for all three models of the F-35, even those two of them that take off according to the classical scheme. “The requirements of vertical take-off were practically dictated to everyone, since this is the gray cardinal of the structural elements for all three,” said Peter Zhloba, an analyst at Air Power Australia for Think tank.

In addition, the F-35 lifting baseline fan has launched a cascade of problems that make it harder, slower, more complex, more expensive, and more vulnerable to enemy attacks. This was evident in the 2008 year, in the simulation of the war in Taiwan. Of course, Vice-President of Lockheed Martin O'Brien rejected this assessment, arguing that the F-35 is a stealth, and the sensors and aerodynamics will make it better than other aircraft. “This is not a rocket,” he insisted.

But in many ways, the production of F-35 has become rocket science, as it has grown into a more complex structure. In the original X-35 from 2001, there was an advantage: it was the usual prototype of the aircraft without the need to carry weapons. But the pre-production F-35 must be armed. And, to maintain a smooth shape, for the stealth capabilities, the weapon must be located inside. The bomb hole is usually located along the centerline of an airplane, and in F-35, a centimeter for the fan is reserved for 127. Consequently, vertical takeoff and stealth are incompatible.

To reduce the cost of all three models, for the Air Force with the base F-35A, for the Marines with vertical take-off F-35B and for the Navy F-35C, with larger wings for landing on aircraft carriers, almost the same fuselage was used.

Therefore, the lifting fan from the F-35B is invisibly present in all models, because of it the fuselage should be “slightly larger than the aircraft we are replacing,” said Tom Burbag, a former high-ranking executive of Lockheed Martin. in 2013 year. The extra width violates the important design principle, which in the aerospace field is called the “area rule”, giving the narrow cylindrical fuselage the best aerodynamic results. Breaking the rule on the F-35 triggered a domino effect caused by a lift fan for the marines, which increases the volume and consequently reduces the acceleration, and also reduces the space for fuel, which reduces the flight distance. Thus, the critics are right in asserting that supersonic speed cannot be effective in combination with vertical takeoff and stealth (the latter of which are no longer effective).

“We are dealing with the laws of physics,” Bourbague said during a PR campaign when news about F-35 began to have a negative effect on the program.

But the negative facts about the combat capability of the F-35 continued to accumulate. Adding a lift fan to a new aircraft allows you to install only one jet engine instead of two, like on many other fighters. Two engines provide greater safety and survival. The bulky lift fan built into the fuselage behind the pilot blocks the view to the pilot in the rear hemisphere. About this deficiency one of the test pilots F-35 said that he would not like to receive a new aircraft after each of its destruction. That is, he can be shot down in any air combat with enemy fighters that you cannot see behind.

O'Brien said that the F-35 will have sensors, including video cameras built into the fuselage for viewing the situation at 360 degrees around the aircraft, which more than compensates for the limited rear view. Critics claim that the resolution of video cameras is much worse than that of the unaided eye, and completely insufficient for the distant, tiny, minimally contrasting points in the sky that pose a mortal threat that can destroy you.

But there are many other problems with F-35 related to aircraft design, some of which are due to the inexperience of subcontractors, others arise from poor control by short-term government controllers who were lobbying during the development of F-35.

Stealth Lockheed Martin F-117 was developed for some 30 months by a close-knit team of 50 engineers under the guidance of experienced chief designer Alan Brown and under the control of seven civil servants. Brown says that he exercised strict control over the design, delved into all the proposed features of the aircraft, which could increase the cost and delays, which would distract the manufacturer from the main goal.

F-35, on the other hand, designed around 6 000 engineers under the guidance of state controllers who didn’t stay long in their place, with no less than 2 000 supervisors. The mixed staff is partly the result of the sophisticated design of the F-35. Also added complexity and bureaucratic delays with any engineer or manager who added his own idea or special element, changing subsystems or specifications on the plane, which already had the most complicated drawings. And inexperienced managers allowed to do this.

“The whole question is that with the advent of F-35 the country received from us?” Brown complained, which is now retired. Many of the problems with the F-35 began in 2004, when Lockheed Martin acknowledged that the F-35B for the Marines was significantly overweight, in part because of a lifting fan. Ironically, the fan and other elements of this design prevented the new plane from flying up vertically due to its weight.

“The shortened take-off / vertical landing option will have to be cut by 1,3 tons to fulfill the requirements,” wrote Lockheed Martin manager Robert Elrod in the annual report. Lockheed Martin in a panic threw more people, spent a lot of time and money at the expense of the government to make a redesign, which, ultimately, cut a lot of excess weight mainly due to the removal of the protective elements of the structure and parts of the fuselage, which have become thinner and less rigid.

O'Brien said that in the end, all three options for F-35 benefited from losing weight. The redesigned F-35, although it has become somewhat lighter and more maneuverable, has also turned out to be less durable and less secure. An analysis of the Pentagon showed that the elimination of five kilograms of weight was worth duplicating systems that made the F-35% 25 more vulnerable when fired by the enemy.

Problems multiplied. It was originally planned to spend $ 200 billion on the development and purchase of almost 2 900 units of aircraft with the launch of the series in 2010. But the price of the F-35 steadily increased, and the timing with its commissioning was repeatedly shifted to a more distant future. Today, the cost of developing and producing 2 500 new aircraft, while reducing plans for 400 fighter aircraft, is about 400 billion dollars, plus another trillion dollars for operating over five decades of their use.

The Pentagon allocated additional funding from 2007 to 2012, since it had to replace with something old age-off existing A-500, F-10, F-15 and F / A-16, in fact 18 percent of the entire US fleet . But the F-15 was not ready to replace them. The first is not enough combat-ready F-35 with incomplete software and capable of using only a few weapons systems, according to plans should appear before the end of 35 year. In the same year, Boeing intends to stop assembling F / A-2015E / F under a contract with the Pentagon. Only F-18 and F-15 for foreign customers, produced jointly by Boing and Lockheed Martin, will remain in production.

Two years after F-35 takes off in 2015, he can really become a monopolist in production, unless there are additional orders from the USA or from foreign customers for F-15, F-16 or F / A-18. F-35 can be openly recognized as the worst fighter in the world and become the only available choice for purchase by the US military.

Instead of enhancing the Pentagon’s fleet, as planned, the F-35 will make future war strategies risky. In 2012, Frank Kendall, the chief procurement officer for the Pentagon, said in embarrassment about F-35 that he was "acquired by necessity."

But Kendall meant only delays and additional costs. He didn’t name the more terrible flaw that was discovered by John Stillion and Harold Perdue in a computer simulation of the war in 2008. Regardless of when and at what price the F-35 will appear, due to the details of the vertical take-off in the new fighter, it aerodynamically turned out to be the equivalent of a brick that completely loses to the newest Russian or Chinese aircraft.

To add salt to the wound, one of the most modern Chinese military aircraft prototypes looks like a pirated copy of the F-35, which can also become a better-quality clone, wisely deprived of the most compromising features of the American aircraft. It is possible that in a future war the American F-35 may be shot down faster by its more deadly clone of Chinese manufacture.

F-35, which could have turned out

At least twice since 2007, Chinese hackers have stolen F-35 secret information from developers. As Defense Minister Chuck Hagel said: “Poorly protected computer servers could have become the place from which detailed design characteristics were taken, and traces of hackers seem to lead to the Chinese government and their military.”



In September, JNXX, the latest prototype of the fighter, made its debut in China, as it were, confirming Hagle's accusations. The new Chinese aircraft, built by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, has an inexplicable external similarity with the F-2012. The same two tail keels, the same chiseled fairing, the same wing shapes. “This, of course, suggests that the Chinese got their hands on some data about the F-31 glider,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group from Virginia. But J-35 lacks many of the features that were included in the F-35: “Mostly or completely absent vertical take-off,” expert Bill Sweetman wrote in Aviation Week.

The J-31 does not have a lift fan and other vertical takeoff elements. Simplification, apparently, allowed Chinese engineers to optimize the plane, increase speed and acceleration, maneuverability and flight range, with the addition of a good view to the pilot. Due to the fact that the construction was not built under the fan, it takes quite a lot of internal volume.

"This happened, perhaps because China does not have data on the operation of the lifting fan, and therefore the Chinese have removed it," emphasizes Richard Abulafia. But for a country that presented two prototypes of combat stealth aircraft during the past two years, this still seems unlikely. More plausibly, China is capable of assembling a lifting fan and the aircraft itself, but decided not to.

F-35 is a compromise, and a combat aircraft cannot be simultaneously maneuverable as F-16, armored as A-10, invisible as F-117 and have a vertical takeoff as "Harrier." The plane can combine some of these qualities, as is the case with the stealth F-22. However, it would be unjustified to expect that one model of a fighter will be able to do everything with the same quality. It is foolish to believe that a fighter will be able to take off and land vertically without serious limitations in aerodynamics, and also to do something else besides that qualitatively.

The design of the fighter, like any engineering project, requires a choice. F-35 is the embodiment of ambivalence in the desires of the government and Lockheed Martin, unable to recognize that some things cannot be realized. Air Force Lt. Col. Dan Ward and a specialist in arms procurement said: “With the F-35, did we have a strong misunderstanding of his main task, who was he supposed to arrange, the Marine Corps, Navy or Air Force?”

In contrast, the Chinese J-31 does not attempt to be three planes at once. Surrounded by rivals with strong air forces - India, Russia, Japan and the USA, with no pressure from the Marines, he makes a fighter that makes sense to China in priority air battles, and not because of some historical fears. Admittedly, of course, illegal copying of the model, but they have their dividends, without a lift fan, and without puzzling, the designers were able to install long weapon bays in the center line, making the J-31 thinner and, therefore, likely to be fast and maneuverable in any case, faster and more maneuverable than the F-35, and in ten years there may be a lot of them, and they may collide among themselves in battle.

If the simulation of Stiliona and Perdue ever materializes, and the United States will fight against China in the air, then F-35 can be beaten out in the sky by Chinese-made F-35 clones that fly better because they have never had a vertical takeoff.

Engineer Spray said he hopes that the Pentagon will eventually come to an understanding and recognize the bitter truth that their new universal fighter with a disastrous vertical takeoff could mean the end of a half-century when the United States really dominated the sky. “My prediction: F-35 will become a dead end, and the program will be closed after the 500 machines are built,” he added.

Strauss Schheeler, director of the Military Reform Project, supported the replacement of the F-35 with the upgraded A-10 and F-16 taken from storage, as well as with orders for the Navy for the new F-18 to save the production line. These steps would “stop the ongoing decomposition in our Air Force,” according to Schöeler.

Ward says that any future combat aircraft must have clear and specific requirements, unlike the F-35, which has a wide range of tasks and incompatible principles. Development time should be fast, the budget should be small, the overall concept should be simple, and less detail as possible. “You will not do something if complexity is your main goal,” he said.



Spray warns that it may take years of expensive experiments and retraining of American engineers to understand the rational design of the fighter, which was lost during the development of the F-35 program. At the same time there should be a series of inexpensive, based on prototypes of cars of different competitors, which would compete with each other to identify the winner not for show.

Such investments in talented engineers will be better than continuing to spend a budget on a project that may not be promising, because you need to build a lift fan for marines who are worried about past battles on the fields of World War II, and not about what is really needed today. day.

In the future, a useless, universal fighter will be a big headache for the United States, according to Wheeler, but if it isn’t finished with it, everything will be much worse, “there will be too much needlessly spilled blood of our pilots”.
Author:
Originator:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
350 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wiruz
    Wiruz 6 January 2014 10: 42 New
    +41
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???
    1. Prapor-527
      Prapor-527 6 January 2014 12: 15 New
      +17
      At one time, NASA, to extract funds from the budget and preserve the huge number of specialists accumulated for the "lunar" program, imposed on the government the dubious program "Space Shuttle". Today, the Pentagon does the same with the F-35 program ...
      1. rolik2
        rolik2 6 January 2014 12: 26 New
        +21
        Quote: Prapor-527
        dubious program "Space Shuttle"

        And why is it doubtful?
        Five shuttles were created, which made 135 flights, 1,6 tons of cargo were put into orbit, 355 astronauts traveled into space.
        Yes, it’s expensive, but progress does not stand still and what would it move in front you need to invest in it dofig money.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 6 January 2014 12: 56 New
          +48
          And why is it doubtful?

          They completed the flight and operation plan by only a third. At the same time, having lost two shuttles together with the crews. So much for the doubtful.
          1. rolik2
            rolik2 6 January 2014 13: 32 New
            +11
            Quote: Wedmak
            They completed the flight and operation plan by only a third. At the same time, having lost two shuttles together with the crews. So much for the doubtful.

            So what? Before them, someone did this? This is the fate of all new projects, who have an easy and long life, who has a difficult and difficult life.
            39 flights of one shuttle is a pretty good result (Buran has a projected life of 10 launches).
            Everyone had losses, even our “always new missiles” fell quite often and not one or two crews died in our new ships.
            Developments on this project allowing the creation of an unmanned spacecraft which is already in YEAR in orbit. So the achievements are pretty impressive.
            What about us? Yes, we didn’t spend money on the same programs (after the Buran-energy era), but now we don’t have AT ALL any developments on such projects.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 01 New
              +32
              39 flights of one shuttle is a pretty good result (Buran has a projected life of 10 launches).

              I don’t know, maybe a good one. We were mistaken in one thing - chasing creation copy shuttle. It was necessary to do your own thing. What are we doing now again.
              Developments on this project allowing the creation of an unmanned spacecraft which is already in YEAR in orbit. So the achievements are pretty impressive.

              By that time, our MIR orbital station had been in orbit for two years now. Agree, this is more complicated than throwing for 15 years (a big breakthrough in microelectronics, computing, materials, technology !!) later a small drone into orbit? As a result, MIR worked almost three times longer than calculated. Achievement awesome?
              What about us? Yes, we didn’t spend money on the same programs (after the Buran-energy era), but now we don’t have AT ALL any developments on such projects.

              Either you do not read the news, or you are lying shamelessly. "Angara" this year will be tested in the light class, and there will be three or four options. New digital "Unions", ISS orbital sections, unique space radio, telescopes. Not the shuttles, of course, but they don’t attract anything at all.
              1. rolik2
                rolik2 6 January 2014 14: 15 New
                +6
                Quote: Wedmak
                making a copy of the shuttle

                The Buran-Energy project was NOT a copy of the shuttle, not so long ago there was an article on this site on this site.

                The station is one thing and the PILOTED ship is another; flights to other planets are not such a distant future.

                The transition from large ships to small ones is caused by the high cost of operating the former, and their perfection. It is easier and cheaper to work out the technology on a small ship and only then build large ships.

                Quote: Wedmak
                Either you do not read the news, or you are lying shamelessly. "

                I mean MANILED, REUSABLE projects. And not rocket launchers. The future belongs to reusable rather than disposable systems.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 46 New
                  +2
                  The Buran-Energy project WAS NOT a copy of the shuttle

                  Right But Buran himself, by layout, was an analog of the shuttle. By order of the government. Inside, everything was certainly different. But we also had another project, which was stabbed to please the Energy-Buran system.
                  The station is one thing and the PILOTED ship is another; flights to other planets are not such a distant future.

                  Um, how does the station differ from a manned ship? The ship is adapted for the passage of dense layers of the atmosphere, that's all. And its autonomy is relatively small, and even it is sometimes disposable. But hanging in orbit for years, under extremes of temperature, radiation, vacuum and other unpleasant conditions is very difficult.
                  It is easier and cheaper to work out the technology on a small ship and only then build large ships.

                  I agree. So what's the breakthrough then? Nobody actually knows the purpose of staying in the orbit of this ship. But the satellites, these are the same drones, fly for years, so what?
                  I mean MANILED, REUSABLE projects. And not rocket launchers. The future belongs to reusable rather than disposable systems.

                  Yes, there are none like that and no near future is foreseen. Neither we, nor Americans, nor the combined power of the cosmic forces of the Earth, are yet able to create an efficient reusable apparatus with the atmosphere-space regime. And if so, why do we need such a project that will eat a lot of money, and we will fly in 10-15 years?
                  1. rolik2
                    rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 15 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    But Buran himself was an analogue of the shuttle in layout

                    angry fool the shuttle entered orbit with the help of OWN engines, Buran was launched by a full-fledged launch vehicle, Buran had the ability to maneuver in the atmosphere using its engines, and the shuttle descended in planning mode. And where is the copy here? Outward resemblance is not a copy yet.
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Um, how does the station differ from a manned ship?

                    That, at least by the fact that it still needs to be assembled in orbit, and the ship is already ready to go there.
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    So what's the breakthrough

                    That at least in the fact that they eliminated the shortcomings of the shuttle, their UAV got the opportunity to maneuver in space and in the atmosphere, it is launched into space using an airplane,
                    FIRST is efficiency, they can put their UAV into orbit within a few days.
                    SECOND cheapness of all expenses is only fuel for carrier aircraft, shuttle and MOT.
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    why do we need such a project

                    Such a project makes it possible to quickly demolish the entire orbital grouping of the enemy,
                    This UAV has a cargo compartment in which you can place several warheads with individual guidance, but this is already very annoying
                    1. Russ69
                      Russ69 6 January 2014 17: 26 New
                      +7
                      Quote: rolik2
                      the shuttle went into orbit with the help of its engines,

                      This is when the shuttle went into orbit on its engines? The launch into orbit was carried out by two accelerators, count as two steps. The first accelerator was sometimes used repeatedly, after repair. The second burned in the atmosphere. In addition to everything, he could not be in orbit for a long time, the maximum period was a little more than 2 weeks.
                      1. rolik2
                        rolik2 6 January 2014 17: 41 New
                        +3
                        I meant that an external tank + boosters docked to it, while Buran put a full-fledged launch vehicle into orbit
                      2. rolik
                        rolik 6 January 2014 20: 50 New
                        +7
                        Quote: rolik2
                        while Buran put into orbit a full-fledged launch vehicle

                        This pH was called Energy. And it was a system, and not just a rocket to put one Buran into orbit. It was possible to cling to this system other goods, except for the shuttle. And on the Space Shuttle system, only a shuttle could be attached. It was not intended for anything else. This is the big and main difference, and also the difference in the mass of the cargo being put into orbit.
                      3. rolik2
                        rolik2 6 January 2014 20: 59 New
                        -4
                        Quote: rolik
                        And on the Space Shuttle system, you could only hook a shuttle

                        And in my opinion, the tank and accelerators hooked to the shuttle hi

                        I don’t want to say anything bad about Energy, but the staple option is more thought out, after the shuttle was withdrawn, only the tank disappeared (accelerators could be used a second time), and all the Energy went to the windstorm, expensive and wasteful.
                        I am not talking about using Energy without a snowstorm, I am only discussing sparky.
                      4. rolik
                        rolik 7 January 2014 03: 13 New
                        +7
                        Quote: rolik2
                        the stash option is more thought out,

                        What is thought out ??? That he could output the shuttle ONLY ... and that’s it. And all the cargo removed was placed only in the shuttle. the mass of the cargo is 29.5 tons, in a sun-synchronous orbit 14.5 tons. For the payback of the project, 30 system launches per year were required. The launch cost also cost a lot. So the cost of the system increased from 5.2 billion dollars (prices of 1971) to 10.1 billion (prices of 1982). Launch cost from 10.5 ml. up to 240 mil. Very well thought out system. And I do not remember the year when the mattresses made 30 launches of this system.
                        According to the Energy project, it was designed for launches in azimuths corresponding to the inclinations of the orbits 51-83, 97, 101-104, 1100. The carrying capacity of the Energia launch vehicle into a reference orbit 200 km high and of various inclinations for a different number of first-stage blocks allowed two blocks of the first stage to carry cargo weighing from 40 to 60 tons, with eight blocks - from 170 to almost 200 tons. The launch of Energy was equal to (approximately) the launch of the Shuttle. Now compare how many times you need to launch the Shuttle in order to put into orbit a payload equal to the load once launched by Energy.
                      5. rolik2
                        rolik2 7 January 2014 20: 57 New
                        -3
                        Quote: rolik
                        The launch of Energy equaled (approximately) the launch of the Shuttle.

                        I compare the launch of the shuttle and the launch of the Buran-energy. And not separately RN Energy.
                        When the Buran was launched, all the cargo was also in the shuttle aboard the Buran.
                        BUT when launching the shuttle, only the tank was disposable, and when launching the Buran, the entire LV was Energy, and this despite the fact that they put the SAME weight into orbit.

                        And what is cheaper every time when the shuttle is launched into space to lose the LHC or the launch vehicle ??? I can give a calculator if it’s difficult in my mind to compare the cost of a tank and a pH.

                        Launch cost from 10.5 ml. up to 240 mil.

                        Well, before reproaching the high cost of launching the shuttles, it would be worth providing how much the launch of Buran cost.
                      6. rolik
                        rolik 8 January 2014 02: 37 New
                        +1
                        Quote: rolik2
                        and when the Buran is launched, the entire RN Energy,

                        When starting Energy in the Buran arrangement, the shuttle and boosters were returnable. Please read the technical characteristics of the system. Accelerators were planned for 10 single use.
                      7. dv-v
                        dv-v 8 January 2014 06: 47 New
                        0
                        is it really not clear that the reusability incorporated into the design will not remove the actual operational risks, which, in fact, was confirmed by the two shuttle catastrophes? But how many incidents do we not know? for all the difference between the sovets and American engineering schools, the first feature is multiple duplication and redundancy without footnotes at any cost, which, in principle, was unacceptable for marketed states even in defense matters. and during the Cold War, budgets were not rubber, especially contractors - they definitely counted every cent of costs.
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 6 January 2014 18: 46 New
              +3
              Quote: Russ69
              This is when the shuttle went into orbit on its engines?
              Everything is correctly said: its own engines (including at the start) + 2 powder accelerators. Those engines that are on the Shuttle run on oxygen with hydrogen, so during their operation the flame is not visible, in contrast to the powder, where the visible effects are abundant.
            3. Val_y
              Val_y 8 January 2014 15: 42 New
              0
              Always work (note the three long jets of flame under the keel laughing )
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 6 January 2014 18: 41 New
            +5
            the shuttle entered orbit with the help of OWN engines, Buran was launched by a full-fledged launch vehicle,

            Not on their own, but with the help of accelerators. But after separation of accelerators, yes, flew on his own, taking fuel from an external tank.
            And where is the copy here? Outward resemblance is not a copy yet.

            Yes, this is not a copy. But not entirely our development. Offered quite another. We look at the topic "Spiral".
            That, at least by the fact that it still needs to be assembled in orbit, and the ship is already ready to go there.

            More precisely, the media displays it. That is, in fact, the difference is not big.
            their UAV got the ability to maneuver in space and in the atmosphere, it is launched into space using an airplane,

            So what? All spacecraft maneuver in space. But this plane, when diving into the atmosphere, is unlikely to return to space. So, in this he is not very different from our unions.
            FIRST is efficiency, they can put their UAV into orbit within a few days.

            III ??? ICBM will launch into orbit 4-6 warhead in 20 minutes.
            SECOND cheapness of all expenses is only fuel for carrier aircraft, shuttle and MOT.

            Doubtful.
            Such a project makes it possible to quickly demolish the entire orbital grouping of the enemy

            Say ... demolition. At least for the time being. There are more than a hundred satellites; they will not load so many missiles. And putting a wagon of nuts into orbit is more expensive.
            This UAV has a cargo compartment in which you can place several warheads with individual guidance, but this is already very annoying

            Oh, not a fact. One would fit.
            1. rolik2
              rolik2 6 January 2014 18: 59 New
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              We look at the topic "Spiral".

              so their x-37 is the analogue of a spiral, and the storm was a FREIGHT ship.
              Quote: Wedmak
              That is, in fact, the difference is not big.

              Large, the ship could work immediately and the station after docking all the blocks, the arrival of the crew and so on.
              Quote: Wedmak
              So what? All spacecraft maneuver in space. But this plane, when diving into the atmosphere, is unlikely to return to space.

              Only this satellite could also steal, now it may not return, but is the process going?
              Quote: Wedmak
              Doubtful.

              why so ???
              Quote: Wedmak
              Say ... demolish

              Quote: Wedmak
              Oh, not a fact. One would fit.

              Down and Out trouble started. This is not even a theory but already a reality. Not as I would like, but there is some initiative, and not quite bad.

              The next step is the creation of a 2-month space fighter capable of going into space from an airplane and returning back.
            2. sledgehammer102
              sledgehammer102 7 January 2014 08: 28 New
              +2
              originally planned to spend $ 200 billion. for the development and purchase of almost 2 900 units of aircraft with the launch in series in 2010. But the price of the F-35 has been steadily growing, and the terms with its commissioning have repeatedly shifted to the longer term. Today, the development and production costs of 2 500 new aircraft, with reduced plans for 400 fighters, is about 400 billion dollars, plus another trillion dollars to operate over five decades of their application.


              Will you still say that Sochi is the biggest cut of all time ???

              Bilalov and Taburetkin - milk shakers in comparison with the managers Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon)))))
          3. atalef
            atalef 8 January 2014 14: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            Not on their own, but with the help of accelerators. But after separation of accelerators, yes, flew on his own, taking fuel from an external tank.


            Not quite (or rather, completely) not so. His engines worked from the first seconds.
            Quote: Wedmak
            So what? All spacecraft maneuver in space. But this plane, when diving into the atmosphere, is unlikely to return to space. So, in this he is not very different from our unions.

            Well, in general, everyone returns to earth - if in your understanding this is the main similarity - sorry \
            The shuttle was not only reusable, it took crew in 7 people, had the ability to maneuver in orbit, carry out repairs with satellites, remove and put them into orbit.
            Very similar to the Union, though
            Quote: Wedmak
            III ??? ICBM will launch into orbit 4-6 warhead in 20 minutes.

            And that’s what they really look like.
            Quote: Wedmak
            This UAV has a cargo compartment in which you can place several warheads with individual guidance, but this is already very annoying. This is not a fact. One would fit.

            Well fit and not one. But why? There are much cheaper and more reliable means of delivery.
      2. shinobi
        shinobi 6 January 2014 16: 02 New
        +6
        Neither we, nor Americans, nor the combined power of the cosmic forces of the Earth, are yet able to create an efficient reusable apparatus with the atmosphere-space regime.

        You are mistaken. Or look the other way. Everything is much simpler. Even at the time of Buran’s creation, our rocket engineers openly talked about the device’s uselessness. There are no tasks for this system. Shuttles were created with the prospect of servicing Star Wars objects. And civilian programs they operate with cargoes of up to 5 tons. Even under the old Protons, there are not always loads.
        1. dv-v
          dv-v 8 January 2014 06: 57 New
          0
          Nah, just if you look at the statistics of launches of the last years (recently spanned over 25 years) - the proton is the most frequent person involved. surprisingly, the devices are getting heavier (rather because of the qualitatively changed requirements of customers), for this reason the aerosoller has problems - their expensive Arian-5 was sharpened by the launch of two at the same time, which led to a more or less competitive withdrawal price, but now it is so problematic to add -for increased weights ka, that the proton selects customers who do not want to wait long.))

          By the way, all modern launch vehicles are developed immediately by a ruler - from light to heavy class.
        2. Cherdak
          Cherdak 8 January 2014 18: 31 New
          0
          Quote: shinobi
          There are no tasks for this system.



          http://www.buran.ru
    2. Sergey Sitnikov
      Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 01: 55 New
      +1
      to which planets))) ??? two accelerations to the 2 space ... advise the amers to put their faces in the barrel 300 tons (at least), yes))) and do not forget it, they, together with the fuel, should be put into orbit higher - Archimedes pancake homegrown
    3. samoletil18
      samoletil18 8 January 2014 14: 10 New
      0
      The future belongs to reusable rather than disposable systems.

      Conditional multi-displacement cost the life of the Challenger crew (the accelerator exploded after several launches), and the rocket itself, which launches the shuttle into orbit, does not return.
      Buran, as a more advanced one, due to its late appearance, was supposed to launch in the air from the back of the Mriya (An-225), but they were not going to completely abandon the missile launch.
      1. atalef
        atalef 8 January 2014 14: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: samoletil18
        Buran ", as more advanced, due to its late appearance, was supposed to launch in the air from the back of the" Mriya "(An-225

        Do not be silly. There was neither this nor plans for it.
    4. Val_y
      Val_y 8 January 2014 15: 34 New
      +1
      Of course, not a copy, the project was called Energia-Buran, since the Energia booster rocket is an independent unit, a heavy rocket, and Buran was supposed to start from Mriya. And they have a shuttle with solid fuel boosters - this is the technology of the 30-40s. So here it is somehow. hi
    5. Pimply
      Pimply 8 January 2014 18: 00 New
      0
      Quote: rolik2
      The Buran-Energy project was NOT a copy of the shuttle, not so long ago there was an article on this site on this site.

      Copy concept.
  2. My doctor
    My doctor 8 January 2014 23: 13 New
    0
    Put MINUS for it
    Quote: Wedmak
    Either you do not read the news, or you are lying shamelessly. "Angara" this year will be tested in the light class, and there will be three or four options

    We read TM from 04.01.2014/XNUMX/XNUMX. where there’s just a conversation about “that the new head of Roskosmos declares that the Angara project is a dead end!”
    So do not be so categorical, your knowledge as they did not seem to you there, is not complete and absolutely true, you are not the Most High.
    Follow the link http://technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/zam
    etki_vladimira_meylitseva / Ocherednoe_perekrytie_Angary
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 9 January 2014 00: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: MyVrach
      ..... the new head of Roscosmos declares that the Angara project is a dead end! "


      More precisely, it was said like this:

      "... A number of media on Thursday quoted the head of Roskosmos Oleg Ostapenko, who said that the Angara is a dead end solution for the development of our country in space. According to him, the first launch of a light rocket from Plesetsk is planned for next summer on the Eastern launch pad it will also be built for the Angara, as it was planned, however, the head of Roscosmos noted, then the question arises whether it is worth building a new carrier of a superheavy class on the basis of the Angara.

      Zheleznyakov recalled that the Angara has been under development for 20 years. "Many technical solutions are outdated, abandoning it as a basic option and considering other proposals will be more logical and correct now," he told RIA Novosti.

      “We never focused on a single missile, neither in Soviet times nor now. We now have the idea of ​​creating an extra-heavy rocket. I think that it should not be built on the basis of the Angara. We must listen to the proposals of RSC Energia on the development of a new rocket, this option is more promising. But, in any case, it all depends on what goals will be formulated before the Russian astronautics, what priorities will be set, "Zheleznyakov added ...."

      RIA News http://ria.ru/space/20131219985102595.html#ixzz2pqFCvktr
  3. Aristarch
    Aristarch 12 January 2014 11: 31 New
    0
    You are wrong in saying that it was a copy, and here is not a big article about this; http://vpk-news.ru/articles/18323
  • tomket
    tomket 6 January 2014 14: 24 New
    +9
    why did you decide that the Americans are pioneers? project spiral you forgot? and why did you decide that 10 launches is the ceiling for Buran? The main plus in the Energy-Buran project is the heavy Energy rocket, which opened up great prospects for astronautics.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 48 New
      +1
      and why did you decide that 10 starts is the ceiling for Buran?

      He is right. There were problems with thermal protection, that same black tile. We did not have such materials as the Americans, and the tile was fastened tightly. Therefore, the resource was 10 flights.
      1. tomket
        tomket 6 January 2014 16: 38 New
        +3
        so it was possible to reconsider later the design of the airframe with thermal protection, but the snowstorm is not a shuttle for life, worked out the systems, set up production, and forward and with the song to new projects.
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 6 January 2014 18: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        He is right. There were problems with thermal protection, that same black tile. We did not have such materials as the Americans, and the tile was fastened tightly.

        Both the Americans and we have tiles glued to the airframe. Both there and there part of the tile flew off at the entrance to the atmosphere. But ours flew off less and therefore for the next flight Buran could be prepared faster than the American. I'm afraid to lie, but it took up to three months to recover the Shuttle after the flight (I can’t vouch for the number, as I read about it a long time ago)
    2. rolik2
      rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 18 New
      0
      Quote: tomket
      why did you decide that the Americans are pioneers? project spiral you forgot? and why did you decide that 10 launches is the ceiling for Buran? The main plus in the Energy-Buran project is the heavy Energy rocket, which opened up great prospects for astronautics.

      And I don’t even say that they are pioneers, They brought the project to a logical end, having received an unmanned fighter, while having its carrier (shuttle)
      Quote: tomket
      and why did you decide that 10 starts is the ceiling for Buran?

      the estimated number of flights was determined not by me, but by the designers.
      1. Slavapom
        Slavapom 8 January 2014 11: 40 New
        +1
        [quote = rolik2] [quote = tomket]
        And I don’t even say that they are pioneers, They brought the project to a logical end, having received an unmanned fighter, while having its carrier (shuttle)
        [quote = tomket]
        Something I do not understand what kind of unmanned fighter in question. and if in fact, then our Buran, unlike the Shuttle, was just a fully automatic system, it landed in automatic mode, while the Shuttle landed the crew.
        1. rolik2
          rolik2 8 January 2014 12: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Slavapom
          Something I do not understand what kind of unmanned fighter in question. and if in fact, then our Buran, unlike the Shuttle, was just a fully automatic system, it landed in automatic mode, while the Shuttle landed the crew.

          X-37
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 January 2014 20: 27 New
      +6
      Quote: tomket
      Energy that opened up great prospects for space exploration.

      With your permission, Alexander link to an article on "Energy"
      http://www.buran.ru/htm/memory49.htm
      and advertising image (clickable)
    4. atalef
      atalef 8 January 2014 14: 34 New
      -1
      Quote: tomket
      why did you decide that the Americans are pioneers?


      Because they first launched
      Quote: tomket
      project spiral you forgot

      Well, you still remember the pictures Tsialkovsky. Useless then?
      Quote: tomket
      and why did you decide that 10 launches is the ceiling for Buran

      Because it’s true, in general, the Energy system was conceived as reusable, but was not implemented. Therefore, the launch of (Energy) simply cost monstrous money. I witnessed all this, as well as the conversations of officers about more than 100mln. launch cost (since the rocket did not return the same) With such properties, it was simply unpromising, and therefore it was closed
      Quote: tomket
      The main plus in the Energy-Buran project is the heavy Energy rocket, which opened up great prospects for astronautics

      I didn’t, because by its characteristics it was inferior to Amerovskaya and the main thing was not reusable for females.
      Quote: tomket
      so it was possible to reconsider later the design of the airframe with thermal protection

      After the Buran landing, 17 thermal protection plates fell off - I don’t know whether it is a lot or a little - just a fact.
      The next in line was 4 with different stages of readiness. It would not be easy to review

      Quote: Wedmak
      We did not have such materials as the Americans, and the tile was fastened tightly. Therefore, the resource was 10 flights.

      I agree with this, the tiles were fastened tightly to glue.
  • dv-v
    dv-v 8 January 2014 06: 35 New
    +2
    but nothing that they planned, at least three times more?))
    and secondly, disposable launch vehicles of several classes turned out to be cost-effective, including the space shuttle, and whose advantage was reflected only in rare unique operations. the question is, why then even five, although there were plans in terms of quantity. finally, the current successes of nasa in the scientific and applied plan show how mediocre and ineffective the money was spent earlier and, by the way, almost ruined the organization itself. profits were found only in the banal money makers.
  • vtnsk
    vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 28 New
    +9
    To launch Gagarin into space, the USSR "lost" much more rockets (on test launches), but no one calls it "dubious." Each "step forward" has a price ...
    1. typhoon7
      typhoon7 8 January 2014 15: 43 New
      +1
      They were orders of magnitude cheaper than the Shuttles.
  • yehat
    yehat 13 January 2014 16: 15 New
    0
    It is worth noting that the Challenger was not lost due to engineers or company management, but because of a combination of weather, negligence, launch time and a negative case.
    I would say that the program was technologically carried out at a high level then. It was just that the ceiling was then a little small in potential for high reliability.
    Moreover, the shuttle was better in a number of key ways than the later Buran
    Finally, Shuttle was an instrument of global pressure on the military budget of the USSR, which turned out to be very effective.
    I would appreciate the quality of the program on a solid 4, and maybe 4, plus.
  • bif
    bif 6 January 2014 18: 40 New
    0
    Quote: rolik2
    Quote: Prapor-527
    dubious program "Space Shuttle"
    .
    Yes, it’s expensive, but progress does not stand still and what would it move in front you need to invest in it dofig money.

    It is precisely because of such slogans, Every American's Debt is more than 50. dollars ... since you're so smart, here you pay Your hard earned money for "progressive" ideas that are useless in reality
    1. rolik2
      rolik2 6 January 2014 19: 02 New
      0
      Quote: bif
      every American over 50t. dollars

      Well, and that one of them sleeps worse from this?
      Or do you think that now you need 1 ton of cargo of money less than 30 years ago to launch into space?
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • vtnsk
    vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 25 New
    +3
    Unlike the F-35, Space Shuttle has taken a huge step in the development of technology for reusable flights into near space (even if it was not very successful as a “project”), as evidenced by statements in Russia to resume the Buran program. But the F-35 is either "stomping on the spot", or - "step back" (as you like). And with huge costs that are not comparable with any other project in the world in the field of aviation and astronautics.
    1. rolik2
      rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: vtnsk
      But the F-35 is either "stomping on the spot", or - "step back"

      Unified platform always loses specially designed for specific needs.

      But at the same time it has a number of advantages, lower costs for logistics, production, etc.
      1. Bagatur
        Bagatur 6 January 2014 17: 40 New
        +4
        As we say in Bulgaria, we can do everything, but nothing is right)))
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 6 January 2014 18: 57 New
        +1
  • cesar65
    cesar65 6 January 2014 22: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: Prapor-527
    At one time, NASA, to extract funds from the budget and preserve the huge number of specialists accumulated for the "lunar" program, imposed on the government the dubious program "Space Shuttle". Today, the Pentagon does the same with the F-35 program ...

    But we did nothing and now we do not have aircraft manufacturing, we are eating up the remnants of the Soviet aircraft industry.
  • Cherdak
    Cherdak 8 January 2014 18: 25 New
    0
    Quote: Prapor-527
    imposed the dubious Space Shuttle program on the government



    Will be back soon if Ukraine starts to recover
  • pachovka
    pachovka 9 January 2014 10: 17 New
    -1
    And you saw that the Putin government posted on the network a database of all citizens of the CIS and the Russian Federation: phones, addresses, photo and video recordings,
    personal correspondence and much more. By the way, all the data is publicly available, but you can hide your profile if you do not want others to see it.
    Here is a link to that site http://8b.kz/fj6F
  • AVV
    AVV 6 January 2014 13: 15 New
    -5
    And they have no other alternative! Born to crawl, they can’t fly !!!
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 6 January 2014 13: 22 New
    +9
    We know, we know! ))) They print their own dollar and invest in such projects, thereby developing entire industrial and scientific industries. And the dollar, as you know, is provided with global production potential. Therefore, they are developing their industry and science at the expense of the whole world. If they fail to bring the plane, then we will clap our hands and rejoice that they are kind of armless, not particularly understanding that their failure turns into new technologies and the technical potential of the country

    And in Russia there is a private Central Bank, which is a simple exchange office. Those. you give dollars received from oil, and in return you get rubles at an arbitrary rate set by the Central Bank itself, and it’s not clear what is tied to it. Those. the ruble in the required quantities Russia cannot print. And the ruble is backed up only by the oil industry, and not by the world. Therefore, as they say, every penny in the account, and we can’t squander money like states

    Therefore, it is necessary to nationalize the Central Bank and make it the State Bank in Belarus or China. To gain control of your own money
  • Ataman
    Ataman 6 January 2014 13: 42 New
    +1
    Quote: Wiruz
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???


    This was also said by Napoleon: "No need to explain with malicious intent, that which is explained by simple stupidity." I would only replace the word "stupidity" with "greed."
  • tomket
    tomket 6 January 2014 14: 19 New
    +7
    This is not the first time this is in the USA, remember, for example, the F-111, it was also considered a jack of all trades, and for everyone at once. The result was a good tactical bomber, but it didn’t go further. The developments were already used for the less ambitious Tomket, but the almighty wagon was pushed away. The successful f-16 and f-15 were created as simple fighters with a rather narrow design specification, which were expanded during operation.
  • clidon
    clidon 6 January 2014 15: 12 New
    0
    We just know everything, enough is known about this car. This lobbyists from Boeing can not calm down. It is said - you need to buy F-18. )
  • vtnsk
    vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 20 New
    +11
    We call it “corruption”, and in the USA - “lobbying” (it’s against us in the law, they don’t have it), but in fact it’s the same thing. And people by their nature and behavior are the same everywhere (if there is an opportunity to get a good gesheft for themselves, the moral principles go aside).
  • aleksandrs95
    aleksandrs95 6 January 2014 15: 38 New
    0
    money, money rule the world. Due to the dimensionless military programs, the Amer’s defense industry has become so swollen and obese that we can see what is the result of this policy. Although it’s not worthwhile to deceive yourself strategically, they can send 1000 cars far away, but money and industrial potential allow they’ve done almost anything to them. WWII, because they fought with a very bad tank, for example, their machine gun was mediocre. The only serious plus for everyone, a weak air wing allows them to compete on equal footing with their AUG. This is a plus for almost everyone.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 6 January 2014 15: 45 New
    +3
    No, everything is extremely logical and understandable if you link this to their concept of a lightning fast preemptive global strike. After it, according to their dreams, the enemy will simply have nothing to fight, and they will have total superiority. Then you can close your eyes to the shortcomings of weapons. such an approach is fundamentally wrong even they understand, but to traders and politicians it’s deeply good for it .. Like everywhere else.
  • Jet
    Jet 6 January 2014 16: 02 New
    +7
    Personally, it seems to me that such articles, which are increasingly appearing in the press, are perfectly planned misinformation to calm a potential adversary. And individual citizens, whether intentionally or not, often in the wake of "kvass patriotism," pick it up and carry it on. A very dangerous trend. As the saying goes, the plan will show, although God forbid of course ..
    1. dv-v
      dv-v 8 January 2014 07: 09 New
      +1
      Yes, come on - I neighed many times, for example, when more than once or twice the author of that article mentioned the A-10 as a miraculously armored attack aircraft. until I broke it, his model was standing on a shelf. it’s beautiful in its own way, an infection, but it would be ridiculous with his simple, huge, spaced engine nacelles behind the wings to seriously consider him an attack aircraft, i.e. the workhorse of the battlefield, such as our su-25.

      or, after reading the article, I remembered with a smile about the f-18 - well, who can it compete with as an exterminator?)) and there are enough questions about the raptor, which is the f-35.
      1. yehat
        yehat 13 January 2014 16: 34 New
        0
        the points.
        A-10. Americans are not as important technology as the pilot. It is the pilot in the A-10 that is not badly protected. True, there is another problem - if the plane is knocked down,
        the catapult does not work very well. Twin engines. 1 will be hit, fly and engine survivability is far from zero. Reactive generally hold a good blow. The warthog has advantages in comparison with the su-25. For example, combat load, subsonic aerodynamics.
        F-18 at one time competed in 1 dispute with F-16, but lost. It was created as an INEXPENSIVE air defense platform. Hit the fleet as a fallback. He remained a PLATFORM. Bomb defenseless targets.
      2. yehat
        yehat 13 January 2014 16: 34 New
        0
        the points.
        A-10. Americans are not as important technology as the pilot. It is the pilot in the A-10 that is not badly protected. True, there is another problem - if the plane is knocked down,
        the catapult does not work very well. Twin engines. 1 will be hit, fly and engine survivability is far from zero. Reactive generally hold a good blow. The warthog has advantages in comparison with the su-25. For example, combat load, subsonic aerodynamics.
        F-18 at one time competed in 1 dispute with F-16, but lost. It was created as an INEXPENSIVE air defense platform. Hit the fleet as a fallback. He remained a PLATFORM. Bomb defenseless targets.
  • Vovka levka
    Vovka levka 6 January 2014 17: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Wiruz
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???

    What we do not like, we do not want to know. That is our main misfortune.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 6 January 2014 18: 58 New
    0
    To cut more money.
  • rodevaan
    rodevaan 7 January 2014 13: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Wiruz
    Maybe we don’t know something ???


    - Of course we don’t know ... And many do not know what the dough actually drank there and in what amounts it is expressed ... Thieves are not only thieves in Russia ...
  • Su24
    Su24 7 January 2014 16: 40 New
    +4
    Quote: Wiruz
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???


    That's it. All this constant criticism of the F-35 has long been reminiscent of disu. What are the Americans completely stupid?
    1. SV
      SV 8 January 2014 00: 09 New
      0
      Nevertheless, our specialists take this machine seriously enough / probably the article is still desa ...
  • zvereok
    zvereok 7 January 2014 21: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: Wiruz
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???


    It's simple, they work out the technology by trial and error, at the expense of candy wrappers. And we are at the expense of resources. Well, we can’t be wrong.
  • alex-defensor
    alex-defensor 7 January 2014 23: 25 New
    +1
    Are we watering it? Be careful, this is a translation of the article by David Ax from the American site (link given at the end of the article) !!!
  • SPLV
    SPLV 8 January 2014 00: 43 New
    0
    I think the information war .... It seems that the United States is injecting misinformation into the world media about the insolvency of F-35. After all, the developers had at their disposal data on the Yak-141, sold at the beginning of the 90-s, and the British according to Harrier, and their own. It is hard to believe that a state in crisis can swell huge amounts of money into windmills for Don Quixote. ??
  • Pimply
    Pimply 8 January 2014 18: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Wiruz
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???

    More precisely - 3 aircraft
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 8 January 2014 21: 07 New
    0
    They need to pay extra - let them further develop it.
  • air wolf
    air wolf 9 January 2014 09: 27 New
    0
    They have no more concept, the F-22 is out of date, and the F-35 is out of date no longer up.
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 9 January 2014 11: 21 New
    0
    The flywheel is also running hundreds of billions of dollars in business, to admit your mistake means to admit your insolvency, but they can’t go to that, you have to answer who is to blame for cutting taxpayer dough.
  • rerbi
    rerbi 6 January 2014 10: 45 New
    -1
    the impression is that the author wrote, if only to write more ... although you can write all this much shorter: F-35 - shit, originally created for cutting ...
    1. rolik2
      rolik2 6 January 2014 11: 38 New
      +8
      Quote: rerbi
      F-35 - shit, originally created for cutting ...

      If it had been created in Russia, there would have been a super plane as well. The enemy must be considered a minimum equal to himself because neglecting this leads to defeat.
      And why did you drag here about the cut?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 18 New
        +10
        If it had been created in Russia, there would have been a super plane as well.

        In Russia, they created the Su-35S. Which, even with a higher ESR, will break the F-35 into rags. I am silent about the T-50, since its parameters and weapons are not known at all.
        1. rolik2
          rolik2 6 January 2014 13: 46 New
          -4
          laughing And the parameters and weapons of the F-22 and F-35 have already begun to print in the newspaper "Pravda"?
          Not funny. Su 35 units, and there will not be a fact (although I think there will be but not a lot), while the same f-22s and f-35s are already about 3 hundred and there will be more every year.
          On a brush will tear on rags so it is a grandmother for two wondered. The combat experience of both our and their pilots shows that the parameters are not a panacea, combat experience is all. We fly pilots a year no more than a hundred hours, and how many training battles did they have with the probable drunkard technique? ZERO if Amer have our equipment and successfully work out counter measures, then we only measure it with letters and parameters.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 24 New
            +10
            Not funny. Su 35 units, and there will not be a fact (although I think there will be but not a lot), while the same f-22s and f-35s are already about 3 hundred and there will be more every year.

            Su-35 will still be, then most likely the fleet will be replenished with Su-30 and so on until the release of the T-50 series. F-22 ALREADY not produced, it is the only strong competitor to our T-50. I repeat, F-35, neither fish nor meat. This is not a fighter, this is not an attack aircraft, not an interceptor, not a bomber. This is a goose on a duck chased by a lame dog. He will certainly be brought to mind, and somehow it will work, there are no other alternatives.
            The combat experience of both our and their pilots shows that the parameters are not a panacea, combat experience is all.

            I agree.
            We fly pilots a year no more than a hundred hours, and how many training battles did they have with the probable drunkard technique?

            I don’t know about training fights, but the raid is constantly growing. Training and patrolling are ongoing.
            ZERO if Amer have our equipment and successfully work out counter measures

            Already haven't. They do not have our latest modifications of the Su and MiG (they received the Su-27 and MiG-29 nevertheless. It seems like early versions.). And if I am not mistaken, the squadron of the "aggressors" is disbanded. If we are only gauging our genitals, then why with each flight of our Air Force close to the borders of European countries, each starts nervously hiccuping and making noise in the newspapers? Somehow weakly fits with our zero touch.
            1. rolik2
              rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 22 New
              -2
              Quote: Wedmak
              If we are only gauging our genitals, then why with each flight of our Air Force close to the borders of European countries, each starts nervously hiccuping and making noise in the newspapers?

              And that our Air Force does not nervously smoke when NATO patrols near the borders of Russia ?? The same boil, if not more, the same sortie intercepts the same as everywhere else, there is no need to distort.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 6 January 2014 18: 44 New
                +7
                The same boil if not more

                I have never seen a panic article with the headline "NATO aircraft flew near the border of the Russian Federation."
                1. Su-9
                  Su-9 7 January 2014 03: 10 New
                  +3
                  NATO planes fly along the Russian border all the time. It just happens so often that no one reacts in any way. There was a similar situation under the Union.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 8 January 2014 19: 50 New
                    +1
                    They are simply taken to accompany the air defense system.
            2. servant
              servant 6 January 2014 19: 02 New
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak

              Su-35 will still be, then most likely the fleet will be replenished with Su-30 and so on until the release of the T-50 series. F-22 ALREADY not produced, it is the only strong competitor to our T-50. I repeat, F-35, neither fish nor meat. This is not a fighter, this is not an attack aircraft, not an interceptor, not a bomber. This is a goose on a duck chased by a lame dog. He will certainly be brought to mind, and somehow it will work, there are no other alternatives.
              The combat experience of both our and their pilots shows that the parameters are not a panacea, combat experience is all.


              It’s unknown what the T-50’s parameters are, but it’s neither a fighter, nor an attack aircraft, nor a bomb, nor fish nor meat ... And if they bring it to mind, it’s not soon, not before it starts to be mass-produced and all its flaws will begin to be revealed ...
              About combat experience, it’s generally better to keep silent, taking into account the fact that those who really fought already in retirement of alternation of generations did not have a certain time ...
              Americans are fighting constantly ..
              Do not underestimate the likely enemy, 41 armor was already strong ..
              1. dmit-xnumx
                dmit-xnumx 7 January 2014 01: 51 New
                0
                Serving! You apparently forgot that at 45 you proved it. And if Comrade Stalin ordered, then there would have been no less casualties from Germany, and there would have been material damage ... - there would have been no country called Germany.
              2. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 19 New
                +2
                What are the parameters of the T-50 is unknown, but it is also neither a fighter nor an attack aircraft or a bomber; neither is it a fish or meat ..

                Why? He is clearly positioned as a fighter. Even if you compare its appearance with the F-35, you can immediately see who the fighter is and who the chimera is.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 8 January 2014 20: 22 New
                  0
                  Interceptor and first strike bomber. With good melee capabilities.
            3. Sergey Sitnikov
              Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 02: 11 New
              +2
              why did you suddenly write off the titanium moment 31 - these are the coolest enemies of the f-22, even the 25 moments, Israel could not oppose anything))) speed is speed, and the experience of their use from the Union is recorded in the forms ...
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 21 New
                +2
                why did you suddenly write off the titanium moment 31 - these are the coolest f-22m enemies

                Because they no longer fly at 3000 km / h. The lantern of the cabin does not allow aging. Speed ​​limit, in my opinion at 1.5M.
                1. Vovka levka
                  Vovka levka 7 January 2014 10: 49 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  why did you suddenly write off the titanium moment 31 - these are the coolest f-22m enemies

                  Because they no longer fly at 3000 km / h. The lantern of the cabin does not allow aging. Speed ​​limit, in my opinion at 1.5M.

                  Well, why are you so upset a person.
                  If someone thinks that speed is a panacea at this stage, then he is very, very wrong.
                  1. SV
                    SV 8 January 2014 00: 21 New
                    +1
                    I read the article, in it the MIG-31 Americans themselves are called the most dangerous machine for the F-22.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 8 January 2014 00: 51 New
                      +1
                      Quote: SV
                      MIG-31 is called the most dangerous machine for the F-22.

                      And why is the MiG-31 so dangerous for the F-22?
                      1. 11111mail.ru
                        11111mail.ru 8 January 2014 20: 30 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And why is the MiG-31 so dangerous for the F-22?

                        According to the declared characteristics, four MiG-31 close about 980 km. along the front ... It's a pity there are few of them left in the ranks!
                      2. clidon
                        clidon 8 January 2014 20: 32 New
                        0
                        From the B-52 can and close.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 9 January 2014 01: 21 New
                        +1
                        Quote: 11111mail.ru
                        According to the declared characteristics, four MiG-31 close about 980 km. along the front ... It's a pity there are few of them left in the ranks!

                        In ranged combat -
                        F-22 is less noticeable. The effective dispersal area of ​​the MiG-31 with missiles is estimated to be> 20 sq. m; EPR F-22 - according to the US 0,0001, according to Russian experts about 0,1 square. meter. Now count how early the Raptor spotted the MiG.



                        The raptor has the best means of detection and radar - here, alas, the electronics of the 80's do not compete with modern radars and avionics

                        In close combat - the heavy clumsy MiG-31 has no chance.

                        The MiG is obsolete 20 years ago and it is time to replace this trash with the new Su-27 (Su-35) family cars
                      4. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 9 January 2014 12: 31 New
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The raptor has the best means of detection and radar - here, alas, the electronics of the 80's do not compete with modern radars and avionics

                        Now all MiG-31s ​​are being upgraded to the level of MiG-31BM, with the modern Zaslon-M SUV. Electronics is electronics, and Zashlon-M FAR is 1,4 m in diameter, which is almost twice (in diameter) more than the F-22 AFAR (0,813 m), and the F-35 antenna diameter is even smaller.
                        In general, it’s not at all a fact that the MiG-31 will not see the F-22-35 at a distance when its missiles reach them, but they still cannot answer.
                      5. clidon
                        clidon 9 January 2014 16: 11 New
                        0
                        Barrier-M is an old radar plus partially updated electronics. That is the same PFAR. To show you how the PAR technology has changed over the course of 20 years?
                      6. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 9 January 2014 17: 57 New
                        +1
                        Quote: clidon
                        Barrier-M is an old radar plus partially updated electronics.

                        Barrier-M also has a different antenna size (larger). And the fact that we are behind in electronics does not say at all that our equipment is worse. You can name the imported locator with the characteristics “Don-2N”, which has been on duty for a quarter of a century.
                      7. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 9 January 2014 19: 02 New
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        You can name the imported locator with the characteristics “Don-2Н”, which has been on duty for a quarter of a century

                        Sea-Based X-band Radar (SBX) - a mobile radar base with centimeter range radars. By purpose, the analogue of Don-2Н is the detection of targets at long range over the horizon. At the same time, the SBX is cooler and more efficient - an active headlamp with an area of ​​384 sq. meter

                      8. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 10 January 2014 23: 49 New
                        +2
                        ".... The unique capabilities of Don-2N radar systems were clearly demonstrated by the results of the work in the international experiment on the detection of small-sized space objects carried out under the Oderax program, during which microsatellites - metal were thrown into space from the Shuttle balls with a diameter of 5,10 and 15 centimeters. Don-2N radar is the only radar system in the world that was able to detect and build the trajectory of the smallest space object-ball with a diameter of 2 inches (5 cm) ..... "
                        http://www.rtisystems.ru/products/radarcomplexes/above-the-horizon/5/

                        And how did the Sea-Based X-band Radar (SBX) note that it would be possible to compare the possibilities?
                2. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 9 January 2014 19: 10 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Now all MiG-31 are being upgraded to the level of MiG-31BM, with the modern Zaslon-M SUV.

                  It doesn’t mean anything.
                  Declared detection range and taking on tracking for a target with EPR 5 sq. m. ("fighter") for Zaslon-M - 200 ... 230 km.

                  The Reptor EPR according to domestic estimates of 0,1 sq. m (Yankees claim even less).

                  Comments are redundant. MiG-31 is completely out of date
                3. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 11 January 2014 17: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  It doesn’t mean anything.
                  Declared detection range and taking on tracking for a target with EPR 5 sq. m. ("fighter") for Zaslon-M - 200 ... 230 km.

                  "... MiG-31BM with significantly increased combat capabilities. The vehicle was equipped with an SUV modernized using the technical backlog obtained during the work on the creation of the Zaslon-M SUV. The detection range of fighter-class air targets was increased to 320 km, and the range of their destruction is up to 280 km. The ballistic missile system is capable of simultaneously tracking 10 targets and ensuring the use of weapons in six of them. It has acquired the ability to act on ground targets ....

                  .... As a result of modernization, the combat effectiveness of the aircraft during operations on air targets, compared with the MiG-31, increased 2,6 times. The aircraft received weapons similar to those used by the MiG-31M interceptor, as well as guided air-to-surface weapons of destruction .....

                  ... MiG can simultaneously fire at a group of targets, retarget weapons during firing. Such difficult modes are still not implemented anywhere in the world, as well as the integrated targeting system from the radar, optical sight and sight on the pilot’s helmet, used on the Su-27 and MiG-29 .... "
                  http://paralay.com/mig31m.html
        2. yehat
          yehat 13 January 2014 16: 22 New
          -1
          F-22 is not badly protected from horizontal location.
          But the altitude of the MiG-31 flight, it can be seen quite well and far away.
          At the same time, the Mig-31 is oriented as much as possible to the interceptor circuit,
          and the F-22 is made with a number of restrictions.
          Finally, the best way to deal with Mig at a long distance - the Phoenix rocket is simply not suitable because of the accuracy.
          F22 is designed to shoot down half-blind front-line fighters, but not a moment.
  • tomket
    tomket 6 January 2014 14: 26 New
    -3
    in general, there is an opinion that we had to skip the fifth generation as such, and immediately begin work on the sixth.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 50 New
      +7
      generally there is an opinion that we had to skip the fifth generation as such, and immediately begin work on the sixth

      Our electronics are not at the level where something would be missing something. And the world’s AI developments cannot yet provide a brain capable of navigating in aerial combat.
      1. washi
        washi 6 January 2014 19: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        generally there is an opinion that we had to skip the fifth generation as such, and immediately begin work on the sixth

        Our electronics are not at the level where something would be missing something. And the world’s AI developments cannot yet provide a brain capable of navigating in aerial combat.

        Why artificial intelligence?
        For me, the 6th generation is the ability to bring down everything. From the surface to the geocentric orbit.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 23 New
          +2
          For me, the 6th generation is the ability to bring down everything. From the surface to the geocentric orbit.

          This is for you to look towards the air defense system. They are already shooting down low-orbit satellites. And to get higher ... in my opinion it only stops that it is expensive, and why not so far.
    2. dmit-xnumx
      dmit-xnumx 7 January 2014 01: 55 New
      +2
      yeah! And you don’t have to go to school, but immediately issue higher education diplomas. Well, just like in the old days, noble children — during pregnancy, mothers — enrolled in the regiment, remember the “Captain's Daughter”?
  • rerbi
    rerbi 6 January 2014 19: 17 New
    +1
    ento what kind of experience do you have? ... bombing Libya? ... when conducting 50 training fights with amines on a su-27 versus the F-22, the score is 49 against one draw in our favor ... hear, Specialist, go it’s better to teach how to write wise shy ..))
    1. servant
      servant 6 January 2014 19: 21 New
      +6
      Drop a link about training fights ... As far as I know, the Ameri pilots after Kharchevsky were forbidden to conduct training fights with the Russians ...
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 7 January 2014 00: 28 New
      0
      Figured it out myself?
    3. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 03: 14 New
      +3
      F22 against the 27th? And the score is 0-1-49? What nonsense? Have you seen a plane other than a charter to Turia?
  • edeligor
    edeligor 6 January 2014 20: 47 New
    +3
    Quote: rolik2
    We fly pilots a year no more than a hundred hours, and how many training battles did they have with the probable drunkard technique? ZERO if Amer have our equipment and successfully work out counter measures, then we only measure it with letters and parameters.

    I look. Are you special in pilot training? But I have other data. For some reason, the Americans are not painfully training in practicing melee tactics; they are increasingly relying on their superiority in the air, electronic suppression means and the wonders of their missile weapons, and further on, the gut is thin! Sexual organs also need to be able to measure, if you can of course! Our pilot will die if necessary, if the American can, then there is a very big question!
    1. rolik2
      rolik2 6 January 2014 21: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: edeligor
      I see you are special in pilot training

      The same as you are online laughing
      I just watch sometimes (sometimes I rarely fly with them) and see how this raid takes off, take off, flew my route and landing, sometimes patrolling the economy zone AND ALL. There is no question of practicing any sort of combat maneuvers; there are simply no people who would know them.

      And I have not heard something about training air battles between myself for a long time, if you have any data to share.

      and they even carried out using captured equipment.

      Quote: edeligor
      Our pilot will die if necessary, if the American can, then there is a very big question!

      Can you not worry, on this site there was an article about the American Marine who covered his body with a grenade.

      So hi
    2. iwind
      iwind 6 January 2014 21: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: edeligor

      I look. Are you special in pilot training? But I have other data. For some reason, the Americans are not painfully training in practicing melee tactics; they are increasingly relying on their superiority in the air, electronic suppression means and the wonders of their missile weapons, and further on, the gut is thin! Sexual organs also need to be able to measure, if you can of course! Our pilot will die if necessary, if the American can, then there is a very big question!

      Not true, here's a short video of a regular workout at Mach loop. Such flights take place there on a regular basis, do not write downright delirium, there is just practicing air combat (interception) at a low altitude.

      1. _Voislav_
        _Voislav_ 10 January 2014 21: 19 New
        0
        Awesome! Just do not understand where is the close combat training !? request
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 10 January 2014 21: 26 New
          0
          ..........................................
    3. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 03: 27 New
      0
      Where do you get the data from? Can you share? One of them will bring our ordinary pilot to 2nd grade right away ...
    4. dv-v
      dv-v 8 January 2014 07: 14 New
      +1
      that’s in vain - the story of beating phantoms in vietnam in a moment is known, and the miracle technique didn’t help ...
  • typhoon7
    typhoon7 8 January 2014 16: 11 New
    0
    Where have you seen the massive use of these super? No. The F-35 has two compartments in which the maximum can fit on one short-range missile or on the GBU, the rest under the wings, such ergonomics and EPR, while at the same time it has the appearance of an aircraft with at least four axes in the compartments .
  • 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru 8 January 2014 20: 47 New
    0
    Quote: rolik2
    units

    Defector, read the dictionary at your leisure, and for now, a hint to you: the word you are interested in is basically “ONE”, and write down in your diary what you depicted in the commentary and do not forget to show it to your parents, although in the light of current trends you have them same-sex, therefore a joke: a new Russian is driving along the streets of Nice and sees on the branch indicator something familiar "GOMOSEKOVO". Having passed in this direction, it stops at one of the villas and asks the owner of the lawn mowing "Eskusema situaion, vocabulary is running out and should be continued in my native dialect, what is your village called?" The answer on the same mov is: “Wait a minute, man, I'll ask my wife for a moment” Nathan! Why..."
  • servant
    servant 6 January 2014 18: 53 New
    0
    How many Su-35s do we have? There is no talk about the T-50 ... the prospects are far and foggy ...
  • Witold
    Witold 6 January 2014 23: 04 New
    +5
    Quote: Wedmak
    If it had been created in Russia, there would have been a super plane as well.

    In Russia, they created the Su-35S. Which, even with a higher ESR, will break the F-35 into rags. I am silent about the T-50, since its parameters and weapons are not known at all.

    Well, where are they. Name at least one squadron of these fighters.
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 03: 30 New
      +1
      Witold, this is not your case. The message is that the Su-35 will crush the F-35 one by one. What does the quantity have to do with it?
      1. typhoon7
        typhoon7 8 January 2014 16: 22 New
        0
        100 pounds and MiG-35, and MiG-29K.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 31 New
      +1
      Akhtubinsk - 10 pcs.
      Dzemgi - 12 pcs.
      The release of the sides continues. As an option, the Su-30 begins to arrive, it is even more versatile.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 8 January 2014 20: 51 New
      0
      Just at the end of 2013, the first squadron kit was delivered. This is only 6 years after the first flight.
  • Witold
    Witold 6 January 2014 23: 04 New
    -1
    Quote: Wedmak
    If it had been created in Russia, there would have been a super plane as well.

    In Russia, they created the Su-35S. Which, even with a higher ESR, will break the F-35 into rags. I am silent about the T-50, since its parameters and weapons are not known at all.

    Well, where are they. Name at least one squadron of these fighters.
  • rerbi
    rerbi 6 January 2014 19: 02 New
    +2
    as a super plane, it was not originally created ... it was created as an inexpensive universal aircraft with one nozzle ... but it turned out ok, which even with a 4th-generation f-22 aircraft is a miscarriage ... but now at a higher price .. .and indeed, with this result, what does it have to do with it? ..))
  • rodevaan
    rodevaan 7 January 2014 13: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: rolik2
    Quote: rerbi
    F-35 - shit, originally created for cutting ...

    If it had been created in Russia, there would have been a super plane as well. The enemy must be considered a minimum equal to himself because neglecting this leads to defeat.
    And why did you drag here about the cut?


    - Because more than once the Americans themselves did not declare to the general public that the great Pindos military industrial complex was a huge dough drank by one clan that controls foreign and domestic politics, and which people from outside do not enter. Otherwise, where is the logic in the persistent investment of obviously expensive and perfectly and remotely promising projects? In the USSR, similar weapons were created, which were much more reliable and 10 times cheaper - the same missiles, tanks and planes ...
    1. rolik2
      rolik2 7 January 2014 15: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: rodevaan
      pi-ndossky defense industry - it's a huge drank dough

      Only here, as a result, as you say, "dough was drunk" from comrades pin..sov for already a hundred fighters, and as a result of YOUR cuts only debts and holes in the budget remain.
      Do not confuse drank with lobbying. These are different things.

      Quote: rodevaan
      Otherwise, where is the logic in the persistent investment of obviously expensive and perfectly and remotely promising projects?

      You know the project for the creation of the T-50 is also MUCH expensive, but no one says "but let's cut the budget of the program? Instead of new engines, put one and from the An-2, because it also flies and IS CHEAP?"
      At the moment, creating such projects is VERY expensive.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 7 January 2014 21: 52 New
        0
        Quote: rolik2
        already for a hundred fighters, and as a result of YOUR cuts only debts and holes in the budget remain.


        Debt does not need to be remembered. The USA is a drug addict, to take away the opportunity to print a buck, their army will smash the country ... It’s a pity, only others will get it.
  • washi
    washi 6 January 2014 19: 01 New
    0
    Quote: rerbi
    the impression is that the author wrote, if only to write more ... although you can write all this much shorter: F-35 - shit, originally created for cutting ...

    In the beginning it was Yak-141, the documentation for which was sold to amers. From the "candy" began to make the "ideal".
    Because in America there are no brains, it turned out ........
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 03: 33 New
      +2
      Vasya, your writing that F-35 is made from 141 shows that not the Americans have brains, but the writer of such an assumption. For this to you (not me) and minus.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 7 January 2014 21: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: Su-9
        Vasya, your writing that F-35 is made from 141 shows that not the Americans have brains, but the writer of such an assumption. For this to you (not me) and minus.


        Yak-Xnumx is like vertical take-off technologies bought by amers, more precisely, joint work with design bureaus, and then, purchase of documentation.
        1. clidon
          clidon 7 January 2014 22: 19 New
          0
          The Yak-141 is an unknown quantity of documentation on vertical take-off technology bought by the Americans. It is known that the nozzle was used. A somewhat similar scheme was adopted - a rotary engine in the back between two keels - additional lifts (for Yak a couple of engines, for Americans a fan from the main engine) behind the cockpit. On this, the similarity of the machines ends and the differences begin.
        2. typhoon7
          typhoon7 8 January 2014 16: 25 New
          0
          It's right. Amers did not have experience building such aircraft.
  • svp67
    svp67 6 January 2014 10: 48 New
    +8
    All these computer simulations are still very, very arbitrary ...
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 6 January 2014 12: 03 New
      +3
      Interesting. And the simulation is adjusted for the skill of the pilots? But still- "Our pilots are nice guys. They are not sad, looking at the world from a height."
      1. aleksandrs95
        aleksandrs95 6 January 2014 16: 45 New
        +1
        Of course, we have masters among the pilots, but there are not many of them. You have to fly for many hours and the approach should be like in Israel, they are considered to be almost standard pilots in the world, very serious training and flying, requirements. We need at least 200 such pilots, better 400 in fighter aviation. The question of price is very costly. Although I’m sure, if not taken widely, we have reference standards. But there will not be a dozen of them.
        1. Su-9
          Su-9 7 January 2014 03: 47 New
          +1
          Israeli pilots reference pilots? I beg to differ. They are not very bad. But not reference. The Israelites have a stereotyped school; there haven't been any military use against air targets for 20 years now.
          Pilot training is determined by 4 factors:
          1) by raid
          2) Requirements for passing standards
          3) Flight exercises - diversity, interaction
          4) Combat use (as a screening factor - a lot of examples when first-class flyers were blown away in war - like everything else).
          In the simulation of battles, by the way, the learning of the sides is taken as a constant.

          And for fighter pilots - in my opinion and experience (on average):
          1) state marines
          2) Australia / Canada
          3) packs
          4) Israel / South Africa (when they were still flying)
          1. Professor
            Professor 7 January 2014 11: 42 New
            0
            Quote: Su-9
            Israel's school is template

            laughing

            Quote: Su-9
            The raid is not the biggest.

            Interested in where the woods come from?
            1. Su-9
              Su-9 7 January 2014 18: 16 New
              0
              From numerous conversations with the pilots themselves. Few fighters go 180 hours. The school is stereotyped in the sense that there are not so many possible types of threats (of course there are enough threats themselves). That's against a lot and do not need to learn.
              1. Professor
                Professor 7 January 2014 21: 26 New
                +2
                Quote: Su-9
                From numerous conversations with the pilots themselves. Few fighters go 180 hours.

                Yeah. Shchaz. Hale Avira pilots have now told you where, how and how much they fly, and even in "numerous conversations." Where do you allow me to be interested in crossing paths with them? wink

                Quote: Su-9
                The school is stereotyped in the sense that there are not so many possible types of threats (of course there are enough threats themselves). That's against a lot and do not need to learn.

                And I thought you had information at your disposal, and this is the conclusion. sad Recommend a book for you to read about the history of Hale Avira so that you can look for stereotypes?
                Wings of retaliation
                1. Su-9
                  Su-9 8 January 2014 08: 25 New
                  +2
                  Professor, do not judge, but you will not be judged.
                  Not all students are here ...
                  I will tell you honestly, I have never been to Israel. But he talked with the pilots of your Air Force above the roof - and since he flew and studied in the lessons of the Middle East wars, we have a lot of topics to talk about - not just about girls. You are a smart person, right? Can you deduce where?
                  I must say, not on Muslim terriroi. :-)
                  The knowledge of the raid and tactics of various Air Force I have from my professional career.
                  The book is good, I have not seen it before, thanks. I can’t read it right away, if I learn something new about the tactics of training the Israeli Air Force, I’ll be glad.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 8 January 2014 10: 54 New
                    0
                    Quote: Su-9
                    Not all students are here ...

                    This is true, some understand what is at stake and poke around in topics that they don’t drag.

                    Quote: Su-9
                    I will tell you honestly, I have never been to Israel. But he talked with the pilots of your Air Force above the roof - and since he flew and studied in the lessons of the Middle East wars, we have a lot of topics to talk about - not just about girls. You are a smart person, right? Can you deduce where?

                    Open the veil of secrecy, do not languish. wink I personally know several current pilots of the Israeli Air Force and a couple of reservists (you know how many reservists fly here), but none of them disseminate information about how, where and how much flies. By the way, pilots are strictly forbidden to register in all kinds of social networks, forums and shine their physiognomy and personal data. So I doubt very much that you had the honor of conducting “numerous conversations” with them, all the more so in which they would inform you about how much they fly per year.

                    Quote: Su-9
                    The knowledge of the raid and tactics of various Air Force I have from my professional career.

                    The question is how much you can trust this information. Two examples:
                    1. At the Genshatab Academy, students were told that during the Doomsday War of the Israeli Navy, helicopter groups were used to simulate ships, and when anti-ship missiles were fired at them, they quickly gained altitude and rockets went nowhere. In fact, there was nothing of the kind, and missiles were missed for a completely different reason.
                    2. 15.08.82/102/1 TASS issued a statement that Israeli claims that Israel allegedly shot down 70 Syrian aircraft, having lost XNUMX from air defense fires, are nothing more than a lie and that Syria destroyed about XNUMX Israeli aircraft during the battles over the Bekaa Valley. In fact, in aerial combat, Israel did not lose a single aircraft.

                    Quote: Su-9
                    The book is good, I have not seen it before, thanks. I can’t read it right away, if I learn something new about the tactics of training the Israeli Air Force, I’ll be glad.

                    The book is interesting although there are inaccuracies. You can’t call her pro-Israeli. In it, Palestinian terrorists are referred to only as partisans. So scoop up there about "stereotyped".
                    1. Su-9
                      Su-9 8 January 2014 23: 57 New
                      0
                      My professional activity is not at all connected with the General Staff Academy or with TASS. And it is connected with, er ... modeling of complex systems with integrated security. And many systems are on airplanes and are configured with pilots. From there, and knowledge of the training system and raid. If the details are interesting - write to me in PM. I will answer there.
                    2. Su-9
                      Su-9 9 January 2014 06: 48 New
                      0
                      Well, to catch up. The stereotyped action is not so bad in many cases. Refusal from stereotyping will inevitably lead to a fall in flight discipline, a sort of cowboys between pilots - and with poor training and low flying time it leads to accidents (look at least at the Indians - they have every second Indra Lal there - well, they fight that bad). In the USSR Air Force, there was even more stereotyping - mainly because it was difficult to maintain a 100-hour raid, and the boys had a dope over the roof (he was like that). The Israelis are one of the most disciplined and learned pilots in the world - but they act according to the trained patterns and for me is not a standard. And about the unconditional victories in the air wars in the Middle East - the planning and preparation of operations (the headquarters of the Air Force) is simply at the highest level - this is perhaps the standard (although if you talk with yours, there is also a mess).
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 9 January 2014 16: 40 New
                        0
                        Quote: Su-9
                        And many systems are on airplanes and are configured with pilots.

                        Israelis do not like to put alien systems on their planes, and even pilots in Israel are secret. These are the realities. request

                        Quote: Su-9
                        The Israelis are one of the most disciplined and learned pilots in the world - but they act according to the trained patterns and for me is not a standard.

                        I won’t know how you can know about how Israeli pilots act and the "stereotypes" of these actions? Would it not be difficult for you to give an example of such template actions.
                        By the way, do you know that each Hale Avira squadron has its own style? Do you also call this stereotyped at the squadron level?
  • mirag2
    mirag2 6 January 2014 10: 51 New
    +9
    A fascinating article is a historical excursion from the origins of creating the concept to a virtually finished airplane.
  • mad
    mad 6 January 2014 10: 56 New
    +9
    Serdyukov with Vasilyeva just played in children's blocks, compared with cuts in the Pentagon%)
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 6 January 2014 11: 09 New
      +12
      Quote: mad
      Serdyukov with Vasilyeva just played in children's blocks, compared with cuts in the Pentagon%)

      This doesn’t make it any easier for us, in the states, even if they go around on their heads, Serdyukovism is bad for us ...
    2. zvereok
      zvereok 7 January 2014 22: 01 New
      0
      So the budgets are different.
    3. Assistant
      Assistant 8 January 2014 02: 25 New
      +1
      Serdyukov with Vasilyeva just played in children's blocks, compared with cuts in the Pentagon%)


      Yeah, but if they still sawed hard money earned by their country ...
      And for the money of the whole world, you can also develop a flying penguin, if only your R&D departments and aircraft factories work, again jobs in the United States - white Americans need to work somewhere, in the end ...
  • Corsair
    Corsair 6 January 2014 10: 59 New
    +6
    Quote: from article
    The redesigned F-35, although it has become somewhat lighter and more maneuverable, has also turned out to be less durable and less safe. A Pentagon analysis showed that eliminating five kilograms of weight was worth the backup systems, which made F-35 25% more vulnerable to enemy fire.

    The Mitsubishi Zero Japanese fighter was also LIGHT, FAST, MANEUVERABLE, WELL WEAPONED ... BUT having a STRONG construction and lack of tank protection and armor protection ...
    For which he was mercilessly beaten by overseas counterparts ...
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 11: 17 New
      +7
      Mitsubishi Japanese Zero fighter was also

      Having managed to prettyly pat the nerves and the composition of the Allied Air Force. And F-35 so far only a thrill of a sense of humor.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 6 January 2014 11: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Having managed to prettyly pat the nerves and the composition of the Allied Air Force. And F-35 so far only a thrill of a sense of humor.

        Rent for F 22-35 already destined for the fate of the "super fighter" F117 ...
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 6 January 2014 11: 36 New
          +18
          Rent for F 22-35 already destined for the fate of the "super fighter" F117 ...

          Hardly. The United States has no other fighter options. And so, a program has now been launched to modernize and extend the service life of F-16 / 15,18. It would seem, why? Indeed, the series is already the 5th generation ... But no ...
          By the way, when the F-117 was promoted as a fighter, I could not understand how this iron could maneuver and go to supersonic. It turned out yes ... there was no super sound, but maneuvering like an iron. But how many films about him ... fantastic.
          1. Wiruz
            Wiruz 6 January 2014 12: 40 New
            +4
            I remember the Americans were still wagging that he (NightHack) flies twice as fast as sound, although he accelerated with only afterburner and all sails to Mach 0,9. I would like to believe that the “invincibility” and awesomeness of the F-35 is also just a PR move. Yes, he has a small EPR, yes, he is full of electronics, but a plane with only four air-to-air missiles on board cannot bear the proud name of the Fighter (I don’t even say about maneuverability and speed). As a fighter-bomber, he is possible and will be a good competitor for the Su-34 but no more.
            1. rolik2
              rolik2 6 January 2014 12: 49 New
              0
              Quote: Wiruz
              As a fighter-bomber, he is possible and will be a good competitor for the Su-34 but no more.

              laughing fool
            2. Wedmak
              Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 02 New
              +11
              As a fighter-bomber, he is possible and will be a good competitor for the Su-34 but no more.

              On the 117th, only two guided or adjustable bombs can be suspended. Or up to 6 small ones. Moreover, the external suspension is simply NOT. Su-34 - up to 8 tons of a wide variety of gifts, including KR / RCC.
              And yes ... in one of the films, the F-117 had a compartment with the ability to accommodate up to 8 troops in full uniforms. And the possibility of docking the adapter pipe to any Boeing (!! already ridiculous) at any height and speed. Fantastic just the car. laughing
              1. rolik2
                rolik2 6 January 2014 13: 19 New
                -2
                That he and the tactics of applying another was. Imperceptibly approached - covered and tear. And he carried out his task with minimal losses.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 25 New
                  +3
                  And he carried out his task with minimal losses.

                  Yeah. Over the territory with suppressed air defense. And then they managed to put one, just by stupidity (nefig fly the same routes). Moreover, from the ancient S-125. Let me remind you that there are also unconfirmed losses of these aircraft.
                  1. rolik2
                    rolik2 6 January 2014 13: 46 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Yeah. Over the territory with suppressed air defense. And then they managed to put one, just by stupidity (nefig fly the same routes). Moreover, from the ancient S-125. Let me remind you that there are also unconfirmed losses of these aircraft.

                    Would you like them to fly over Georgia like you?

                    they paid their arrogance, but you should not shield them with complete fools.

                    Have you taken into account the experience of the Yugoslav air defense in detecting stealth aircraft?
                    1. Wedmak
                      Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 29 New
                      0
                      Would you like them to fly over Georgia like you?

                      But for this, thanks to the “brothers Ukrainians” who helped (and most likely managed) to manage their own air defense systems. Again, part of the losses was allegedly from their own fire. Alas, the interaction between the troops is rather weak.
                      but you should not shield them with complete fools.

                      God forbid. It’s just that in their arrogance and exclusiveness they got into the “bag”, and it will be interesting to see how they get out of it.
                      Have you taken into account the experience of the Yugoslav air defense in detecting stealth aircraft?

                      I am not a member of the Air Force headquarters, but I hope that this experience has been documented and taught in schools.
                      1. rolik2
                        rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 29 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        "brothers Ukrainians"

                        What do they have to do with it? Even if there were Ukrainians there, how did the air defenders who shot once a year manage to bring down several aircraft at well-studied complexes in Russia, what would happen when you grappled with well-trained NATO airmen and their unfamiliar complexes?

                        Quote: Wedmak
                        I am not a member of the Air Force headquarters, but I hope that this experience has been documented and taught in schools.

                        laughing We have such a proverb “thoughtful bagaty” (I’m not talking about you), having two conflicts in Chechnya during the fighting in Georgia and the technology didn’t take into account the experience of fighting in Chechnya, and you will teach. laughing
                    2. vtnsk
                      vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 46 New
                      +1
                      For information: only one SU-34 (prototype, the link was transferred directly from the manufacturing plant) for only ONE night disabled ALL Georgian air defense (all Buk missile systems delivered by Ukraine were destroyed). More losses from the Russian Air Force were not there. Was something wrong? wink
                      1. rolik2
                        rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 55 New
                        0
                        Quote: vtnsk
                        in just ONE night, it knocked out ALL Georgian air defense systems (all Buk air defense systems delivered by Ukraine were destroyed)

                        Decided to amuse the people? laughing Cool shooter what level already past?
                      2. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 6 January 2014 18: 47 New
                        +8
                        More losses from the Russian Air Force were not there. Was something wrong?

                        There were losses. Su-25, Tu-22M (I do not remember exactly the modification, I was engaged in reconnaissance). And the Su-34 only worked as an electronic warfare device and according to some reports it demolished the main radar.
                      3. servant
                        servant 6 January 2014 19: 06 New
                        +2
                        And how many beech trees did the rodents have? And how many of these beeches knocked ours? Is everything so beautiful?
                  2. sivuch
                    sivuch 6 January 2014 16: 01 New
                    +5
                    In fact, another Nighthawk returned with damage and was not subsequently restored.
                2. vtnsk
                  vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 41 New
                  +2
                  Quote: rolik2
                  And he carried out his task with minimal losses.


                  In a "computer game"? It is possible, but how does this compare with reality? laughing
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 6 January 2014 22: 12 New
                    +2
                    Quote: vtnsk
                    In a "computer game"? It is possible, but how does this compare with reality?

                    Before it was shot down in Yugoslavia, it was like that, but then something, after being used in Iraq in 2003 (there are no data on the results of using 20 F-117s anywhere), they were withdrawn from service as unnecessary, according to some military USA replaced them with F-22
              2. andrey-ivanov
                andrey-ivanov 6 January 2014 16: 14 New
                0
                Actually, through this pipe, an landing party of 8 people, during long flights, had to do something else laughing the plane is too small for 8 people. But then it turned out that at a speed of Mach 2, this “something” throws back and the pipe was urgently redone for docking with Boeings wassat
              3. dv-v
                dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 09 New
                +1
                I didn’t see any point for discussion at all - the very fact of withdrawing the 117th from armament after a short career kage hints ...)) but after all a needle or a hornet was adopted much later.
            3. Patriot8482
              Patriot8482 6 January 2014 14: 25 New
              +9
              I’m afraid that he won’t be able to compete even with the SU-34, since the SU-34 is still a full-fledged front-line bomber, and the F-35 knows what. I have a feeling that the Americans themselves can’t figure out which class this prodigy belongs to.
              1. rolik2
                rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 31 New
                -11
                Quote: Patriot8482
                F-35 hell knows what

                Light fighter, look at the appearance of the light fighter that are going to work with YOU to develop the difference is not big.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 6 January 2014 18: 48 New
                  +2
                  look at the appearance of a light fighter that is going to work with YOU to develop the difference is not big.

                  Its appearance is not yet defined, what are you talking about?
                2. Sergey Sitnikov
                  Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 02: 26 New
                  +3
                  hear the crossdresser, the desire to communicate in Russian implies courtesy, a sense of tact and dignity, and your posts are already Russophobia ... well, no one wrote))) that Rafal on Max))) only showed barrels and everything was essentially
                3. Patriot8482
                  Patriot8482 9 January 2014 21: 27 New
                  0
                  Quote: rolik2
                  Quote: Patriot8482
                  F-35 hell knows what

                  Light fighter, look at the appearance of the light fighter that are going to work with YOU to develop the difference is not big.


                  I apologize, but I did not mean at all the appearance. In addition, why do you say that this is a fighter. This is also a replacement, for example, the A-10 Thunderbolt, which even in a nightmare cannot be called a fighter. That is, the F-35 fighter / attack aircraft / front-line bomber, etc. That's what I said about this, "Fuck knows what." I put you a plus so that the rating does not fall, and out of respect for the elders).
            4. vtnsk
              vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 37 New
              +3
              This is unlikely, since the SU-34 is both easier and much more maneuverable with its better performance characteristics, as it was developed specifically for one combat mission - the "front-line attack bomber."
            5. dv-v
              dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 04 New
              +1
              from recent history - the wunder-waffle namver 117 was "caught" in the microwave and hit by an anti-aircraft kagbe complex of not even the first generation.))
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 6 January 2014 12: 51 New
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            Hardly. The United States has no other fighter options.

            They will create something in an emergency manner on the principle of "cheap and cheerful" and release a huge party, as in the Second World War.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 04 New
              +4
              the principle of "cheap and cheerful" and will be released in a huge batch, as in the Second World War.

              I'm afraid it won’t work out. With the advent of the era of powerful engines and computers, the Americans somehow subtracted on efficiency and aerodynamics. The victory of computers and technology over common sense.
              1. rolik2
                rolik2 6 January 2014 13: 23 New
                +7
                Quote: Wedmak
                With the advent of the era of powerful engines and computers, the Americans somehow subtracted on efficiency and aerodynamics.

                Well, so on the Su-27 without a computer is not really what you fly. The era of plywood fighters has long passed, the one who does not understand this is then forced to constantly catch up.
                The characteristics of their aircraft are determined by their tactics, imperceptibly approached, from far away discovered and struck. They are not going to get involved in dog dumps. We all laugh at it, “the best in close combat” we still need to live up to it.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 43 New
                  +8
                  They are not going to get involved in dog dumps. We all laugh at it, “the best in close combat” we still need to live up to it.

                  I do not think that they did not calculate the melee option. They simply rely on their KR, KAB, UAB, etc. They fly far, you look and shoot everyone from afar before the approach of the Air Force. With the massive use of CD, a very real option. Only now we have good air defense systems. So ... maybe a bummer will happen.
                  The aircraft approach speeds reach 2000–2500 km / h, and the F-35 may not be able to do a second salvo. Stealth works only in a narrow frequency range. And our fighters have already begun to install AFAR. In any case, you have to engage in close combat. As they once wanted to abandon guns on planes, and then returned.
                  1. rolik2
                    rolik2 6 January 2014 13: 52 New
                    0
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    In any case, you have to engage in close combat.

                    It may be necessary, or it may not, and it is not worth hoping that it is necessary; it is necessary to prepare for the fact that they will hit from far away, into the tikhar, in the back.
                    1. Wedmak
                      Wedmak 6 January 2014 14: 31 New
                      +3
                      it’s not worth hoping that it’s necessary; it’s getting ready for the fact that they will hit from far away, into the tikhar, in the back.

                      I have no doubt that it will be so! When did the Americans go to a fair fight?
                      1. rolik2
                        rolik2 6 January 2014 15: 33 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        When did the Americans go to a fair fight?

                        The era of fierce fighting ended with the last knights laughing and that was a long time ago. Now this is called a "military trick" and not only they use them, we have this thing has received quite widespread use.
                      2. edeligor
                        edeligor 6 January 2014 21: 04 New
                        +7
                        Quote: rolik2
                        The era of fierce fighting ended with the last knights and that was a long time ago. Now this is called a "military trick" and not only they use them, we have this thing has received quite widespread use.

                        Please tell, is it when the Americans, after Vietnam, met decent resistance in the air? At the moment, they do not have the Air Force, but an exhibition of the achievements of US aviation technology! The military trick of the Americans, in the near past and present, is to take the whole world of their hangers-on against the enemy, suppress its air defense with the help of a numerical superiority of all forces in a ratio of 10 to 1 and then start advertising its technological superiority. What, nafig, military trick?
                      3. rolik2
                        rolik2 6 January 2014 21: 11 New
                        +3
                        Quote: edeligor
                        when the Americans, after Vietnam, met decent resistance in the air

                        So the whole point is not to meet worthy resistance, but that IT WAS NOT, and they succeeded in this.

                        suppress its air defense with the help of numerical superiority of all forces in a ratio of 10 to 1

                        is it the same in our charters, or do you definitely need to drop shelves on machine guns? And millions of victims?
                      4. Assistant
                        Assistant 8 January 2014 02: 39 New
                        +2
                        The military trick of the Americans, in the near past and present, is to take the whole world of their hangers-on against the enemy, suppress its air defense with the help of a numerical superiority of all forces in a ratio of 10 to 1 and then start advertising its technological superiority.


                        And why then do Americans need a quality combat aircraft? They just do not need him. First, the enemy is kept under economic sanctions for a year, then they knock out enemy air defenses with cruise missiles, Allied aircraft and the latest modifications of the F-15, F-16 and F / A-18. And after all this, the flying penguin fulfills its task: it chases the enemy who has lost its air defense on the ground and advertises the technological superiority of the United States with the aim of being sold to the naive allies of these same USA. And if it doesn’t sell, then at least it will provide jobs in the US in the field of high-tech production - all the same, the whole world will pay for dollars.
                2. user1212
                  user1212 6 January 2014 15: 29 New
                  +8
                  Just do not forget that the shot does not mean hit. GOS counteraction tools were also made quite a lot
                3. typhoon7
                  typhoon7 6 January 2014 20: 32 New
                  +5
                  It cannot, but it will be necessary. They were still trying to keep their distance in Vietnam, but MiGs appeared, as they say, all of a sudden ...
            2. lazy
              lazy 6 January 2014 15: 04 New
              +11
              in Vietnam, they, too, were not going to climb into dog dumps, but they had to
            3. typhoon7
              typhoon7 6 January 2014 20: 28 New
              0
              In the long-range battle our Sushki and Migov have an advantage, They see further and hit even further and our air defense is better.
            4. Corsair
              Corsair 7 January 2014 04: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: rolik2
              We all laugh at it, “the best in close combat” we still need to live up to it.

              We also “chorus” that we have the MOST FAREST air-to-air missiles in the world, capable of "reaching" the enemy at distances where he is not only unable to use his missile weapons, but also "deaf and blind" .

              Amer’s departure from tactics of maneuverable aerial combat has once played a cruel joke with them in Vietnam, when more “nimble” MiGs tore them to the nines ...
  • alone
    alone 6 January 2014 12: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Corsair
    The Mitsubishi Zero Japanese fighter was also LIGHT, FAST, MANEUVERABLE, WELL WEAPONED ... BUT having a STRONG construction and lack of tank protection and armor protection ...
    For which he was mercilessly beaten by overseas counterparts ...


    however, this did not stop the Japanese from destroying the US Navy Pacific Fleet with one blow. Everyone remembers Pearl Harbor.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 06 New
      +1
      Not the US Navy Pacific Fleet, but only a few, albeit very expensive ships. At the same time, the most powerful ships were at sea and did not suffer. I just don’t remember how many Japanese returned from this departure?
      1. alone
        alone 6 January 2014 13: 12 New
        +9
        here are the Americans losses from the blow


        8 battleships (4 sunk and 4 damaged)
        4 destroyers sunk, 1 damaged
        1 other ship sunk, 3 damaged
        3 cruisers damaged
        188 aircraft destroyed, 159 damaged
        2341 military and 54 civilians died
        1143 military and 35 civilians injured

        but the general loss of the Japanese
        4 small submarines sunk, 1 aground
        29 aircraft shot down
        55 crew members died
        9 submarine crew killed, 1 captured

        The difference was felt. The main component of this strike was zero aircraft
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 29 New
          +1
          The difference was felt. The main component of this strike was zero aircraft

          Thanks for the numbers. But still 8 battleships (yes, the loss is big, I agree) - this is not the whole Pacific Fleet. On the other hand, amid the Japanese losses, the losses are huge.
          1. alone
            alone 6 January 2014 14: 42 New
            +2
            Thanks for the numbers. But still 8 battleships (yes, the loss is big, I agree) - this is not the whole Pacific Fleet. On the other hand, amid the Japanese losses, the losses are huge.


            In fact, the Japanese could not only get the US aircraft carriers, which, fortunately for the United States, were very far from Pearl Harbor.
            And we must not forget that the third wave of the Japanese Zero attack was canceled by the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Navy, Admiral Yamamoto, due to the fact that the surprise factor was already lost, and the third attack would result in unnecessary losses.
            1. washi
              washi 6 January 2014 19: 31 New
              +2
              Quote: lonely
              In fact, the Japanese could not only get the US aircraft carriers, which, fortunately for the United States, were very far from Pearl Harbor.

              Why happy? Intentionally.
              They even in the film showed that they read all the Japanese cryptograms.
              When the amers need a war, in order to get out of the next "crisis", they organize it.
              1. alone
                alone 6 January 2014 23: 54 New
                +1
                It’s only readable in cinema. I know for sure. The Americans managed to restore Pacific Fleet forces only by the year 1943. The Japanese’s blow was so powerful. And if there were aircraft carriers, there would have been kirdyk.
            2. dv-v
              dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 22 New
              0
              in fact, the topic has long been sucked up and spit out - as the subsequent history of the war showed, “only” the aircraft carriers turned out to be the main protagonists of the Pacific TVD, and not the LX, especially the outdated ones that were sunk. those same nepotoplents very quickly showed themselves both with the guadalcanal and with the midway. By the way, according to the latter, a strategic miscalculation - after such luck on the way back with a little preparation, there was no problem. how to bomb the oil storage facilities. but it was suggested, but surely noticed - they even sent a wave to send. then often they already took a risk, but to the point!))
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 7 January 2014 04: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: lonely
          The difference was felt. The main component of this strike was zero aircraft

          And here you have a "minus", while a "delayed" ...
          A6M2 Zero fighters in this operation carried escort and protective functions.

          And the main IMPACT (to destroy the fleet) task was assigned to:
          High-altitude bombers B5N2 "Kate", and
          Diving bombers 3A2 Val ...
      2. Sergey Sitnikov
        Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 02: 33 New
        +1
        29 lost))) but in the sea they were not at all powerful - rather small-tonnage but damn - with GDP
      3. typhoon7
        typhoon7 8 January 2014 16: 37 New
        0
        A little over thirty. Here is their victory in person.
    2. ayyildiz
      ayyildiz 6 January 2014 13: 21 New
      +4


      F-35 Tests
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 44 New
        0
        Isn't this a GPS-guided bomb?
        1. iwind
          iwind 6 January 2014 19: 43 New
          0
          It was the usual GBU-32 (JDAM)
          Bombs equipped with the JDAM kit are sent to the target integrated inertial guidance system paired with a GPS receiver of improved accuracy
          another beautiful photo. KAB GBU-31 Height - 3 kilometers, speed 0,92 M, dive - 30 gr.
          http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/518162.html
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 January 2014 19: 13 New
      0
      Pacific Fleet practically did not suffer.
  • tomket
    tomket 6 January 2014 14: 28 New
    +2
    Zero began to be beaten after Midue, and this is the 42 year, and now remember how the Germans fired 190 harikeyn in the tail and mane on the f-42. The aircraft is outdated, the concept is outdated, what was the fault of the machine that it wasn’t put in for a replacement?
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 06: 35 New
      0
      Well, F190 is 4 and a half years older than Hurricane. For that period - eternity.
  • andrey-ivanov
    andrey-ivanov 6 January 2014 16: 07 New
    +7
    The lightness, fragility and lack of protected tanks and armor protection were forced measures, as "Zero" was not a powerful engine. And the American carrier-based fighter jets began to beat him mainly when such vehicles as the Corsair and Hellcat began to enter service. They had much more weight than the Zero, but they were equipped with powerful engines, thanks to which they received a higher flight speed. It was an advantage in speed that allowed the pilots of the Corsairs and Hellkats to impose their conditions of air combat on the Japanese. And do not forget that by the age of 44-45 (when the aforementioned aircraft began to appear en masse on the decks of American aircraft carriers), most experienced Japanese pilots were knocked out in bloody air battles over the waters and islands of the Pacific Ocean.
    1. tomket
      tomket 6 January 2014 16: 56 New
      0
      I’m talking about that, it was necessary to line up the replacement earlier, the same "Syden"
  • washi
    washi 6 January 2014 19: 12 New
    -5
    Quote: Corsair
    The Japanese Mitsubishi Zero fighter was also EASY, FAST, MANEUVERABLE, WELL ARMED ... BUT having a STRONG construction and lack of tank protection and armor protection ..

    Just like Yaki during WWII.
    But Yakovlev was deputy people's commissar.
    Then the pilots "loved" Yak. Now they love DRY.
    GLORY Pogasyanu.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 6 January 2014 20: 52 New
      +2
      a bad dancer ....... the pilots were simply poorly trained, there was no time. and YAKs were recognized as one of the best BB aircraft.
      1. Su-9
        Su-9 7 January 2014 06: 39 New
        +1
        only need to continue ".... the best war planes in the USSR Air Force." There were quite substantive discussions on this subject not so long ago.
  • lx
    lx 6 January 2014 11: 17 New
    +2
    Boeing bites his elbows and pays for the article :)
  • Andrey57
    Andrey57 6 January 2014 11: 23 New
    +5
    Well, mattresses can please you if they try hard !!! lol
  • makarov
    makarov 6 January 2014 11: 23 New
    +6
    Probably the fault of all failures - Chinese magnets laughing
  • igordok
    igordok 6 January 2014 11: 32 New
    +4
    If F-35 was a "transformer" i.e. in non-factory conditions, it could be converted into any of the modifications A, B or C (the same question - but what for) - that universalization was justified. And so the author is basically right.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 11: 43 New
      +7
      And even better, they would make three cars, with the maximum unification, but with their LTH and design. What prevented it from leaving the fan for the ILC, and the rest to remove it by narrowing the hull and allocating a place for armament, is unclear.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 6 January 2014 12: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: Wedmak
        What prevented it from leaving the fan for the ILC, and the rest to remove it by narrowing the hull and allocating a place for armament, is unclear.

        So the fan is only on F-35V, there is no fan on the other, there is a compartment for armament. The article is in doubt, similar to the order of competitors.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 09 New
          0
          So the fan is only on F-35V, there is no fan on the other, there is a compartment for armament.

          Oh yes ... right. I remember seeing a photo with an open central compartment. So it turns out that the plane for the KMP is armed only with a pair of MD missiles in the side compartments and a gun ????
          1. tomket
            tomket 6 January 2014 14: 33 New
            0
            Well, yes, and the whole concept of stealth flies down the drain, shock weapons only on external suspensions, and the weapons option now does not include what the marines need. An air defense plane is received, which is somewhat doubtful in this role.
          2. clidon
            clidon 6 January 2014 15: 13 New
            +3
            There is no weapons compartment. On others there is an additional tank and, accordingly, a large range.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 6 January 2014 18: 53 New
              +3
              And, I apologize, confused with the F-22. The F-35 compartments are located farther from one another.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 6 January 2014 20: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          So the fan is only on F-35V

          In a hurry in the morning, here’s a more visual picture (clickable)
      2. igordok
        igordok 6 January 2014 13: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Better yet

        For us it’s worse. soldier
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 31 New
          +1
          Hye ... I hope there are no American spies here and they will not see my idea. Although ..... A couple of hundred billion dollars they will lower it for sure. But this is already good! Let them spend, plunging deeper into the pit.
      3. vtnsk
        vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 52 New
        +1
        Expenses. In this case, three practically different planes would have to be designed. And it would be very difficult for the Pentagon to receive appropriations from the US Congress for this "project" with all its efforts and lobbying.
  • Marusy
    Marusy 6 January 2014 11: 58 New
    +1
    Quote: rerbi
    the impression is that the author wrote, if only to write more ... although you can write all this much shorter: F-35 - shit, originally created for cutting ...

    Well, if so ..... and if there is something in it that can "surprise"? Maybe he really isn’t invisible to radars ???
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 10 New
      +4
      Maybe he really isn’t invisible to radars ???

      When crawling on the ground - yes.
    2. clidon
      clidon 6 January 2014 15: 14 New
      +3
      It is clearly visible for radars. It is important at what distance and for which radars.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 6 January 2014 12: 03 New
    +2
    In the first place, advertising ... it’s like it’s not incredible to do it all ... it all went like that 50 years ago with an M-16 rifle ... there they also praised the combat properties ... they just kept quiet about the operation, and nothing these decades are tossing around ... it's the best rifle in terms of accuracy, but what wedges ... so there's nothing.
  • alone
    alone 6 January 2014 12: 37 New
    +6
    the majority assumes that the Americans are stupid and do everything only to cut the dough. The author of the article was flying an F-35? I think not. Maybe he was flying something else tantamount and because of this he says so confidently that F-35 sucks — this is generally excluded.
    The article is a complete set of words, the main purpose of which is to spread everything. It’s too early to say anything specific on the F-35 plane. Yes, and it’s not worth considering the Americans to go. They collect the hundredth + several hundred foreign orders. You can imagine how much profit the US economy will bring this project?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 6 January 2014 13: 12 New
      +5
      Can you imagine how much profit this project will bring to the US economy?

      First, let these hundreds be sold. And then many countries participating in the project are scratching their heads with the thought - do we need it?
      1. alone
        alone 6 January 2014 15: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        First, let these hundreds be sold. And then many countries participating in the project are scratching their heads with the thought - do we need it?


        so the fact is that they first conclude a 100% contract, and then they already begin to rivet their products
        1. vtnsk
          vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 56 New
          +2
          A “concluded” contract does not mean its 100% payment (business axiom). laughing
          1. dv-v
            dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 33 New
            0
            no, not so - compliance is still sacred, the axiom is the terms of the contract with sanctions for their non-compliance. and this becomes a condition for further bargaining and new agreements.)) that is, as always, the devil is in the details)), when hundreds easily turn into dozens, or even cancellations.
        2. typhoon7
          typhoon7 8 January 2014 16: 44 New
          0
          It will not be a sale, it will be a pairing.
    2. vtnsk
      vtnsk 6 January 2014 15: 55 New
      0
      The last sentence is the surest. But it at the same time contradicts everything previously written in the post. wink
    3. sivuch
      sivuch 6 January 2014 16: 13 New
      +10
      This is for you. In fact, the author expressed quite a reasonable idea that there was no need to cross a hedgehog and a snake. If the Americans created just a light stealth as a replacement for the F-16, then its LTX would be higher, the cost would be lower, but it would have appeared earlier.
      And the Navy and Marines could create for themselves, beloved ones, any kind of miraculous judo
    4. iwind
      iwind 6 January 2014 19: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: lonely
      how much profit will this project bring to the US economy?

      The F-35 program supports over 133 jobs in the US in 000 states and Puerto Rico.
      In Arizona, there are 1178 jobs associated with the F-35 program. The economic effect of these jobs in Arizona is $ 91700000 million.
      Quote: Wedmak
      First, let these hundreds be sold. And then many countries participating in the project are scratching their heads with the thought - do we need it?

      And you can list who over the past six months refused the F-35. South Korea ordered, Japan plans to increase the order and 100 pieces (according to the min. Defense)
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 42 New
        +1
        Gee, South Korea and Japan are completely dependent on the United States. They CANNOT refuse.
        Australia is already scratching its turnips whether to reduce the order or even refuse.
        European countries have significantly reduced the order and are no longer thinking about the F-22, but how not to cheat on Eurofighter. It seems that Canada has gone into denial.
        1. iwind
          iwind 7 January 2014 11: 59 New
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          Gee, South Korea and Japan are completely dependent on the United States. They CANNOT refuse.

          And besides fantasy, you have real numbers or news for the last half of the year.
          The Netherlands decided that they would take 37 F-35A.
          The first F-35A of the Netherlands in flight.

          The first Australian board, F-35A with a / n AU-1 out of 100.
          1. typhoon7
            typhoon7 8 January 2014 16: 48 New
            +1
            And there is information that it was the Netherlands that made the decision to purchase, and not the white house?
    5. washi
      washi 6 January 2014 19: 39 New
      0
      Quote: lonely
      the majority assumes that the Americans are stupid and do everything only to cut the dough. The author of the article was flying an F-35? I think not. Maybe he was flying something else tantamount and because of this he says so confidently that F-35 sucks — this is generally excluded.

      Sorry, but do you believe advertising, or buy what you think is really the best?
      These Yak-141 redid. Alterations are ALWAYS worse than the original. An example is Fiat - Lada.
      1. BIGLESHIY
        BIGLESHIY 7 January 2014 12: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Vasya

        Sorry, but do you believe advertising, or buy what you think is really the best?
        These Yak-141 redid. Alterations are ALWAYS worse than the original. An example is Fiat - Lada.

        You are a little wrong with this comparison. The fact is that the “Kopeyka” is not a blind copy of Fiat, but carried a number of constructive and technological improvements recognized and appreciated by the Fiat themselves!
        And as for the Yak, it was created as a “regular” fighter, and the Yankees decided to make a Stealth out of it (Well, they like to give a shit and not get caught), and they got it.
      2. clidon
        clidon 7 January 2014 13: 00 New
        0
        This is the same alteration of Yak, as "Tesla" alteration of the electric car Romanov. ) Nothing in common except the location of the engine and nozzle design.
        1. typhoon7
          typhoon7 8 January 2014 17: 05 New
          +1
          Sorry for such a scheme as the whole Yak-141 they did not have enough. Supersonic vertical. Not for nothing that Sergei Ivanov said that we had lost the construction of aircraft with vertical take-off, and the documentation for this construction turned out to be in the United States. In the film about the 141st, it was said that the designers made mock-ups, calculated options with a fan, but found this option unsuccessful. The question is, ours, along with the documentation, did not convey to “friends” the information that the fan was not the best idea, or “spontaneously forgot”.
          1. clidon
            clidon 8 January 2014 18: 56 New
            0
            And what scheme? In fact, in total there are two working schemes for vertical take-off - ours and the British. Both Americans studied both and came to the conclusion that one engine couldn’t pull such a heavy car - you need to look for another option. And they found their own - a rotary engine (like ours and the British) plus a fan (original solution). And to the fact that it turned out to be supersonic, the vertical take-off scheme has nothing to do with it - this is aerodynamics (it is different), the engine (completely different). The most important thing they took from us was the nozzle diagram, which is not hidden.
            And what is said in the film .... leave to the conscience of those who did it. At one time in such films it was said that stealth sucks ... So far, the circuit with a fan looks very attractive.
          2. BIGLESHIY
            BIGLESHIY 9 January 2014 12: 55 New
            0
            Quote: typhoon7
            Sorry for such a scheme as the whole Yak-141 they did not have enough. Supersonic vertical. Not for nothing that Sergei Ivanov said that we had lost the construction of aircraft with vertical take-off, and the documentation for this construction turned out to be in the United States. In the film about the 141st, it was said that the designers made mock-ups, calculated options with a fan, but found this option unsuccessful. The question is, ours, along with the documentation, did not convey to “friends” the information that the fan was not the best idea, or “spontaneously forgot”.

            Yak-141 (Yak-41) was built in several copies (4 pieces) and set in 1991 12 World Records and NATO got the conditional nickname "Freestyle" !!! And if you are interested then find an article in the "Youth Technique" No. 4-1993
  • alexbg2
    alexbg2 6 January 2014 12: 40 New
    0
    The article is about nothing, a lot, a lot of words about how bad the plane is, but in fact there has not yet been a real application, and it is not known how it will manifest itself. But the fact that both design and manufacturing uses unique technologies is modestly hushed up.
    The Yankees are clearly not our friends and allies, but we must pay tribute to their technical potential, a unique aircraft has been created.
    Most likely, the tactics of using such machines will be slightly different from those adopted earlier, and comparisons of combat capabilities are slightly premature.
  • rolik2
    rolik2 6 January 2014 12: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: Strashila
    In the first place, advertising ... it’s like it’s not incredible to do it all ... it all went like that 50 years ago with an M-16 rifle ... there they also praised the combat properties ... they just kept quiet about the operation, and nothing these decades are tossing around ... it's the best rifle in terms of accuracy, but what wedges ... so there's nothing.

    So advertising progress engine laughing
    There are already more than a hundred aircraft, I don’t think that the Americans produced obvious shit, and what didn’t please you with M-16? The Soviet soldiers did not like SVT, because of the complex design and the fact that it was necessary to keep it clean, the Germans, on the contrary, praised it. Weapons need to be loved and kept clean - then it will never let you down.
    1. dv-v
      dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 44 New
      0
      you repeat it to those Americans that they fought with Iraq in Vietnam.))

      history repeats itself - the phantom was once cool too, but the reality in the form of Mig-21, a class of lighter and less manufacturability with tricked outness, the Yankees moderated their enthusiasm.))
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 6 January 2014 13: 42 New
    +2
    Interesting! Or it may be worth recalling that the first such machine was built by SOVIET engineers and it was called YAK-141 !! And if it were not for the collapse of the USSR, now MANY would have sung other DIFERAMBAS !!!

    I like the F-35 like an airplane and the fact that they will bring it to mind EXAMPLES! Well, the fact that HE turned out to be expensive is because the "rich" have their WHIRLS ...
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 06: 47 New
      0
      Someone recently claimed that Buran was copied from Discovery / Challenger. Of course, they clearly explained to him that this is not so. But where did the part of the members of the forum have a clear belief that the F-35 was made from the 141st?!? This is the same mistake, just the opposite!
  • Nexus 6
    Nexus 6 6 January 2014 13: 45 New
    +4
    Quote: Corsair
    The Mitsubishi Zero Japanese fighter was also LIGHT, FAST, MANEUVERABLE, WELL WEAPONED ... BUT having a STRONG construction and lack of tank protection and armor protection ...
    For which he was mercilessly beaten by overseas counterparts ...

    Zero is a historical example of a successful "universal" aircraft, a precedent can be said. The aircraft carrier fighter, thanks to the “UNFAST STRUCTURE design and lack of tank protection and armor protection,” it surpassed the modern base fighters of the USA and Great Britain by its characteristics in 1941. He beat them to the nines! This is what I ... Japas were dizzy with success, and did not DEVELOP. Zero replacement was not developed until it was too late.
    F-35 is partly the development of the Yak-141, maybe the concept is wrong, but the Americans can afford even major mistakes, and not the first time, F-111 for example. And "experience is the son of difficult mistakes"
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 6 January 2014 16: 06 New
      +3
      Read when they began to develop the A7M. The fact that they did not have time to adopt it was due to the weakness of the Japanese economy
      1. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 7 January 2014 15: 57 New
        0
        I know. "But really the first prototype aircraft, which received the" short "designation A7M1, was ready only in April 1944, since the designers of Mitsubishi were loaded with priority work on the modernization of the A6M Reisen."
        Against the background of all the rest of the hype, the construction of aircraft carriers from everything afloat, army fighters that appeared too late and needed to be finalized, everything looks like the Japanese were wrongly "loaded with priority work" until about 1943. We recovered only with the advent of the Hellcat, etc. However, I have information from an Internet and from "Japanese Aviation in World War II"
  • borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 6 January 2014 13: 51 New
    +1
    From the Don.
    I am heartily glad for our American: friends: I am glad for their best in the world, super-duper airplane!
  • BIGLESHIY
    BIGLESHIY 6 January 2014 14: 17 New
    +3
    Guys, why are you clinging to the F-35-avno, avno. And to hell with him that Avno is the same as Avno and they fly on it. So, we will rejoice for the "fighting efficiency" of a potential enemy and its satellites! drinks
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 6 January 2014 14: 26 New
    0
    So what? But the plane is beautiful. And to be honest, this aircraft was not created against the Russian Federation or China. It was created to work where rockets and shells have already worked. That is, this is not a dog dump in the air. Apparently they simply wanted to get too much from him during development.
    1. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 6 January 2014 15: 29 New
      0
      And who will make these shells work before him?
      1. washi
        washi 6 January 2014 19: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        And who will make these shells work before him?

        Like who?
        On the Swamp, on the goat swamp in Kiev, we have already seen them.
        First, undermine from the inside, and then finish off.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 6 January 2014 23: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Zomanus
      And to be honest, this aircraft was not created against the Russian Federation or China. It was created to work where rockets and shells have already worked. That is, this is not a dog dump in the air.

      Where everything is plowed with missiles and shells, it’s quite possible that old planes can work, stealth is useless there.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 6 January 2014 14: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Corsair
    Quote: Wedmak
    Having managed to prettyly pat the nerves and the composition of the Allied Air Force. And F-35 so far only a thrill of a sense of humor.

    Rent for F 22-35 already destined for the fate of the "super fighter" F117 ...

    I agree completely. For some reason, only the author extols the F117 in the article, they say the real plane is invisible and how quickly it was created, but the plane is shitty (like a fighter, nothing at all) and its stealth is conditional. Yes, and the price of wow. No wonder they produced nothing at all. But with 35 Americans really hit, they now have a natural decrease in the sides among fighter jets 80 pieces a year and something needs to be purchased, but the old ambitions do not allow.
    1. clidon
      clidon 6 January 2014 15: 17 New
      +1
      F-117 like a real stealth aircraft and in general a great aircraft for its tasks ...
      Another thing is that the author does not mention that the development of this Nigth Hawk in general is only the top of another program, which was done by no means in a few years. Plus, the requirements for this car are much lower than for the modern 5th generation station wagon.
      With the F-35 in general, everything is still going as it should - there are already a hundred cars, they confirm the characteristics, and the delays ... who does not have them?
  • Altona
    Altona 6 January 2014 15: 15 New
    +3
    Quote: Wiruz
    As a fighter-bomber, he is possible and will be a good competitor for the Su-34 but no more.

    --------------------------
    It’s just that they’ve got a hitch ... They wrote that their air-to-ground missiles were buggy, they worked well in the air, but it didn’t work out with the ground ... Yes, and there are unfortunate rockets for the ground, having released which, he will disarm and become an expensive target?
    Why are their marines so concerned about the transport of aircraft on their BDK? Directly fixated on this ... Maybe they should somehow rethink the concept of their actions? Maybe it’s easier for them to make light aircraft carriers for themselves if they have an idefix on fighter planes specifically for KPM? I’ll even imagine a fantastic version, can they build flying saucers, how can the Nazis build them? And the author of the article constantly presses on the narrow-mindedness of the position of the Marines in their indispensable desire to have a fighter, taking off like a devil from a snuffbox. The main thing is that the military has so successfully found manufacturers of this garbage, and the manufacturers have been preparing for 20 years to produce the garbage they need ... They just got such a joint ecstasy (someone saw successfully trading insider information on the sidelines) ...
    As for China, too, China apparently decided to reproduce all copies of modern fighters in general, it has already successfully copied us, it doesn’t forget the Americans and French either ... In general, it has the entire fleet equivalent to the Russian, American and European ones in terms of model line ...))
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 6 January 2014 15: 27 New
    0
    Quote: clidon
    F-117 like a real stealth aircraft and in general a great aircraft for its tasks ...
    Another thing is that the author does not mention that the development of this Nigth Hawk in general is only the top of another program, which was done by no means in a few years. Plus, the requirements for this car are much lower than for the modern 5th generation station wagon.
    With the F-35 in general, everything is still going as it should - there are already a hundred cars, they confirm the characteristics, and the delays ... who does not have them?

    But it flies like an iron, what the hell it was called a fighter if, according to flight characteristics, it is only at the level of a frontal bomber and it doesn’t work out very well and it only bombes at night.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 6 January 2014 15: 34 New
    +1
    Quote: Altona
    Quote: Wiruz
    As a fighter-bomber, he is possible and will be a good competitor for the Su-34 but no more.

    --------------------------
    It’s just that they’ve got a hitch ... They wrote that their air-to-ground missiles were buggy, they worked well in the air, but it didn’t work out with the ground ... Yes, and there are unfortunate rockets for the ground, having released which, he will disarm and become an expensive target?
    Why are their marines so concerned about the transport of aircraft on their BDK? Directly fixated on this ... Maybe they should somehow rethink the concept of their actions? Maybe it’s easier for them to make light aircraft carriers for themselves if they have an idefix on fighter planes specifically for KPM? I’ll even imagine a fantastic version, can they build flying saucers, how can the Nazis build them? And the author of the article constantly presses on the narrow-mindedness of the position of the Marines in their indispensable desire to have a fighter, taking off like a devil from a snuffbox. The main thing is that the military has so successfully found manufacturers of this garbage, and the manufacturers have been preparing for 20 years to produce the garbage they need ... They just got such a joint ecstasy (someone saw successfully trading insider information on the sidelines) ...
    As for China, too, China apparently decided to reproduce all copies of modern fighters in general, it has already successfully copied us, it doesn’t forget the Americans and French either ... In general, it has the entire fleet equivalent to the Russian, American and European ones in terms of model line ...))

    I agree. His bomb load is small and not because of power, but because of the small compartment, well, a decent load just does not fit in there.
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 6 January 2014 15: 36 New
    +7
    The F-35 is still replacing the F-16, so you need to compare these 2 cars. If the characteristics of the F-35 are much better than those of the F-16 - then everything is right with the amers, everything worked out. And if not, then money down the drain. By the way, I think you should not compare the F-35 with the SU-35, these are different classes of aircraft, rather, you need to put the MiG-29 in contrast, I think so ...
  • pernaty
    pernaty 6 January 2014 15: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    Can you imagine how much profit this project will bring to the US economy?

    First, let these hundreds be sold. And then many countries participating in the project are scratching their heads with the thought - do we need it?

    At this cost there are few who want to buy them.
  • Federal
    Federal 6 January 2014 16: 08 New
    +9
    striking bravado in the style of 40s .... pl about tear ready but for childhood diseases stealth stuffed with electronic devices even on one engine, on a modernized cloth
    30 years ago, su 27 (su 35) and not yet made and far from the condition of PAKFA
    look so that you don’t snarl with blood then ...
    The Americans never made frankly bad planes, well, and vertical, she
    all do not get it right ... There is at least something for Gus and this is not, so their ILC is more mobile than anyone in Russia or China. As for the Chinese, it’s ridiculous to steal the fuselage, in general, they have 10% success, they don’t have any engines, no stealth, no radars, and they won’t have another 10-20 years, there’s no nonsense plus combat experience at all. The winner is in the air battle not the one who flies on the last engine and with the wing torn off, but the one who sees and shoots the first, today with powerful means of defeat the chances of an unarmored car, usually struck, are almost zero, so the concept of amers is absolutely correct, the verticals and children's illnesses. The enemy is formidable, don’t rubbish, we got this nonsense about super duper Russian and Amerov’s, some kind of semi-patriotic inferiority, but in fact it only harms the common cause.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 6 January 2014 16: 12 New
    +1
    Well, the Yankees were not able to repeat our Yak-141.
    1. rolik2
      rolik2 6 January 2014 16: 20 New
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      Well, the Yankees were not able to repeat our Yak-141.

      so they did not aspire, they took what was needed (power plant)
  • Ulysses
    Ulysses 6 January 2014 16: 23 New
    +1
    Excessive unification, as it turned out, does not lead to anything good.
  • spirit
    spirit 6 January 2014 17: 38 New
    +1
    Well ! say ATP to the guys from the Marine Corps of Lords)))) not weakly they will lift *** and in this project! But the essence of the problem, as always rests on mani) Lockheed Martin perfectly understood what it would pour out (there are no fools either). But they also understood that if they refused to integrate the vertical in the 35th, then $ would most likely flow away to another company. Generally themselves nae ** and laughing
  • Altona
    Altona 6 January 2014 17: 49 New
    +5
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    His bomb load is small and not because of power, but because of the small compartment, well, a decent load just does not fit in there.

    -----------------------------
    Well, this is a common misfortune of all stealth fighters, due to maintaining the EPR parameters in the frontal projection, they do not agree to external consoles due to the deterioration of aerodynamics and again the EPR ... As a combat unit, stealths in classical tactics are doubtful, it is expensive to bomb them ... In general I consider F-35 more as a political rather than a commercial product, the payback of which will be available for sale for a four-digit number ... As a set of technologies, it’s also a very interesting thing in terms of manufacturing some elements, carrying a spar, for example ... Many people broke their head what people were doing. In general, there is a plane, it is not clear with whom to fight on it, because so far the USA is attacking the barbarians in technical terms ...
    1. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 7 January 2014 01: 20 New
      0
      You are a big plus! I agree with every word.
    2. dv-v
      dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 52 New
      0
      it is precisely a purely commercial product, not a military one. it would be strange to expect the ruin of the lokhid. however, there is no reason to doubt that the military has long been connected with the military-industrial complex.))
  • foma2028
    foma2028 6 January 2014 18: 02 New
    +4
    Could the F-35 “lowering” campaign by American experts themselves have deliberate misinformation? Or not?
    Recently I read a very interesting book by Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Fedosov "Half a century in aviation. Notes of an academician"
    In this book, Fedosov praises the JSF project.
    Evgeny Aleksandrovich is a very, very competent and serious specialist in his field.

    And the book is very good, I recommend
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 7 January 2014 07: 05 New
      0
      The author of the blog is David Ex, a war correspondent. If he had been in Russia, he would have been called a liberalist. This is, by the way, about the bias of the material.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 8 January 2014 20: 07 New
      0
      Quote: foma2028
      book of Evgeny Alexandrovich Fedosov "Half a century in aviation. Notes of the academician"

      Do not throw off the link to the download? O-very interested, if not for the general public, then in PM !?
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 6 January 2014 18: 02 New
    +3
    Why worry about the F35. The Americans have everything they need - funds, personnel, a base - will be completed. It doesn’t work out what I wanted - and this happens often too. They work out and develop a bunch of technologies - stealth, detection, electronics, weapons and create such a reserve for the future that no one has dreamed of. F35 is already flying, some will do, but it may revise the number of F35 in favor of drones. CALF from which JSF was born like from the beginning of the 90s? Well, so times have changed, the new hit is drones. The developed technologies will come in handy here, and again they are ahead of the rest.
    1. dv-v
      dv-v 8 January 2014 08: 58 New
      0
      in their military concept, the official doc, the military-technological superiority is spelled out over any rival. and under this business there is always some kind of loot squeezed out of Congress. It’s another matter that reality, as always, spat on Wishlist, and a loot, in fact, does not guarantee. geniuses on their knees made and embodied discoveries.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 6 January 2014 18: 12 New
    +10
    At the same time, 26 American aircraft were destroyed by a second Flurry rocket at the airport

    Tale of nothing

    Still, F-35 is a new level and it makes no sense to argue here

    1. Radar with AFAR AN / APG-81capable of operating in mapping mode with previously unattainable accuracy
    Infrared data lines (stealth mode), AN / AAQ-37 all-angle detection system, self-testing and troubleshooting systems - not a single aircraft in the world has such an advanced avionics



    2. The broadest range of guided ammunition for ground work - 112 kg planning Small-Diametr Bomb, JASSM cruise missiles, JDAM family of KABs based on GPS kits, laser-guided bombs "Payway" .... for all occasions!
    Despite the fact that the f-35 has 2 internal bomb bay and 6 external suspension points - the full combat load of the F-35A reaches 8 tons, like the tactical bomber Su-34!



    Together with the aiming systems and the AN / APG-81 radar, a truly universal fighter-bomber of the 21st century has turned out

    3. Stealth, no matter how laughed at it is present: the "stealth" of the 2 generation based on the parallelism of faces and edges - the detection range from the frontal direction should be lower than any Su-35 or Chinese J-20. Detection by the enemy with 50 or with 150 km - the difference is noticeable. Tumble-free lantern, curved air intake channels, precise articulation of parts with microscopic gaps, a minimum of fasteners, radar absorbing coatings, and the absence of cavity cavities - in fact, no modern aircraft except F-22 have such large-scale measures to reduce visibility



    4. "Three in one" - the Yankees succeeded the impossible: land, carrier-based fighter and VTOL. The solution was not the most rational, but beautiful since. points of view

    5. Finally, the performance characteristics of the fighter correspond to the best representatives of the 4 + generation. More was not required. Pouring mud over F-35 for the lack of UVT and “over-maneuverability” is the same as requiring an extra-class pianist to play the accordion on a chanson

    Finally, the plane is really BUILDING and FLYING. Of the 100 built flight instances, not one has yet crashed - a unique case in the history of aviation
    1. PLO
      PLO 6 January 2014 19: 31 New
      +3
      good fiction
    2. Snoop
      Snoop 6 January 2014 19: 51 New
      +3
      They were not convinced, the history of wars itself shows that it is impossible to create universal means of struggle. This is how Tukhachevsky was puffed up at us to create universal weapons, both on airplanes, and on tanks, and on infantry targets. Grabin explained to him all that his projects were nil, he did not understand the genius of all times and peoples.
      1. servant
        servant 6 January 2014 19: 55 New
        0
        And then why are we creating PAK FA?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 45 New
          0
          And with a fig whether PAK FA is universal? No one calls him an attack aircraft. He cannot take off vertically. This is a clean front-line fighter. Well, maybe even for the interceptor it will work.
          1. clidon
            clidon 7 January 2014 10: 07 New
            0
            Then how does it differ from the versatility of the F-35? Only the lack of a version with UVVP. The rest of the tasks will be similar.
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 7 January 2014 10: 20 New
              +2
              Since the Navy and the Marines had their own specific requirements for the airframe, its design turned out to be a compromise, i.e., it was knowingly degraded. It is impossible to compare with the Su-35 or T-50. compared to the penguin that could have turned out if it had been made just like a stealth F-16
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 January 2014 10: 37 New
                +1
                I think so, for the money that they swelled into a universal glider, they could make their planes for the Navy and ILC. Moreover, they are quite good only due to optimization by tasks.
              2. clidon
                clidon 7 January 2014 11: 38 New
                0
                Here it was primarily about the tasks ...

                The glider is not necessarily flawed even in the face of universality (and it is generally a great achievement in terms of economy, etc.). You can choose different layout options and get a successful version that suits everyone. A narrow elongated glider is not an absolute plus.
            2. Wedmak
              Wedmak 7 January 2014 10: 34 New
              0
              Then how does it differ from the versatility of the F-35?

              The fact that this is one plane, and not a mountain snake with multi-colored heads. PAK FA is created as one version of a fighter. Yes, and it does not seem that he will replace the attack aircraft (Although the possibility of working on the ground is likely to be.). And although perhaps later there will be more versions, or upgrades, or modifications, now this is one option. The F-35 was originally three-headed, it is an attempt to combine the incompatible.
              1. clidon
                clidon 7 January 2014 11: 36 New
                0
                In terms of tasks, they are generally similar to an inconspicuous drummer + fighter. What is needed more will be applied.
                Do not so persistently rest on some kind of defective glider. The main thing is he suits the customer according to his characteristics or not. Apparently happy. The same fuselage width has both pros and cons.
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 6 January 2014 20: 48 New
        +6
        Quote: Snoop
        , the history of wars itself shows that it is impossible to create universal means of struggle.

        One can

        An example from World War II - FokkeWolfe FW.190
        Dozens of modifications for various tasks: front-line fighter, high-altitude interceptor, “assault” (armored fighter for intercepting formations B-17), dive bomber and attack aircraft of direct support (replacement Yu-87), reconnaissance, marine torpedo bomber ...



        Despite the fact that the strike modifications of the Fokkevulf were almost more popular than the fighter ones - due to the high speed and maneuverability, the fighter-bomber was more effective than the classic Yu-87 and Yu-88

        Cold War example - F-4 Phantom.
        Heavy double fighter, high-altitude interceptor, reconnaissance, bomber, "radar hunter" - in addition to the land version, there was a deck version and a version for the Marine Corps. A dozen world records of speed, climb and altitude





        An example from this - F-15E Strike Eagle
        A universal fighter-bomber, created on the basis of the F-15D training train. 10 tons of combat load, state-of-the-art avionics, hanging aiming containers - and all this is part of the proven F-15 fighter

        powerful strike machine capable of fending for itself in aerial combat
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 6 January 2014 21: 27 New
          +6
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          An example from World War II - FockeWolfe FW.190

          This small-sized machine, equipped with a powerful engine and much heavier than the Messerschmitt fighter, was clearly not suitable for maneuverable air combat. But she had all the advantages in high-speed aerial combat and vertical maneuver.
          The main disadvantages of the aircraft were: first of all, this related to its planning qualities with the engine turned off or failed, which turned out to be about the same as that of a concrete beam. When the engine crashed, the plane immediately lowered its nose and went into a steep dive due to its excessively heavy engine. The pilot had only to reset the flashlight as soon as possible and leave the plane, if altitude allowed. This explains the very small number of forced landings of the Fokke-Wulfs-190. As a rule, such a landing ended in fatal destruction of the aircraft. During the fighting over the Kursk, JG51 and JG54 suffered huge losses - up to fifty percent of the composition. This is because the FW190 was most advantageous at medium altitudes, and the battles took place mainly near the ground, where the Soviet La-5FN and Yak-9 fighters - the most common opponents of the FW190 in this sector of the front - were superior in speed and rate of climb to Fokke- Wulf.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          An example from the Cold War is the F-4 Phantom.

          From May to December of the 1966 year, the United States lost 47 aircraft in air battles, destroying only 12 enemy fighters. It was affected by a large wing load and slightly lower (especially at medium altitudes) angular U-turns of American fighter jets (Americans subsequently admitted that the Phantom is generally inferior to MiG in turns), operational overload restrictions (6,0 versus 8,0 in MiG-21PF) and acceptable angles of attack, as well as the worst handling of the American car. The F-4 did not have an advantage in terms of thrust-weight ratio: with normal take-off weight, it was 0,74 for the F-4B, and for the MiG-21PF it was 0,79. In general, F-4 aircraft had to solve tasks that weren’t peculiar to them in Vietnam: created as a heavy interceptor, Designed to defend attack aircraft carrier formations against attacks by high-speed bombers and anti-ship cruise missiles, the Phantom was used in the struggle to gain air supremacy, opposing the MiG-21 aircraft, which was more adapted for this role.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          An example from the recent past is the F-15E Strike Eagle
          Fortunately, I did not meet with enemy fighters in air battles, nevertheless lost:
          Operation Desert Storm:
          17 January 1991 - shot down southwest of Basra at low altitude. Both crew members died.
          19 January 1991 - the S-75 air defense missile system was shot down over western Iraq during a night flight to search for Scud operational-tactical missile systems. Both crew members were captured.
          Iraq war:
          7 April 2003 - knocked down from the ground in the Tikrit region. Both crew members died.
          Operation Dawn of the Odyssey:
          22 March 2011 year - crashed for non-military reasons in 40 km from the city of Benghazi (officially). The crew is saved.
          1. rolik2
            rolik2 6 January 2014 22: 03 New
            -2
            Roman 1977

            Well, if everything is so bad, then why do you have such hope for Unified heavy platform Armata??
            On the basis of which they plan to create a thuja cloud of vehicles from tanks to self-propelled guns and ZSU ???? Here it’s obvious to a non-specialist that the tank chassis will not fit either the self-propelled guns or the ZSU, and it will be fat to use the TANK chassis for other vehicles ??
            Probably the answer will be that a universal platform losing in some respects significantly wins in logistics, organization of mass production, in personnel training, and so on. etc.

            War is money and the one who loses it will lose it faster.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 6 January 2014 22: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: rolik2
              and for other cars will it be fat to use a TANK chassis ??

              For armored personnel carriers - just right
            2. Wedmak
              Wedmak 7 January 2014 09: 50 New
              +2
              Well, if everything is so bad, then why do you have such hope for the Unified heavy platform of Armat ??

              Because it is a platform. For a tank, the engine is placed there behind, a reservation is set up and a tower is installed - get a tank. Need a SPG? The engine is installed in front, a heavier artillery tower is placed, the minimum booking is to get an SPG. With a heavy armored personnel carrier the same story. What is wrong?
            3. BIGLESHIY
              BIGLESHIY 7 January 2014 12: 39 New
              +1
              SPG MSTA-S just on the tank chassis!
            4. alex popov
              alex popov 8 January 2014 19: 18 New
              +1
              Quote: rolik2
              Here, and not a specialist can see that the tank chassis will not fit either self-propelled guns

              uh. explain yourself. why is this for tank destroyer chassis not suitable? For MSTA-S did it, for example. Or do you know something that others do not know?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 9 January 2014 00: 59 New
                0
                Quote: alex popov
                For MSTA-S did it, for example. Or do you know something that others do not know?
                MSTA-S does not have a tank chassis. It was created from scratch, with elements of the T-80 chassis tank + T-72 engine compartment. And rightly so - tank armor reservation on an SPG is useless.
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 6 January 2014 22: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Novel 1977
            This small-sized machine, equipped with a powerful engine and much heavier than the Messerschmitt fighter, was clearly not suitable for maneuverable air combat.

            Grünherz squadron successfully fought on FW-190
            Quote: Novel 1977
            From May to December of the 1966 year, the United States lost 47 aircraft in air battles, destroying only 12 enemy fighters

            Yankees cite data exactly the opposite
            Quote: Novel 1977
            Affected by a large load on the wing and slightly lower (especially at medium altitudes) angular speeds of U-turns of American fighters

            In exchange - the best avionics and air-to-air missiles
            In addition, the Phantoms came with a full supply of fuel, many had bomb weapons - against MiGs that took off “light”
            Quote: Novel 1977
            Fortunately, I did not meet with enemy fighters in air battles, nevertheless lost:

            Official F-15 statistics describe 104 aerial victories without a single defeat. As a fighter, the F-15E is identical to the F-15C - even superior in some respects thanks to the presence of a second crew member and more advanced avionics

            By the way, Roman, how do you rate the F-5 Tiger?
            Also a great all-rounder, undervalued by the U.S. Air Force
            1. Roman 1977
              Roman 1977 7 January 2014 00: 38 New
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Grünherz squadron successfully fought on FW-190
              Luftwaffe Squadron JG54 "Gruenhertz" or as our pilots called it Green Asses was rearmed with the FW-190 modification of the A4 in July 1943, before the Battle of Kursk, together with JG51. During the fighting, they suffered huge losses - up to 50 percent of the composition. This is because the FW190 was most advantageous at medium altitudes, and the battles took place mainly near the ground, where the Soviet La-5FN and Yak-9 fighters - the most common opponents of the FW190 in this sector of the front - were superior in speed and rate of climb to Fokke- Wulf. Then the Germans straightened out the situation, but with the advent of La-7 and Yak-3, the situation again developed in favor of the Soviet pilots and it all depended on the pilot's qualifications.
              Aviation Marshal G.V. Zimin in his book "Fighters" describes many combat clashes between Soviet pilots and FW190. Paradoxically, specialized fighters, according to Zimin, acted in most cases rather indecisively and ineffectively, even in conditions of numerical superiority - obviously, the low level of flight and, most importantly, tactical training of their pilots affected. But at the same time, the Fokke-Wulfs of strike modification, freed from bombs when meeting with Soviet fighters, acted boldly and skillfully, alternating defensive and offensive air combat techniques: their pilots were mostly aces bombing aces, who transferred to the FW190 from the Junkers 87, maneuverable vehicles that could stand up for themselves in a defensive battle (even during the Battle of England there were aerial battles on bends between Spitfire and Junkers-87B, the outcome of which was by no means a foregone conclusion).

              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/fw190a4.html

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Yankees cite data exactly the opposite
              Oleg, nowhere do they lie more than on the hunt or in war. (French proverb). In their place, I would have done the same. Nevertheless, the losses of Phantoms according to American data were about 800 units, the losses of the Vietnamese Air Force were about 150 fighters of all modifications (MiG-17 / J-5, J-6, MiG-21), that is, the losses of Phantoms, not counting other aircraft by 5,3 times the loss of MiGs. Well, if everything was so good, why did the Americans so urgently create their famous Topgan school.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              In exchange, the best avionics and air-to-air missiles are in order. Moreover, the Phantoms came with a full supply of fuel, many had bomb weapons - against MiGs that took off “light”

              Firstly, these are the problems of the Americans, who could not provide normal fighter cover for their fighters. Secondly, the correct tactics of the Vietnamese pilots who attacked primarily attack aircraft. As for the avionics and missiles, I agree that the Americans already had medium-range Sparrows, and ours flew with two K-13s, advanced copies of the sideduders received from China in the 1959 year
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 7 January 2014 02: 18 New
                +1
                Quote: Novel 1977
                This is because the FW190 was most advantageous at medium altitudes, and the battles took place mainly near the ground, where the Soviet fighters La-5FN and Yak-9

                Nevertheless - the second largest Luftwaffe fighter (13,5 thousand fighter, and 6,5 thousand strike FW.190)
                Quote: Novel 1977
                nowhere do they lie more than hunting or war. (French proverb).

                good
                Quote: Novel 1977
                Nevertheless, the loss of "Phantoms" according to American data amounted to about 800

                895, subject to RF-4 scouts
                Mostly air defense systems (Vietnam delivered 60 S-75 divisions, 7500 missiles), as well as anti-aircraft artillery and those. causes

                The first Phantoms, too, were not ice - in what year did the hanging cannon containers appear?
                1. Roman 1977
                  Roman 1977 7 January 2014 12: 40 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Nevertheless - the second largest Luftwaffe fighter (13,5 thousand fighter, and 6,5 thousand strike FW.190)
                  And the Germans had nothing to choose. They won Bf.109, created in 1936, until the end of the war, with improvements of course. Moreover, FW.190 turned out to be a really successful car. The same Turks from October 1942 to March 1943, purchased from Germany 72 a copy of the export version of the FW-190A-3a to modernize their fleet of fighters. Aircraft remained in service until 1948 — 1949. After the end of the war, the French Air Force ordered the company 64 aircraft "FW-190 A-6" under the designation "NC 900". They were in service for some time and were withdrawn from service due to problems with the BMW-801 engines. Rumor has it that several air defense regiments of the Baltic Fleet Air Force flew after the war on the FW-190 and its long-nosed modification Ta-152.

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  895, taking into account RF-4 scouts, mainly air defense systems (Vietnam delivered 60 S-75 divisions, 7500 missiles), also anti-aircraft artillery and those. Reasons The first Phantoms weren't ice either - in what year did the hanging cannon containers appear?
                  Well, not only the “Phantoms” fought with the MiGs. The same During the Vietnam War, according to official American data, the F-8 Crusader had the best ratio of victories and losses in air battles, surpassing the main American fighter F-4. In total, 19 enemy fighter shots were lost in Vietnam at the expense of the Crusaders in loss from 3 to 11 aircraft in aerial combat. Having lost the deck modifications of the F-4 in the absolute number of victories, the Crusaders surpassed them in relative performance. The advantages of the F-8 in comparison with the Phantom were better maneuverability (comparable to the maneuverability of the MiG-17) and the presence of built-in cannon weapons, although not very reliable. There were MiGs shot down on the account of the A-4 Skyhawk and even the piston A-1 Skyder. Moreover, the Americans themselves were rather dismissive of the C-75, calling them "flying telegraph poles", believing that the main losses were inflicted on them, especially the 57-mm C-60 with radar guidance.


                  F-8C VF-84
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. Roman 1977
              Roman 1977 7 January 2014 01: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Official F-15 statistics describe 104 aerial victories without a single defeat. As a fighter, the F-15E is identical to the F-15C - even superior in some respects thanks to the presence of a second crew member and more advanced avionics

              Oleg about the merits of F-15, I wrote below in a post from Yesterday, 23: 59, if you want to read. With regard to the number of air victories F-15, how many are their real confirmations? Our and even Western researchers, cite other data, which repeatedly featured downed F-15. I will definitely not state either the first or the second ...
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              By the way, Roman, how do you rate the F-5 Tiger? Also a great all-rounder, underestimated by the US Air Force

              Firstly, Oleg, we’ve been on this site for quite some time now, we know each other and communicate, so I’ll already consider contacting you as an insult ...
              Secondly, I think the F-5 Tiger is a very good (I will refrain from enthusiastic phrases) aircraft, the advantages of which were recognized even by the enemy.
              After the end of the Vietnam War in the USSR, Tiger II was delivered to the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow, among other aircraft, on the initiative of General I.D. Gaydenko, head of the Air Force Research Institute, supported by M.N. Mishuk, deputy commander in chief of the Air Force, conducted comparative tests and training battles with Russian MiG-21bis and MiG-23ML fighters.
              18 fights were held by Soviet aces, and never MiG-21bis could not get into the tail of the F-5E. There was no choice but to set a more modern MiG-5 against the F-23E. The battle conditions were already initially unequal, and the results of the air battle were quite predictable. "Twenty-third" could not get involved in close maneuverable combat, because he was armed with a medium-range air-to-air missile R-23. MiG-23 could easily shoot the Tiger from a distance of 40 km. At the same time, in close air combat, the large MiG-23 was inferior in terms of maneuverability even to the MiG-21: the brisk Tiger curled around its opponent with impunity.

              http://septus.blogspot.ru/2012/12/f-5-37.html


              trophy F-5 "Tiger" on tests in the USSR
              Thirdly, the F-5 Tiger showed its advantages in a real battle, so during the war for Ogaden in the 1977 year they managed to gain 7 air victories (including 5 MiG-21 and 1 MiG-17) over Somali aircraft. They showed themselves quite well in the Iran-Iraq war, where they were the main Iranian fighter, and where they even managed to shoot down the MiG-25, which got involved in close combat. The fact that the F-5 "Tiger" is a good fighter is also evidenced by the fact that he still continues his service, for so long only good cars have been serving.

              F-5 Tiger Iranian Air Force

              F-5 Tiger Chilean Air Force
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 7 January 2014 02: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: Novel 1977
                Our and even Western researchers, cite other data, which repeatedly featured downed F-15.

                For me, the 104 figure is somewhat overpriced
                The second figure is 0 ... at least no one has yet demonstrated the wreckage of the Eagle (although the Japanese F-15J accidentally flunked on his brother’s teachings, but this does not seem to be considered)))

                Perhaps the wounded animals were returning, but even if the account in the end will be 52: 5 is a bad account
                Quote: Novel 1977
                Firstly, Oleg, we’ve been on this site for quite some time now, we know each other and communicate, so I’ll already consider contacting you as an insult ...

                This is right!
                Quote: Novel 1977
                trophy F-5 "Tiger" on tests in the USSR

                I remember this story about Akhtubinsk, there was also A-37 Dragonfly

                First of all, I like the F-5 for its simplicity - the plane created for the “third world” (for export) turned out to be more adapted to reality than even the Phantom. Dangerous air enemy, while he threw a good bomb, and “mauritius” grumbled on the ground

                You know, probably, that T-38 Talon and F-5 are almost the same thing. Here is a real wagon)))
            5. sivuch
              sivuch 7 January 2014 09: 40 New
              +1
              At the same time, F-15A / C didn’t bomb anyone (at least American), and F-15E didn’t shoot anyone. Although I’m lying, it’s like one screwdriver on take-off, with the help of
            6. dv-v
              dv-v 8 January 2014 09: 08 New
              -3
              yeah, you can see the "expert" a mile away, although, in my opinion, this is a meme, as they called the f-5 in the frg, where there were a lot of them in service - something like a widow maker.
              1. ultra
                ultra 8 January 2014 10: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: dv-v
                F-5 in the Federal Republic of Germany, where a lot of them were in service - something like a widow maker.

                You all beguiled! There were f-104, they were called that!
                1. dv-v
                  dv-v 9 January 2014 04: 39 New
                  0
                  I’m aware that I was bogged down)) - I didn’t identify some x from the “top view” picture, and when I saw the pictures in my profile I said to myself that it’s not good to wipe the figs, science for the future, since aviation is not the subject of my keen interest.) ) This is not the first time that I’m confusing the 104th with the 5th.))
          3. sevtrash
            sevtrash 6 January 2014 22: 30 New
            -1
            Quote: Novel 1977
            Fortunately, I did not meet with enemy fighters in air battles, nevertheless lost:

            How did you not meet? F15 shot down about 60 aircraft in the Lebanon War (MIG 21, 23), Desert Storm 34 (including MiG23) aircraft and helicopter, Yugoslavia - 4 Mig 29. In this case, 1 or 2 aircraft may be lost. What do you call an inefficient airplane?
            And F4? Vietnam - 107 shot down, 65 lost. Judgment Day - 36 shot down, 38 lost. Lebanon War 2-2. Iran-Iraq war - 54-82 shot down, 38-55 lost.
            What is also ineffective?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Roman 1977
              Roman 1977 6 January 2014 23: 59 New
              +3
              Quote: sevtrash
              How did you not meet? F15 shot down about 60 aircraft in the Lebanon War (MIG 21, 23), Desert Storm 34 (including MiG23) aircraft and helicopter, Yugoslavia - 4 Mig 29. In this case, 1 or 2 aircraft may be lost. What do you call an ineffective aircraft? And the F4? Vietnam - 107 shot down, 65 lost. Judgment Day - 36 shot down, 38 lost. Lebanese War 2-2. Iran-Iraq war - 54-82 is downed, 38-55 is lost. So is it also ineffective?

              Firstly, you confuse the F-15 Eagle fighter for gaining air superiority and the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber based on it. If the former was indeed an active participant in the air battles, the latter worked in “greenhouse conditions,” where the enemy’s fighter counteraction was zero. So, I suggest you, first, to carefully study the materiel.
              Secondly, where did you get these numbers: from American agitation, although I think it’s more likely from Vicki. As for Vietnam, the loss of Phantoms according to American data was about 800 units, the loss of the Vietnamese Air Force is about 150 fighters of all modifications (MiG-17 / J-5, J-6, MiG-21), that is, the loss of Phantoms, apart from other aircraft, 5,3 times the loss of MiGs. Well, if everything was so good, why did the Americans so urgently create their famous Topgan school. Now with regards to the Iran-Iraq war, where did the data from Tom Cooper come from? There is no official information on either side ... The Middle East, the same thing, here we are with an Israeli Oleg under the nickname professor argued for a long time on a nearby branch about the Syrian planes shot down in Lebanon in 1982, you can see Sami, even he didn’t I was able to produce material evidence.
              U.S. Navy will have fighter drones and refueling

              Well, now, the data on the downed F-15, look for Sami, hinting at the name of Zhirokh, the website of the airwar, I prefer material evidence:

              here is a photo of the F-15 in the sight of the Syrian MiG-23

              here is the F-15 in the sight of the Syrian MiG-21

              here is the F-15, allegedly shot down by the Syrian MiG-25

              but the American F-29 damaged by the Yugoslav MiG-15 is pulling for an emergency landing (they say it didn’t reach ...)
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 7 January 2014 01: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Novel 1977
                First, you confuse the F-15 Eagle fighter for achieving air superiority and the F-15E Strike Eagle two-seat fighter-bomber.

                I agree, since 1991, I didn’t get on the main actions, which does not mean that I’m not capable of aerial combat. Counted with Vicki, really. I don’t see anything bad here, especially since several sources are listed on Wiki.
                But - is the F-15E Strike Eagle based on the F15? Positioned as a fighter-bomber, with the realization of the possibility of gaining air supremacy? In addition, it is a 4+ generation aircraft, while the F15 4, with a more advanced radar. The number of missiles is the same, given that an absolutely large part was shot down by missiles, I don’t think it would be less effective. The combination of radar - rocket is also better.
                I read the memories of our advisers, as the Arabs understood the master to embellish. However, probably all. But you will not argue that the level of training of Israeli pilots was much higher than the Arab ones, their technique is more advanced, including the significant role of AWACS, which the Arabs did not have at all. Is it really possible after this to believe that, by some miracle, the Arabs piled a bunch of some of the best 4 generation fighters?
                Photos - evidence of downed aircraft? After a brief search, I found a photo of the sight 23

                [img] http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117494&d=1285092134 [
                / img]

                http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117494&d=1285092134
                http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117495&d=1285092134
                [img] http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117495&d=1285092134 [


                / img]

                [img] http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117494&d=1285092134 [


                / img]

                Surprisingly, but unlike your photos, already nothing.
                By the way, the second photo is not F15 at all, look at the location of the engines. About 3 and 4 in general I am silent.
                And this is material evidence ???
                1. Roman 1977
                  Roman 1977 7 January 2014 01: 37 New
                  +1
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  I agree, from 1991 of the year, I didn’t fall on the main actions, which does not mean that I am not capable of air battles. Counted with Vicki, really. I don’t see anything bad here, especially since several sources are listed on the wiki, but is the F-15E Strike Eagle based on F15? Positioned as a fighter-bomber, with the realization of the possibility of gaining air supremacy? In addition, it is an 4 + generation aircraft, while the F15 4, with a more advanced radar. The number of missiles is the same, given that an absolutely large part was shot down by missiles, I don’t think it would be less effective. The combination of radar - rocket is also better.

                  Well, when we take part in air battles, and even better kill someone, then we will reason, otherwise I’m also a Su-34, I can drive into fighters, on the grounds that it is a fighter-bomber modification of the SU-27 , and its first name is Su-27IB.
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  I read the memories of our advisers, as the Arabs understood the master to embellish. However, probably all. But you will not argue that the level of training of Israeli pilots was much higher than the Arab ones, their technique is more advanced, including the significant role of AWACS, which the Arabs did not have at all. Is it really possible after this to believe that, by some miracle, the Arabs piled a bunch of some of the best 4 generation fighters?

                  And this is also beyond doubt. The Israelis have always surpassed the Arabs in the number of downed planes (and not only in them), but the Israelis should not trust unconditionally either, they will tell you that in 1982, a Syrian plane was shot down over the Bekaa Valley without losing a single one. Here, and before the 81 "victories" of Erich Hartmann is not far ... Well, as for the photographs, you believe the word to the Americans and Jews ...
                  Oh, by the way, I’ve blabbed with you ...
                  With the name of Christ !!! Well, the rest MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 7 January 2014 02: 08 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Novel 1977
                    otherwise I am also a Su-34, I can drive it into fighters, on the grounds that it is a fighter-bomber modification of the SU-27, and its first name is Su-27IB.

                    Can not. The differences are too great - a double cabin with a transverse crew, a kitchen (why a front-line bomb?) 1,5 tons of armor ... the F-15E has no such cardinal differences

                    By the way, what is the Su-34 with radar? F-15E now receive a new APG-82 (V) 1 with AFAR
                    Quote: Novel 1977
                    without losing a single one.

                    show the wreckage please
                2. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 7 January 2014 17: 11 New
                  +1
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  By the way, the second photo is not F15 at all, look at the location of the engines.
                  This is the F-14 Tomcat.
                  And in the last photo, it looks like the fighter is dumping fuel (I don’t know in what cases this is practiced, but what fact applies).
              2. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 7 January 2014 01: 57 New
                +2
                These photos, Roman, do not deserve special trust - the first is f-15 in the sight of the Egyptian F-16, at joint exercises. Famous button accordion

                Presumably, they say ... in no museum in the world there are fragments of F-15. Although the battles were often fought over enemy territory (Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia)
                1. Roman 1977
                  Roman 1977 7 January 2014 13: 29 New
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  You can not. The differences are too big - a double cabin with a transverse crew arrangement, a kitchen (why a frontal bomb?) 1,5 tons of armor ... F-15E have no such cardinal differences By the way, what about the Su-34 with radar? F-15E now receive a new APG-82 (V) 1 with AFAR
                  Well then, the MiG-23, MiG-23BN and MiG-27, fighter-bomber modifications of the MiG-23 it will be more correct. Well, as for the radar, I can’t say anything for sure, but on the specialized sites and the pilots from Baltimore say that the problems were, but it seems to be fixed, but if something, specialists from St. Petersburg come from NPO Leninets and fix it.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  please show the wreckage
                  Debris, why? Israeli planes shot down in aerial combat over Lebanon in 1982? There are photos of those shot down in Lebanon (A-4 "Skyhawk", "Kfir", F-4 "phantom"), well, the Israelis believe that they were shot down by air defense, In turn, the Israelis also can not show the wreckage of 81 Syrian aircraft shot down in the air the battle. Here the question is extremely controversial.
                  I repeat, different researchers estimate the losses of Israelis in different ways, I will not dwell on ours (Zhirokhov, Nikolsky, Ilyin, and even more so General Yashkin), it seems that the people are interested in:
                  The Israelis themselves admit that the F-15 fighter pilot Ron Shapiro received the P-60 rocket into the right engine nozzle. The plane caught fire, but was able to return to the airport in Ramat David.
                  According to Tom Cooper, Syrian MiG-21 fighters claim 2 confirmed air victories (1 “Kfir” and 1 “Phantom”).
                  http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_272.shtml

                  According to researcher Yefim Gordon, the Syrians also claim 2 air victories.
                  Gordon, Yefim. MiG-21 (Russian Fighters). Earl Shilton, Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing Ltd., 2008.

                  In the book of David Nicolas “Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 in battle” there is even a photograph of the wreckage of the “Phantom” of the allegedly shot down MiG-21 10 on June.
                  “Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat” by David Nicole p. 77

                  According to researchers Steve Davis and Doug Dildy, Syria lost 88 aircraft. Israeli losses are estimated at 1 F-16, 1 F-4, 1 Kfir, 2 A-4 and several helicopters. Well, as far as I know, Israel has never declared F-16 losses in the 1982 year, or at all.
                  F-15 Eagle Engaged: The World's Most Successful Fighter by Steve Davies and Doug Dildy. Osprey, 2007, pp. 146-147.

                  So, decide Oleg himself, whom to believe ... Personally, I am very doubtful of the Israeli figures, although I acknowledge the Israeli air victory in Lebanon in the 1982 year.
                2. Roman 1977
                  Roman 1977 7 January 2014 13: 54 New
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  These photos, Roman, do not deserve special trust - the first is f-15 in the sight of the Egyptian F-16, at joint exercises. Famous button accordion

                  I do not argue. I even agree to the button accordion.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Presumably, they say ... in no museum in the world there are fragments of F-15. Although the battles were often fought over enemy territory (Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia)
                  And you show me at least in one museum the wreckage of the MiG-25, shot down in an air battle, although the Israelis claim that they shot down as many as 3 in them in Lebanon (2 MiG-25P, MiG-25RB), and the Persians and Americans say that in general they were shot down by dozens.
                  The same Americans still claim that they didn’t lose a single aircraft in an air battle during Desert Storm, although they OFFICIALLY recognized the fact that Iraqi MiG-25ПД F / A-18C was shot down by pilot Michael Spicher from the 81 fighter-bomber squadron (VFA-81) of the Saratoga aircraft carrier on the night of 16 on 17 on January 1991.

                  And this is taking into account the fact that the air battle took place over the territory of Iraq. This is an advertisement for which the Americans and Israelis are masters ...
                  Moreover, of all the conflicts, only in Lebanon in the 1982 year did the F-15 participate in more or less normal hostilities: but again, the fourth-generation Syrian (MiG-15) opposed the fourth-generation Israeli aircraft (F-16 and F-23) and the second (MiG-21) and to this add the higher qualifications of Israeli pilots.
                  In Iraq, the primary mission of American fighter jets from AWACS aircraft was to intercept Iraqi aircraft trying to escape to Iraq.
                  In Yugoslavia, the few (14 MiG-29, 2 MiG-29UB) worn out, incomplete Serbian MiG-29s, the first export modifications (9-12) last repaired in the 1989 year, rose in suicidal attacks against NATO forces outnumbering them medium range induced by AWACS, without the slightest chance of success ...
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 7 January 2014 14: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: Novel 1977
                    Well then, the MiG-23, MiG-23BN and MiG-27, fighter-bomber modifications of the MiG-23 it will be more correct.

                    Will not work. MiG-27 did not have a radar and categorically could not conduct an air battle. MiG-23, on the contrary, was deprived of a station for work on the ground

                    The “old-fashioned needle” has no such problems - it has hanging aiming containers LANTIRN / SNIPER / LITENING + radar with a synthetic aperture
                    Quote: Novel 1977
                    The same Americans still claim that they did not lose a single aircraft in aerial combat during the "Desert Storm", although they OFFICIALLY admitted the fact

                    How so - once officially recognized
                    Quote: Novel 1977
                    Moreover, of all the conflicts, only in Lebanon in the 1982 year did the F-15 participate in more or less normal hostilities: but again, the fourth-generation Syrian (MiG-15) opposed the fourth-generation Israeli aircraft (F-16 and F-23) and the second (MiG-21) and to this add the higher qualifications of Israeli pilots.

                    MiG-23ML - the same age as the F-15
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Roman 1977
                      Roman 1977 7 January 2014 15: 28 New
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Will not work. MiG-27 did not have a radar and categorically could not conduct an air battle. The MiG-23, on the other hand, was deprived of a ground station; the Staryk Igloo has no such problems - it has LANTIRN / SNIPER / LITENING + synthesized aperture radar sights

                      The same can be said about the first modifications of the Su-27 (Su-27P) and MiG-29. which could strike ground targets only with free-falling bombs. As for the MiG-27, the radar was especially needed for him and was not, his mission was to strike at air targets, for which he had:
                      The PrNK-23 sighting and navigation system was designed to solve the problems of navigation, aimed bombing, firing from guns and launching NAR at ground and air targets.
                      The complex includes:
                      • new digital computer;
                      • navigation system KN-23;
                      • optical sighting head C-17VG;
                      • laser rangefinder "Background";
                      • air sensors. Which for Soviet electronics, with its rather weak base, turned out to be a step forward. By the way, the MiG-27, at the final stage of the Afghan war, turned out to be our most useful aircraft, apart from the Su-25, of course, the only one capable of delivering high-precision weapon strikes. Unfortunately, due to politics, his flying life was too short (even the first Chechen company could not find a single whole), however, he continues to fly in the air forces of Kazakhstan, India and Sri Lanka.


                      MiG-27L (TS530) "Bahadur" (licensed MiG-27Д) of the 9 th squadron of the Indian Air Force

                      MiG-27 Air Force Sri Lanka
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      How so - once officially recognized

                      Well, they recognized it, they recognized it, they didn’t talk about it, and they only recognized it when in 1995, independent experts found a downed plane and examined its wreckage. Initially, it was announced that the cause of the loss was an anti-aircraft missile, but after the war, independent experts found the wreckage and concluded that the F / A-18 was shot down by the P-40 air-to-air missile launched by the Iraqi MiG-25 fighter.
                      However, there is information about other coalition aircraft shot down in the 1991 year, but not officially confirmed by it:
                      Downed plane Than downed
                      F / A-18 MiG-25 (probably P-40)
                      F-16 MiG-23 (P-23)
                      Tornado.GR1 MiG-29 pair
                      Tornado.GR1 MiG-23 pair
                      EF-111A probably MiG-29
                      http://forums.airbase.ru/2000/06/t6220--boevoe-primenenie-irak-1991.160.html
                    3. The comment was deleted.
                    4. Roman 1977
                      Roman 1977 7 January 2014 15: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      MiG-23ML - the same age as the F-15

                      I don’t argue, in the 70 years, the Americans took the lead by creating the first fourth-generation aircraft F-14, F-15, F-16. The USSR was able to overcome the lag only at the beginning of the 80's, creating the MiG-29 and Su-27. Nevertheless, according to some sources, the MiG-23, especially the MiG-23ML, were not “whipping boys” either:
                      According to various sources, after the Lebanon war, the Syrian MiG-23 managed to shoot down three F-15 and one F-4, however, no details of these battles are given, the exact date and even the year of these victories remain unclear: according to one source, the first two victories Possessed 4 October 1982 year,
                      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f15.html

                      for others (Ilyin) - October 4 1983 of the year,
                      http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/planes/russia/mig/mig-23/livan-2.htm

                      according to another version, all victories were won in December 1982 of the year,
                      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig23ml.html

                      and there is also a statement (Tom Cooper) that two unconfirmed victories were won (one over F-15 and one over F-4) on December 4 of 1983.
                      http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47

                      The Israelis do not confirm any combat losses of their aircraft on these days. The ejection-history.org.uk website reports that on 4 December 1983, for unknown reasons, one Israeli F-15 133 Squadron was lost;
                      http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-15.htm

                      At the same time, according to the data of the Israeli historian Shlomo Aloni, between the 1979 and 1987 years the Israeli F-15 had no losses.
                      Shlomo Aloni. Israeli F-15 Eagle Units in Combat. Osprey Publishing, 2006, p. 88.

                      However, the Israelis themselves, when in 1989 the Syrian pilot on the MiG-23ML flew to Israel, he highly appreciated his merits:
                      ... the export MiG-23ML had a slight superiority over the early F-16 model in acceleration and “energy maneuverability” at speeds above 900 km / h (However, according to the documents “Practical aerodynamics of the MiG-23ML aircraft” and “TO 1F-16CJ-1 -1 ”, the F-16CJ aircraft (F-16C block 50 / 52 with the F100-PW-229 engine) has an advantage over the MiG-23ML in acceleration at low altitude, from 600 km / h to 900 km / h - 8 versus 12 seconds. A comparison of the horizontal maneuverability of the MiG-23ML and F-16CJ aircraft shows a significant superiority of the latter).

                      Research checks of the MiG-23ML were carried out in Germany after the reunification of Germany. They took place at the Air Force Test Center in Manching. Their results have not been fully published. However, judging by the fact that it “leaked” to print, it can be concluded that the MiG-23ML presented many surprises to Western experts and was comparable in some respects with the F-15 and F-16. After these tests, part of the MiG-23ML flew in the United States, in the well-known but top-secret Red Hats unit at Grum Lake, Nevada.
                      1. egeny patykov
                        egeny patykov 16 February 2018 10: 57 New
                        0
                        fought and fights instant - 29 with f - 18. if the ornet used AMRAAM then it shot down for a moment with rockets - it shot and forgot. p-77 currents on paper in Russia since it is prohibited (by whom?). probably those who ruin the ruble and close the plants.
                3. The comment was deleted.
              3. Su-9
                Su-9 7 January 2014 09: 28 New
                +2
                2nd photo - Do you seriously believe that you can get this tail in battle like this?
                And of course, this is the Iranian F14 at the FKP of the Iraqi Mirage. You can google it.
              4. Professor
                Professor 7 January 2014 15: 34 New
                +3
                Quote: Novel 1977
                here is the F-15 in the sight of the Syrian MiG-21

                Finish the crap carry, this is generally F-14.
                F-15


                F-14

                And the rest of the pictures do not stand up to criticism. request
              5. egeny patykov
                egeny patykov 16 February 2018 10: 51 New
                0
                on the first photo is not F-15. as the engines are spaced apart in the photo. and they’re standing next to the tavo. older f - 14? . about phantoms brought down - 800. Are all shot down by planes? not air defense? and if the Vietnamese planes flew miraculously into the United States, how would it be?
            3. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 7 January 2014 00: 18 New
              0
              ".... In December 1972, there was the culmination of this air war. DRV reconnaissance knew in advance about the planned large-scale operation. It became known that the Americans were deploying 800 combat aircraft. The American operation began on December 18 and ended on December 29. The losses over these days amounted to 81 aircraft. For 1000 sorties, US aviation lost 34 aircraft ..... "
              http://www.vietnamnews.ru/skywar.html
              http://www.pro-pvo.ru/2003/02/28/2.aspx
              http://www.nhat-nam.ru/vietnamwar/spravka.html
            4. sivuch
              sivuch 7 January 2014 09: 45 New
              +1
              But I-I would like to know more about the war. Where do the statistics come from - I hope not from Tom Cooper or Zhirokhov?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. sivuch
          sivuch 7 January 2014 10: 34 New
          0
          must not
          Fw-190F had an accuracy of bombing lower than that of a thing, and it raised a half-ton only from a concrete runway
          F-4B as a fighter for gaining superiority utterly inferior to XF8-3
          By the way, containers never replace a built-in cannon
          I already wrote about the F-15, in fact, they were used on a specialized basis, some only exterminated, others only bombed
      3. Do not care
        Do not care 8 January 2014 08: 51 New
        0
        Tukhachevsky and Lockheed are somehow difficult to compare.
      4. Do not care
        Do not care 8 January 2014 08: 51 New
        0
        Tukhachevsky and Lockheed are somehow difficult to compare.
    3. dmitry21
      dmitry21 6 January 2014 19: 56 New
      -3
      But what about the two disasters in 2012, followed by a surge of curses towards computer control in particular and the general concept in general?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 6 January 2014 20: 33 New
        +5
        Quote: dmitry21
        but what about the two disasters in 2012

        You mixed something up

        F-35 has never fallen and fought
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 January 2014 23: 12 New
          0
          Current flight restrictions:
          - The operational limitations of the aircraft do not allow the device to fly at night, or in “instrumental” meteorological conditions, so pilots should avoid cloudy and other weather. These restrictions exist because the tests were not completed for certification of night and instrument flights.
          - The aircraft is also currently forbidden to fly as part of close groups, to perform aerobatics, to stall, although all of the above, as expected, should be included in the familiarization phase of the transitional training period.
          planes were forbidden to approach the thunderous areas and even more so to fly into them. In addition, at an altitude of less than six kilometers, the rate of descent of the F-35 should not exceed 1,8 kilometers per minute. The dive speed can reach 15 kilometers per minute, but only if the plane was at the same height for at least four minutes before the maneuver and the pressure in the fuel tanks equalized.
          As noted, such restrictions exclude the possibility of using the F-35 in combat conditions or for combat training of pilots. In addition to that, all three versions of the fighter have reduced their overload tolerances during maneuvers. For the F-35A, the current overload at a steady U-turn should not exceed 4,6g (instead of the previous 5,3g). To increase the speed from 0,8 to Mach 1,2, the fighter will need eight seconds more time from now on.
          For the F-35B, the ceiling of the permissible overload during a steady turn was lowered from 5,0 to 4,5g, and the acceleration time from 0,8 to 1,2 of the Mach number was decreased by 16 seconds. From now on, the F-35C will be able to experience overloads within 5,0g with a steady turn (previously it was 5,1g), however, the time required to accelerate the aircraft from 0,8 to Mach 1,2 increased by 43 seconds.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 6 January 2014 23: 13 New
            +2
            American promising fighter F-35 Lightning II is not able to withstand lightning. This is the conclusion of the Pentagon's Performance Testing and Evaluation Office (OT&E). Currently, aircraft are prohibited from flying in areas where thunderstorms are most frequent. Aircraft are also prohibited from approaching less than 40 kilometers to such zones.
            In addition to the ill-conceived protection of on-board electronic equipment from lightning, the fighter also received a weak inert gas generation system (OBIGGS), which is responsible for filling the released volumes of fuel tanks with inert gases and maintaining low oxygen levels in them. In lightning hazardous areas with constantly changing atmospheric pressure, the system may malfunction.
            Maintaining a constant low oxygen level in the fuel tanks is necessary to prevent the explosion of the engine and the tanks themselves in case of lightning. In addition, flaws in OBIGGS also led to a reduction in the rate of decline. Currently, this parameter when flying at altitudes of less than six thousand meters should not exceed 1,8 thousand meters per minute. Otherwise, OBIGGS may also fail.
            Based on the results of the F-35 fighter inspection, OT&E limited the flight parameters of the aircraft. Now, for the decked version of the F-35 - C, a long-term overload with a steady turn should not exceed 5g (previously it was 5,1g). In addition, the time required to increase speed from 0,8 to Mach 1,2 was increased by 43 seconds.
            The same time for the regular version of the F-35 - A - is increased by eight seconds, and for the shortened take-off and vertical landing - B - by 16 seconds. The steady-state overload for the F-35A was reduced from 5,3g to 4,6g, and for the F-35B it was reduced from 5g to 4,5g.
            Researchers also found problems with the horizontal tail of the F-35, typical for all versions of the aircraft. At high flight speeds or at high altitudes, the tail unit often experiences a sharp change in temperature; this leads to peeling of the coating and in some cases can even lead to the destruction of elevators.
            Design flaws were also found on fighters, leading to excessive fluctuations in rudders and flaperons during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight speed and vice versa. In addition, cases of buffeting are often recorded. The developers intend to make changes to the software in order to reduce the hinge moment of elevators and flaperons when flying at border speeds.
            A complete list of problems and shortcomings found on the F-35 can be found in the OT&E report. It is possible that the availability dates for all three versions of the F-35 fighter can be shifted. Currently, development completion for the F-35A is expected in 2016, the F-35B in 2018, and the F-35C in 2017.
          2. iwind
            iwind 7 January 2014 01: 05 New
            +4
            Quote: Alex 241
            Current flight restrictions:

            uh, at the moment you are mistaken ... very ... somehow I didn’t even expect from you.

            Quote: Alex 241
            The operational limitations of the aircraft do not allow the device to fly at night, or in "instrumental" meteorological conditions, so pilots should avoid cloudy and other weather. These restrictions exist because the tests were not completed for certification of night and instrument flights.




            Quote: Alex 241
            For the F-35A, the current overload at a steady U-turn should not exceed 4,6g (instead of the previous 5,3g).


            about the removal of all these restrictions (those that generally existed) were in the official report for January or February last year. If you are interested, I can search when there is time.
            https://www.f35.com/
            [img] <iframe src = "http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/7375613980/player/" width = "500" height = "333" frameborder = "0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen> </ iframe> [/ img]
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 7 January 2014 04: 39 New
              -2
              You know, for two years now I’m already tired of discussing this “hardware”, each time the same thing!
    4. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 6 January 2014 23: 28 New
      -3
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Finally, the plane is really BUILDING and FLYING. Of the 100 built flight instances, not one has yet crashed - a unique case in the history of aviation

      And let them build more. Faster the machine will break. (Printed). And your owners will not pay you anything. What will you advertise then?
      1. servant
        servant 6 January 2014 23: 35 New
        -1
        And let's all sing a song together * The armor is strong ..... * as in 41 !!! Thank God, little by little they started to buy new equipment, but this is a minuscule! The decline exceeds supply! The latest unit samples and even then modify and refine them ....
        Sorry for the lost years ... At least we need to catch up not a year or two ...
        But will they let us catch up?
    5. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 January 2014 23: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Finally, the plane is really BUILDING and FLYING.

      Probably more will be added F-35D.F-35E. F-35bl
  • Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 6 January 2014 19: 38 New
    +2
    The line with our MIGs and Su looks like a completely straight line. You can predict what will happen next, more, higher and faster.
    Fighters are rushing about, testing new and different types of aircraft. Invisibility, vertical, symbiosis and so on.
    All this is based on the capabilities of the country and the economy. Alas, they have orders of magnitude more opportunities, and they can afford these experiments.
    In addition, it spins an economy based on printing candy wrappers - dollars.
    Keeps a cloud of customers allies.
    In the event of war, they will remember and choose the best, which will fill up the enemy. Moreover, the USSR is no more.
  • Boris63
    Boris63 6 January 2014 20: 11 New
    +3
    Of course, I don’t understand aviation and I believe specialists “word for word,” but I can say about the versatility of this or that design - universality is a very big loss in the main destination.
  • servant
    servant 6 January 2014 20: 25 New
    -1
    Quote: dmitry21
    only

    Quote: dmitry21
    But what about the two disasters in 2012, followed by a surge of curses towards computer control in particular and the general concept in general?


    And when was it? Drop the link! I apparently missed something and did not find any confirmation ... We are waiting.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 6 January 2014 20: 59 New
    +3
    Poor Americans. wink It is good that the specialists of Military Review opened their eyes to this.
    1. Jet
      Jet 6 January 2014 21: 03 New
      +2
      how come! exclusively military experts gather here: every second general or marshal !;) and are ready to zaminut to death anyone who puts their competence in doubt, and the fact that the "F-35 is the worst of military aircraft" is their favorite myth ..
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 January 2014 22: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Poor Americans. It is good that the specialists of Military Review opened their eyes to this.

      Aron, in the USA there is a lot of idle talk about the F-35s themselves, competitors, you see, such money is at stake, count 20 years without military orders for fighters.
  • vvpll
    vvpll 6 January 2014 21: 08 New
    +1
    In September 2008, Lockheed Martin shot the simulators in the back, insisting that the F-35 was able to "efficiently perform tasks in aggressive conditions" in the Taiwanese scenario. RAND succumbed, claiming that they had no task to analyze the capabilities of fighters in aerial combat, and Stillion and Perdue soon left their department.

    Well done Americans have to do this with these spiteful critics and alarmists.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 6 January 2014 21: 22 New
    +2
    Boeing and Norton Gr guys defending their commercial interests pour water on our mill. The more throwings and doubts, the higher the confusion and the lower the combat readiness. If the pilots begin to doubt their aircraft, this is also great for us. So I wish the citizens of America more of these "revealing" materials and disputes. Right heart rejoices.
    I seriously believe that those who can, it is time to intensively publish in English materials about the futility of the AB and low combat characteristics and the shortcomings of the new western submarines. The fighting spirit of the troops and the confidence in their technology are worth a lot. Let them be afraid.
  • dpurpur
    dpurpur 6 January 2014 21: 56 New
    +1
    I believe that the main reason for the long-term construction and disturbances in America regarding the construction of the F-35 is the laying of several, including conflicting, input data for the aircraft: both to fly well, and to take off vertically, besides it was inconspicuous and carried a lot weapons. It turned out something like sneakers for walking. But you don’t go to the Bolshoi Theater, and they won’t help at professional competitions. Or another example of a crossover in the automotive industry. Rides worse than sedans and on the road will yield such as the Land Rover Defender, Toyota Land Crawler, or in the end our UAZ. Maybe I'm wrong, but still, for serious wars, attack aircraft, fighters, and bombers are needed, and not two in one.
  • ViewFromUSA
    ViewFromUSA 6 January 2014 23: 35 New
    +2
    The author of the article is right somewhere. The last symmetrical war (when the armies are equal) is 2MB. The rest of the war was asymmetric when one enemy was significantly superior to another. Now the US military doctrine is built on protection from threats (of its potential opponents) from Iran, North. Korea and terrorism. Neither China nor Russia is in the scope of potential US adversaries. Therefore, the US military-industrial complex is building its own aircraft, which NEVER will participate in dogfighting, will not “chase” one after another. All three theoretical opponents will not have an air force close to the US in terms of technical specifications.
    Therefore, the United States makes its aircraft based on - to be inconspicuous, detect earlier and bring down earlier, i.e. more electronics. And in this now the F35 has a huge advantage over aircraft in other countries. But this is predominantly very short, because in 10 years other countries will have the same electronics, if not better, and if the F35 should be in operation for another 40-50 years, the question arises - why to push such money into the F35, which will not be “ most-most ”in 10 years, and which must be maintained for another 40 years after that? After all, the Pentagon already knows that the future lies in drones of various calibers, and it spends all its money on it, and rightly so - cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly - pilots are not needed. Here drones will be at war in 40-50 years. Look at the article, very informative.
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/drones-are-the-future-of-war-so
    -why-is-the-pentago.aspx # .Ush3X9JDv08
    1. clidon
      clidon 7 January 2014 00: 27 New
      0
      You are writing as if the F-35s would not modernize and enhance its combat characteristics over the course of their operation.
      1. ViewFromUSA
        ViewFromUSA 7 January 2014 19: 50 New
        0
        The loss of one F35 is equal to the cost of about 120 Predator drones, plus the risk to the life of a highly skilled pilot (training for about a year), so the author of the review (see the site with my comments) suggests focusing on drones, and I agree with this opinion. In future wars, it is necessary to fight with drones and spend money on them now.
        1. clidon
          clidon 7 January 2014 21: 30 New
          +1
          I'll start a little with arithmetic - the MQ-1 Predator was worth $ 4 million, its heir MQ-9 Reaper is already 17 million. So, one F-35 is 6-8 cars of this type. Which in their capabilities (load, modes) and difficulties (avionics, stealth capabilities, group work, etc.) are much inferior to the F-35. Therefore, the question so far is how much cheaper will be a drone made on the basis of the F-35. Given the complexity of the tasks, for now I will say and not much mistake - it will be more expensive than a manned vehicle. For example, such a complex device like Global Hawk is already more expensive than the F-35.
          While the robots are too slow, stupid, dependent on communication channels and compensate for these shortcomings by the absence of fatigue, technical limitations, low cost of operation. But in fighter aircraft, where a quick assessment of the situation is required, working in the conditions of interference, quick adaptation to the emerging conditions is not enough. Robots full fighters will appear later. And do not be surprised that much later.
      2. Chervonets
        Chervonets 8 January 2014 01: 11 New
        -1
        I could be wrong, but most likely the car has a weak modernization potential.
        There really is no inside space to re-arrange something or put in a new node.
        1. clidon
          clidon 8 January 2014 18: 09 New
          +1
          And what is necessary for modernization to leave some kind of free space?
    2. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 7 January 2014 00: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: ViewFromUSA
      . Now the US military doctrine is built on protection from threats (of its potential opponents) from Iran, North. Korea and terrorism.

      Who are you writing here for? For American taxpayers? Then you were mistaken by the audience.
    3. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 7 January 2014 01: 29 New
      +4
      Quote: ViewFromUSA
      Neither China nor Russia is in the scope of potential US adversaries

      Yes of course. So it doesn’t include what is already being done terribly.
      Direct attention is paid to Iran, S. Korea and the "country of terrorism." Which, which is not surprising, at any moment any country NOT included in the list of potential opponents can be easily declared. Like any country with an “insufficient level of democracy,” but a sufficient level of oil production, or a modestly “country with a totalitarian regime”, for example, Belarus, which Belarus is embarrassed to name in the list of NOT opponents. Sleep well, dear friends, this is not for you, this is for the elusive and ubiquitous evil "terrorists."
      The rest is true, these are not planes for dogfight, these are planes against countries whose aviation, air defense and command and control bodies have already been previously destroyed by a “quick global strike”, and now there is a hunt for individual remaining airplanes and air defense objects. Then came the turn of the ground army. For such conditions, the design of these aircraft is really enough for 40-50 years. And the electronics will be changed as needed.
  • pvv113
    pvv113 6 January 2014 23: 42 New
    +7
    Quote: Wiruz
    Strange all the same, here we are pouring mud on this plane at what the light stands, and they invest so much money in it. Maybe we don’t know something ???
    In due time, the Americans began to develop a fountain pen capable of writing in zero gravity. Ordinary fountain pens in their principle of action rely on gravity. THEREFORE, COSMONAUTES FOR MAINTAINING YOUR RECORDS WAS NEEDED ANY OTHER, "EARTHLAND" INSTRUMENT. YANKS SPEND MILLIONS ON DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND ORGANIZATION OF SERIAL PRODUCTION. A HUNDRED HUNDREDS OF PIECES WERE MADE AT FAST PRICES. OUR COSMONAUTES HAVE USED A SIMPLE PENCIL !!!!! fellow
    1. clidon
      clidon 7 January 2014 00: 26 New
      -1
      Is it such a trolling? The story about the space pen, which Fishers Space Pen created and then sold to the USSR, initiatively and for a very modest amount, is now only lazy.
      By the way, you can buy yourself:
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/One-Fisher-Chrome-Top-Apollo-Space-Pen-Your-Choice-of-Co
      lor- / 360826304959? pt = LH_DefaultDomain_0 & hash = item5402ec79bf
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 January 2014 10: 08 New
      0
      Accordion. Our bought from the Americans about a hundred of these pens.
  • Simple
    Simple 7 January 2014 01: 11 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    One can




    Let me object:
    The examples you listed do not have one thing — the ability to take off vertically and land in the same way.
    That is the essence.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 7 January 2014 01: 46 New
      +3
      Quote: Simple
      The examples you listed do not have one thing — the ability to take off vertically and land in the same way.
      That is the essence.

      Option for the Air Force F-35A and "vertical" for the ILC F-35B have a common name only
      These are two different planes.


      F-35A



      F-35B. Differ even in appearance


      It is clear that the F-35B VTOL aircraft is a complete bullshit, and why the Yankees needed it is not clear. Although the fact of constructing such a machine causes genuine interest and respect for the designers.

      The main threat comes from the usual F-35A - it was they who addressed my first post. They do not know how to take off vertically, but they have a huge combat load, the most modern avionics, stealth and all the due capabilities of a modern fighter
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 January 2014 20: 15 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The main threat comes from the usual F-35A - it was they who addressed my first post. They do not know how to take off vertically, but they have a huge combat load, the most modern avionics, stealth and all the due capabilities of a modern fighter

        Everything will end as usual, three PTBs and external-mounted missiles.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 8 January 2014 00: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Everything will end as usual, three PTBs and external-mounted missiles.

          You probably wanted to say bombs

          How else to do the "dirty work"?
          Weekday war
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 8 January 2014 13: 21 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You probably wanted to say bombs

            Well, so are the bombs too.
            For example, up to 24 CABs can be placed on six (for option A) or seven (for B and C) external suspension units (six removable pylons under the wing, one axial under the fuselage) intended for use in low-intensity conflicts SDB, as well as other oversized weapons from the following assortment: promising tactical cruise missiles AGM-158 JASSM or SLAM-ER (Naval Forces and KMP), anti-tank missiles of the Mayvrik type, anti-radar missiles HARM (USA) or ALARM (British Navy), JDAM and Payway type II and III adjustable bombs from 227 to 908 kg caliber, free-falling air bombs of 225, 454 and 908 kg caliber, Rokai single-shot bomb cartridges and ASRAAM and AIM-9X URs. In addition, the aircraft can carry up to 4 1612-liter PTBs and MXU-640 / CNU-08 transport containers.
            In the photo, on the PKR pylon, it seems.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How else to do the "dirty work"?
            Weekday war

            And without external suspension only on weekends and holidays smile
  • Simple
    Simple 7 January 2014 01: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: ViewFromUSA
    Neither China nor Russia is in the scope of potential US adversaries.


    It is your opinion?
    1. ViewFromUSA
      ViewFromUSA 7 January 2014 19: 31 New
      0
      The military doctrine of any country begins to be built on the knowledge or choice of a potential threat / adversary. Iran, North Korea and terrorism are chosen by America as the main sources of threats. This is not a secret info, google it and find it in plain text, the USA does not hide the sources of threats. Here, under a possible war with these sources, the United States is developing a strategy for air defense, navy and air force. Nowhere and never has the US stated that Russia or China are potential adversaries. That is why the F35 aircraft is completely unnecessary, given the number and quality of drones today give superiority, and after 10-30 years, even more so.
      By the way, can you name the main sources of threats to Russia? If you call the United States and NATO, then this is the Cold War, which the Russian president has long abandoned, and if not the United States and NATO, then who or what?
      1. ultra
        ultra 8 January 2014 11: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: ViewFromUSA
        By the way, can you name the main sources of threats to Russia?

        Corruption (in all its manifestations), migration policy of the state, interethnic conflicts. And about the USA, take an interest in American legislation at your leisure, which directly says that the whole planet is a zone of "vital" interests of the North American states! And woe to those who got into these so-called "interests"! hi
  • Simple
    Simple 7 January 2014 01: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: pvv113
    Ordinary pens in their principle of action rely on gravity


    Knowledge is power. smile
  • ed65b
    ed65b 7 January 2014 01: 40 New
    +1
    Hello hi I barely read it. In general, I realized that the United States seriously decided to take the Chinese for the eggs. Comparisons only with them. this makes me happy. let them forget about us at all.
  • Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 03: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Tale of nothing

    Still, F-35 is a new level and it makes no sense to argue here

    http://paralay.com/stat/Bulat_3.pdf
    Mostly because of this and also EW qualities, neither our Chinese nor they will refuse to suspend ...
    a new level))) of course - no one has ever built such complex circuits for components and parts))) it just turns out to be like Abrams and his power supply outside the armor))) simply no one even shot Mosin from 35)) and if he will go on secrecy on the ultra-small, so even if 5.45 gets past the goat wiring or tube, he will not miss - I certainly exaggerate - but still
  • Sergey74
    Sergey74 7 January 2014 04: 31 New
    0
    The Americans will take the F-35A to finish it, then they will put better engines, then they will change the electronic stuffing, and then the glider will be adjusted to maneuverability, maybe in a different sequence there will be a better fighter. our SU-27 was also completed.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 7 January 2014 09: 06 New
    +3
    Design errors are quite normal. In the USSR, this was avoided by duplicating any development important to the country. And, in many ways, and because of this, too, they overstrained. In the United States, they also duplicated, but it seems that this has come to an end, it simply did not have enough money. And here came the moment of truth, in the sense that the avaricious pays twice. That is, the Americans will be forced to throw huge amounts of money for an alternative project and this will not be very good for the economy. What lesson should we learn. It is urgent to recreate the second design bureau besides Sukhoi, even if it is MiG or Yakovlev, it doesn’t matter, but it is urgent to take measures to this end, until the MiG merges with Yakovlev (you can’t bring up good engineers right away).
    1. clidon
      clidon 7 January 2014 10: 04 New
      0
      In the USSR, this was avoided by duplicating the development ... and then often taking into service all the options (three simultaneously produced main tanks, Mig-29 and Su-27) for all design bureaus wanted prizes and put their ideas into practice. ) The same practice, but the reason for the survival of the production is now accepted, for example from helicopter pilots - they chose the Mi-28, but then they began to buy the Ka-52.
      Therefore, I think that modern realities, given the sharp rise in price of technology, require rather than a competitive approach, but rather a more accurate design approach, competitions within the framework of one design bureau, etc. Everyone will come to this sooner or later.

      PS F-35, just the winner of the competition - exactly like the F-22. Outsiders X-32 and YF-23 went to museums.