Military Review

Plane on the letter "B"

244



"I am straight, I am sideways,
With a turn, and with a bounce,
And with the run, and on the spot,
And with two legs together ... "
(A. Barto)


The titanic efforts of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, aimed at comprehensive coverage of the JSF program (a detailed description of the stages of development, construction and test results of the new fighter), each time encounter a wall of persistent hostility and misunderstanding on both sides of the ocean. A significant part of the public is still convinced that in front of her is a yuber aircraft that can fly in any modes, including vertical takeoff and landing.

Too versatile machine, as a rule, loses the possibilities of specialized fighters and tactical bombers. However, it is unnecessarily expensive and difficult to operate.

Of course, there is no universal “Ybermashina”. Everything is much more complicated.

Under the JSF program, three modifications of the fighter are being developed:
F-35A - the basic model, a fighter for the Air Force;
F-35В - fighter for the Marine Corps (ILC);
F-35C - deck fighter for the Navy.

Apart from the numerous “national” modifications for the JSF program countries, each of which differs in the configuration and composition of the avionics (for example, the F-35A for the Norwegian Air Force will be equipped with a braking parachute for safe operation from icy arctic airfields). Of all the many-sided family of machines created by the program Joint Strike Fighter, only F-35B is engaged in vertical exercises.

"Bravo" is so serious differences that it can be seriously considered as a separate type of fighter. Relatively few such aircraft will be released: under the most optimistic scenario, the F-35B production volume will not exceed the 521 units (total 15% of the total F-35 release), but it is this modification that delivers the most noise, defaming and discrediting the JSF program.

Plane on the letter "B"

F-35A, F-35B and deck F-35C (with a larger wing). Compared to F-16, Harrier and F / A-18C

Because of the appearance of the F-35B, Lockheed Martin engineers gained the unpleasant glory of plagiarists: the tail end with the deflecting nozzle of the cruise engine seemed to be copied from the Yak-141 Soviet supersonic “vertical line”.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that the dispute over the borrowing of the Soviet experience is the personal problems of F-35B. The rest of the F-35 family have nothing to do with the Yak. The only thing that binds the basic model of the F-35A and the Yak-141 is that both aircraft are heavier than air.

Racing vertically

F-35B will be the third in stories aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), adopted for service - after the British "Harrier" and the Soviet carrier-based Yak-38. And if the meaning of the creation of the latter is obvious, then the appearance of a “vertical” based on F-35 defies a sound explanation.

The Harrier was created as a response to the threat of destruction of airfields in the early hours of the new world war. Subsequently, when it turned out that the VTOL, in any case, is not a competitor to classic fighters, the Harrier evolved into the Sea Harrier and redeployed to the decks of mini aircraft carriers. On bezrybe and cancer fish - decided the British admirals, and after them the Italians, Spaniards, Indians, Thais and the USMC. Despite the fact that the upgraded Harrier II continues to be exploited in our time, its combat value every time turns out to be questionable.

Yak-38 - a consequence of the uncertainty with the appearance of the Soviet aircraft carriers (or, according to the accepted classification - heavy aircraft carrying cruisers). As a result, a flying miracle was born without a radar, whose combat load reached one ton!

The meager combat load, weak LTH and “huge” combat radius, for which the Yak received the honorary title of “guard mast plane” - as a result of these listed “merits”, the VTOL aircraft turned out to be completely useless for solving any urgent tasks. The only positive feature of the Yak-38 was the system of forced ejection - despite the overwhelming number of catastrophes, there were no serious casualties. “The terrible Yak is fluttering in the sky -“ Yak ”about the deck bum”! And there is nothing to add.



Why did the Yankees in the XXI century need to “step on a rake” and create something that contradicts the laws of nature? "Vertikalka" a priori inferior to conventional aircraft. And the need to create such a technique is not so obvious to justify the additional costs and a serious deterioration of the fighter's LTH.

At first glance, the answer is simple: VTOL are created by order aviation ILC, for basing on advanced bases and cramped decks of landing ships.

However, in this case, an insoluble logical paradox arises: what is the point of basing fighters on the decks of the UDC?

The speed of their use, quick response, the provision of fire support to the landing ... But what does 5-10 mean of under-aircraft, when the Nimitz is on a traverse with a full wing? After all, Americans are proud of the number of their aircraft carriers; It’s simply incredible that during a combat operation there was no such ship nearby. In turn, “Nimitz” and UDC are just minor mischievous people against the background of the winged power of the Air Force.

This logical chain can lead to the only conclusion - the placement of "verticals" on the decks of the UDC has no practical meaning. It's a whim, cheap muscle play. The decision to purchase the "thirty-fifths" in the form of F-35B only reduce the combat potential of the US armed forces. We are sincerely glad and fully support the further development of the F-35B program.

From the point of view of Russia's interests, it would be much more dangerous if these “non-aircraft” were on the decks of the “Nimitsev” in the form of F-35С or even more terrible - they were embodied in the form of F-35A in the combat squadrons of the USAF.


F-35B and Honorary Senator McCain. Both are standing each other

Likewise, F-35B is not much favored abroad. Of the 11 countries that have expressed their interest in the JSF project, only two agree on the purchase of a plane with the letter “B” - the United Kingdom and Italy. Initially, the British scornfully wrinkled noses at the sight of the F-35B, hoping to equip their aircraft carriers with more decent F-35C. But then they didn’t have enough money for an electromagnetic catapult, and I had to take what Queen Elizabeth fits in its current, very regrettable state. To alleviate the plight of naval aviators, the British promise to equip the "Queen" with a nose ramp.

As for the cheerful naval forces of Italy with the funny-showy aircraft carrier "Cavour" - there are no long comments here. The Italians ordered as many as fifteen (!) Verticals in the interests of the sailors and also 75 machines (60 F-35A and 15 F-35B) for their air forces.

Creating an F-35B is impractical from a military point of view. The appearance of these machines is dictated by the desire of the Marines to emphasize their “exclusiveness” and to maintain the continuity of tradition. Any other explanation is excluded here.

Every family has its black sheep

The price of exclusivity turned out to be extremely high. This is expressed by the following figures.

F-35B consists of 300,000 parts - there are thousands more on 20 than is used in the land-based F-35A design. In addition, the empty F-35B is heavier than the F-35A on 1,36 tons.

The degree of unification of units and parts of the "vertical" with the base model is 81%, with the deck aircraft is 62%.

According to data from open sources, VTOL is the most expensive representative of the F-35 family, its cost is higher than the cost of the basic F-35A model by $ 25 million.

F-35B has a number of external differences from other cars of the Lightning-2 family. First of all, the cockpit lantern catches the eye - instead of a clean “drop-shaped” shape, as on the F-35A version, the back part of the F-35B flashlight abruptly changes to the Gargot, which restricts the viewing sector from the pilot's cabin (due to the installation of a lifting fan right behind the cabin).

Many skin panels also have a different shape than the base model. Large openings appeared on the top and bottom sides of the fuselage (the channel of the lift fan), which were closed by flying wings. All this increases the EPR of the machine, thereby worsening its secrecy (the extra gaps are additional resonators).


F-35A



F-35B

Much more differences are hidden inside - the layout of the F-35B is fundamentally different from the layout of the other thirty-fifths.

The fuselage fuel tank and the built-in 25 mm caliber aircraft cannon have supplanted the two-stage fan, its channels, flaps, and transmission in the form of a uncoupling coupling, drives, shaft, and bearings.

The scheme with a lifting fan has many advantages, and only one drawback - all of these bulky units in horizontal flight become a "dead mass", an extra ballast that takes away precious kilograms of payload.

As a result, max. F-35B's internal fuel supply, as compared with F-35A, has been reduced by 2270 kg, and the combat radius of the vertical command has decreased by 25%.

Of course, the concept of the use of CMP aviation and the ability to perform take-off and landing operations from tiny advanced platforms suggest that a large combat radius of the CMP fighter is useless.

In the end, all this is of little importance in the era of air tankers and air refueling. As well as the myth of "advanced airfields" - fire support, in one way or another, is carried out by classic Air Force planes from the "duty in the air" position.

The disappearance of the built-in 25-mm gun "Equalizer" did not pass without a trace. At present, the designers of Lockheed Martin offer a compromise in the form of a suspended cannon container. It will create additional resistance in flight, with all the ensuing consequences, and will also be a factor in the sharp increase in the ESR of the aircraft, compared with the base model. But, alas, no other solutions to this problem have been proposed.



But ... Why F-35B gun armament, if he is contraindicated to participate in maneuverable battles? The available overload of the F-35B is only 7g (against 7,5g in the deck version and 9g in the ground-based fighter) - with such characteristics, the "vertical" will not be able to go to the tail of most modern fighters. Even a slightly lower wing load and greater thrust-to-weight ratio, due to the lower take-off mass of the VTOL aircraft itself, are not able to rectify the situation - the F-35B is categorically unable to conduct short-range air combat.

Combat load. Everything is obvious here - a vertical take-off in the gravitational field of the Earth, without the use of aerodynamic lift, is an extremely energy-intensive way that imposes severe restrictions on the take-off mass of the aircraft.

Even in the case of a shortened take-off, the combat load of the F-35B will always be lower than that of the F-35A. The official data is 6800 kg versus 8125 kg for the base model. The number of suspension nodes remained the same (two internal bomb compartments and 6 external suspension points). Sighting and navigation complex remained unchanged.


F-35A

Among the other drawbacks of the F-35B is a hose-cone refueling system (in this matter, the vertical link is identical to the deck F-35C). In contrast, on the F-35A, as well as on the entire aircraft of the US Air Force, a scheme with a throat and a filling rod is used for refueling.

The use of a filling rod allows you to increase the pressure in the system by increasing the fuel transfer rate several times (up to 4500 l / min against 1500 l / min in the hose-cone system). In addition, the boom simplifies the refueling procedure itself - the plane being refueled does not need to perform complex maneuvers in order to “get” the fuel-receiving boom into the cone dangling in the wind streams. It is only necessary to keep behind the tanker at the same speed with him - the operator will do the rest himself.

The refueling time is many times reduced, the process itself is facilitated - alas, F-35B has no advantages.

Another problem is caused by the use of an adjustable slewing nozzle for a main engine. Unlike the F-35A, whose engine has reduced visibility, the F-35B has nothing to boast about in this test.

When the first F-35B landed on the deck of the UDC, it immediately became clear its next (already which account for?) Flaw. Unlike the deck F-35C, the “vertical” has no wing folding mechanism, which makes it difficult to base it on board ships. Partly, the solution to this problem is facilitated by the small size of the fighter, but, anyway, the wing span of the F-35B on the 1,5 meter exceeds the wing span of the Harrier II or Super Hornet in the folded position.

Etc. - The list of problems and shortcomings of the VT-FV-35B seems endless. No intrigue was planned here. The facts are proven by theory and verified in practice. Everything is quite obvious - the "vertical line" is inferior to the F-35A in almost all respects, except for the avionics capabilities. At the same time, it is much more complicated, more expensive, more capricious, and has no distinct advantages over its counterparts in the context of modern wars. Some disadvantages ...

Generic Curse

One of the main issues in the discussion of the F-35 is the “three in one” unification. Despite the striking differences in the design, all three main modifications of the F-35 are made in the same weight and size limits (with the exception of the F-35C, whose wingspan is more than 2 meters) and have similar general features in appearance.

All fighters of the family are made according to the normal aerodynamic configuration with a high-position trapezoidal wing and tail unit, including the widely separated, outward-inclined keels and all-turning stabilizers. In each of the three cases, a typical single-engine layout with side air intakes and a “regular” three-post chassis are used.

But what is the price paid for the unification of such a "ragtag" family of aircraft? How did Lockheed Martin engineers manage to build VTOL on the platform of an ordinary fighter without resorting to additional measures? All the necessary equipment, including a lifting fan, inexplicably fit into the fuselage of the F-35A with minimal external changes in the skin panels.

Hence the question - are there any problems and compromises in the design of the ground F-35A and deck F-35C, associated with the need to unify them with a specific VTOL F-35B?

One of the main fatal flaws F-35A called too wide fuselage. The fatal heritage of F-35B. The unprofitable "relative" took out all his 2-meter fan, as a result, all members of the family have too much mid-section, which creates additional frontal resistance. LTH aircraft have deteriorated. The dreams of cruising supersonic scattered into dust ...

But is it really?



Even on the unassuming view of a layman, two important things can be noted:

1) F-35 is a very small aircraft. It is significantly inferior in size even to the F / A-18E / F "Super Hornet" - the main carrier-based fighter of the US Navy, which traditionally belongs to light fighters. And roughly corresponds in size to the F-16.

15,7 length meters. Wingspan 10,7 meter.

In other words, the tale of the “wide fuselage” is greatly exaggerated. The F-35 fuselage can not be large a priori - due to the miniature size of the aircraft itself.

2) The disproportionality of the size of the F-35 fuselage compared with its wing span is caused not only (not so much!) By the installation of the 2-meter fan, but by the necessity:

- ensuring internal suspension of armaments (two internal bomb compartments with 2 nodes each;);

- installation of S-shaped channels of side air intakes that prevent the engine blades from being irradiated by enemy radars. The key element of stealth technology! - that is why the F-35 eliminated the installation of a direct ventral air intake, as on the F-16 fighter;

- conformity of the fuselage form to the requirements of the 2 generation Stealth technology;

- placement inside the fuselage of a large amount of fuel, aircraft guns, ammunition and numerous electronic systems.

And all this in the body of the plane, equal in size to the "Felken"!



After such jokes, the 2-meter fan will seem like a childish prank - all you have to do is sacrifice the built-in gun and fuel tank so that all the units fall into place.

In other words, I do not support the theory that a close relationship with the F-35B could in some critical way harm the ground-based and carrier-based aircraft created by the JSF program.

Lightning-2 remains Lightning-2. Powerful aviation complex, equipped with a set of modern electronics and aiming-navigation devices: radar AN / APG-81, for the creation of which a group of developers could claim to receive the Nobel Prize. Infrared systems for all-view and covert data sharing. Eight million lines of software code. Systems of automatic self-testing and troubleshooting on board.

Noticeable, less than most existing and promising combat aircraft - to deny this would be too naive. The advantage in air combat at large distances. Eight tons of combat load on 10 suspension points - in its shock capabilities F-35A can compete with the formidable Su-34, surpassing the latter in terms of the range of ammunition used and the capabilities for detecting / selecting ground targets.

Finally, LTH "Lightning" correspond to the best representatives of the fourth generation fighter. Demanding anything more from a small multifunctional F-35A (super-maneuverability, UHT) is the same as forcing an extra-class pianist to laban on a button accordion.

It defies logical explanation. Why did the Americans need to spoil such a design, turning it into an awkward goblin F-35B?

Author:
244 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sars
    Sars 31 January 2014 08: 30
    +9
    Versatility in military technology - never brought to any good - a pebble in the "garden" of the armata platform.
    1. La-5
      La-5 31 January 2014 08: 44
      +14
      True, a universal machine always acts worse than a specialized one.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 31 January 2014 16: 10
        +4
        Quote: La-5
        True, a universal machine always acts worse than a specialized one.


        Only if it is equal in class or lower than rivals.
      2. AVV
        AVV 1 February 2014 00: 05
        +3
        Quote: La-5
        True, a universal machine always acts worse than a specialized one.

        Only the operation will accurately show all the shortcomings and advantages of this project !!! And so this is a thankless task! Here is the cost of the aircraft, this is definitely a drawback !!!
    2. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 31 January 2014 11: 21
      +17
      Armata has nothing to do with it.

      Armata is a tank. First of all, it is created as a TANK.

      And already on this platform, as they did before, various types of equipment will be created.

      So get your spit past.

      That's really funny. An article about the fact that the American universal PLANE came out unsuccessful and expensive, it would seem what does the designed Russian tank have to do with it? But for some, this is an occasion to say that the Russian leadership is worthless and stupid, will create a useless tank. WHERE IS THE LOGIC? fool
      1. vvp2412
        vvp2412 31 January 2014 22: 58
        +2
        Absolutely agree. The Jews got very good IFVs based on Soviet tanks abandoned by the Arabs!
        The power of a tank's armor is not for you "plywood" BMP and armored personnel carriers.
        Given that there is no explosive ordnance like in a tank, these bpm and rpg are not as scary as the tank.
        1. M. Peter
          M. Peter 1 February 2014 14: 25
          0
          Quote: vvp2412
          The Jews got very good IFVs based on Soviet tanks abandoned by the Arabs! The power of a tank's armor is not "plywood" BMP for you and armored personnel carrier.

          Did you know that the Bradley BMP is superior in armor to the old Soviet T55 tank?
      2. ty60
        ty60 31 January 2014 23: 43
        +1
        Well, let's not build a general jeep on the basis of the tank? In this case, the hodovka is completely unified. In terms of supply and repair, it is undoubtedly a plus.
    3. STALGRAD76
      STALGRAD76 31 January 2014 12: 13
      +7
      Armata? I never saw, tth did not read, what are you talking about?
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 13: 18
      +3
      And where does the "Armata"? The number of special equipment based on any successful tank is enormous, so the versatility of the "Armata" is no higher than that of the T-90.
      1. Sars
        Sars 31 January 2014 14: 09
        -2
        On the armata platform, they gathered to do a bunch of equipment: a tank, infantry fighting vehicle, reconnaissance vehicle, commander’s vehicle, ARV, and so on.
        Here you tell me what properties a reconnaissance vehicle should have - small size, good cross, low noise, the ability to overcome water obstacles, etc. How to combine these characteristics with an ARV in which one winch can weigh more than RM?
        1. vvp2412
          vvp2412 31 January 2014 23: 01
          +1
          Almost all ARVs are based on tanks. Do you understand unification! They clean the tower, all the weapons, attach the necessary devices and voila!
          It turns out very convenient and cheap than to develop a special machine. And the question is, what better way to pull out a disabled tank than another tank, which is also better equipped with thrust, due to the fact that the mass is less and the engine is the same ?!
          1. ty60
            ty60 31 January 2014 23: 51
            +1
            Traction, my friend should be supported by traction. Remove the loaded dump truck from the UAZ-PATRIOT. There will be enough traction, but you will not move it. All special vehicles originally designed for towing have a LARGE weight than the towed vehicle, or are used by two units.
      2. Sars
        Sars 31 January 2014 14: 09
        -3
        On the armata platform, they gathered to do a bunch of equipment: a tank, infantry fighting vehicle, reconnaissance vehicle, commander’s vehicle, ARV, and so on.
        Here you tell me what properties a reconnaissance vehicle should have - small size, good cross, low noise, the ability to overcome water obstacles, etc. How to combine these characteristics with an ARV in which one winch can weigh more than RM?
    5. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 31 January 2014 14: 05
      +1
      Quote: SarS
      Why did the Americans need to spoil such a design, turning it into a clumsy goblin F-35B?

      Quote: SarS
      Universality in military equipment - never brought to good.

      What for?
      For delivering the first and sudden blow, because it can be based anywhere + appearance in unexpected places.
      1. edeligor
        edeligor 31 January 2014 19: 47
        0
        Quote: Vovka Levka
        For delivering the first and sudden blow, because it can be based anywhere + appearance in unexpected places.

        Buddy! On this promising complex of American aviation, electronics fail at negative temperatures. (Unless, of course, this is not a misinformation) The fact that they decided to shove "unpushable" into this aircraft does honor to their engineers, but minus their "omnipotence" (in terms of ahead of the rest of the world)
        1. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 31 January 2014 21: 54
          +2
          Quote: edeligor

          Buddy In this promising complex of American aviation, at low temperatures, electronics fail. (Unless of course it's not disinfect)

          Well, what are you like small children? Somewhere the grandmother farted, and you are already dancing. Do not consider them stupid, they are far from stupid. They have a lot to learn.
          1. vvp2412
            vvp2412 31 January 2014 23: 07
            0
            They are not stupid, they are VERY greedy and fucked up! And it does not bring to good!
            The Germans, too, are not fools and did a lot of smart things and stood in WWII, but their wunderwaffles consumed a lot of time and money for nothing!
        2. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 1 February 2014 21: 43
          +1
          Those. in the summer do they fly at a height no higher than 5 kilometers? It’s very cold above.
      2. vvp2412
        vvp2412 31 January 2014 23: 05
        +1
        What sudden blow are you talking about? This aircraft needs to be based practically on enemy territory. to strike. A strike by the US Air Force or Navy cannot be a priori unexpected or sudden, because the territory of the United States is removed from all its opponents "and in order to strike, they need to drive the AUGs across the oceans! And this cannot be unexpected or sudden!

        We will not take as an example the B2, which was driven to bomb Afghanistan with additional amendments. And only banana republics that have no air defense or no desire to use them can bomb such a macar!
    6. Mairos
      Mairos 31 January 2014 14: 32
      +2
      "-" for comparison with "Armata". Universal PLATFORM is correct. The USSR has already gone through torment with a bunch of different types of armored platforms in service.
    7. Cherdak
      Cherdak 31 January 2014 14: 33
      +5
      Quote: SarS
      Versatility in military technology


      Genetics crossed a watermelon with a flea.
      Cut the watermelon, the bones themselves jump out.
    8. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 31 January 2014 16: 08
      +1
      Quote: SarS
      Versatility in military technology - never brought to any good - a pebble in the "garden" of the armata platform.


      The platform then ??? This is a PLATFORM, not a plane. So you threw a pebble into your garden.
  2. GRIGORY
    GRIGORY 31 January 2014 08: 36
    +3
    Article +.
    But it would have been better to name the article "Aircraft on the letter G" with the postscript FULL.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 12: 50
      +1
      Quote: GRIGORY
      The plane with the letter G "with the postscript FULL.


      I support, it is beautifully said! drinks
    2. dmitrij.blyuz
      dmitrij.blyuz 31 January 2014 15: 44
      +2
      The hamster seems to be pregnant. (I'm talking about the F-35)
  3. La-5
    La-5 31 January 2014 08: 44
    0
    F-35 is another Pentagon financial adventure.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: La-5
      F-35 is another Pentagon financial adventure.


      F-35A and F-35C are normal planes, but F-35B in a word ... Penguin!
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 16: 44
        +3
        I will allow myself to doubt this, as well as the author’s statement about the shock capabilities at the level of SU-34. With a small aircraft with a load of 10 tons, what is the specific wing load? The answer is much higher than that of specialized attack aircraft, which means the LTX will be like a cow, and the radius of use is just to defend the mast hi
        1. Berxen
          Berxen 31 January 2014 20: 14
          +1
          The Su-34 LTX is also worse than the brothers on the platform. Amerikos’s radar is really much better than on the 34th.
          1. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 22: 10
            +2
            The Su-34 LTX is also worse than the brothers on the platform

            Logically, he is not a fighter this time, and even a lot of armor carries it two.
            But judging by the power supply and the specific load on the wing of his wing, the LTX is much better than a penguin with a load of 10 tons.
            Amerikos’s radar is really much better than on the 34th.

            That we do not know. Reliable characteristics that one that the second with us no one will share. The presence of AFAR has both pros and cons. And finally, better for what? For air combat? Su-34 for this has not been created and its radar, I think, is also not particularly adapted. In addition, no one canceled the external target designation. To work on the surface, a specialized aircraft will be head and shoulders above the wagon, and even so overloaded.
            1. Berxen
              Berxen 1 February 2014 17: 30
              +1
              Quote: Firstvanguard

              That we do not know. Reliable characteristics that one that the second with us no one will share. The presence of AFAR has both pros and cons.


              Of course. But considering that for our fifth generation we are developing AFAR, and for MiG-35 too, then probably all the same in this AFAR there is something other than fashion. Military customers are practical people. And since the Yankees have a working technology and first-class elemental base, then in this regard, American aircraft look more impressive.
          2. vvp2412
            vvp2412 31 January 2014 23: 12
            0
            The Su34 is just a glider similar to the Su27, but it is a completely different machine. There is nothing to do with Su27. There is no talk of any unification. At least look at crew accommodation. There is even a toilet. So do not bring bullshit to the mare!
            1. Berxen
              Berxen 2 February 2014 17: 05
              0
              The author of the article compared the shock capabilities of the F-35B with the Su-34. The user objected that if so much hung on the F-35B then his LTX will be like a cow. To which I noticed that the LTX Su-34 is also far from its ancestor. I did not claim that the Su-27 and Su-34 are the same aircraft.
              But the fact is that between them there is nothing in common is heresy. The internal designation of the Su-27 is T10, and the Su-34 is T10V. Su-34 is one of the many options for the Su-27, albeit highly specialized. Moreover - Su-30, Su-33, Su-37, Su-35 are also representatives of the glorious Su-27 family. On this platform, airplanes were created with two crew members and with one, with and without PGO, with folding wings etс. But the ancestor of all of them is one - Su27. And this is absolutely normal practice. And by the way, the aforementioned toilet is not a unique feature of the 34th car.
          3. vvp2412
            vvp2412 31 January 2014 23: 13
            0
            Su34 - front-line bomber. he does not have the functions of a fighter, although he can shoot.
            1. tilovaykrisa
              tilovaykrisa 1 February 2014 10: 50
              0
              SU34 is not just a front-line bomber, it is a rather highly specialized machine, it was designed to participate in a global military conflict with opponents such as NATO and the USA, it left its mark on it, it has a lot of + and -, it all depends on how and where it apply, for example, according to one military pilot in the Caucasus, su 34 did not cope with the task, while GRACH performed it for him, there are many features.
      2. vvp2412
        vvp2412 31 January 2014 23: 09
        0
        Sounds like a troll!
        1. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 1 February 2014 10: 51
          0
          Olya? ..............
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 1 February 2014 17: 33
      0
      There is money - they have the right to adventure.
    3. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 1 February 2014 21: 46
      0
      Soon in Syria or Ukraine we will find out who has the adventurous planes.
  4. Igor39
    Igor39 31 January 2014 09: 06
    +2
    In the course of Lockheed's engineers, Star Wars often watched, they wanted to make a super-duper pepelats.
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 31 January 2014 14: 26
      +9
      You imagine how much they have developed, tested and tested new technologies, these technologies can and will be used now in helicopter building and tank building, and generally everywhere, lockheed will surely beat off its loot only on some potentials, this plane can be faulted as much as necessary but it’s will not become a less formidable adversary in the sky for any country.
      1. ty60
        ty60 31 January 2014 23: 58
        0
        Brain work daily, build up potential. What prevents?
  5. Stiletto
    Stiletto 31 January 2014 09: 11
    +8
    An airplane costs no more than the money invested in it. The States have a lot of green paper. And they can afford to experiment in any direction. Failures today are offset by the best practices for tomorrow. If carts had not been created, race cars would not have appeared.
    1. Silent
      Silent 1 February 2014 14: 57
      0
      Some, sorry, dull-witted minds believe that the US will soon go broke over military spending. A strange thought - every cent invested in production and science is not "money down the drain", but an investment. Never, in any country in the world, all scientific developments do not end with unconditional success and serial production, but always become the basis for further research.
      PS Yes, by the way, have you heard about the failures of the Belarusian military-industrial complex? No? Well, this is probably because no research is underway.
  6. Wiruz
    Wiruz 31 January 2014 09: 11
    +1
    Somehow on this site the following comparison has already been laid out, but still I think it will not be superfluous. If not mistaken, a comparison from Australia.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 January 2014 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: Wiruz
      Somehow on this site the following comparison has already been laid out, but still I think it will not be superfluous. If not mistaken, a comparison from Australia.

      Yeah, the Australians are still those analysts. Somehow they dug up data on Chinese and our cars, probably they got it through the intelligence line ... There's also the Millennium Falcon not enough to complete the picture ...
    2. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 13: 01
      +4
      Quote: Wiruz
      Somehow on this site the following comparison has already been laid out, but still I think it will not be superfluous. If not mistaken, a comparison from Australia.


      The fact that in 2008 in Hawaii they conducted virtual air battles between F-22, F / A-18E / F, F-35 and Su-35 is clear! But ... Where did they get the data on the Su-35 ?! -the same year he just took off, and it is impossible to rely on the characteristics of the Su-27M or Su-30, since the Su-35S is significantly different from them. So you should not believe everything that the Australians say. Politics plays here, the Australians are just very wanted to get the Raptor sold.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 January 2014 13: 58
        +5
        Quote: supertiger21
        that in 2008 in Hawaii there was a virtual aerial battle between F-22, F / A-18E / F, F-35 and Su-35

        Yes, it was not. All these are the fantasies of Carlo Kopp, the Australian "expert" who declared holy war on the F-35. He then officially apologized on his website for this lie, somewhere on air power Australia (this is his website)
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 31 January 2014 14: 02
      +4
      This is one of the most delusional tables that have come across.
    4. dustycat
      dustycat 31 January 2014 16: 48
      0
      I did not understand.
      Judging by the size and weight of Lightning2, it should be compared with the Yak-130 or its Chinese copy.
      What the hell are Australians trying to compare it with full-size (real) aircraft?
      I'm really afraid that he and Yak130 will blow. Or am I mistaken?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 31 January 2014 17: 10
        0
        Quote: dustycat
        I'm really afraid that he and Yak130 will blow. Or am I mistaken?

        You are mistaken
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 31 January 2014 17: 28
        +1
        Quote: dustycat
        Judging by the size and weight of Lightning2, it should be compared with the Yak-130 or its Chinese copy.


        Invalid statement.

        The Yak-130 is a training aircraft and cannot be compared with the combat power even with the Su-25 and A-10.

        And the F-35 is a fifth-generation lightweight fighter-bomber and it is more correct to compare it with light 4+ and 4 ++ fighters, such as Eurofighter and Rafal, F-16 and MiG-35, F-18E / F and SaaB Gripen.

        That will be more correct.
        1. Old skeptic
          Old skeptic 31 January 2014 19: 19
          +1
          F-35, this is a single plane, and it must be compared with all possible opponents. It is assumed that the amers, in addition to the existing 22, will not have others.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 January 2014 22: 28
        +4
        Quote: dustycat
        Judging by the size and weight of Lightning2 should be compared with the Yak-130

        uh ... mass of empty Yak-130 - 4600 kg. Empty weight Ф-35А - 13 290 kg. ???
  7. aviator65
    aviator65 31 January 2014 09: 20
    +2
    The main thing is that our leaders should not be fooled by such concepts.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 13: 05
      +2
      Quote: aviator65
      The main thing is that our leaders should not be fooled by such concepts.


      That's it! I think that it was not in vain that the Yak-38 was sent to storage, and the Yak-141 was not brought to mind. This was more dough than defense, and the MiG-29K and Su-33 can fulfill their role (much better). .
  8. bulgurkhan
    bulgurkhan 31 January 2014 09: 22
    +10
    The F-35B will have additional customers. Australia is building 2 UDCs with a springboard, the Japanese launched a "destroyer" with a flight deck of 250m, the Koreans are going to build a light aircraft carrier .... Only F-35Bs can be based on these ships.
    1. ty60
      ty60 1 February 2014 00: 03
      0
      Yes the flag in their hands. The dollar will get stronger
  9. Per se.
    Per se. 31 January 2014 10: 08
    +14
    I never cease to be surprised if this talent of the author, but for "peaceful purposes", for the interests of Russia. The F-35, or rather, most of all, its version of the VTOL aircraft gets bogged down, but when you read about Lockheed's creation, remember "Yakovlev - 141" (Oleg has "Yak" on the deck shmyak "!"). In this article, "flies" (VTOL aircraft and light aircraft carriers), apart from "cutlets" (attack aircraft carriers and ejection decks), both Oleg are mercilessly sniffing at. Honestly, I would not believe in the author's sincere patriotism, would decide that he is in the service of Her Majesty or Uncle Sam, is engaged in ideological sabotage - "you, Russians, do not need this on the sea, you are a land country, our sea." It's easy to get around, it's easy to waste time, and it's harder to do and promote. If we say that "Unlike the deck F-35S, the" vertical "does not have a wing folding mechanism, which makes it difficult to base it on board ships.", It is not necessary to pass this off as an incorrigible defect of VTOL aircraft, for example, both Yak-38 and Yak- 141 had folding wings, if desired, they will become those of the "American". Sooner or later, VTOL aircraft will be brought, in nature, like a crane, with a takeoff, a negligible part of birds and zero insects take off, everything else, a short or vertical start. You can now mock the Yankees, but they are not picking their noses with a finger, they are not standing still. Once upon a time it was possible to mock over the first airplanes, to shoot them down with a slingshot, aviation went ahead. If we sit back forever, the sea will be for strangers, and not only the sea. Mercantile Americans should not be considered spenders and fools, like the rest of the world, which has and builds an aircraft carrier fleet and carrier-based aircraft.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 31 January 2014 10: 42
      -6
      Birds and bugs do not carry a load on themselves, except for their body.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 31 January 2014 10: 49
        +4
        Carry. Birds drag branches, nuts, cones, prey in the form of mice and gophers, eagles generally fish under 2 pounds of water pulled out. Beetles, that is, insects, pollen, nectar, and carnivores may well carry out a prey of their size.
        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 31 January 2014 11: 05
          +2
          Look at the weight ratios of twigs to poultry.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 14: 30
        +9
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        Birds and bugs do not carry a load on themselves, except for their body.

        The shrivel is capable of carrying prey through the air, the weight of which is close to or even exceeds its own. At the same time, he can keep the victim both in its paws, in the manner of daytime birds of prey - hawks and falcons - and in its beak, like the way owls treat their trophies
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 31 January 2014 15: 45
          0
          Does he pick it up on the "rally" or shift, vertically up?
    2. HollyGremlin
      HollyGremlin 31 January 2014 10: 56
      +2
      About birds and insects, it’s not a very good example: large birds fly like a crane, and most birds often need to sit down and take off (remember the pigeons on the street).
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 31 January 2014 11: 54
        +5
        Quote: HollyGremlin
        About birds and insects is not a very good example: big birds fly in the crane
        Well why. The wingspan of a crane is up to 2,4 meters, and the condor has a wingspan of more than 2,8 meters. Take off is different. A duck takes off from dispersal in water, a seagull and an albatross immediately. If you recall the large birds, the crane never sits on branches, but such large relatives of the crane as a stork and heron sit on trees, take off here without a run. Eagles for long hours can do without rest-landing, but when attacking on a hunt, they are able to carry large prey, both on the move and from a place. Many insects, too, the hornet attacks the bees, and the bees themselves do not fly empty into the hive.
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 31 January 2014 17: 26
          +1
          The analogue of birds in aviation is the convertiplane.
          Birds take off from a place due to the "helicopter" use of the wings. Look at your picture - you can clearly see it there.
          Herons and storks often use the typical "airplane" takeoff.
          Moreover, not a single airplane or helicopter has such parameters of the ratio of take-off mass to wing area, nor such relations of power to mass, nor power to wing area.
          And only small birds "reach" the parameters of human aviation.
        2. bif
          bif 1 February 2014 01: 46
          0
          Birds are the brainchild of nature, which is based on biomechanics, the plane is the exact opposite, comparisons of which are incorrect. It's like comparing a regular HDD and a person’s memory.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 13: 34
      +3
      VTOL aircraft will be completed when the engine thrust exceeds the maximum takeoff weight of the vehicle, and it is not a fact that they will not prefer to simply increase this weight if the strength allows. The fact that the Yak-38 had folding wings does not negate its complete uselessness. The Yak-141, in comparison with the MiG-29, simply smokes on the sidelines, but technically it is much more difficult. Currently, VTOL projects for the Russian army should be considered sabotage. And it is much easier to make an aircraft carrier with a springboard and place normal deck versions of land vehicles on it than to solve the most difficult tasks of ensuring vertical takeoff so that the plane does not instantly fall on the deck. The Yak-38 and Harrier have a monstrous accident rate.

      And yes, there are no light aircraft carriers, because it is impossible to place any significant air wing on a vessel in 20 thousand tons of displacement. And any projects related to such nonsense only distract resources from what is really needed. Sometimes it’s quite obvious that at the current technological level the task is not being solved, the Americans could now build at least a starship, but why should we be like them? Well, it is impossible to build a normal VTOL aircraft when there is no engine that would lift the car by changing the thrust vector, just as it is impossible to build a spaceship using liquid fuel, or make a chess computer that counts moves on the 10 based on the 386 processor with a frequency of 40 MHz.

      And no need for birds, birds are ultralight constructions without any significant additional load.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 31 January 2014 15: 34
        +5
        Quote: EvilLion
        The fact that the Yak-38 had folding wings does not negate its complete futility. Yak-141 in comparison with MiG-29 just smokes aside
        Without the Yak-38, the Yak-141 would not have appeared. Without traitors and talkers demagogues, the Yak-141 would have long been put on the wing and switched to a more advanced machine, our Yak-141 ahead of its competitors for many years to come. VTOL is now not an alternative to traditional planes, but an addition, like convertiplanes, is not an alternative to helicopters and planes. No one cancels the MiG-29, one should not be cunning here, the same Yankees do not oppose the classic strike aircraft carriers and catapult take-off aircraft against UDC with VTOL aircraft.
        Quote: EvilLion
        Currently, VTOL projects for the Russian army should be considered wrecking.
        The wreckage was to kill the almost finished Yak-141 and its further version, which the design bureau did on its own initiative. Wrecking was selling their achievements to the Americans.

        Quote: EvilLion
        Yes, and it’s much easier to make an aircraft carrier with a springboard and place normal deck versions of land vehicles on it than to solve complex problems
        It is much easier to do nothing at all, saying that we do not need aircraft carriers by the definition of our "geographic essence", which is what they fool us, rubbing in about a "land" country.
        Quote: EvilLion
        And yes, there are no light aircraft carriers, because it is impossible to place any significant air wing on a vessel in 20 thousand tons of displacement.
        I must sadden you, they exist. These are the same Italian "Cavour", Japanese destroyer-helicopter carriers, a whole fleet of American UDC type "America", Korean and Spanish universal ships, which will be equipped with VTOL aircraft and which have already become called light aircraft carriers because of this.
        Quote: EvilLion
        And no need for birds,
        By the way, about the birds. They, of course, cannot be compared with combat aviation, but the principle is important, understanding which and borrowing humanity and creating technology. From simple to complex, we are still far from much that is in nature. You cannot, rejecting the plane of the Wright brothers, the entire evolution of aviation, and immediately create a supersonic jet fighter. It is impossible, denying VTOL aircraft, the entire evolution of these machines, to take after and create a "vertical" on new physical principles, "when the engine thrust will exceed the maximum take-off weight of the machine", such dreams are utopia and sabotage due to wasted time. The photo shows only a small part of what will be equipped with a VTOL aircraft from the Americans.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 31 January 2014 21: 23
          0
          all right, but at the expense of "do not compare" you just beguiled it ... VTOL aircraft have a real super-maneuverability, so in 1982 Falkend killed everyone without losses in aerial combat.
          1. ultra
            ultra 3 February 2014 14: 27
            +1
            Quote: Kassandra
            . VTOL aircraft have real super-maneuverability, so Falkdend in 1982 killed everyone without a loss in aerial combat.

            A very controversial statement! There were a number of factors that determined the defeat of the Argentine Air Force, there are many articles on this topic, and above all the training of English pilots and the use of more advanced missiles.
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 3 February 2014 14: 41
              0
              It is difficult to argue with the super-maneuverability of the VTOL aircraft - the British always ended up in the tail of mirages and daggers. That's the whole point of these 23: 0
              in the articles forgot to consider that:
              1. Israeli pilots trained Argenin
              2. more advanced missiles Matra were just the Argentines.
              3. there were no radar missiles on the harriers at all
              4. The British also acted on the limit of their small radius.
              5. the British did not have the possibility of refueling
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 31 January 2014 21: 31
          0
          The fact that the photo is already equipped with Harriers, which take off from them not vertically ...
          By the way, an opponent’s lie begins as usual from the very beginning. The Yak-36 was not made by stupid people - the apparatus d.b. only to land vertically, the MiG-19s launched from the ramp with the lift-and-start PRD, but they could not do this, so the airfield with intact strips was still needed.
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 18
          +1
          Without the Yak-38, the Yak-141 would not have appeared. Without traitors and demagogues, the Yak-141 would have been put on the wing a long time ago and switched to a more advanced car


          And the F-16 Block 50 / 52, as well as another modification of the MiG-29M, would now tear it like an ace heating pad. Because the excess weight of the lifting mechanism would not have disappeared. A ton on the lifting mechanism, this is a ton less bombs, and even on the 3, because it does not stupidly raise more. EVERYTHING. Solving one particular problem you sacrificed the basic functionality. At the same time, there’s another question: is it worth solving this problem, when during a raid on the airfield it is possible not to break down the runways, but the planes themselves, and the runway, in which case you can fly up quickly. That is, vertical take-off is essentially of little use. To support their troops, there are helicopters and conventional aircraft with a long range, which can be on duty in the air. And in general, to maintain some of their troops for several hundred kilometers from air bases is a perversion. Here you need to think about what they do there.

          It is much easier to do nothing at all, saying that we do not need aircraft carriers by the definition of our "geographic essence", which is what they fool us, rubbing in about a "land" country.


          And it never occurred to you that an aircraft carrier is minus a dozen destroyers or submarines? And the air group of this aircraft carrier is minus the air division somewhere else. Well, let's decide what is more important for us, a hypothetical landing in Madagascar, or a NATO squadron near the borders.

          They, of course, cannot be compared with combat aircraft, but the principle is important, understanding which and borrowing humanity and creates technology.


          The aircraft is 110 years old, but there are still no orniopters with practical application, and they are unlikely to appear, because. Conclusion?

          This is the same Italian "Cavour"


          The presence of the flight deck does not yet make the ship an aircraft carrier, as a combat unit. The entire Kavura air wing can be killed by one Su-35 squadron. Now, if you place 4-6 squadrons of F / A-18 or MiG-29K on a ship along with auxiliary vehicles, then this will already be something. This will be the core of the combat formation for which several ships can already work. There is a saying that it is better to spend 100 rubles on business than 10 on idleness. The American AUG is a business, 10 land air divisions are also a business, and a tub with one squadron of underplanes on board is idleness, the combat value of which is not even zero, but negative simply because the moment when quantity turns into quality is not reached.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 31 January 2014 22: 37
            +1
            He would have shot down just so the whole country was canceled. Read what subsonic Harriers did with Argentinean aircraft in the Falkland War.
            A dozen destroyers without an aircraft carrier stand almost nothing in battle far from the coast, a Thai aircraft carrier the size of an ordinary destroyer of the Spruence class (956pr is slightly shorter). Nuclear submarines are generally more expensive than an aircraft carrier - Thailand does not have them.
            The American AUG with the advent of supersonic vertical bars just loses its significance. Harriers were just subsonic. Supercarrer is a very large area target.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 1 February 2014 04: 05
              0
              But they didn’t do a damn thing, the Argentines stupidly lacked fuel, some of the cars just drowned in the ocean, and the British had better rockets.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 13: 21
                0
                23: 0 for the shot down according to the most conservative estimates - that’s what they did.
                the British had better planes, but the missiles weren’t. The French IR-Matra is just better than Sidewinder, the British did not have missiles with radar fuel and lubricants at all.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 1 February 2014 14: 39
                  0
                  But the Argentine missiles were not guided into the front hemisphere, this time. Argentina inflicted heavy losses on the British fleet at its maximum range, no one chased the "harriers" at all, otherwise you will simply drown in the ocean on the way back, some of the cars and drowned. So there is no need for fairy tales. However, detailed statistics on the downed ones are available http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/argentine-aircraftlosses.html Which of these could at least theoretically give a fight besides Dagger?
                  The result is inglorious, a pocket aircraft carrier could not provide any distinct air defense, both due to the small number of air group and the weakness of the machines themselves in the absence of any serious fighter countermeasures.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 February 2014 15: 18
                    0
                    In the front hemisphere, they are guided with radar seekers, the British just did not have them!
                    AIM-9L (Longrange) gave the Argentines little chance to break away and get out of the battle with the afterburner.
                    The all-roundness of the infrared head is what it sees from almost all directions from under the wing like a hare, i.e. a missile with it can be launched flying sideways past the enemy’s tail (but not head-to-head), and intensively maneuvering targets to get out of its wide capture consensus is much more difficult.
                    For harriers mirages and daggers chased until several times they did not rake.
                    The English statistics of the British (and not the English statistics about the English) are oddly truthful, having a solid 23: 0 due to the super maneuverability of the Harriers even then, they have no reason to lie, unlike the Israelis. Moreover, no one commits aliyah there.
                    Super maneuverability is about what is now on the F-22, Su-35 and MiG-35. Do you understand?
                    Air defense was provided by Harriers by 75% and it was not a shortage of aircraft carriers but a shortage of the number of England Harriers themselves.
                    Almost without exception, Argentinean aircraft sank ships specially anchored and providing their air defense systems with a bridgehead in the Strait of San Carlos. One ODAB on it. a napalm or cluster bomb would have caused much greater manpower losses.
                    There were 2 pieces of an aircraft carrier, one of which was not a pocket-sized armored Hermes at all + 2 container carriers converted into aircraft carriers about one of which (Atlantic Causeway co sky-jump) did not write to you at all.
                    23: 0 is a "fairy tale" in itself.
                    In short, you - in the Imperial War Museum.
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 February 2014 15: 26
                    0
                    The "heaviest" losses would have been if at least one UDC with marines had been sunk, not even
                    pocket aircraft carrier! Or ironed by napalm, cassette or ODAB, platzdarm with marines on the shore.
                    Argentina "beyond its radius of action" tried to attack even Hermes, which was east of the Falkland and not in the strait between them, like most of the sunk or damaged ships, which in essence were the air defense of the bridgehead.
                    No matter how you try aerial kill ratio 23: 0, you won’t.
        4. ty60
          ty60 1 February 2014 00: 15
          +1
          However, SAZ, which produced YAK 38, director Yermishin successfully killed civilian YAK40,42. He didn’t, of course, help. Now there is a large yellow store on this territory. The owner of Moscow. Everything else is wasteland
      2. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 16: 58
        +7
        The fact that the Yak-38 had folding wings does not cancel its complete futility.

        But the makhra in Afghanistan was delighted when they tested the Yak-38 in combat conditions. They were based on helipads, when urgent air support was needed, yaks came to the rescue much earlier, "crocodiles" and "rooks". The need for which did not become less, the load of yaks was enough for one way, then the classic devices were ironed. It turned out that the yaks very organically complemented the attack aircraft and attack helicopters.
        IMHO in this role VTOL are not meaningless.
        1. Santa Fe
          31 January 2014 17: 34
          -1
          Quote: Firstvanguard
          But the mahra in Afghanistan was delighted when they tested the yak-38 in combat conditions.

          They drove them there the only time (EMNIP in 1980, operation Rhombus) and a couple of months later they brought them out

          Yak-38 was completely useless in the discharged mountain air (however, as elsewhere)
          1. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 20: 57
            +1
            Hello, Oleg hi
            http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/yak38/yak38.html
            tuta saying four pieces participated.
            Unfortunately, I can’t find where I’ve read about this operation and the impact of flights.

            IMHO, sooner or later, aviation will gradually become vertically flying anyway, maybe the time of production cars has not come yet, but this direction should not be abandoned.

            With respect to your work on your favorite site soldier
            1. Santa Fe
              31 January 2014 21: 07
              0
              Quote: Firstvanguard
              http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/yak38/yak38.html

              107 flights in combat conditions in pairs and alone, accompanied by Su-17)))

              Dryers and MiGs of the 40 Army Air Force did so much in one day
              Quote: Firstvanguard
              IMHO, sooner or later aviation will still gradually become vertically flying

              As long as the aerodynamic principle of flight is used, the aircraft will not become vertical lines
              Quote: Firstvanguard
              With respect to your work on your favorite site

              Thank you, dear
              Without your disputes and the thousands of comments left, this would make no sense
              1. Firstvanguard
                Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 21: 47
                +3
                As long as the aerodynamic principle of flight is used, the aircraft will not become vertical lines

                One does not cancel the other. There are VTOL, there are convertiplanes combining business with pleasure wink they are imperfect, but time goes on and what yesterday seemed impossible today is commonplace, and tomorrow is outdated.
                107 flights in combat conditions in pairs and alone, accompanied by Su-17)))

                Dryers and MiGs of the 40 Army Air Force did so much in one day

                Nobody claimed that they did a lot, the plane was at the development stage, and there was a flight accident. Some of the memoirs of Yuri Mitikov, a test pilot of the Yakovlev Design Bureau who participated in the rhombus and completed 6 assault flights (civilian pilot!), Can be found on the network in parts.
                Thank you, dear

                You're welcome! drinks
                1. Santa Fe
                  31 January 2014 21: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Firstvanguard
                  There are VTOL, there are convertiplanes combining business with pleasure

                  The tiltrotor is just perfect

                  it is a specific remedy, exotic. In terms of performance characteristics, it is superior to a helicopter, but the dimensions and cost were sacrificed.
                  1. Firstvanguard
                    Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 22: 19
                    +3
                    Alas in terms of specific capacity, he ouu is so far that both to planes and to helicopters. In addition, perfection is not only TTX, but also the economic component. Otherwise, the commercial use of tiltrotopes would compete with helicopters. The T-80 was in many respects superior to the T-72 in terms of its performance characteristics at the time of adoption, but its superiority in production costs was fourfold. And 4 T-72 is much more effective than 1 T-80. With airplanes GDP is the same song, their time has not come yet, except for piece-specific tasks.
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 31 January 2014 22: 44
                  0
                  everything has already been done a long time ago ... this direction is simply "choking" because:
                  1. Supercarriers will not be needed (which means a star of American dominance at sea), and
                  2. Already not get such interesting fraud with aviation at airfields as in the Six Day War and .. in the Second World War.
                  Do not argue a lot - just realize that the enemies are all this. really to do with it!
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 31 January 2014 22: 39
            0
            it seems to you that they just wrote that the infantry (makhra) was happy with them in Afghanistan ...
        2. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 21: 51
          +1
          when urgent air support was needed, yaks came to the rescue much earlier, "crocodiles" and "rooks".

          Blundered, shame on the gray head, the "rooks" at this time, simultaneously with the yaks, were only being tested in combat conditions in the amount of 2 pcs. the main workhorse then was the Su-17. Sorry repeat
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 31 January 2014 21: 54
          -1
          When I wrote this article http://topwar.ru/38556-legkiy-istrebitel.html, in addition to the difficulties of the Su-17, I wanted to mention Operation Rhombus. Well, all the known data on the Yak-38 flights are limited to the plane falling on the runway and dropping the missile on the runway, which then had to be eliminated by sappers, it seems that there were no combat missions at all. Therefore, do not write nonsense.
          1. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 22: 27
            +1
            Y. Mitikov, a test pilot who participated in the rhombus, in a video interview (seem like NTV) cited figures on fuel consumption on the Yak-38 on which he attacked and SU-17 provided him with cover. Surely he told more, but it was not included in the program about the Yak-38, do you think he was talking nonsense?
            And secondly, it seems there wasn’t or wasn’t?
            Be a little respectful and do not think that if you have not found the information, then it is not.
            Best regards hi
            PySy Fighting missiles hung on them apparently to bomb their runway belay
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 1 February 2014 04: 08
              -2
              There is a lot of information about the Su-25, and since the Yak-38 is forced to throw the ammunition load in order not to crash, then there is no point in continuing the tests. All sorties during the "Rhombus" can be safely attributed to the Su-25.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 2 February 2014 01: 02
                +1
                bolder than test pilot Y. Mitikov?
                as well as smarter, rouge and whiter? :-)
    4. Letun
      Letun 31 January 2014 14: 12
      +7
      Quote: Per se.
      If we laze around forever, the sea will be for strangers, and not only the sea. It is not necessary to consider mercantile Americans as spenders and fools, like the rest of the world, which has and is building an aircraft carrier fleet, carrier-based aircraft.

      Unfortunately, this thought is rarely seen on this undoubtedly respected site, unlike laziness and hatred. It is pleasant to read the thoughts of a sane person. drinks
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 31 January 2014 15: 35
        +2
        Quote: Letun
        Nice to read the thoughts of a sane person

        Thanks for your kind words! It's always nice to meet a like-minded person on the topic.
  10. aud13
    aud13 31 January 2014 10: 14
    +8
    Quote: GRIGORY
    But it would have been better to name the article "Aircraft on the letter G" with the postscript FULL.

    I would not be so categorical.
    Of course, in terms of combat and technical indicators, this aircraft (in the letter B) can and loses to the best fighters of other countries and modifications to other letters. But he has a distinctively useful trait - he can always be next to the Marine Corps. And here you can recall two wise Russian proverbs at once:
    - a sparrow in the hands is better than a crane in the sky, and
    - road spoon for dinner.
    This is to say that somewhere, far from the sea and from the existing runways, it would be much more efficient not to drive an aircraft carrier group to the other end of the earth, but to overtake these vertical lines there (even if they cost more). And they will perfectly cope with the duties of assault, reconnaissance, etc., on the spot, and therefore very quickly.
    The question about the fact that this is an economically disadvantageous project, as it seems to me, is also not well argued in this article.
    The Americans created an ongoing project for an airplane taking off vertically. Which has unification in most parts with other aircraft designed for the Navy and the Army. Due to which a certain economic effect is created. They also received a significant backlog in scientific and design knowledge. Well, since they are actively planning to export these planes, it turns out that - a large (well, or a significant) part of these same scientific, design, technological works will be paid by allied customers. And this is a huge influx of money into the economy. Moreover, with these airplanes they tie their allies to themselves for a long time and at a very expensive price. Since, over time, these aircraft will need to be repaired, upgraded and replenished the fleet of retired vehicles.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 31 January 2014 10: 44
      +1
      And what, Lightings can start themselves?
      In the plan that you are talking about remote unprepared runways and sites, say.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. ty60
      ty60 1 February 2014 00: 28
      0
      Well, effective managers. Deck yourself pay for VTOL for associates.
  11. umah
    umah 31 January 2014 10: 31
    0
    It's a whim, a cheap muscle game

    Hmm ... Not so cheap!
  12. Wedmak
    Wedmak 31 January 2014 10: 35
    -2
    Eight tons of combat load at 10 suspension points - in terms of its striking capabilities, the F-35A can compete with the formidable Su-34, surpassing the latter in terms of the range of ammunition used and the ability to detect / select ground targets.

    What kind of competition is it? How F-35A is adapted to act as a bomber is another question. Does he have a reservation? Is he able to make long-haul flights (the only pilot is not a car, gets tired)? Perhaps avionics and better, the Americans have always boasted of their electronics. Both aircraft have just begun their journey, and we will also see which of them is the best in terms of strike capabilities. Only seems to me, F-35A is a weak competitor.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 January 2014 11: 52
      +4
      Quote: Wedmak
      How F-35A is adapted to act as a bomber is another question.

      Yes there is no question, throws bombs, has already been verified.


      Quote: Wedmak
      Does he have a reservation?

      What for? He has a nomenclature of weapons such that it is not necessary to enter the area of ​​ground-based air defense.
      Armament Nomenclature F-35Armament Nomenclature F-35
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2014 13: 54
        +4
        You tell this air defense system that fiercely hate everything that dangles above the radio horizon and does not respond to requests.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 31 January 2014 14: 43
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          You tell this air defense system that fiercely hate everything that dangles above the radio horizon and does not respond to requests.

          Maybe the SAM that feverishly scouring the sky cursing the radio horizon and the natural folds of the terrain covering the creeping assassin? Do not write nonsense. Not a single ground air defense has yet been able to stop the air raid. Even if it’s S-400, it won’t stop an organized attack, and from S-400 there will be only smoking fragments. The S-400 is strong when the Air Force previously battered the enemy, knocking down part of the vehicles, partly forcing them to get rid of the load and topple it over, while the remaining unorganized group stumble upon the SAM, trying to suppress it with residual forces.
          1. dustycat
            dustycat 31 January 2014 17: 33
            +5
            Quote: Nayhas
            Not a single ground air defense has yet been able to stop the air raid.


            You tell this to those amerkos pilots who flew in the sky of Vietnam.
            They will tell you how MZA drives pilots under C75.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 31 January 2014 21: 31
              +1
              Quote: dustycat
              You tell this to those amerkos pilots who flew in the sky of Vietnam.
              They will tell you how MZA drives pilots under C75.

              The task of air defense systems is not to bring down all air targets, but to prevent the destruction of the protected object. If the air defense systems could not do this, destroying even 90% of the attacking aircraft, then there is no point in it.
              1. Santa Fe
                31 January 2014 21: 42
                +2
                Quote: Nayhas
                The task of air defense systems is not to bring down all air targets, but to prevent the destruction of the protected object. If the air defense systems could not do this, destroying even 90% of the attacking aircraft, then there is no point in it.

                Why, losses also matter

                The Yankees lost 3000 planes and more than 5000 turntables - this forced them to drop everything and leave
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 31 January 2014 22: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  The Yankees lost 3000 planes and more than 5000 turntables - this forced them to drop everything and leave

                  The Yankees were forced to leave the hopelessness of the allies. The Yankees squeezed North Vietnam and proposed a stagnation situation. NE it suited, but not suited, the South, which wanted to take everything - like the North, by and large. The states, on the other hand, wanted the situation in Korea, not intervention in the North. That's all. And it was futile to stand with the allies who were substituting you, and even with the unrest at home - everyone was tired
                  1. Santa Fe
                    31 January 2014 22: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: Pimply
                    The Yankees were forced to leave the hopelessness of the allies. The Yankees squeezed North Vietnam and proposed a stagnation situation. NE arranged it, but did not suit the South, who wanted to take everything - like the North, by and large

                    Those. to achieve the main goal-to knock out the Communists from Vietnam did not work.
                    losses grew
                    The costs of the war grew - I had to quit and leave everything
                    1. Know-nothing
                      Know-nothing 31 January 2014 23: 43
                      +2
                      It seems to me that they left, not because of the loss of helicopters, but because it was useless to maintain the rotten regime of Nguyen Van Thieu. If the soldiers of the South Vietnamese army after landing from American helicopters often began to fire at them, then who could be defeated there?

                      If you imagine that the Russians lived there, then North Vietnam was led by Putin with Shoigu, and South by Chubais and Kiriyenko, for example smile

                      In the picture is a dump from the deck of the USS Midway of the South Vietnamese UH-1.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        1 February 2014 01: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Dunno
                        It seems to me that they left not because of the loss of helicopters, but because it was useless to maintain the rotten regime of Nguyen Van Thieu

                        They could only win by defeating the ports in the North, where Soviet transports were unloaded with weapons and all the necessary help. But that meant going into direct confrontation with the USSR

                        And the losses, yes, were not acidic. If such were in Afghanistan - the Yankees had long escaped from there
                        Quote: Dunno
                        In the picture is a dump from the deck of the USS Midway of the South Vietnamese UH-1.

                        Yes. An eloquent illustration on the theme "Yankees are leaving Vietnam" (he didn't just end up there, but brought allies / refugees - everyone who had reason to flee from the communists)
                      2. Pimply
                        Pimply 1 February 2014 02: 10
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They could only win by defeating the ports in the North, where Soviet transports were unloaded with weapons and all the necessary help. But that meant going into direct confrontation with the USSR

                        The Americans did not set out to defeat North Vietnam. Their goal was a parity situation. If the Americans wanted to defeat North Vietnam, they only had to continue their offensive in the 1968 year.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        1 February 2014 02: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Their goal was a parity situation. If the Americans wanted to defeat North Vietnam, they only had to continue their offensive in the 1968 year.

                        Again

                        It was possible to win in Vietnam only by defeating the ports in the North and drowning all Soviet ships. Without this, the Viet Cong received all the necessary assistance and was invincible by conventional means, continuing the attack on Saigon
                      4. Pimply
                        Pimply 1 February 2014 03: 05
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It was possible to win in Vietnam only by defeating the ports in the North and drowning all Soviet ships. Without this, the Viet Cong received all the necessary assistance and was invincible by conventional means, continuing the attack on Saigon

                        Oleg, this is your opinion, and it concerns not the general picture, but again particulars. The Americans won de jure, and had not shown political weakness, they would have broken the North and de facto. The Tet offensive was literally crushed, and if not for Lyndon Johnson, who leaked the success of the counter-offensive, North Vietnam would simply not have time to recover and would have been completely crushed.
                        What a confrontation with the USSR, why are you? Officially, the USSR did not participate there.

                        By July of 1972, the Communists controlled about 10% of the territory of South Vietnam compared to 40% eight years earlier, before the start of American intervention. And this is with the passive position of the States, which simply stupidly did not climb wherever possible
                      5. Santa Fe
                        1 February 2014 03: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Americans de jure won

                        Сonclusion
                        The military and political victory of North Vietnam [2]
                        US political and military defeat

                        Something you Zhenya began to give up in the evening, it was just ridiculous about the Yankees' victory in Vietnam - you can just as well prove the USSR victory in Afghanistan (by 1989, they also controlled "almost all" of the territory, completely owned the situation - as Gromov said : we did whatever we wanted, the perfume was only what we could).
                        Quote: Pimply
                        What a confrontation with the USSR, why are you? Officially, the USSR did not participate there.

                        What am I talking about?
                        Victory in the war could be achieved only through a direct ban on the help of the DRV, i.e. direct confrontation with the USSR
                        Quote: Pimply
                        And this is with the passive position of the States, which simply stupidly did not climb wherever possible

                        Well, yes.

                        9000 downed planes and helicopters
                        60 000 slain
                        6,2 million bombs dropped
                        the whole world on the ears, protest marches across America
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 1 February 2014 07: 17
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Why, losses also matter

          The Yankees lost 3000 planes and more than 5000 turntables - this forced them to drop everything and leave

          The reasons for leaving are purely political. Aviation carried out the assigned tasks. Yes, with losses, but performed. Linebacker and Linebacker-2 operations were successful, neither the MiG-21 fighter, nor dozens of S-75 divisions were able to disrupt the air raids.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 12: 49
            0
            Purely politically, they somehow lost more than 116 aircraft in one day, after which they decided to leave the next day ... In addition to the MiGs and S-75s, these were the bullets of MANPADS and counter-helicopter mines.
            "Grandma, why are you so big ..."
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 1 February 2014 19: 46
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              Purely political, in one day they somehow lost more than 116 aircraft, after which the next day they decided to leave ...

              For such high-profile statements, it is necessary to indicate where and when, as well as from what sources of information ...
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 20: 49
                0
                North Vietnam, DMZ area, last day of Linebaker-2
                You can read about it here.
                If the sources must notarized, contact the nearest Embassy of the Foreign Intelligence Service and you may be answered. Although there are such things about which they still don’t talk, including by agreement with the opposite side.
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas 3 February 2014 10: 29
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                North Vietnam, DMZ area, last day of Linebaker-2
                You can read about it here.

                Where is it here?
                Quote: Kassandra
                If the sources must notarized, contact the nearest Embassy of the Foreign Intelligence Service and you may be answered.

                They will answer. According to them, you need to add more zeros to your digits ...
                The USA has never had such losses, especially on the last day of Linebacker-2 operation. The list of losses is free for review. Moreover, the highest peak of the loss was in the early days of the operation, when Vietnam’s air defense was at the peak of its forces, by the end of the operation, air defense systems were severely damaged by regular raids and the number of missile launches decreased.
                Now at the expense of digital:
                According to our data for the whole of 1972 2059 missiles were launched, which shot down 421 aircraft. (the operation of Linebacker-2 lasted 11 days in December 1972.)
                According to the United States, 4224 missiles were fired from their planes, of which 49 vehicles were lost. Those. typical overstatement of enemy losses by ten times.
                "... the comparison of the reports of the missilemen, who judged the results of the firing by the marks on the screens, with the more primitive method of accounting for the downed American aircraft by the Vietnamese by the serial numbers on the wreckage, in some cases indicated an overestimation of the number of aircraft destroyed by missiles by 5-9 times." Article "System 75" journal Aviation and Cosmonautics 2.2008.
              3. Kassandra
                Kassandra 3 February 2014 13: 18
                0
                Their diplomats are certainly worthy of those who write comments here.
                maybe they will answer, but without unnecessary details.
                ..
                Only when you write them a request, do not forget to change your ava. Otherwise, the police will come instead of an answer.
                ..
                here in the sense here.
                http://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=39155
                same URL as any other.
                ..
                in the 60s there were days when losses were more than fifty, the massive use of aviation involves losses more than usual.
                ..
                did America win the vietnam war?
                ..
                most of the planes pressed to the ground were shot down not by SAMs, but by MANPADS and anti-helicopter mines.
                ..
                Typically in the United States in the first Iraqi all planes and cruise missiles "returned to the bases" every day. and now a list of several dozen losses can be viewed on the wiki. as well as about the Balkans.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 1 February 2014 14: 26
        0
        So after all there was no S-75, only the SA-75. I hope there is no need to explain what the difference is
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 14: 35
          0
          why, understand, let's see what you know ..
          The main losses in the Canal area a year later were also from MANPADS.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 21
    0
    If the plane is hiding in the folds of the terrain, then its enemy automatically becomes MZA and MANPADS to which modern machines are supposedly not required to approach. The discovered "Tung" F-35 is finished.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 1 February 2014 19: 45
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      If the plane is hiding in the folds of the terrain, then its enemy automatically becomes MZA and MANPADS to which modern machines are supposedly not required to approach. The discovered "Tung" F-35 is finished.

      To begin with, what is primarily subject to destruction. The experience of the war against Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya shows (and never hid it) that, first of all, the USA and allies are trying to disable the command posts of the enemy, its stationary radar, and communications equipment. This is done with long-range cruise missiles, in particular, the Tomahawk. Objective: to disrupt the unified command and control of troops and air defense systems, destroy planes or disable enemy airfields, ensuring a clear sky. Further, the reconnaissance forces reveal the location of the surviving long-range air defense systems; for this, UAVs and false targets are used. The enemy is forced to react, because it is impossible to hide S-200 and especially S-300 air defense systems by any means of concealment, these systems are also destroyed from afar by JASSM / JASSM-ER, KEPD-150/350 TAURUS, Storm Shadow missiles, from a distance of 300 up to 600 km. Those. for their use there is no need to go down under the fire of MZA and MANPADS. The likelihood of damage increases when used in combination with electronic warfare, false targets. It is important that the response time from detection to missile launch is the shortest.
      After the destruction of long-range air defense systems, the turn comes of Buk and Tor air defense systems. Here they can be suppressed without entering the zone of their action CABs.
      All this is realistically possible under one condition, enemy aircraft are crushed, destroyed or do not take off due to the destruction / mining of the runway, and the absence of a single radar field is also important.
      The F-35 is good in this regard, thanks to the stealth technology, the detection range of its air defense system radar is much less than that of a similar aircraft but of classical design. Thanks to this, he can "work" on targets at closer distances. And in the confrontation, the fighter-fighter will launch the missiles first, which is very important.
  • iwind
    iwind 31 January 2014 15: 02
    +1
    Quote: EvilLion
    You tell this air defense system that fiercely hate everything that dangles above the radio horizon and does not respond to requests.

    Without DRLO aircraft (which pleases, the serial construction of the A-100 is due to begin soon) and other aircraft, any air defense systems will be suppressed. I recommend reading about the ADM-160 MALD, which, by radio electronic signature, is copying a NATO Air Force aircraft.
    Now they have just begun to install them on the UAV REAPER.

    1. dustycat
      dustycat 31 January 2014 18: 01
      +3
      All radio simulations of targets suffer from several defects.
      When the radiation frequency is tuned, irregular pseudo-targets temporarily disappear in a wide range. For two or three exposures, but disappear.
      When the air defense radar is in passive mode, radio simulations do not interfere with detection and guidance, and the radio simulators themselves illuminate each other well.
      Radio simulators themselves easily catch anti-radar ammunition - there is nothing to radiate at the operating frequency.
      The broadband Doppler radar is not particularly annoyed by radio simulators, and the simulators themselves are clearly visible. Yes, this "junk" is used only by domestic air defense systems and also by meteorologists. But...
      The simulator is very noisy at out-of-band frequencies. A simple spectrum analyzer from the С300P set shows "horns" around the frequency of the radar radiation in the "response" of the target (they rarely look at it, but they still look!). The spectrum analyzer is not included in the set of imported radars - it is not for bud press. This is a service device in their understanding - for eggheads.
      Therefore, in all radio simulators there is a dumb mode of suppressing radiation from radar and GOS missiles - when nothing helps to outwit - hit between the eyes and run ...
      1. iwind
        iwind 31 January 2014 20: 55
        +1
        Well, it’s their goal to force them to turn on the radar, since electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft do not fly far, and then AGM-88 HARM will be sent to the radar
        and do not forget about MALD-J- which interferes
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 22: 01
          0
          It’s not worth idealizing either our weapons, or especially sworn friends. According to popular wisdom, for every cunning w *** There is a device with a left-hand thread. wassat
          Do you really think that the developers of air defense systems are not interested in the achievements of likely friends? Or that the Natava AWACS are invulnerable? Or are they the only electronic warfare means?
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 24
      0
      So what? The question was that supposedly F-35 did not need to crawl under the MZA with MANPADS. Well, since you have to turn around and think out how to fool the anti-aircraft gunners, it turns out that the affairs of the planes are not so good and, as before, you need to disguise yourself and hide in the folds of the terrain.
  • de bouillon
    de bouillon 31 January 2014 16: 03
    0
    and the armor that saves from the S-300?

    bgggg
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 31 January 2014 16: 29
      +1
      It will not save from the S-300, but it’s completely from a MANPAD’s missile rupture.
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 31 January 2014 16: 28
    +1
    Well, the fact that he throws bombs is clear. I'm talking about efficiency. They immediately try to compare it with the Su-34. Only if the F-35B is hung with clusters of bombs like Sushka, its effectiveness as a bomber will be no. If Su, even with a load, is able to perform very energetic maneuvers, then this cuttlefish, God forbid, a pancake will unfold ...
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 31 January 2014 17: 11
      -2
      Quote: Wedmak
      Well, the fact that he throws bombs is clear. I'm talking about efficiency. They immediately try to compare it with the Su-34. Only if the F-35B is hung with clusters of bombs like Sushka, its effectiveness as a bomber will be no. If Su, even with a load, is able to perform very energetic maneuvers, then this cuttlefish, God forbid, a pancake will unfold ...

      He will simply be enough of one, high-precision. And do not try to compare machines that are different in class and tasks
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 22: 26
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        He will simply be enough of one, high-precision.

        Aha and Su-34 only free-falling bombs, for that there are two crew members, one flies and the other drops bombs.
        Quote: Pimply
        And do not try to compare machines that are different in class and tasks

        To the author.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 26
        +1
        The goal is a convoy of vehicles on the road. Your actions? Carry one high-precision, or still load 10 tons of bombs? You can precision, you can not, now even a cast iron can be pretty accurately reset.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 31 January 2014 18: 08
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      Only if the F-35B is hung with bunches of bombs like Dryer


      ... his EPR will be like that of a caterpillar.

      Sushki, he is empty and not a strong contender.
      And it is sinful to compare it with "big" planes.
      Its massive analogue is the Yak130.
      Well, maybe the MiG-29.
      1. Santa Fe
        31 January 2014 18: 25
        0
        Quote: dustycat
        Its massive analogue is the Yak130.

        You're wrong

        The take-off mass of the Yak-130 is three times less than that of Lightning (~ 10 tons against 30 + tons)
        Strictly speaking, the Yak-130 without radar and PNK in general cannot be considered as a combat vehicle. TCB, no more.
        Quote: dustycat
        And it is sinful to compare it with "big" planes.

        Compare his PNA and situational awareness
        Ability to break through air defense in stealth mode
        Ammunition Nomenclature
        Numerous and ubiquitous F-35 (if necessary - any combatant fighter can be turned into a bomber)

        Due to its less noticeability, it can fearlessly approach the target at 100 km - and bring down the plague of planning GBU-39 SDB or CD like JASSM

        Opto-electronic sighting complex "Lightning"
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 1 February 2014 04: 14
        0
        The Yak-130 is such a small thing that the pilot can hardly fit into it, empty weight, 4.6 tons, MiG-29 of various modifications of 10.4-11 tons. After such comments, do not write anything better about aviation.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 January 2014 22: 29
      -1
      Quote: Wedmak
      If Su, even with a load, is able to perform very energetic maneuvers, then this cuttlefish, God forbid, a pancake will unfold ...

      Where does the information come from that the Su-34 is capable of vigorous maneuvers even with half the load? Not a single aircraft "hung" with weapons is capable of maneuvering, this is true for all.
      Quote: Wedmak
      Well, the fact that he throws bombs is clear. I'm talking about efficiency.

      Efficiency in particular depends on the characteristics of the weapon.
      For example:
      The F-35 uses a Paveway II series cab with a range of at least 15 km, JDAM with a range of up to 60 km, SDB with a range of up to 110 km, JSOW with a range of up to 130 km, and also tactical cruise missiles of the JASSM type with a range of up to 1000 km.
      This allows you to destroy enemy targets without entering the ground defense zone.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 22: 46
        +1
        The term energetic maneuvers, just a verbal construction.
        Nobody reported exact data on the rate of change of roll, pitch and rate of climb with specific load options. With a certain degree of probability, these parameters can be judged by the power ratio and specific wing load. In light of this, the comparison of the Su-34 and F-35 is clearly not in favor of the latter. soldier
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 1 February 2014 03: 54
        0
        No bomb can travel 100+ km unless it is thrown from the stratosphere. The very application of the expression "with a range of at least" to a bomb immediately betrays a clinical idiot and degenerate who does not understand that the range of a bomb is determined by the speed and height of the carrier. And so a cruise missile for an even greater range can be launched from the Tu-160. Considering the presence of object air defense, I do not even consider bombing at a distance of more than a couple of kilometers. For anti-aircraft guns, a gliding bomb is just a target.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 05: 04
          0
          Any MiG-25 flew more than 46km
          There are aeroballistic missiles that fly further.
          When bombing with cabriole - somewhere in the middle. No anti-aircraft bulk cluster munitions will not be beaten off, and SM3 will run out faster.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 1 February 2014 15: 33
            +1
            With MiG-25 with 20 km at a speed of 2500 km / h. Only 46 km. The range of the X-31 ПД to 250 km, the height of 15 km, the speed of the carrier 1.5М, so I don’t understand the fap for the bomb planning for 120 km. Well, that's what a rocket, or any other ammunition that has its own engine. For a bomb from a height of, for example, 10 km and speed 900 km / h to fly 120 km, its characteristics as a glider should be close to those of an airliner. That is, such a bomb is a huge glider. In this case, even in a vacuum without loss of speed, these 120 km will fly for 480 seconds, or 8 minutes. But in reality, go all 15, if the minimum speed, where aerodynamic surfaces are still effective, is about 400 km / h. So the idea of ​​a planning bomb in itself is doubtful, heavy anti-bunker ammunition will still need to be thrown over the target, and small things chasing trucks or tanks are nonsense.

            Convertibility, by definition, implies a relatively low altitude, because the plane is gaining it speed too, because the energy of the engines is going up. Well, a cassette is by definition the same cast iron as a buckshot from the time of M. Yu. Lermontov.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 1 February 2014 18: 57
              0
              Quote: EvilLion
              For a bomb from a height of, for example, 10 km and a speed of 900 km / h to fly 120 km, its characteristics as a glider should be close to those of an airliner.

              Long Range US CAB List:
              JDAM range up to 28km. (JDAM Extended Range up to 80km.)

              JSOW range 130km.

              SDB range 110km.

              Other countries:
              AASM Hammer (France) range over (so they write) 60 km.

              Spice (Israel) range 100km.

              Al-Tariq (UAE) range of 120 km.

              PGM-2000 Hakim (UAE) range of 50 km.


              As you can see, long distances are not a problem for planning air bombs, respectively, the maximum range is achieved when dropped from a height of more than 10 km.
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 50
              0
              Convertible implies an optimal angle of discharge, an optimal height, and the highest speed. The highest speed in supersonic aircraft - at altitude.
              MiG-25 armed with such bombs in vain?
              They were not planning and hit the bunker at a depth of 40m.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 31 January 2014 10: 42
    +1
    Thanks for the interesting information. States incurred conceptual costs, and ideas will also come in handy.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 1 February 2014 05: 11
      0
      the ideas are all ours, Soviet with the Yak-41 ... (see below).
      you can’t not know your story so much
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 31 January 2014 10: 46
    +3
    All design flaws lie in the field of economics. Firstly, the USA can no longer afford to throw money and wanted a cheap fighter, and secondly, there are practically no buyers on the foreign market who can afford to bulk purchase an expensive heavy fighter. So the car should be cheap. And if cheap, it means to have one engine and the maximum unification of parts. Here it went and went. The single-engine scheme forced to extend the fuselage vertically (at the same time look at the freak from the Boeing), which eliminated the smooth pairing of the wing with the fuselage, hence goodbye super maneuverability. The presence of a fan in the F-35B version changed the contours of the fuselage common to the entire family and increased its weight due to the need to strengthen the fuselage in the F-35B model, hence again the deterioration in aerodynamics and the review of the rear hemisphere. And the last is waiting for potential buyers when the engines work out half the resource. Cars will begin to slowly fall and with them ruin all the expensive electronics that make up most of the cost of the car. My personal opinion is that the era of single-engine aircraft is a thing of the past, precisely because of the inability to save the car.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 13: 55
      -2
      Hand-to-face, that’s all I can say about your writing.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 1 February 2014 05: 08
      0
      they just "bought" a Yak-141 in 1992 for 600 thousand dollars and disfigured it
      the same story with the American toilet on the ISS. they bought zezbenzok from Roskosmos (21mill) and then added another 19 times for so much for some unnecessary feature.
      to cut the loot - you need to be able to.
  • Heccrbq.3
    Heccrbq.3 31 January 2014 10: 49
    +5
    The author is just several times smarter than the entire US Department of Defense, intelligence and knowledge just shimmer with all the colors of the rainbow. Where would we be without Olezhka.
    1. I think so
      I think so 31 January 2014 15: 42
      0
      I'm afraid the Americans will steal it and will consult ... irreparable loss for Russia will be ...
  • SPLV
    SPLV 31 January 2014 11: 25
    +3
    by normal aerodynamic design with high up trapezoidal wing and tail

    This is not a high-wing, but a mid-wing (with a mid-wing), like all its competitors. And the only low-wing stealth was the F-117.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 January 2014 11: 33
    +2
    From me an article is a plus sign. Big laughing
    The VTOL aircraft is a dead end branch for military aviation, and the attempt to make the VTOL IMHO of F35 also turned a potentially excellent combat aircraft into a penguin.
    Quote: aud13
    This is to say that somewhere, far from the sea and from the existing runways, it will be much more efficient not to drive an aircraft carrier group to the other end of the earth, but to overtake there with a squadron of these vertical lines

    Nuuuu, if you first drive a construction battalion there with equipment that will provide a site capable of holding the VTOL exhaust (EMNIP was the case when the concrete slabs were crushed) - then it is of course
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 31 January 2014 18: 15
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Nuuuu, if you first drive a construction battalion there with equipment that will provide a platform capable of holding exhaust from VTOL aircraft

      At Semipalatinsk remember, they experienced pulse-dynamic compaction of soils.
      They put a grid of TNT checkers and blew up at once. The explosion of nuclear products and the long-term operation of aircraft aircraft engines withstood.
      Which is quite good for sand.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 1 February 2014 22: 03
        0
        I have been near Semipalatinsk. There is a steppe drying out if there is no rain. I did not see sand there.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 22: 51
          0
          do helicopters fly there?
          sand had to be tested in a sandbox near Moscow?
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 31 January 2014 21: 10
      0
      Andrei is from Chelyabinsk, while you are all here ... busy with something wrong, the Harriers in many countries have been in service for 45 years.
      this "dead-end branch" threw the Argentines dry off the Falklands.
      fear authors of articles bringing gifts.
      1. Santa Fe
        31 January 2014 21: 15
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        this "dead-end branch" threw the Argentines dry off the Falklands.

        What are you saying))))

        Are you familiar with the loss list of the British fleet?
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 31 January 2014 22: 49
          0
          And, it means, all the same, they’ve read, heard, but be silent?
          In the air battles, not a single Harrier was shot down, they shot down more 40 cars.
          1. Santa Fe
            31 January 2014 22: 56
            +1
            Quote: Kassandra
            In the air battles, not a single Harrier was shot down, they shot down more 40 cars.

            Harrier has won 20 air victories

            Harriers failed to cover squadron - Argentinean aviation managed to sink and damage 25 British ships (of which 6 sank)
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 31 January 2014 23: 37
              0
              But what is the ratio of air victories? And with a dry score? And who after this will destroy something that VTOL is bad?
              Harriers did not fail there, there were just a few of them, they were and are subsonic, and therefore there was no ubiquitous permanent aircover.
              Yes, and:
              1. "so sink and damage 25" or "6 sank"?
              2. went pictures for lack of arguments? then - here you too, otherwise the children will not understand ...
              smaller Argentinians sunk by the Harriers were there too. or even surrendered to them.
              1. Normal
                Normal 31 January 2014 23: 49
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                2. went pictures for lack of arguments? then - here you too, otherwise the children will not understand ...
                smaller Argentinians sunk by the Harriers were there too. or even surrendered to them.


                The picture is well-known, as it is also known that "General Belgrano" was sunk not by the Harriers, but by the nuclear submarine "Conqueror"

                "General Belgrano" was launched in the United States in 1938 under the name "Phoenix". The cruiser was in the harbor of Pearl Harbor during a raid by Japanese aircraft on December 7, 1941. Later he participated in the fighting in the Pacific Ocean. After the end of World War II, the Phoenix was withdrawn from the US Navy, and on April 12, 1951 [1] sold to Argentina for $ 7,8 million. In the Argentine Navy, the cruiser was named October 17, and in 1956 it was renamed General Belgrano in honor of General Manuel Belgrano, who participated in the war for independence from Spain in the XNUMXth century ....
                On May 2, 1982, at 15 hours 57 minutes, the Konkoror submarine fired three torpedoes, two of which hit General Belgrano ...

                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrano_General_(cruiser)
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 1 February 2014 00: 17
                  0
                  What `s next? After that, all Argentinean large ships landed in ports! And they tried to supply S-130 Hercules, which they knocked down.
                  I had above the photo written "Argentines sunk by the Harriers were smaller there too. Or even surrendered to them."
                  Conversely, with the ratio of air victories what?
                  Argentina purged this war for two reasons, the main one being that its sea and air communications were interrupted and its supersonic aircraft shattered British VTOL aircraft in air battles. A fifth of the park, and without loss. The Israelis trained Argenin pilots and the planes were the worst French or American, and they were ten times more superior than the British in the air.
                  1. Normal
                    Normal 1 February 2014 01: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    What `s next? After that, all Argentinean large ships landed in ports!


                    And then what, not because of the Harriers, they stayed in ports.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    I had above the photo it was written "Argentines sunk by the Harriers were also there. Or even surrendered to them."


                    Gneral Belgrano sunk by nuclear submarine Conqueror
                    Submarine "Santa Fe" 25 April damaged by an AS-12 missile from the British helicopter "Wosp"

                    Patrol boat "Islas Malvinas" (did not find how it was destroyed, possibly Harierrom)

                    The remaining ships (namely ships, not ships) - a trawler and 4 transport ships - are not military, but civilian vessels.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Conversely, with the ratio of air victories what?

                    What about the ratio of air victories?
                    The ratio of air victories is a criterion for the effectiveness of DB tactics?
                    The Argentines needed to sink the British ships (and they succeeded on obsolete aircraft, away from the base, with 50% of unexploded bombs and only 6 RCCs), and not drive the Harriars based on them.
                    We in the Second World War also did not chase after German fighters, but focused on army aviation, attack aircraft, front-line and night bombers. Infantry, artillery and tanks were destroyed, and at that time German aces excitedly increased the score of personal air victories.
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 1 February 2014 02: 51
                      0
                      Then the harrier had no normal surface targets!
                      The Atlantic Conveyor was also a ship.
                      The ratio of air victories for aircraft is the primary criterion of their (aircraft) efficiency. And to ignore 40-20 to 1 or to 0, this is not normal ... Argentines quickly stopped trying to drive "some VTOL aircraft" after the first meetings with them, after which they called them Black Death.

                      Attack and bomber aircraft in the Second World War were covered by fighters, who at the same time chased after fighters - as they came. The long non-release of aces to free hunting was later recognized as a mistake.

                      Produla Argentina that war. Because of the Harriers. And if it weren’t for the Harrier, it would have been purged by Britain.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        1 February 2014 03: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Argentines quickly stopped trying to drive "some VTOL aircraft" after the first meetings with them, after which they called them Black Death.

                        This did not stop them from bombing a third of the British squadron.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Produla Argentina that war. Because of the Harriers

                        Has the Harrier prevented Argentina from using its fleet?
                      2. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 1 February 2014 03: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Has the Harrier prevented Argentina from using its fleet?

                        They were prevented by the usual for Hispanic individuals gouging and ostentatious And if Harrier is also on top ... laughing
                      3. Santa Fe
                        1 February 2014 03: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        They were prevented by the usual for Hispanic individuals gouging and ostentatious And if Harrier is also on top ..

                        No, here you are, Ruslan, wrong!

                        It is not possible to go out to sea - under the dark waves "Conquerror", "Spartan", "Splendid" glide ... nuclear submarines of the British

                        General Belgrano - remember what happened to him?

                        And Argentine pilots are an example to the whole world. Most of all I remember the captain by the name of Kurilevich wink

                        Naughty from a cannon at a British destroyer
                      4. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 1 February 2014 03: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        No, here you are, Ruslan, wrong!

                        And the fact that by and large this whole campaign was a big gamble a la torro! without taking into account many factors and insufficient preparation, how is this? I’m not talking about the heroism of pilots or dead sailors, but about the organization itself and its implementation
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 February 2014 04: 49
                        0
                        no, just for them the Harrier's over-maneuverability turned out to be a big surprise.
                        as a result nicknamed "Black Death"
                        see aglitsky from 5:55 to 7:05
                    2. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 1 February 2014 04: 42
                      0
                      Well, well, well ... boys, what about anti-submarine aircraft and destroyers for the fleet and coastal defense? WWII catalina or helicopters? Only this is what the Harriers would do with these pig-driven units if they showed themselves and began to drive the "Conquerors".
                      No matter how hard you are in the pictures, that Russia doesn’t have super-maneuverable and everywhere-based VTOL aircraft, but from 23: 0 there are no Yak-38-like units in the folkend versus french-made supersonic aviation ..
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 1 February 2014 04: 35
                  0
                  Do not bomb but damage. Having lost 86 aircraft at the same time. Or cannon 20mm hits already began to count for drowning?
                  Not a single British UDC, floating ship, or aircraft carrier was lost. Of the substantial damage, only the container carrier transport with the Chinooks. Everything else - ships specially standing on the cover of the bridgehead, one sentinel ship and small vehicles with relaxed marines ignored the order of the officer, insolently refused to unload, and began to play football in the hold. The law is not written to fools, even English.
                  And in your opinion, the entire fleet was prevented from using only one submarine?
                  Harriers destroyed a fifth of the Argentinean aviation fleet. submarines cannot do this.
                3. Santa Fe
                  1 February 2014 15: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Or cannon 20mm hits already began to count for drowning too?

                  Sunk:
                  - destroyer "Sheffield"
                  - destroyer "Coventry"
                  - frigate "Ardent"
                  - frigate "Antilope"
                  - landing ship "Sir Galahad"
                  - transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor"

                  Damaged:

                  - the destroyer "Entrim" - a 454-kg unexploded bomb in the engine room. In the balance of death
                  - destroyer "Glamorgan" - anti-ship missiles "Exocet", damage
                  - the destroyer "Glasgow" - unexploded bomb
                  - Frigate "Plymouth" - 4 (!) Unexploded AB
                  - frigate "Brodsward" - pierced through by an unexploded bomb
                  - frigate "Argonaut" - 2 unexploded bombs, in the balance of death
                  - frigate "Elekrity" - unexploded bomb
                  - frigate "Brilliant" - shot from 30 mm aircraft cannons
                  - landing ship "Sir Lancelotte" - 454 kg unexploded bomb
                  - landing ship "Sir Tristram" - heavily damaged by bombs
                  - landing ship "Sir Bedivere" - damaged by bombs
                  - British Way naval tanker - unexploded bomb
                  - transport "Stromness" - damaged (how - I don't remember)
                  ..........

                  Insolent over the masts of British transports. Harriers! Where are the Harriers ?? HELP !!
                4. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 1 February 2014 18: 34
                  0
                  you don’t remember - look on the Internet ...

                  Harriers were 10 times less than the Argentines - they were not enough at all.
                  Harrier pilots were carried out in cabins for at least 14 hours. Each plane is from 20-28pcs. flew at least 4 times a day for the full duration. They had to cover the islands from at least 3 directions + the fleet itself from two more. Still - to work on the ground.

                  Harriers, who were already few before the war, could not be quickly transferred to the desired direction when repelling concentrated attacks on May 22-25, it is not supersonic, it is the only drawback of VTOL aircraft that they could only overcome in the USSR on the Yak-41.
                  In addition, other directions would be completely bare.

                  Coventry Ardent Antelope was sunk in San Carlos when they covered the landing from air attacks and worked as artillery along the coast.

                  The small transport Sir Galahad was flooded later, like a war grave. This is the very transport on which the bobby, having thought that the war had already ended, sent his officer to cu and instead of unloading (and before that just walking) they began to play football in the hold.

                  Harriers first of all covered UDC (Fearless, etc) and floating barracks (Canberra, etc), in the event of falling into which the bill immediately went to many hundreds.
                  from the shooting by Argentines of transports of 20mm cannons which were mainly with drinking water, there was little sense.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 1 February 2014 02: 33
        +1
        Who were the newest Skyhawks or third Mirages? And at the expense of 10 times this, as it were softer to say, is inaccurate
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 04: 54
          0
          Mirage-3 and Super-Standards are the latest.
          28 harriers against 287 (well, something like that) Argentines.
          1. Santa Fe
            1 February 2014 15: 03
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            28 harriers against 287 (well, something like that) Argentines.

            Do not write nonsense
            You have no idea about that war
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 18: 39
            0
            so do not write.
            I just have a concept about STOVL and that war like no other.
            without false modesty ...
  • Santa Fe
    1 February 2014 01: 49
    0
    Quote: Kassandra
    But what is the ratio of air victories? And with a dry score?

    Who needs a winning ratio, if the main task is failed - the squadron was in the balance of death. While the Harriers were chasing one plane, the rest of the Argentine attack aircraft vigorously destroyed Her Majesty's fleet from the air. And so every day


    The explosion of the frigate "Antilope". Unsuccessful unexploded bomb clearance


    By the way, the main part of the Harriers' trophies is the A4 Skyhawk (a subsonic attack aircraft from the 50s, without a radar), a transport Hercules and a piston Pukara also lit up. Great trophies))) And the "Harriers" were very lucky that the Argentine Mirage / Dagger fighters did not have Sidewinder missiles with an all-round seeker (modification of AIM-9L). And also the fact that the Mirages did not have air refueling and were overloaded with fuel tanks
    Quote: Kassandra
    "so sink and damage 25" or "6 sank"?

    6 sunk
    two dozen more are damaged - I can give a complete list if you are interested


    Destroyer Coventry, bombed by Argentine Navy Skyhawks, sinks.


    All could be sunk but xnumx% of the bombs that hit the ships did not explode The poor Argentos did not even have decent ammunition. The British squadron was in the balance of death. Harriers failed the task

    The amphibious assault ship "Sir Tristram", burned out and lost its buoyancy, returns to its homeland on a semi-submerged platform - it cannot go on its own
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 1 February 2014 03: 13
      -1
      Harriers did not fail the task - Argentina lost the Falklands. And it seems that for a long time, if not forever.
      Royal Navy was not lost a single UDC, no aircraft carrier. Not a single floating barracks.
      But the Navy of the Russian Federation without an air wing cannot even tear out the blacks for some sort of seiner.
      1. Santa Fe
        1 February 2014 03: 39
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        lost argentina falklands

        Of course I lost it when the 83 of the ship’s rod is on them - and the bombs do not explode in the Argentines

        The Argentine Navy is locked in bases by British nuclear submarines. One tried to prove something (the cruiser General Belgrano) - but was sunk in the early days of the war by the nuclear submarine Conquerror
        Quote: Kassandra
        Royal Navy not a single UDC, no aircraft carrier was lost

        Landing ship "Sir Galahad" - sunk
        Landing ship "Sir Tristram" - burned out, evacuated from the DB area on the platform
        Landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - unexploded 454 kg bomb

        With aircraft carriers, everything is simple - "Invincible" and "Hermes" were afraid to approach the islands. The area from combat maneuvering was located 150 miles northeast of the Falkland Islands - where Argentine aviation did not reach

        Accordingly, it turned out to be difficult to provide air cover from such a distance - and the Argentine Air Force continued to spread bombs on the frigates and landing ships of the British. Harriers failed the task

        There, every sunken ship cost more than all Argentinean planes shot down by the Harrier. It was necessary not to stuff personal accounts, but to protect the squadron. But the Harriers were ineffective

        Her Majesty's frigate "Ardent" is on fire
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 04: 58
          -1
          Of course I lost it when your planes "ineffective" CAP-patrols by the most conservative estimates shoot down 23: 0
          and no number of pictures of burning iron posted here from different angles will help you. you have already copied them more than the ships were sunk
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 05: 27
          0
          If you decide to "not stand at the cost" then the biggest price in the war is life.
          Compare the amount of loss in manpower. Most of the sunken ships anchored in the strait and covered the platzdarm from the attacks of Argentinean aircraft.
          the total cost of 86 small flying and 6 waterfowl glands, by the way, would also be bad to compare, because "by weight" aerospace is much more expensive than surface shipbuilding (with underwater, just the opposite).
          1. Santa Fe
            1 February 2014 15: 08
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            Compare the amount of loss in manpower.

            Argentos lost more. But not from the actions of the Harriers.
            They died on the sunken Belgrano 300 +
            In fact, the outcome of the war was decided by British submarines, which scared the Argentines to death and locked their fleet in the bases
            Quote: Kassandra
            Most of the sunken ships anchored in the strait and covered the platzdarm from the attacks of Argentinean aircraft.

            It's a lie,

            I gave you a list of losses in one of the comments, just above
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 18: 47
            0
            Argi lost 2,5 times more
            the British on ships also killed sailors but not landing.
            in fact, the Harriers decided the outcome of the war, constantly multiplying Argentine aviation by 0 and making it impossible to communicate with the islands by air. also - securing its submarines from search and attacks by Argentinean helicopter and aircraft anti-submarine forces.
            the most dangerous enemy of a submarine is a helicopter.
            ...
            a lie - you, it wasn’t written on your list exactly which ship was sunk, or what it was busy with.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 1 February 2014 22: 13
      0
      Argentina lost the Falklands not forever. The German colony has significant weight. And in case of the revival in Germany of the 4 Reich, England herself will bring them to Germany on a silver platter.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 2 February 2014 02: 05
        0
        ja-ja! Siegail
  • bulgurkhan
    bulgurkhan 1 February 2014 00: 18
    0
    Without Harriers, Britain would not have sent a squadron to the Falklands.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 31 January 2014 11: 46
    +7
    When a bomb flies over the infantryman’s head, he won’t give a damn that it was dropped from an under-plane to the letter B. I think it turned out very cool. One type of aircraft (7% difference is not critical) managed to close all possible niches for customers and applications. Maybe now the 35-V is not the most successful model, but no one is stupidly more successful. The technique does not stand still. And the advantages of the concept of a single aircraft for the construction, logistics and maintenance during the war in the other hemisphere outweigh the low characteristics of the samples. In addition, as many of the VOT players present here know, this is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of direct hands and competent use. And for the vertical, there are things to do.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 14: 04
      +2
      More successful is the PAK FA, which as a bomber without the use of an external suspension is more effective. But the flight of a bomb on the infantryman’s head is determined not by the infantryman, but whether the bombing vehicle will even allow the infantryman to reach the infantryman. TTX aviation technology means much more than other types of troops, percent lag in 10-15 can still be covered by tactics, but in general, an airplane has only 2 enemies in the air: fighter and air defense systems, of which only a fighter and the ability to fly can impose battle much better allows both to impose aerial combat and to get out of it, preventing the enemy from leaving the battle. This can always be fired at the tank, or even smash the devices on the tower with a machine gun, and it is difficult to shoot down an airplane flying high and quickly.
      1. iwind
        iwind 31 January 2014 14: 27
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        and a plane flying high and fast is hard to bring down.

        Now the speed of modern missiles reaches 2.500 m / s. I don’t know something about a plane that could accelerate like that ....
        This is a direct argument of Amerika in 60-80, they began to think that we would not be beaten higher, then we tried to increase the speed but quickly realized that you could not run away from the rocket.
        Quote: EvilLion
        More successful is the PAK FA, which as a bomber without the use of an external suspension is more effective.

        By the way, have internal compartments been demonstrated?
        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 31 January 2014 15: 50
          +1
          And there above, comrade broadcasts that SAM is a bullshit. Like no air defense systems have been able to stop the air raid. request
          1. de bouillon
            de bouillon 31 January 2014 16: 07
            -2
            Hanoi was bombed to a "lunar landscape" of 1972 !!

            although Hanoi's air defense was the most powerful air defense in Southeast Asia.
            1. Santa Fe
              31 January 2014 17: 15
              +1
              Quote: de Bouillon
              although Hanoi's air defense was the most powerful air defense in Southeast Asia.

              Ha!
              That's why the loss


              RF-4 received greetings from Earth

              Air Force
              All told, the US Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents.

              Naval forces
              Twenty-one aircraft carriers conducted 86 war cruises and operated 9,178 total days on the line in the Gulf of Tonkin. 530 aircraft were lost in combat and 329 more to operational causes.

              Marine Corps
              US Marine Corps aircraft lost in combat included 193 fixed-wing and 270 rotary wing aircraft.
            2. dustycat
              dustycat 31 January 2014 18: 19
              0
              So there are so many architectural monuments of the centuries before last preserved ...
              And B52 in the middle of an ancient fountain.
            3. sivuch
              sivuch 1 February 2014 02: 28
              0
              Is this an indicator? After all, it was still one junk.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 22: 37
                0
                20 years for a subsonic strategist is not age. actually fly so far
            4. Aleksey_K
              Aleksey_K 1 February 2014 22: 18
              0
              And why didn’t they finally gouge Hanoi? Are the bombs over? No, dear bombers, very expensive, and one might say - piece goods.
          2. iwind
            iwind 31 January 2014 16: 15
            0
            Quote: Evgeny_Lev
            And there above, comrade broadcasts that SAM is a bullshit. Like no air defense systems have been able to stop the air raid.

            Not bullshit, but by itself it will not save from an air raid.
            I just wrote that high altitude and speed will not save the plane from air defense systems and, incidentally, Air-to-air missiles
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Wedmak
          Wedmak 31 January 2014 16: 31
          0
          By the way, have internal compartments been demonstrated?

          The models were shown. Maybe this is just a model, but everything is clogged with weapons.
        4. EvilLion
          EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 31
          0
          If you fly at 15 km at supersonic speed, then at least medium-range air defense in 20-40 km is not dangerous for you, the rocket still needs to go there, although you are not dangerous to targets on earth, but you’ll be standing from the first rockets and collapse.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 22: 40
            0
            it immediately rises there and even higher, then goes in the right direction at speeds up to 5M
            AIM-54 does as well.
      2. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 31 January 2014 17: 11
        0
        It can be argued that PAKFA is not being made for that, and in general is twice as large. But we won’t. This is all important in the framework of the war of 1945-1990. Here we are - here are the Germans, the front line, the forces are approximately equal. Now the war is different. If a bomb flew over the infantryman’s head, that’s all. So the air defense is already crushed, and enemy aircraft destroyed. And here it is not the technical characteristics of the equipment that are important, but its quantity, the perfection of the used weapons complex and competent management.
  • USNik
    USNik 31 January 2014 12: 00
    +1
    The fuselage fuel tank and the built-in 25 mm caliber aircraft cannon have supplanted the two-stage fan, its channels, flaps, and transmission in the form of a uncoupling coupling, drives, shaft, and bearings.
    I understand that a two-meter fool, plus sashes, plus a gearbox and other mechanization weighs in the region of 2 tons? Wouldn’t it be easier to get by with 1-2 lifting engines like on the Yaks? Two RD-41 weighing 300 kg each seem better than a two-ton meat grinder behind the pilot.
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK 31 January 2014 12: 14
    +4
    What I always read on this site are articles by Oleg Kaptsov and comments by VAFa.
  • rotor
    rotor 31 January 2014 12: 30
    +4


    Russia needs a vertical (short) take-off and landing airplane (SVKVP), which can be used on a Mistral UDC.
    1. rotor
      rotor 31 January 2014 13: 36
      0
      The main objective of a vertical take-off attack aircraft will be to support naval landings.

      To provide the necessary thrust-weight ratio, two engines must be installed on the VTOL aircraft. In addition, two engines are twice as likely that the aircraft will be able to return to the airfield.

      VTOL aircraft can perform those tasks that neither aircraft can perform due to their attachment to the runways, nor helicopters due to their limited speed.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 January 2014 14: 01
      +1
      Quote: rotor
      Russia needs a vertical (short) take-off and landing airplane (SVKVP), which can be used on a Mistral UDC.

      Mistral is NOT adapted for VTOL operation. So he doesn’t need to.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 14: 05
      0
      Russia and the Mistrals themselves are not particularly needed.
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 31 January 2014 13: 16
    +1
    It is not surprising that 70% of the total number of F-35s will be occupied by the "A" variant. In terms of its performance characteristics, the base F-35A is significantly superior to the version for the ILC and the equivalent of the version for the Navy, and at the same time is cheaper than both.
  • postman
    postman 31 January 2014 13: 27
    +3
    Quote: Author
    It defies logical explanation. Why did the Americans need to spoil such a design, turning it into an awkward goblin F-35B?

    1: for each ship (destroyer, frigate, UDC) - for a fighter-bomber and at the same time for an AWACS aircraft (see paragraph 2) / for a long arm
    The ocean is large, the zone of interests of the United States is also small, aircraft carriers are few, and the roads (and in operation)
    2. Excellent unique radar and data transmission system
    http://www.ahrtp.com/EG_Images3/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35_JSF_Program_AESA_opt600
    x449_jsf.mil.jpg
    http://www.ahrtp.com/EG_Images3/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35_mission_artist_opt600x3
    83_irandefense.jpg
    3. Anything happens: aircraft carriers destroyed, runways destroyed. And to eat, that is. need to fight.
    It lands and takes off in any village, thereby fulfilling the BZ
    4. Harriers are outdated (morally), you still need to change
    5. The desire to implement At F-35 many of the technological solutions developed at F-22.
    6.LA VVP so and so the "dream" of the military, without attempts to implement this technology in metal .. hardly anything will work.
    Who knows?
    mb. the next step: the rotary nozzle (or 2 for 2x turbojet engines) will move as much as possible to the center of mass of the airframe (long "" tail), when turning it will be combined with the CM, and compensation of parasitic moments - aerodynamic surfaces + pumping fuel through the internal tanks?
    then there is no dead weight in the form of a fan
    1. postman
      postman 31 January 2014 15: 46
      +1
      oops pictures forgot




      1. dustycat
        dustycat 31 January 2014 18: 24
        +1
        I’m thinking ....
        And what will the pilot see on the screen of this prodigy if you turn on a cheap Chinese jammer for mobile phones in the target area?
        1. postman
          postman 1 February 2014 17: 54
          0
          Quote: dustycat
          if you include a cheap Chinese jammer for mobile phones in the target zone?

          1. there will be nothing, these are fairy tales
          2. if the HIGH-TECH JAPANESE MUSHROOM would be used ... there wouldn't be ANYTHING!
          a) la moves, and quickly, and maneuvers
          b) it (the plug) still needs to be brought closer to la (to find it, to catch up with it), and it is pointless from the ground (how does the power of the Amy signal fall from a distance?)
          c) any farthing that will try to fly up and try to drown .... a priori it has LESS energy (remote control aircraft and its size) and smaller antennas (emitters)
          d) nothing ever happens EVEN with lightning discharges (which is millions of times more powerful than some kind of jammer)
    2. Santa Fe
      31 January 2014 17: 05
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      1: for each ship (destroyer, frigate, UDC) - for a fighter-bomber and at the same time for an AWACS aircraft (see paragraph 2) / for a long arm

      Interesting concept, with rational grain.

      BUT Yankees don't even try to move in that direction. The only area of ​​application of the F-35B is the UDC deck with a heat-resistant coating.
      Quote: Postman
      Anything can happen: aircraft carriers destroyed, runways destroyed

      This is ridiculous

      If the enemy managed to sink all aircraft carriers and destroy all the runways, a couple dozen F-35Bs will not be saved.
      Quote: Postman
      4. Harriers are outdated (morally), you still need to change

      http://topwar.ru/39155-samolet-na-bukvu-b.html#comment-id-1904971
      Quote: Postman
      5. The desire to implement At F-35 many of the technological solutions developed at F-22.

      Moreover, F22 and СВВП
      Quote: Postman
      rotary nozzle (or 2 at 2x turbojet engines) will shift to the center of mass of the glider as much as possible

      Yeah. And it will suck in its own exhaust. Hot
      1. postman
        postman 31 January 2014 17: 20
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        BUT, the Yankees are not even trying to move in that direction.

        move. fighter aircraft - bomber and AWACS for each ship (where it fits). Radar AWACS

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        a couple of dozen F-35Bs will not save.

        why dozens? HUNDREDS!

        save.


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Moreover, F22 and СВВП

        F-22 and F-35 technologies, and here VTOL (this is a particular) and part of the application potential


        (technological and elementary base, data transmission channel, remote control, radar, etc.)

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yeah. And will suck

        ?
        Well, if you want to combine the nozzle and air intakes ... then probably
        I wrote about moving the nozzle closer to the CM, and when it "turned" into the CM.
        Solid propellants are all "shorter and shorter" .. become
        1. Santa Fe
          31 January 2014 17: 29
          +3
          Quote: Postman
          move. fighter aircraft - bomber and AWACS for each ship (where it fits)

          Until it breaks in nowhere. Need heat resistant deck and the corresponding infrastructure (you can’t cram into the hangar of modern Burke F-35)

          But it is not visible that the Yankees have done anything in this direction.
          Quote: Postman
          save.

          They will not save. when thousands of F-35A and C were not saved

          Against such an enemy))) Who managed to sink all the Nimes)))
          Quote: Postman
          It lands and takes off in any village, thereby fulfilling the BZ

          Nothing like this. VTOL aircraft will not even fly off the autobahn - and if it does, it will not fly away (moving particles of molten bitumen will clog)
          Quote: Postman
          I wrote about moving the nozzle closer to the CM, and when it "turned" into the CM.

          What am I talking about

          In this case, you will have to breathe with your own exhaust (now - the distance between the nozzle and the air intake is almost equal to the length of the aircraft, and between them is a fan that draws "cold" air under the aircraft)
          1. postman
            postman 31 January 2014 18: 16
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Need a heat resistant deck

            she approaches 2000 K (max) a few tens of seconds ...
            Let running seawater flow under the deck and relax.
            I hope there is enough water?

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            in the hangar of modern Burke

            The aircraft armament of the IIA series destroyers was strengthened by the appearance of a helicopter hangar in the aft part of the ship, withsecondary take 2 helicopters SH-60 Sea Hawk
            Payload: 1 860 kg (HH-60H)
            Length: 19,75 m
            Fuselage Length: 16,256 m (with tail rotor)
            Main rotor diameter: 16,36 m
            The diameter of the tail rotor: 3,35 m
            Height: 5,18 m (with tail rotor)
            Area swept by main rotor: 210,15 m²
            The base chassis: 4,83 m
            Track Chassis: 2,705 m
            Empty weight: 6 kg (anti-submarine version)
            )
            look at the sizes of both the hangar and the helicopters
            Is it necessary? make the wing foldable / removable
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            when not saved thousands of F-35A and C

            When did they "save"?
            it all depends on situevina. Sometimes even one T-90 (the remaining one) can change the outcome of the battle

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and if it flies up, it will not fly far away (moving it will be clogged with particles of molten bitumen)


            nothing will melt in one take-off, don't exaggerate

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            now - the distance between the nozzle and the air intake is almost equal to the length of the plane,

            This has absolutely nothing to do with the intake of "clean" air


            Pretty good ? not choking on combustion products?
            1. Santa Fe
              31 January 2014 19: 04
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              she approaches 2000 K (max) a few tens of seconds ...

              This is PPC
              Quote: Postman
              Run running sea water under the deck

              Will have to change the design of the stern of the destroyer
              Nothing is heard of such work, the Yankees are not going to do so.

              300 F-35B for 30 years, taking into account their natural decline, is hardly enough to equip UDC, advanced a / b and training centers.
              There is nothing even to dream about dozens of Berkov and Zamvoltov
              Quote: Postman
              Pretty good ? not choking on combustion products?

              twink-xnumx?
              no, because his exhaust was thrown back, and not for himself
              Quote: Postman
              This has absolutely nothing to do with the intake of "clean" air

              The lift fan doubles the air flow through the power plant, thanks to the power supply to it in 17 000 l. s, while lowering the average temperature of the exhaust and reducing the speed of the outflowing jets, which becomes important at near-zero flight speeds.
              Quote: Postman
              Track Chassis: 2,705 m

              Wingspan 10,7 meters
              Yankees do not even itch to make a folding wing for the F-35B

              As a result, in its current form, the F-35B project is a waste of money. Application is limited to decks of UDC
              1. postman
                postman 31 January 2014 19: 58
                -1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                This is PPC

                Why something?
                Bonfire flame temperature 450 ° C, coal up to 600 like.
                They jump naked through the flame (+ 43 ° С of the body, a person dies), and walk barefoot over the coals.
                10 Ki Seconds .... every 2 hours take-off and landing .. Armored deck .. This is not an aircraft carrier?

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Will have to change the design of the stern of the destroyer

                come on. A hose with water in the hands of a sailor watering the deck under the F-35, if it is so difficult for you

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                no, because his exhaust was thrown back, and not for himself


                naturally. This was an example of SHORT TRD.
                for some reason you suffocate at 3,5 meters ... But at 7 no.
                WHY?
                Make slotted (or flapper) air intakes TOP.
                When there is no oncoming flow and "shadow", it doesn't matter where you (the compressor) will suck in air (from above, below, along the course, from the side ... in the end)

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                while reducing the average temperature of the exhaust and reducing the speed of the outflowing jets, which becomes important at near-zero flight speeds.


                increase air flow bypassing the turbine (Something like f-22, to reduce IKI)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Yankees do not even itch to make a folding wing for the F-35B


                Why did you manage to visit Lockheed?

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                project F-35B - waste of money.

                So with enviable persistence the woodpeckers consider the public to be a topvar, and many in Russia ... WITHOUT Bringing ANY SERIOUS ARGUMENT, except for tape (s) py and other "military" experts.
                Well, do you really believe Zadornov: "Well, these Americans are so stupid"?
                / somehow it does not fit with the surrounding reality
                1. Santa Fe
                  31 January 2014 20: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  Jump naked through the flame (+ 43 ° С the body of a person dies)

                  Fractions of a second. Feet are heating up. Death occurs when the brain cells are heated, but the brain is protected by the body's thermoregulation system.
                  Quote: Postman
                  A hose with water in the hands of a sailor watering the deck under the F-35, if it is so difficult for you

                  Let's say this - but what about the restructuring of the hangar. Even when folded, the f-35 will not fit inside the standard Burke hangar.
                  Quote: Postman
                  This was an example of SHORT TRD.

                  The separation of the air intakes and nozzles in space is important only for VTOL aircraft, because there is an exhaust "for yourself" and there is a risk of choking on hot gases
                  Quote: Postman
                  Why did you manage to visit Lockheed?

                  The JSF program is well covered in the press. The last time about a folding wing for VTOL aircraft was remembered in the 2011 year, but then the British Navy removed this requirement and now everything has died out
                  Quote: Postman
                  NOT GIVING ANY ONE SERIOUS ARGUMENT

                  I seem to have brought enough

                  It is a question of about F-35B - in its current form (300 pcs., based only on the decks of UDC, deteriorated performance characteristics) it does not make sense
                  1. postman
                    postman 31 January 2014 20: 59
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Fractions of a second. Feet are heating up.

                    10 seconds and detachment, the upper covers of the deck are heated, the deck is not your skin, it was smelted probably at 3500grS

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    but the brain is protected by the body’s thermoregulation system

                    1. there is no way to reach the "ozg" of the F-35
                    2. Thermoregulation - water hose, ice on the deck, fan, etc.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    but what about restructuring the hangar

                    Do you want to say this CAPITAL structure? it's a stall
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Air intake

                    And on gurtovka dust, stones and so on.
                    Take air from above

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The British Navy removed this requirement and now everything is dead

                    will not fit into the hangar, remember
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    I seem to have brought enough

                    That it is bad la? (I meant this about woodpeckers)
                    Sorry, but.....
                    And as an argument: they are not
                    Lockheed is not AvtoVAZ
                    1. Firstvanguard
                      Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 23: 03
                      0
                      Do you want to say this CAPITAL structure? it's a stall

                      Here you are deeply mistaken, enough time to visit a large warship in order to understand that this is not so.
                      1. postman
                        postman 1 February 2014 17: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Firstvanguard
                        enough time to visit a large warship

                        1. Was, both in Russian and German (Kiel), still in Spanish (El Ferrol), Vikramaditya was the same, with the Indians, until it
                        2. Even the son, the youngest, and the wife, incl. -the class was lucky with a personal excursion on the "Guarding"
                        3. hangar this is a hangar, a superstructure. On the first berks they were not, on the rest there
                    2. Simple
                      Simple 31 January 2014 23: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      And on gurtovka dust, stones and so on.
                      Take air from above


                      It will be an expensive pleasure.


                      And this whole story with the unification of the F35B with the F35A, F35C - we must not forget when this decision was made - what state the best "friend" of the United States was in.
                      And then there was something to change .... repeat

                      PS On Wikipedia, an article on F35 has already been translated into 53 language. laughing
                      1. postman
                        postman 1 February 2014 17: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Simple
                        It will be an expensive pleasure.

                        Why?

                        Quote: Simple
                        we must not forget when this decision was made

                        it has nothing to do with Britain.
                        This is an attempt to implement the principle of MQB (Beginning of a New Era) in aircraft construction.

                        Quote: Simple
                        PS Wikipedia article on F35

                        so what?
                        type "stealth", UVT in a search engine, you will get a LOT of Russian patents. what's the point?
                      2. Simple
                        Simple 1 February 2014 18: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        Why?


                        In general, a vertical landing of a plane with a jet stream on a primer will be an expensive pleasure for engines and everything that gravel and sand can get into (please note with good kinetic energy). And moving the air intake to the top will not save.


                        Quote: Postman
                        it has nothing to do with Britain.


                        Meant Russia
                        (have already rubbed their hands that "made" the "evil empire"
                        and therefore, the stake was made more on savings in production (all three versions are produced at the same factory with the maximum unification of units and parts) than on gaining superiority).



                        The Wikipedia article on F35 has already been translated into 53.



                        This fact reminded me more of the instruction manual for imported (or rather, exported) goods. smile
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 February 2014 20: 56
                        0
                        Helicopters with turbojet engines, as it is not afraid of dust.
                      4. Simple
                        Simple 1 February 2014 23: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Helicopters with turbojet engines, as it is not afraid of dust.



                        4.25.14. Features of the operation of the helicopter on sites with snow (dust) cover
                        .............
                        Note. The dust-proof device of the engines does not provide 100% purification of the air entering the engines from particles. Therefore, it is desirable (if possible) to avoid the operation of helicopters on a sandy (dusty) site without first watering it.
                        Taken from the Mi-8MTV-5-1 Flight Manual


                        In our (F35B) case, the jet stream of the engine hits directly on an unequipped area, and with a force that is incomparably greater (on the same area) than that of the rotor of the helicopters.
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 February 2014 23: 59
                        -1
                        Desirable, but not necessary
                        The danger is not in the blockage of the engine, but in the fact that the plane will simply "burrow", as in self-digging.
                        If the nozzle is bold from a level ground, then it will continue to gently fly by inertia or chase with gas and not be sucked into the air intake.
                        To avoid erosion of the site, special classes are put for vertical landings of these devices.
                      6. Simple
                        Simple 2 February 2014 00: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        If the nozzle is bold from a level ground, then it will continue to gently fly by inertia or chase with gas and not be sucked into the air intake.


                        Yes, you can "blow through" your landing site by helicopter.

                        F35B sits strictly upright and:
                        In our (F35B) case, the jet stream of the engine hits directly on an unequipped area, and with a force that is incomparably greater (on the same area) than that of the rotor of the helicopters.



                        see from 1: 28 to 1: 40 min.
                      7. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 2 February 2014 01: 11
                        +1
                        it will all fly up into the glider and into the air intakes only if the vertical jet stream manages to knock out a cavity in the landing site. in order to prevent this from happening, automotive special formats are used, i.e. the platform is equipped.
                        look better at youtube which pyramids were under the vertically starting V-2 and Natter
                    3. Simple
                      Simple 2 February 2014 00: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      To avoid erosion of the site, special classes are put for vertical landings of these devices.


                      This is a prepared site. smile
                    4. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 2 February 2014 01: 17
                      0
                      she gets ready in a few minutes or the plane just lands in the caravan, in which she is ready.
                      an ordinary airplane generally needs an airfield.
                    5. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 2 February 2014 01: 21
                      0
                      Yeah, preliminary preparation, preflight, preparation for the next flight, not to mention routine maintenance also in the trailer?
                    6. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 2 February 2014 01: 27
                      0
                      and for helicopters and other planes with this how?
                      for all this kilometer runway needed? which is known where and in case of war will immediately be in the holes?
                    7. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 2 February 2014 01: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      case of war
                      In case of war, the planes will be already in the air,
                    8. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 2 February 2014 01: 53
                      0
                      Does June 1941 and June 1967 teach nothing? or just one of these?
              2. Simple
                Simple 2 February 2014 13: 52
                0
                Good morning.

                Quote: Kassandra
                she gets ready in a few minutes


                The army will introduce "Kassandra standard" fellow


                or the plane just lands in the caravan


                Try this trailer imagine

                an ordinary airplane generally needs an airfield.


                In general, I’m not even going to discuss the top of someone’s imagination.
              3. Kassandra
                Kassandra 2 February 2014 16: 37
                +1
                no need to imagine - these trailers of Afghan times for the Yak-38 can be seen on YouTube
                ..
                the fact that an ordinary airplane needs an airfield is it discussed?
              4. Simple
                Simple 2 February 2014 16: 54
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                these trailers of Afghan times for the Yak-38 can be seen on YouTube


                You will not be difficult to find these frames?
              5. Simple
                Simple 2 February 2014 17: 27
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                these trailers of Afghan times for the Yak-38 can be seen on YouTube


                Found. The question with the trailer is removed. hi

  • postman
    postman 2 February 2014 05: 11
    0
    Quote: Simple
    will be an expensive pleasure for engines

    1. or rather takeoff. when landing, everything will be "swept", from the moment of approach
    2. on take-off, I’ll immediately offer you 5k methods: grid, cone, etc. discarded, but usually cost mats and wetting
    3. knocked out dust, stones, etc. will not fly into the nozzle, ESPECIALLY if the fence at c and p is on top (slotted, flaps, etc.)

    Quote: Simple
    all three versions are produced at the same factory with the maximum unification of units and parts

    sorry ... but it was intended, this is the "salt" of the unified platform
  • Simple
    Simple 2 February 2014 17: 01
    0
    Quote: Postman
    when landing, everything will be "swept", from the moment of approach


    We will not guess.

    Not a single F35B take-off or landing test with unequipped site not made public.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 2 February 2014 20: 47
    0
    and do not make it public unless it is rocky soil.
    the site is easily equipped
    metal mats from thick reinforcement and corners, or special coating as in Kiev.
    thoroughly Americans like digging a foundation pit with a depth of 1,5 m and putting a thick heat-resistant net on it, but I would not recommend believing in it ... (patamuchto net without backups, and patamuchto Americans).
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 31 January 2014 20: 59
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    As a result, in its current form, the F-35B project is a waste of money. Application is limited to decks of UDC

    this is more than enough. The ILC will thus be able to act quite independently. And if the Navy Air Force will be involved to support the SV, then the ILC will completely cost the UDC grouping. The benefit of them will be two dozen.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 31 January 2014 21: 04
    0
    Harriers somehow fly ...
  • Firstvanguard
    Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 22: 57
    +1
    Nothing like this. VTOL aircraft will not even fly off the autobahn - and if it does, it will not fly away (moving particles of molten bitumen will clog)

    Oleg, I’ll return to Yu.Mitikov, he said that he took off in the sand, despite fears, did not create any problems, despite the fact that the Yak-38 did not have a fan in front, but lifting engines with the same exhaust as the main one.
    But this is about the Yak-38, how it is there for the F-35 is unknown.
  • Know-nothing
    Know-nothing 31 January 2014 20: 42
    0
    F-35B - airplane NOT vertical take-off! It should take off from a short run.
    STOVL - short take-off and vertical landing
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL
    1. postman
      postman 31 January 2014 21: 02
      0
      Quote: Dunno
      NOT vertical take-off!


      I don’t mind

      Quote: Dunno
      and vertical landing


      A vertical take-off and landing (VTOL)

      it all depends on the combat load
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 31 January 2014 23: 00
        0
        Does not depend! It depends on the knowledge of English, and on how much the cerebellum is prokanifolen by the political officers. You can shoot any plane with accelerators even obliquely, even though vertically from the mine, or like the Shuttle. If not from a mine and not ballistic into orbit, then it is better - obliquely.
        1. postman
          postman 1 February 2014 17: 42
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          Does not depend!

          not funny....
          check out the yaks and harriers
          Quote: Kassandra
          It depends on the knowledge of English, and on how much the cerebellum is prokanifolen by the political officers.

          some kind of nonsense ... how the cerebellum of a political officer can influence what we discuss
          Quote: Kassandra
          You can shoot any plane with accelerators even obliquely, even though vertically from the mine, or like the Shuttle.

          nonsense. can not
          Check out the work on the RTT accelerators
          and vertical start ("ANY" aircraft) is generally nonsense, like mine (maximum longitudinal load and engine thrust)
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 21: 07
            0
            acquaint. how does it depend?
            somehow they have been affecting mentality for almost 50 years ...
            at the same time google about launches of the MiG-19 with a lift-up launch accelerator.
            what is wrong with the longitudinal load of an airplane with a thrust ratio greater than 1 going up?
            1. Simple
              Simple 2 February 2014 14: 14
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              at the same time google about launches with a lift-up accelerator.



              http://www.airvectors.net/avzel.html
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 2 February 2014 16: 42
                0
                something like this, only in the USSR it was done earlier on the basis of PU "Sopka"
                By the way, they pounded in Vietnam.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 31 January 2014 22: 31
      0
      Quote: Dunno
      F-35B - aircraft NOT vertical take-off! It should take off from a short run.

      Initially it wasn’t. Now it can take off vertically
    3. Kassandra
      Kassandra 31 January 2014 22: 55
      0
      all right - this type of hypnosis only rolls with the Russians, when you call it like an airplane (VTOL) and they will use it.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 33
    0
    In idiocy, it is comparable to the "Great Leap Forward" in China, when, due to the lack of a brain, a steel furnace was installed in every village.
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 31 January 2014 13: 30
    0
    By the way, they say that the F-35 will replace the A-8, A-10 attack aircraft and the F-16C, F / A-18C light fighters. And what then goes to replace the heavy F-15C and F-15E? "Raptors" no longer produce It is doubtful that the number of 187 F-22s will be a worthy replacement for the 556 F-15s.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 31 January 2014 14: 42
      0
      Yes, the same F-35s will be replaced. The F-35 is far from an easy fighter.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 31 January 2014 15: 37
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        Yes, the same F-35 and replace.


        This is not possible, the F-15 needs a more serious replacement, like the F-22.

        Quote: patsantre
        F-35 is far from a light fighter.


        It may be light and with a big stretch, but it does not pull far from heavy.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 13: 59
    +1
    Author
    Eight tons of combat load at 10 suspension points - in terms of its striking capabilities, the F-35A can compete with the formidable Su-34, surpassing the latter in terms of the range of ammunition used and the ability to detect / select ground targets.
    Range of flight:
    maximum:
    F-35A: 2200 km
    F-35B: 1670 km
    F-35C: 2520 km
    Combat radius without PTB and air refueling [84]
    F-35A: 1080 km
    F-35B: 865 km
    F-35C: 1140 km
    Please note- the maximum flight range of 2200 km, combat radius of 1080 km
    On the Su-34
    Range of flight: 4000 km
    Combat radius: 1100 km
    Interestingly, the author does not raise questions?
    Two 35-kg bombs and two air-to-air missiles are placed inside the F-900, and if hung on an external sling, it might be better on the F-18, cheaper like.
    The avionics are fantastic, but in the process there are problems even with the combination of digital streams, although these technologies seem to have been worked out for a long time, according to the glider, in some flight modes there are vibrations that lead to cracking, electromagnetic protection also raises questions. A helmet with an all-perspective vision of the flight situation was put aside, in it 90% of pilots lose their spatial orientation.
    Yes, and the F-35 is not yet, all 100 pieces are prototypes, a lot of high-profile statements, they can also change their mind as they changed their minds with the X-47V. So according to the F-35V, this is for Americans the most useful research and development, many of which were developed by Soviet engineers in the 80s, which can be used with benefit in the future on drones.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 31 January 2014 14: 39
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Yes, and F-35 is not there yet, all 100 pieces are prototypes, a lot of high-profile statements, they can also change their minds as they changed their minds with X-47В.

      Not prototypes. Small series, it makes a big difference
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 20: 37
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        Not prototypes. Small series, it makes a big difference

        A small series is in trial operation, according to the results of the trial operation, changes will be made and then when the aircraft is put into service all this, the so-called small series will undergo modernization to the level adopted for service.
        If you insist, and you do not like the word prototype, I do not mind, let there be a small series with a big difference.
        A prototype is a working model, a prototype of a device or part in design, construction, modeling.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 31 January 2014 22: 38
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          A small series is in trial operation, according to the results of the trial operation, changes will be made and then when the aircraft is put into service all this, the so-called small series will undergo modernization to the level adopted for service.

          A prototype is still something different
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 31 January 2014 14: 43
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Range of flight:
      maximum:
      F-35A: 2200 km
      F-35B: 1670 km
      F-35C: 2520 km
      Combat radius without PTB and air refueling [84]
      F-35A: 1080 km
      F-35B: 865 km
      F-35C: 1140 km
      Please note- the maximum flight range of 2200 km, combat radius of 1080 km
      On the Su-34
      Range of flight: 4000 km
      Combat radius: 1100 km
      Interestingly, the author does not raise questions?


      And why is it not indicated with what load the range is? So these are meaningless numbers.
      1. Santa Fe
        31 January 2014 18: 09
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        And why is it not indicated with what load the range?

        And what is the flight profile (altitude)
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 20: 28
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And what is the flight profile (altitude)

          The height, in this case, is most favorable for the flight range.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 20: 17
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        And why is it not indicated with what load the range is? So these are meaningless numbers.

        There is such a thing as normal take-off mass, and it seems to be calculated according to it.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 40
        0
        13500 on 500km Hi-Hi-Hi, 350km Hi-Low-Hi
        10950 on 1000km Hi-Hi-Hi, 550km Hi-Low-Hi, 350km Low-Low-Low
        8000 on 1450 Hi-Hi-Hi, 750km Hi-Low-Hi, 500km Low-Low-Low
        5000 on 2050 Hi-Hi-Hi, 1650 Hi-Low-Hi, 1000 Low-Low-Low

        So Su-34 5 tons of bombs on 1000 km will deliver even from the ground.
    3. iwind
      iwind 31 January 2014 17: 01
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Yes, and the F-35 is not yet, all 100 pieces are prototypes, a lot of high-profile statements, they can also change their mind as they changed their minds with the X-47V. So according to the F-35V, this is for Americans the most useful research and development, many of which were developed by Soviet engineers in the 80s, which can be used with benefit in the future on drones.

      And what is the "change of mind" of the X-47B, now the Navy is looking for money and is drawing up a technical assignment, the only problem is that, according to the law, a contract for such an amount should be in the form of a tender, and apart from the X-47b, no one is ready.
      And the F-35 is no longer a prototype. The plane already uses almost the entire range of weapons.
      Training drill faces from different countries. Most likely there will not be any global changes, except for the transition to the 3B software version, now they use 2B
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 20: 25
        0
        Quote: iwind
        And what is the "change of mind" of the X-47B, now the Navy is looking for money and is drawing up a technical assignment, the only problem is that, according to the law, a contract for such an amount should be in the form of a tender, and apart from the X-47b, no one is ready.

        So we closed this project and a new tender was announced in this direction in which 4 companies are participating, of which Northrop Grumman and its groundwork on the X-47B are participating.
        1. iwind
          iwind 31 January 2014 20: 39
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          So we closed this project and a new tender was announced in this direction in which 4 companies are participating, of which Northrop Grumman and its groundwork on the X-47B are participating.

          The tender has not yet been announced, on January 27 there was a statement by the US Navy that they were not ready to formulate a requirement + they did not want to conduct a tender as this would require additional costs (excuse), since they wouldn’t even start working with Northrop Grumman.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 1 February 2014 11: 34
            0
            Quote: iwind
            The tender has not yet been announced, on January 27 there was a statement by the US Navy that they were not ready to formulate a requirement + they did not want to conduct a tender as this would require additional costs (excuse), since they wouldn’t even start working with Northrop Grumman.

            So the X-47B project is closed or not. If everything is fine with the X-47B, then why all the fuss would have continued, but you can see that something is wrong.
            1. iwind
              iwind 1 February 2014 21: 43
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              So the X-47B project is closed or not. If everything is fine with the X-47B, then why all the fuss would have continued, but you can see that something is wrong.

              And why did you get that it is closed? A plan for 2014 has already been announced. One of the main goals of the 2014 program will be interaction with manned aircraft (as a slave). Once again I explain the Navy wants to start working with Noron now, but the law needs a tender.
              TK is also changing, initially it was supposed to be reconnaissance and as a secondary shock. X-47b showed itself so well that it was decided to change the TK (AFAR, using the entire nomenclature of armament F / a-18), as well as make DRLO and the tanker on its basis. But everything comes down to money, the estimated cost announced by Notn is $ 150 million apiece, according to the company, they are ready to start production ... BUT without the approval of the congress and / or tender, no one will give money.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 1 February 2014 22: 29
                0
                Quote: iwind
                but the law needs a tender.

                Quote: saturn.mmm
                So we closed this project and a new tender was announced in this direction in which 4 companies participate which includes Northrop Grumman with its developments on the X-47V.

                Most likely the Northrop Grumman will win the tender, I do not deny it, but the X-47B will not be anymore, the work on it will be used.
                There were rumors of a new tender more than two months ago, I thought I had already announced.
                Quote: iwind
                X-47b performed so well that it was decided to change the TK

                All kinds of rumors are circulating, not only good ones, no one will tell the truth anyway.
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2014 22: 37
      0
      F-35B carries bombs on 450 kg, there is not enough space for more space.
      Su-34 at a range of 300 km at low altitude EMNIP something about 12.5 tons of booms can carry.
  • spirit
    spirit 31 January 2014 14: 00
    +1
    And if the meaning of creating the latter is obvious, then the appearance of the “vertical line” based on the F-35 does not lend itself to a sound explanation.

    Well, what can be incomprehensible and inexplicable? !!!! Everything is extremely simple! the Lockheed Martin guys just wanted to snatch the whole pie without dabbling in a bite with other companies. And I’m pretty sure that they let such sweet little things into the ears of the Pentagon that they’ll have everything OK, that they will be seduced. They are yelling now (when they already gave the denyushka) what? Well, what do you want? there are no miracles. The main thing is that they got the whole scribble, and what they got there was another question. My opinion is this! What if the Pentagon would give the order and time to quietly work for other companies, and would not go on about Lockheed, if they had vertical rules! And so, knowing the lag in this matter, Boeing in a hurry created, I'm sorry, this one is HIGH!
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 14: 10
      0
      Quote: spirit
      Boeing in a hurry created, forgive this one HIGH


      An interesting photo, as far as I know, this is a Boeing X-32. And one of the reasons for his loss in the JSF competition was his "wide smile". The 35th "Penguin" is better than the 32nd "Goose" laughing
  • Letun
    Letun 31 January 2014 14: 07
    +3
    Quote: caption under the photo
    F-35B and Honorary Senator McCain. Both are standing each other

    laughing Damn, well, the author and the joker, for only one thing he put the article plus good
  • Pimply
    Pimply 31 January 2014 14: 53
    +5
    Oleg, as always. You don’t see the application - you start to give anything at all to show how bad the concept is. So with aircraft carriers, and with F35B. Honestly, it becomes funny. You ruled out the installation of conformal tanks, as well as the fact that in the future it should form the basis of the air groups of the new UDC like America, which in essence are light aircraft carriers with limited landing capabilities and significantly expanded compared to the previous generation Uosp ships , the capabilities of the air group.
    That is, you mentioned them, of course, but as always enlisted as worthless, despite the fact that this concept more than meets the objectives of the ILC, which acts as the main customer. And in the characteristics, if you rummage around, it turns out that not everything is so bad, especially compared to the fourth generation.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 15: 53
      0
      Quote: Pimply
      this concept more than meets the objectives of the ILC


      The very motive for the purchase of the F-35B for the ILC is explained not by the "need" for VTOL aircraft, but simply by the continuation of the "tradition of vertical takeoff." After all, in the early 1970s, the ILC bought Hawker Harriers from Great Britain, and they did not bring much benefit. In 1985 it was adopted for service with the A-8 Harrier II, created on the basis of the first Harrier. But in subsequent military operations this aircraft was either not used or was used very limitedly. Airborne Air Defense Forces did not live up to the hopes that were placed on it. And now the Americans are already the third step on the rake, trying to The F-35C, which surpasses the "B" variant in a number of parameters, can cope with its work at sea. Nowadays "vertical take-off and landing" is no longer relevant.
    2. Santa Fe
      31 January 2014 16: 54
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      You ruled out the installation of conformal tanks, as well as the fact that in the future it should form the basis of the air groups of the new UDC like America, which are essentially light aircraft carriers

      I wrote in black and white - this fuss doesn’t matter when Nimitz with a full air group of real planes goes in the wake of the UDC

      Reality is discouraging even more - EVERYTHING that we have seen to this day has passed through a SINGLE SCENARIO: 80 ... 90% of combat missions are solved by land-based airplanes

      Those. a natural question arises - why the development of the F-35B VTOL aircraft was needed. From the military t. it doesn't make any sense. However, the rich have their own quirks - "continuity of traditions" and all that ...
      Quote: Pimply
      in fact, they are light aircraft carriers with limited capabilities for landing and significantly expanded capabilities of the air group in comparison with the ships of the previous generation Uosp.

      But in fact, neither fish nor meat

      20 non-aircraft F-35B - a drop in the ocean with normal Navy / Air Force aircraft,
      To land a landing - and here is a fig. On the "America" ​​there is no docking camera (LHA-class), all "landing" is limited to infantry with light weapons. Even the armored personnel carrier will not be able to land
      Quote: Pimply
      despite the fact that just this concept more than meets the objectives of the ILC

      This "concept" has never shown itself in practice in the whole history. Yankees have always fought differently
      Quote: Pimply
      And in the characteristics, if you rummage around, it turns out that not everything is so bad, especially compared to the fourth generation.

      TTX is very bad - given that for this money it was possible to build 1000 much more formidable F-35, saving on R&D on VTOL
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 31 January 2014 17: 26
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I wrote in black and white - this fuss doesn’t matter when Nimitz with a full air group of real planes goes in the wake of the UDC

        Has, Oleg. At least in terms of autonomy and operational flexibility. You cross them out all the time from the overall strategic picture, forgetting that in fact both classic and UDC aircraft carriers offer. You take them out of the scope of a complex of decisions, and happily forget about everything in brackets. Marine Corps solves autonomous problems.
        For example, you need to start solving the situation tomorrow, and not in two weeks. And then it takes you to UDC primary hits. Or you embed your ship with F35В in the Allied squadron - like an operation in Libya, where you do not need the presence of a full-fledged carrier group.

        Now, if you look from this angle, and, for example, you are considering the possibility of such aircraft operating from small runways or strips, traditionally not intended for fighters, you will understand why they are needed and how much expand the capabilities of the army command.


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        20 non-aircraft F-35B - a drop in the ocean with normal Navy / Air Force aircraft,
        To land a landing - and here is a fig. On the "America" ​​there is no docking camera (LHA-class), all "landing" is limited to infantry with light weapons. Even the armored personnel carrier will not be able to land


        Strange, but I read something else. For example, Osprey is there. And also for the landing of the expeditionary battalion of the marine corps are used:
        2 landing craft LCU or
        3 LCAC air cushion landing craft or
        6 landing craft LCM-8 Landing Craft, Mechanized
        40 amphibious armored personnel carriers of the Marine Corps AAV7 (in normal configuration) or 61 (in maximum).

        The docking chamber was not on the first ship.

        And again - you are considering the situation as if the ship is going all alone.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This "concept" has never shown itself in practice in the whole history. Yankees have always fought differently

        In fact, the Yankees are looking to the future

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        TTX is very bad - given that for this money it was possible to build 1000 much more formidable F-35, saving on R&D on VTOL

        They do not need 1000 much more formidable F-35 series A and C. They need series B, because it performs those tasks that A and C are not capable of
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 31 January 2014 17: 55
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Or you embed your ship with F35В in the Allied squadron - like an operation in Libya, where you do not need the presence of a full-fledged carrier group.


          Let's say it is possible so. But in 2011 during the "Dawn of the Odyssey" no Harriers were visible. This proves that simple takeoff planes are much more convenient and cheaper during minor conflicts.

          Quote: Pimply
          the ability to operate such aircraft from small runways or runways, traditionally not intended for fighters


          The Yankees have no problems with this. They have all the airfields ready for the war and in excellent condition. And if there is such a problem, then you can drive the Nimitz with dozens of F-35C or F / A-18E / F.

          Quote: Pimply
          In fact, the Yankees are looking to the future


          Only in the future every time it fails. When the Harriers bought from the British at the beginning of the 70, they also looked to the future. And when they created the A-8 Harrier II. But they did not bring any benefit in the future either.

          Quote: Pimply
          They do not need 1000 much more formidable F-35 series A and C. They need series B, because it performs those tasks that A and C are not capable of


          Firstly, option "B" is unreasonably more expensive. Secondly, what tasks does the version with GDP perform better than the F-35A and F-35C? The combat radius is smaller, the ceiling is smaller, the combat load is less, the overload is less ... and no advantages over options "A" and "C".
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 31 January 2014 19: 09
            -1
            Quote: supertiger21
            Let's say it is possible so. But in 2011 during the "Dawn of the Odyssey" no Harriers were visible. This proves that simple takeoff planes are much more convenient and cheaper during minor conflicts.

            Or maybe it shows that Harier is somewhat outdated, and for that situation was somewhat inexpedient? Or remember that the US did not use classic aviation there very actively, but actively involved UAVs?

            Quote: supertiger21
            The Yankees have no problems with this. They have all the airfields ready for the war and in excellent condition. And if there is such a problem, then you can drive the Nimitz with dozens of F-35C or F / A-18E / F.

            Somewhere not, somewhere there. Is it really necessary to explain what operational flexibility is?

            Quote: supertiger21
            Only in the future every time it fails. When the Harriers bought from the British at the beginning of the 70, they also looked to the future. And when they created the A-8 Harrier II. But they did not bring any benefit in the future either.


            Not using this or that type of weapon does not mean that it is of no use. Does C-300 benefit from a non-combat use? Judging by your theories, no.

            Quote: supertiger21
            Firstly, option "B" is unreasonably more expensive. Secondly, what tasks does the version with GDP perform better than the F-35A and F-35C? The combat radius is smaller, the ceiling is smaller, the combat load is less, the overload is less ... and no advantages over options "A" and "C".

            How unjustifiably more expensive? There is a difference in 20 millions with the dry-land version and in 10 millions with the marine version. Where is the unjustified?
            Yes, less. However, its advantages allow the aircraft to be used in those conditions and with such operational flexibility with which its counterparts cannot be used.
            1. Santa Fe
              31 January 2014 19: 35
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              Or maybe it shows that Harier is somewhat outdated, and for that situation was somewhat inexpedient?

              This shows that amers have hundreds of air bases - in any region of the Earth

              as a last resort (the aliens captured Easter Island) - there are 10 nimtsev
              Quote: Pimply
              Is it really necessary to explain what operational flexibility is?

              Operational flexibility - a couple of good airbases within a radius of 500 km.
              The Air Force provides fire support and "call work" from the "air watch" position. So much more flexible and faster
              Quote: Pimply
              The United States did not use classical aviation there very actively, but did they actively use UAVs?

              hundreds of F-16 and F-15E. Even B-2 with AB Whiteman drove
              Quote: Pimply
              Not using this or that type of weapon does not mean that it is not useful

              Harriers were used in battle. And every time they had the worst performance indicators

              that is the question
              Quote: Pimply
              However, its advantages allow the aircraft to be used in those conditions and with such operational flexibility with which its counterparts cannot be used.

              Operational flexibility - provided by the time spent in the air and the speed of response to calls

              Finding a decent airbase (airfield) within a radius of 500 km from the database area is not a problem
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 31 January 2014 21: 24
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                This shows that amers have hundreds of air bases - in any region of the Earth
                as a last resort (the aliens captured Easter Island) - there are 10 nimtsev

                Could not approach, the draft is large and there is shallow.
            2. supertiger21
              supertiger21 31 January 2014 21: 27
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              Or maybe it shows that Harier is somewhat outdated, and for that situation was somewhat inexpedient?


              If you are talking about obsolescence, I want to remind you. The F-16, which made its first flight in the 1974 year, was the most massive coalition aircraft in the 2011 war of the year. Does that mean that the F-16 is outdated, judging by your logic ?!

              Quote: Pimply
              Or remember that the US did not use classic aviation there very actively, but actively involved UAVs?


              And what does the UAV have to do with VTOL aircraft? Unmanned aerial vehicles are necessary in modern warfare (which cannot be said about vertical take-off).

              Quote: Pimply
              Somewhere not, somewhere there. Is it really necessary to explain what operational flexibility is?


              Oleg explained this to you. Why land on "unprepared airfields" when American bases are everywhere like mud ?!

              Quote: Pimply
              Not using this or that type of weapon does not mean that it is of no use. Does C-300 benefit from a non-combat use? Judging by your theories, no.


              You did not understand me correctly. The S-300 has no combat use, because its operators did not participate in significant conflicts. And Harrier did not use it, because: 1) Small combat radius 2) Eats a lot of kerosene 3) Its tasks are easier and much better done on classic takeoff planes.

              Quote: Pimply
              How unjustifiably more expensive? There is a difference in 20 millions with the dry-land version and in 10 millions with the marine version. Where is the unjustified?


              There is a misconception that why pay more for whose LTX is worse. You are talking about one unit. But what if you buy 100-150 aircraft? Then the price has a big factor.

              Quote: Pimply
              Yes, less. However, its advantages allow the aircraft to be used in those conditions and with such operational flexibility with which its counterparts cannot be used.


              What operational flexibility The Yankees have no problems with a shortage of runways. Either the Nimitz with 75 fighters will sail not far from the coast, or the Americans will lease the airfields of the neighboring state.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 1 February 2014 01: 27
                0
                Quote: supertiger21
                If you are talking about obsolescence, I want to remind you. The F-16, which made its first flight in the 1974 year, was the most massive coalition aircraft in the 2011 war of the year. Does that mean that the F-16 is outdated, judging by your logic ?!

                We are not talking about the year of production. The F-16 went through many more upgrades, if so, than the SuperHare, which initially had not too impressive characteristics. Off-year moral obsolescence is measured.

                Quote: supertiger21

                And what does the UAV have to do with VTOL aircraft? Unmanned aerial vehicles are necessary in modern warfare (which cannot be said about vertical take-off).

                Watching where, looking when

                Quote: supertiger21
                Oleg explained this to you. Why land on "unprepared airfields" when American bases are everywhere like mud ?!

                Oleg proves his point of view, not taking into account objective reality. But the reality is that for focus you need not only the right hand, but also the left. The Americans understand this, but Oleg and you do not.


                Quote: supertiger21
                There is a misconception that why pay more for whose LTX is worse. You are talking about one unit. But what if you buy 100-150 aircraft? Then the price has a big factor.

                As part of their concept, they believe that the price is justified. And they are absolutely right, because this device is capable of operating from such platforms from which no one is able to act


                Quote: supertiger21
                What operational flexibility The Yankees have no problems with a shortage of runways. Either the Nimitz with 75 fighters will sail not far from the coast, or the Americans will lease the airfields of the neighboring state.


                They see stupid, wretched. You don’t understand what are the limitations of the ground base? At all? Ask the flyer any
                1. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 1 February 2014 11: 46
                  0
                  Quote: Pimply
                  We are not talking about the year of production. The F-16 went through many more upgrades, if so, than the SuperHare, which initially had not too impressive characteristics. Off-year moral obsolescence is measured.


                  And so what? Harrier has also been modernized many times. But unlike him, the F-16 has become successful and has been used pretty well to this day. And Harrier has almost not shown himself anywhere (except for the Falklands 1982). VTOL has a bleak future.

                  Quote: Pimply
                  Oleg proves his point of view, not taking into account objective reality. But the reality is that for focus you need not only the right hand, but also the left. The Americans understand this, but Oleg and you do not.


                  You also do not look at the matter objectively. You only look at the plane itself, and for what you need it the Yankees (or rather do not need it at all) you do not care. The Yankees managed, somehow without VTOL for 40 years, which means now he will not be obligatory for them in conflicts.

                  Quote: Pimply
                  As part of their concept, they believe that the price is justified. And they are absolutely right, because this device is capable of operating from such platforms from which no one is able to act


                  The same was said when the Harrier was created. "He has an advantage, they say, takes off from a place," but his peers, unlike him, were used in the biggest wars and proved to be reliable machines. Phantoms, Migs and Mirages have the number of air there were more victories than the pilots of the Harriers themselves.

                  Quote: Pimply
                  They see stupid, wretched. You don’t understand what are the limitations of the ground base? At all? Ask the flyer any


                  What restrictions could it have? For example, Operation Desert Storm. American, Saudi, British and French pilots used airfields in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. But the Harriers were not visible, the "huge" combat radius "does not allow" fight)
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 February 2014 13: 09
                    -1
                    The F-16 has become so "successful" that no one except countries like Poland takes them. Dates have F-18
                    in Iraq, harriers flew from the ground, and by the way made 3/4 of the total number of sorties, most of the usual aircraft flew from the ground too.
                    All the victories there were for F15, and F16 almost completely brought down nothing during his career.
                    Harrier showed himself back in Bosnia - because of him, the Yugoslav MiGs did not fly there.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      1 February 2014 15: 10
                      +1
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      in Iraq, harriers flew from the ground, and by the way made 3 / 4 of the total number of sorties,

                      You just lie
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 03
                        +1
                        vi just dried up ...
                        sorties. helicopters - separately. they laid the main task of knocking out the T-72 and 137 pieces were lost and not only 38 as CNN claims
                        A-10 is used in Afghanistan where the spirits do not have military air defense. A-10 as Apache cannot shoot from behind a dune. And above 5tys their accuracy was none and they were still shot down.
                        The most dangerous enemy of the tank is a helicopter. To defeat them (especially the fast-moving ones, in urban conditions), even expensive tungsten buckshot was returned to tank shots.
                        ..
                        Intensively, apart from the Harriers, only the F-15 was used, and all victories were theirs. They worked in half, because the MiG-29go without Harrier F-15 will not be gored. Harriers because of their over-maneuverability just knock everything down in close combat. And in the distance or when trying to exit the MiG from the near - it’s already the F-15 turn.
                    2. EvilLion
                      EvilLion 1 February 2014 15: 47
                      +1
                      For brainless idiots, I inform you that the F-16 is the most massive aircraft of the 4 generation. Do not know the materiel, do not push the buttons.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 10
                        -2
                        here to the brainless iota and push the loaves
                        it is the most worthless 4th generation airplane (like a fighter). unlike the F-15, he shot down almost nothing, and is intended mainly for combating air defense systems (because vertok and cheap)
                        he is single-engine. for anti-fighter combat, he has a lack of thrust-weight ratio.
                    3. supertiger21
                      supertiger21 1 February 2014 17: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      The F-16 has become so "successful" that no one except countries like Poland takes them.


                      Please, if you don’t own the information, don’t carry what you don’t know. Now they take people like Poland. But, remember the 1980s and 90s when the F-16 was the best-selling fighter in the world. And for its time it’s successful, but Harrier is not .

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      in Iraq, harriers flew from the ground, and by the way made 3/4 of the total number of sorties, most of the usual aircraft flew from the ground too.


                      Please link where it says "Harriers accounted for 75% of all sorties."

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      All the victories there were for F15, and F16 almost completely brought down nothing during his career.


                      For the poorly informed, I explain. F-16 participated in almost all conflicts, starting with the Lebanon war and Desert Storm, ending with the Balkan wars and the intervention in Libya. And the vaunted Harrier showed himself only in the Falklands in 1982 and that’s all. Contrary to your rash statement The F-16 won 72 confirmed air victories, with 13 shot down (most unconfirmed). Harrier in the Falklands won 21 air victories, confronting Argentinean inexperienced pilots flying in Mirage III. Harrier never showed himself anywhere else.

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      Harrier showed himself back in Bosnia - because of him, the Yugoslav MiGs did not fly there.


                      Yes, it showed))) A couple of experimental sorties and that’s all. You made the MiGs laugh at all. What a threat Harrier might pose for the MiG-29, which will deal with it just after starting an air battle. Although for Harrier and the MiG-21 it’s dangerous.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 February 2014 21: 27
                        0
                        Selling to whom? For those who have a match, they sorted out quickly :-)) And now they take only F-18
                        ...
                        Please find the link on the Internet yourself. by keywords. Better in english.
                        ...
                        "Inexperienced Argentine Pilots" were trained by Israeli Air Force pilots.
                        Harrier after Falkland participated everywhere. after he showed himself there, no one risked contacting him.
                        All the victories of the storms in the desert - for the F-15, absolutely, One - for the Saudi.
                        What other experimental flights to Bosnia? Under Harrier, the NATO countries are even full of light aircraft carriers, and all this fought.
                        F-16s for all the time shot down less than one and a half dozen aircraft and these were mainly Su-17, the Israelis also shot down almost all of the F-15 and not the F-16 is just a cheap aircraft to combat air defense systems.
                        The MiG-29 does not possess super-maneuverability like a Harrier. I hope this word "Super-agility" is familiar? The MiG-29 can avoid a battle with a harrier (if there is where), since he is subsonic. But to win it - no. Therefore, in order for MiGs not to climb into the area there, it is enough to just walk a couple of Harriers. Or stand on the ground.
                      2. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 2 February 2014 10: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-16s for all the time shot down less than one and a half dozen aircraft and these were mainly Su-17, the Israelis also shot down almost all of the F-15 and not the F-16 is just a cheap aircraft to combat air defense systems.


                        Well, you don't live in a cave ?! How can you deny the fact of aerial victories of the F-16. The fighter has successfully proved itself, the total score of confirmed and unconfirmed aerial victories is 74:13 in its favor. And it was not created "to fight the air defense system", but as a counterbalance to the Soviet MiG-21. And its most frequent enemy in battles was not the Su-17 (as you say), but the MiG-23M and MiG-23BN. At least just go to Wikipedia if you are too lazy to look from other sources.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The MiG-29 does not possess super-maneuverability like a Harrier. I hope this word "Super-agility" is familiar? The MiG-29 can avoid a battle with a harrier (if there is where), since he is subsonic. But to win it - no. Therefore, in order for MiGs not to climb into the area there, it is enough to just walk a couple of Harriers. Or stand on the ground.


                        I am amazed at your sense of humor. The fact that the Harrier hovers in the air or flies backwards does not mean that he is "super maneuverable." The first super maneuverable fighters were the Su-27M and MiG-33. Following your logic, we are creating PAK FA in vain, because there is a mighty Harrier who is not afraid of anything)))
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 2 February 2014 13: 12
                        0
                        in any case, not in Tora Bora ...
                        This is where you read about it? or maybe seen enough American military-patriotic cinema? Or maybe you just like the F-16 scout profile?
                        F-15 was developed in contrast to the MiG-21. according to the results of the Vietnam war.
                        there were also antiradar "Wild Weasels" which were tormented mainly on the F-105
                        see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_weasel#Current picture on the right.
                        The IDF is supported by the F-15I, however, the earlier versions of the F-15 from the MiG-23MLD were also snapped off ... Steeper than it, before 1988 no one had anything at all. Then just that one engine affected.
                        I am surprised at your carelessness. The fact that Harrier is super-maneuverable means that he has a gas-jet control system that facilitates the turnaround, and there is a controlled thrust vector that appeared in other countries decades later on the Su-35 and F-22. Harrier somehow withstood the overload in dogfight with Mirages and daggers in which they raked 23: 0.
                        Without the presence of an aircraft similar to the Harrier (or better as the F-35 / Yak-141 +), everything in the RF Air Force fleet, except for the MiG-31 and Tu-160, loses its meaning. Therefore, after perestroika, the best was immediately sacrificed.
                      4. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 2 February 2014 15: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        This is where you read about it? or maybe seen enough American military-patriotic cinema? Or maybe you just like the F-16 scout profile?


                        They write about this everywhere, if you are not aware. I am not any "fan of the American military-industrial complex", but a realist. They will not say this in movies. I read all this in various military-technical literature, and everywhere it all comes down to one thing. The F-16 is certainly not the most unique fighter of the fourth generation, but it won more than 70 air victories with losses of just over 10, it was not for nothing that 4500 units were released. Can your "unique and invincible Harrier" boast of this ???

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The fact that Harrier is super-maneuverable means that he has a gas-jet control system that facilitates the turnaround, and there is a controlled thrust vector that appeared in other countries decades later on the Su-35 and F-22. Harrier somehow withstood the overload in dogfight with Mirages and daggers in which they raked 23: 0.


                        Harrier can only hover over one section of air, while super maneuverability is the ability to turn the plane into supercritical angles of attack, while flying at medium-high speed (600-900 km / h). Only the smart British can see that they created super maneuverability in 1960, and Americans and Russians only in the late 80s and 90s))) Is this your position?

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Without the presence of an aircraft similar to the Harrier (or better as the F-35 / Yak-141 +), everything in the RF Air Force fleet, except for the MiG-31 and Tu-160, loses its meaning. Therefore, after perestroika, the best was immediately sacrificed.


                        Know all the rulers are stupid, all the people in defense are stupid, and you are one genius who knows how to solve the problem))).

                        Firstly, it’s much more expensive to create and produce GDP aircraft than simple take-off aircraft. The operation of such fighters requires a lot of money, with little return on VTOLs themselves in the form of military benefit.

                        Secondly, aircraft of this type have a much greater accident rate than with classic take-off and landing. One of the reasons for this is the complex ATS system.

                        Thirdly, the combat radius and combat load of such as the Harrier and the Yak-38 can be very small, even compared to the second generation airplanes. Even the modern Yak-141 and F-35B have less load and range than their peers.

                        Fourth, ATSS are not suitable for medium-sized (France, Turkey, Ukraine, Thailand) and large states (Russia, Canada, India, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Mexico, the USA) .As such countries have a large territory with a large number of airfields, which they won’t be able to bomb right away (the main argument of VTOL supporters). These planes are more suitable for small, with a limited number of airfields, such as Greece and Azerbaijan, Cuba and South Korea, etc. etc.
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 2 February 2014 20: 20
                        0
                        Well, before 74:13 they wrote about 84: 1 (moreover, everywhere!). And by whom and where was this literature written?
                        All this misinformation is illuminated by the statistics of the victories of the F-15 in the Iraq war where the F-16 did not bring down anything at all.
                        In the Arab-Israeli su-17 bombed by him and a couple of twinks may still fall, but no more. Because the IDF ridge is the F-15. Which, too, like the American then, basically did nothing at all grudgingly shot Arabs from a dash from afar, with missile guidance not from radar but from AWACS. The Arabs' airborne radars put it at the end of the wars - there weren’t any of them on the overwhelming majority of MiGs, only a radio sight / radio range finder at best. And even nothing at all.
                        F-16e worked there on the ground, sometimes encountered the Syrians. Despite the numerical advantage, the losses suffered no less than they shot down themselves, because the MiG-23 was also a problem for the F-15 (the F-15 was made for the confrontation with the MiG-21). It’s easy with the Su-17 bomber, but both MiGs were superior in thrust-weight ratio, which is the main thing for a fighter. Offensive combat is conducted on the verticals.
                        ..
                        4500, this roughly corresponds to the number of Chinese and Soviet air defense systems that need to be broken.
                        ..
                        That is, the British were when they created the Harrier for Europe because the ATS aviation left all NATO (including France, Turkey) without airfields for the first 1-2 days?
                        Airfields are not set up more often than necessary. Even in large countries. Accordingly, when they are "thinned out", then problems arise with the tactical air presence in this part of their territory.
                        ..
                        about harrier, you can boast of intrusive ignoring all the same Falkledian 23: 0, after which during all wars the Harriers simply flew over to the supersonic side if they couldn’t manage to knock him down from a piece. Meanwhile, the sign of the so-called fighter fighter 4th generation is the ability to conduct close maneuverable combat. Well, why the hell did they give up if they can’t lead him because of some VTOL (unknown generation) if he is in the area?
                        Harrier’s aerodynamics (as well as the engine) are optimized for close-range subsonic and it can conduct super-maneuverable combat in the entire speed range if the pilot extends the overload
                        The Russians created super-maneuverability when they created the Yak-36, it was in shaggy 1963. He could do the same in the ex-Yak-38. Yak-38 - almost everything is the same except VIFFiTP, i.e. use only gas jets. and this is the only thing he conceded to harrier.
                        The Americans did not create anything at all. First, they unlicensedly stole the harrier from the British through a fake consortium, then they "bought" Yak141 in the Russian Federation for half a lump of greenery.
                        ..
                        why immediately the leaders are stupid, maybe just .. enemies go mariontecs? stupid in a madhouse go home sitting they are not allowed to drive even motor vehicles.
                        ..
                        the accident rate of F-104 and other widowmaker's was higher
                        on the Su-35 need to be canceled too? can still take off the flaps and then they suddenly refuse?
                        accident rate is usually higher than airdromes because you have to land on a patch.
                        accident rate of ordinary deck, or ordinary during operation from short stripes is even higher.
                        ..
                        Here's how to create a VTOL much more expensive? Not much, but here it will bring down - he.
                        This extra airdrome will cost a lot of money for all its operational instability.
                        ..
                        The VTOL load is significantly less only with a vertical start without accelerators, and the radius of action is generally less insignificant.
                        ..
                        These aircraft (VTOL) are most common in the large United States, because they are not fools ...
                        Here it’s not necessary here to pollinate the brains of people on a political basis, because in other countries this has been flying for 45 years.
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 2 February 2014 13: 32
                    0
                    In the sense - a supersonic Yak.
                    For almost all, the Tu-160s also went through bulldozers, and the production of low-resource engines for the MiG-31 was destroyed.
                    Now there are only one spare set for two MiGs, the carcasses are registered, and a likely enemy is trying to fly on Yak.
                    In general - a battered one is not lucky.
    3. Kassandra
      Kassandra 31 January 2014 23: 15
      +1
      They did not create the AV-8, this is Harrier, who, through a fake consortium, was simply unlicensedly selected and the Britons.
      it was oooooo very american! :)
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 1 February 2014 11: 13
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        They did not create the AV-8, this is Harrier, who, through a fake consortium, was simply unlicensedly selected and the Britons.
        it was oooooo very american! :)


        A very erroneous statement. Even before the creation of the A-8, the Americans warned the British that they would create an attack aircraft based on the GDP fighter-bomber. The airframe design was slightly modified, light materials were used, the number of suspension points was increased, a new radar was installed. Then, on the basis of the American attack aircraft, already The British created their own version of the "Second Harrier". But as subsequent conflicts and wars showed, the aircraft were completely useless. F-18 fighter-bombers and A-10 attack aircraft performed much better strike work than the Harrier II. In 2011, the British removed from service their Harrier (never using it), and the Americans plan to write it off in 2015-2017.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 1 February 2014 12: 58
          0
          They themselves could not cope, and decided to create a consortium with the British, to which they came with their Harrier, then they threw the British out of the consortium.
          America was unable to create either pre-sonic and supersonic VTOL itself.
          3 / 4 sorties to 2-th Iraq is .. Harriers
          All the rest of the aircraft except them, F-15 and AH-64 (and not A-10) there proved to be practically useless.
          1. Santa Fe
            1 February 2014 15: 16
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            America was unable to create either pre-sonic and supersonic VTOL itself.
            3 / 4 sorties to 2-th Iraq is .. Harriers
            All the rest of the aircraft except them, F-15 and AH-64 (and not A-10) there proved to be practically useless.

            Kassandra raves
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 19
              +1
              Greeks also thought so ...
            2. supertiger21
              supertiger21 1 February 2014 21: 23
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Kassandra raves


              That's what I'm talking about!
              1. Normal
                Normal 1 February 2014 22: 15
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Kassandra raves

                Quote: supertiger21
                That's what I'm talking about!

                No, just swagger. In a turn and on a courage not such a thing comes to mind:
                Therefore, in order for MiGs not to climb into the area there, just walking a couple of Harriers is enough. Or stand on the ground.

                All! Wunderwafel invented! We put around Russia in a pair of Hariers in a circle and ...
                How easy it is to win ...
                And the men don’t know .... laughing
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 22: 33
                0
                men just know - you can ask the pilots. or see what super-maneuverability is, it appeared only on the F-22 and Su-35
                because of her, at the Falkdends 20 years earlier, it was 23: 0 (according to the most conservative estimates).
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra 1 February 2014 22: 42
              0
              Greeks also believed
    4. Santa Fe
      1 February 2014 15: 15
      +1
      Quote: Kassandra
      AV-8 did not create, this is Harrier,

      There is only a common name Harrier

      Another engine, another wing - wingspan increased by 2 meters, take-off weight increased by 3 tons, fuel supply increased by 2 tons, all avionics were replaced. And still, the result was stupid
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 15
        0
        This is Harrier! In addition to the increased wing area, there is nothing else. The engine is the same, by the way, and this is the only thing the United States is forced to pay to the British.
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 1 February 2014 23: 02
        0
        British harriers, after the collapse of the "canorsium" in which England came with a harrier and America with nothing, were also constantly modernized ...
        the best that America was able to create in this direction herself was Bell XV-14, this is moto.velo.nedo Yak-36 :-)) which they are very proud of.
        everything else is stolen.
        they are REALLY DULL! and greyhounds. you still don't know the cowboys ...
        By the way, the fact that they did not return their gold reserves to many countries after WW2 because typos are true on their bonds (Fed) ...
  • ty60
    ty60 1 February 2014 01: 22
    0
    They have their own Serdyukovs, and do not look for a black cat ...
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 2 February 2014 00: 32
      0
      there the bagheera rather lodges ...
  • Santa Fe
    31 January 2014 18: 00
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    You cross them out all the time from the overall strategic picture, forgetting

    And you forget about concrete examples all the time, falling into lengthy reasoning and replacing real facts with words and imagination
    Quote: Pimply
    Marine Corps solves autonomous problems.

    The ILC duplicates the tasks of the army on land, acting as the most trained and well-equipped expeditionary units.

    Air is the prerogative of the Air Force. So it was, is and always will be

    The ILC cannot autonomously solve all the problems on land, on water and in the air. Marines cannot do without Air Force support
    Quote: Pimply
    Or you embed your ship with F35В in the Allied squadron - like an operation in Libya, where you do not need the presence of a full-fledged carrier group.

    Gaddafi bombed 150 land-based aircraft - from air bases on about. Crete (Sauda Bay), Greece (Araxos), Italy (Siganella), etc.
    Quote: Pimply
    you will understand why they are needed, and how much expand the capabilities of the army command.

    See how the Yankees crashed all the airbases and civilian airports from the UAE to Jordan and Egypt with airplanes, and you will understand how they fight in the real world, and not in your fantasy world (this is a Desert Storm)
    Quote: Pimply
    The docking chamber was not on the first ship.

    And the rest will not have "extended capabilities" of the air group
    Quote: Pimply
    you consider the situation as if the ship is going all alone.

    No, it's YOU considering the situation as if the ship is alone
    Quote: Pimply
    In fact, the Yankees are looking to the future

    They’ve been watching 70 years, 5 generations of fighters have changed - but the plot is the same: everyone is being pressed by the Air Force. The main striking force in local (and global) wars
    Quote: Pimply
    They do not need 1000 much more formidable F-35 series A and C.

    There is. The order volume for the F-35C is not enough to equip even 6 aircraft carriers with them.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 31 January 2014 19: 24
      0
      No, Oleg. Concrete examples say that the Americans use all possible forces, not limited to one attack vector, but with the help of the available COMPLEX capabilities, they can threaten the enemy from several points at the same time, stretching the forces of the latter to the maximum and weakening them. This is a practice, not the piece you are looking at, each time recalling a greater number of land flights.

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The ILC duplicates the tasks of the army on land, acting as the most trained and well-equipped expeditionary units.

      Air is the prerogative of the Air Force. So it was, is and always will be

      The ILC cannot autonomously solve all the problems on land, on water and in the air. Marines cannot do without Air Force support


      The ILC acts as a forward expeditionary force, taking the first strike and clearing the territory to supply the main forces.

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Gaddafi bombed 150 land-based aircraft - from air bases on about. Crete (Sauda Bay), Greece (Araxos), Italy (Siganella), etc.


      Yes, yes, while you again exclude everything else. Oleg, statistics is a deceiving science. You isolate just that conveniently. And all these forces acted in COMPLEX. And you exclude the complex as a fact from reasoning.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      See how the Yankees crashed all the airbases and civilian airports from the UAE to Jordan and Egypt with airplanes, and you will understand how they fight in the real world, and not in your fantasy world (this is a Desert Storm)

      And am I arguing with this? Once again, I’m just telling you: the Yankees use ALL leverage. Attack from all possible sites. The marine platform allows you to quickly respond to changing situations, not depend on land bases, and quickly transfer shock forces. Naturally, they focus on land bases. And you do not consider features of such bases? For example, a situation where the country in whose territory the base is located, or through which the plane should fly, is not interested in its participation in the conflict? How is that option?


      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And the rest will not have "extended capabilities" of the air group

      Why?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      No, it's YOU considering the situation as if the ship is alone

      Why?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      They’ve been watching 70 years, 5 generations of fighters have changed - but the plot is the same: everyone is being pressed by the Air Force. The main striking force in local (and global) wars

      Pressed. AND? They duplicate the possibilities, so that, if necessary, do not end up with a bare ass


      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      There is. The order volume for the F-35C is not enough to equip even 6 aircraft carriers with them.

      Oleg, they are betting on work in conjunction with a UAV, have you forgotten? X47 what is being developed for? They have 327 deck aircraft in order, more than enough
      1. Santa Fe
        31 January 2014 19: 57
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        Specific examples say that the Americans will use all possible forces, not limited to one attack vector ... the ability to threaten the enemy from several points simultaneously

        ))))))))
        See the picture below.
        Quote: Pimply
        The ILC acts as a forward expeditionary force taking the first strike

        Well, not so categorically
        share 50 / 50 tasks with the army. In fact, the KMP is the army, but with other uniforms and show-offs + the protection of embassies and parades
        Quote: Pimply
        statistics - science is deceiving

        Yeah, where there. Of the 30 thousand sorties, 27 thousand were made by the US Air Force (Odyssey)
        Quote: Pimply
        And all these forces acted in COMPLEX. And you exclude the complex as a fact from reasoning.

        And you exclude from the argument the interest of bureaucrats from the Pentagon
        If you submit to the public the full statistics of the wars of recent years - half of them will lose their places, along with the UDC, F-35B and a good half of Nimitsev.

        All this useless equipment is brought in there for a look - because it was built and now you need to use it at least somewhere. Otherwise, the question will arise about the appropriateness of its existence and the presence of extra general posts
        Quote: Pimply
        Why?

        Instead of the advanced capabilities of the air group - a docking camera
        Quote: Pimply
        Why?

        In this case - why the UDC 5-10 of under-planes, if on the beam Nimitz with a full air group
        Quote: Pimply
        They have 327 deck aircraft in order, more than enough

        For the next 30 years? Given their natural decline, prototypes and aircraft to equip training centers?
        Quote: Pimply
        X47 what is being developed for?

        Reconnaissance, bombing of the Papuans - it is impossible to replace them with F-35C

        Fire on the Prairie, route F-111. F-15E flew from Lakenhit to 2011 along the same path. Modern combat vehicles cost nothing to reach the target with an unexpected direction

        Here's the whole "multi-vector attack")))
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 1 February 2014 01: 59
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Well, not so categorically
          share 50 / 50 tasks with the army. In fact, the KMP is the army, but with other uniforms and show-offs + the protection of embassies and parades

          Oleg, based on this logic, the army is everything at all.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Yeah, where there. Of the 30 thousand sorties, 27 thousand were made by the US Air Force (Odyssey)

          Oleg. The Odyssey is only the American part of the operation. Do not confuse. And the numbers are different.
          During Operation United Defender, from March 31 to October 1, October 2011, the total number of international coalition sorties over Libya was 23 938. Americans made 5316, 4500 - French

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          All this useless equipment is brought in there for a look - because it was built and now you need to use it at least somewhere. Otherwise, the question will arise about the appropriateness of its existence and the presence of extra general posts

          Oleg, hundreds of people see expediency. Thousands. And you are not. You offer a person with two hands to use one.


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In this case - why the UDC 5-10 of under-planes, if on the beam Nimitz with a full air group

          And we discussed this: a large-scale invasion is not always necessary, it is not always necessary to drive the entire carrier group, it is not always possible to quickly adjust the carrier group.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          For the next 30 years? Given their natural decline, prototypes and aircraft to equip training centers?

          And who told you that the figure will not change and there will be no additional orders of equipment? So far, apparently, the numbers suit them.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Santa Fe
            1 February 2014 02: 25
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            Oleg, based on this logic, the army is everything at all.

            US ARMY - Ground Forces
            The ILC has no few differences from the army - only the uniform is different. And more show off. Aircraft assigned to the ILC - with the same success can be attributed to the Air Force, because they are based on the shore at the same airfields.
            Quote: Pimply
            The Odyssey is only the American part of the operation. Do not confuse. And the numbers are different.
            During Operation United Defender, from March 31 to October 1, October 2011, the total number of flights of international coalition aircraft over Libya

            Zhenya, you mixed everything up!
            Allied Protector - maritime operation to combat Somali pirates
            Quote: Pimply
            You offer a person with two hands to use one.

            The naval deck aviation, as well as the "vertical" aircraft on the UDC - it is impossible to find a case over the past 50 years where this "hand" would mean anything.

            This is a rudiment. atavism.
            Quote: Pimply
            it is not always necessary to drive the entire carrier group, it is not always possible to quickly adjust the carrier group.

            If the enemy is a complete sucker, you can not take a steam bath and seize the capital's airport, as was the case in Somalia, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Operation Serval in Mali (2013), etc.
            Quote: Pimply
            And who told you that the figure will not change and there will be no additional orders of equipment?

            Based on the number of air wings of each Nimitz / Ford - the figure should be increased at least 2 times!
            And Congress will not allow this.
            Quote: Pimply
            So far, apparently, the numbers suit them.

            You yourself are not funny
            327 divided into 10.

            and do not forget to consider that 327 - taking into account prototypes and technology for training parts

            Do you know what this place is? Marine Corps Hornets Prepare for War with Iraq, Sheikh Isa Air Base (Bahrain)
      2. ty60
        ty60 1 February 2014 01: 44
        0
        any design for wartime provides for the duplication of everything and everything. This is one of the options, and cut, for further cooperation. When we go in total to the fu-35 tut35 in the deck and lie down. The Yak 38 at the factory airfield always started with a vertical. Not 141 managed to bring to mind, the fleet is exactly the same. However, Harrier wasn’t. The head with the patch killed everything.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • I think so
    I think so 31 January 2014 15: 56
    -3
    How not to criticize the American planes, but the conclusion is obvious, they lightly made Russian in all respects. Russian industry and science are no longer able to adequately respond to new developments, let alone large-scale deliveries of any weapons to the troops ... And therefore, it remains only to criticize the small mistakes of a competitor who ruined you ...
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 January 2014 16: 22
      +1
      Quote: I think so
      they lightly made Russian in all respects.


      And you argue, there is no need for empty words. Provide a link that says that the LTX F-35 is better than the PAK FA or at least the MiG-35 and Su-35.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 31 January 2014 16: 56
        +4
        I would not say that there is a lag in the area of ​​funds. sciences. There is an advantage in technology and mass production, especially in electronics.
        Here's my question: "And since the collapse of the USSR, what has been created in the West that is fundamentally new in the field of arms?" Yes, they caught up and went ahead a little in fighters. Yes, the navy was always stronger in the West. In space, they even passed a little. And so, there is nothing fundamentally new. The same Bradleys with the Abrams (no matter how they criticized Soviet armored vehicles, but they are competitive to this day), Minutemans with Tomahawks, M16 and M249, etc.
        You can argue with the author. Honestly, I did not understand the opinion of the author. But it’s obvious that its speed is low. One engine, in terms of safety, is not enough. I am silent for the price - they wanted cheap, but got it as always. Yes, it wins in electronics. Then, about 8 tons of weapons, I somehow can’t believe it (it’s probably with one bucket of diesel fuel, as the respected VAF explained). Inside only 2 1000f. bombs or 4 rockets, which is not enough. And out - there is no stealth.
        In a word, a controversial fighter that can hardly be called a "breakthrough". The Russian leadership is probably waiting with the MiG-35 until the United States adopts its F-35. But this is only guesswork. hi
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 31 January 2014 17: 29
          +3
          Quote: Kasym
          Here is my question: "And since the collapse of the USSR, what has been created in the West that is fundamentally new in the field of armaments?"

          What will be fundamentally new for you? Convertibles? Massive use of UAVs? Laser weapons? New guidance systems? New fighter protections? Universal equipment of fighters with optical devices of small multiplicity?
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 1 February 2014 02: 03
            +2
            Hello ! A tiltrotor is rather a vehicle that will not give a principal advantage on a battlefield. UAVs and lasers - this has been tested and developed in the USSR and the USA has no particular advantage in this area (in the scientific plan, there are, as I have already noted in technology and mass production). UAVs against developed countries (in terms of air defense and the air force) do not have much to catch, so there probably wasn’t a mass release under the USSR. In principle, it is extremely difficult to create a mobile, combat, laser installation (a one-time one does not count) - you have to carry an atomic reactor with you.
            Optical devices, as in electronics, I already wrote there is a lag. But as I already wrote, not in science, but in production.
            And all that you have brought can be attributed to shock types or, in other words, firepower with a stretch.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 1 February 2014 02: 20
              +1
              Quote: Kasym
              Hello ! A tiltrotor is rather a vehicle that will not give a principal advantage on a battlefield.

              Yeah. Only accelerates the delivery of ammunition to the battlefield and the wounded from the battlefield twice.
              Quote: Kasym
              UAVs and lasers - this has been tested and developed in the USSR and the USA has no particular advantage in this area (in the scientific plan, there are, as I have already noted in technology and mass production).

              And bullets were tested in the 16 century. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between those bullets and today's ones. One name still does not mean anything. And the difference there is fundamental


              Quote: Kasym
              UAVs against developed countries (in terms of air defense and the air force) do not have much to catch, so there probably wasn’t a mass release under the USSR.

              This is nonsense, sorry.
              Quote: Kasym
              In principle, it is extremely difficult to create a mobile, combat, laser installation (a one-time one does not count) - you have to carry an atomic reactor with you.

              Double nonsense. I recommend reading about modern lasers and methods of their military use.


              Quote: Kasym
              Optical devices, as in electronics, I already wrote there is a lag. But as I already wrote, not in science, but in production.

              The 90 nano and 14 process is 20 years behind
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 1 February 2014 16: 03
                0
                The article about "combat" lasers was here quite recently. It is now up to really combat lasers, like starships.
                1. postman
                  postman 1 February 2014 17: 48
                  0
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Currently, up to really fighting lasers, like up to starships.

                  You will be incredibly surprised when after 3 (!) Years RheinMetal (Oerlikon) will begin to install a unified BL platform on the ships of the German Navy, just in time for the launch of the new destroyer)
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 1 February 2014 21: 00
                  0
                  they stopped the evolution of 3-Mach aircraft back in the late 60s
                  According to "Carbonic Power", melted thick pipes were shown as early as 15 years ago.
      2. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 23: 16
        0
        He thinks so laughing
        This is the main argument.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 31 January 2014 18: 32
      +1
      Quote: I think so
      and the conclusion is obvious, they lightly made Russian in all respects.


      Compare with Yak130.
      Reasonedly.
      The conclusion will surprise you.
      1. Santa Fe
        31 January 2014 18: 39
        0
        Quote: dustycat
        Compare with Yak130.

        Supersonic T-38 "Talon" based on the F-5 Tiger fighter from the 1950s?

        Still the best TCB
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 February 2014 16: 04
          0
          He is 100 years old at lunch, and avionics are unlikely to change radically.
          1. Santa Fe
            1 February 2014 16: 19
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            He is 100 years old at lunch, and avionics are unlikely to change radically.

            It is cheap, reliable, easy to use and convenient for training cadets and developing piloting skills.

            Talon's Cabin
      2. ty60
        ty60 1 February 2014 01: 52
        0
        Compare God's gift with fried eggs
    3. ty60
      ty60 1 February 2014 01: 49
      0
      Keep thinking. As soon as you think of it, you'll see that you are sitting on a chain in a shed by a Wahhabite.
  • Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 31 January 2014 16: 05
    +2
    The existence of the F-35B is simply explained by the structure of the US Armed Forces, in which the Marine Corps is separated from the Navy, Air Force and ground forces. They need their own combat aircraft, which can take off from the UDC and support the landing of the Marines. Therefore, they should put a little bit on the combat radius because the UDC will be approaching the enemy point-blank, the combat load, since there will be only residual targets after the work of the Navy and the Air Force, but the price and complexity are not important when the question is about show-offs and independence.
    But the opportunity to abruptly with the whole crowd rise from the UDC in the event of a sudden attack, sits down without interfering with those taking off, and other VTOL buns will be very useful to them in such a tactical sphere of application.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 January 2014 16: 42
      0
      Quote: BlackMokona
      US Air Force structure, in which the Marine Corps is separated from the Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces.

      All differences - in chevrons and uniform color

      They fight in the same system, supporting each other. In the air, up to 90% of combat missions are solved by the Air Force
      Quote: BlackMokona
      They need their own combat aircraft, which can take off from the UDC and support the landing of the Marines

      This is pointless - after all, Nimitz will go next with a full air wing. These are 40 normal fighters.

      Helicopters and tandem planes are needed on the UDC deck, not 5-10 VTOL aircraft, which mean nothing and do not solve against the background of the power of carrier-based aircraft, and especially the Air Force
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 31 January 2014 17: 10
        0
        I agree, I also think that VTOL aircraft is not relevant in our time. In your article, you correctly noted that the purchase of the F-35B is nothing more than a "tradition" of the ILC, and not a need for such an aircraft. It is not for nothing that we once abandoned the Yak- 38 and Yak-41.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 31 January 2014 21: 14
          +3
          but in general, as soon as he (the 141st) appeared and abandoned the USSR ..
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 1 February 2014 08: 30
        +1
        All differences - in chevrons and uniform color

        Different organizations, different command structures, etc.
        Parts of the marine corps are used to overcome the prepared defense of the enemy and conduct the most critical landing operations; To perform these tasks, the corps has its own armored, artillery, aviation units and units.

        They fight in the same system, supporting each other. In the air, up to 90% of combat missions are solved by the Air Force

        But this is purely from the situation and the specific war, it can carry out 0% of the Air Force if there are no airfields nearby.
        This is pointless - after all, Nimitz will go next with a full air wing. These are 40 normal fighters.

        40 100% +20 80% much better than 40 100%)
        Helicopters and tandem planes are needed on the UDC deck, not 5-10 VTOL aircraft, which mean nothing and do not solve against the background of the power of carrier-based aircraft, and especially the Air Force

        Helicopters and tiltrotor there too. UDC for 45 700 tons, this is not a joke to you.
      4. Kassandra
        Kassandra 2 February 2014 00: 45
        0
        nothing meaningless
        better bigger and better, and the planes on the Nimitz, though more speedy and distant, but not super-maneuverable.
      5. Kassandra
        Kassandra 2 February 2014 00: 49
        0
        the army is not obliged to be able to land on an unequipped coast, it does not have such floating machines, the armament is much heavier and more serious, therefore, on account of "the same thing" and "shoulder to shoulder", sorry ...
    2. ty60
      ty60 1 February 2014 01: 57
      0
      Simply put, the structure of units and tasks is changing. From the federal level, authority has gone down. Accordingly, technical support.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 1 February 2014 16: 06
      0
      The main aviation of the KMP is F / A-18, which are sitting on the same aircraft carriers of the Navy.
      1. Santa Fe
        1 February 2014 16: 22
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        The main aviation of the KMP is F / A-18, which are sitting on the same aircraft carriers of the Navy.

        More and more on land

        "Unsinkable aircraft carrier" Sheikh Isa AFB - American airbase on the island state of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf
    4. Kassandra
      Kassandra 2 February 2014 00: 43
      0
      simply VTOL is quite enough UDC, they do not need an aircraft carrier with an ejection launch and aerofinisher. but F / A-18 - on the contrary.
  • Santa Fe
    31 January 2014 20: 14
    0
    Quote: Postman
    WHAT FOR? and looking Where?

    I am more inclined that there is no need - the states have enough airbases, if the US Air Force wants, they will block the sky tightly over any region of the earth, including sky over any sea with f-15,16,22 ....
    Quote: Postman
    Somalia

    Was it advisable to drive Nimitz to air support the operation in Somalia?
    its capabilities corresponded exactly to the conditions of the operation - there was such a small batch, 37 of thousands of UN soldiers were involved, including 27 thousand Americans.

    But the Americans did easier by capturing Mogadishu Airport
  • lx
    lx 31 January 2014 20: 15
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: rotor
    Russia needs a vertical (short) take-off and landing airplane (SVKVP), which can be used on a Mistral UDC.
    Mistral is NOT adapted for VTOL operation. So he doesn’t need to.

    Almost to the same extent that he was not adapted for our helicopters, that is, this is not a problem.
    PS Oleg: 35go hanging cannon container primarily for work on the ground
    1. Santa Fe
      31 January 2014 20: 24
      0
      Quote: lx
      PS Oleg: 35go hanging cannon container primarily for work on the ground

      very funny,
      plane for 100 million dollars for such disgrace

      Somewhere above I attached a picture with PNK lightning - there is reason to believe. that he won’t even see the enemy in the face, will throw a Small-Diametr Bomb without entering the air defense coverage area, from 50-100 km

      F-35 radar in mapping mode
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 1 February 2014 02: 56
        +1
        At a range of 50-100 km, the target still needs to be detected and recognized. And then it turns out that this is a column of tractors. Yes and 50 km is quite a range of air defense
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 1 February 2014 16: 14
        0
        From which the enemy will walk away.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 31 January 2014 20: 37
    0
    just google "Falkland War" and STFU.
    "the air is theirs."
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 1 February 2014 00: 26
        0
        list of losses in air battles (air-to-air losses rather than naval losses)
        for some reason your English comment was not deleted by the moderator.
        in order to bomb sea targets it is necessary for these targets to be - the navy of Argentina sat on continental ports.
        in air battles, 10 times numerically superior to Argentine aviation, the British VTOL aircraft simply dared with a dry score. Argentina lost a fifth of the park. Harriers had only small losses from fire from the ground.
        1. Santa Fe
          1 February 2014 02: 04
          0
          It is naval losses.

          The Aregetina Air Force attack aircraft weren’t tasked with the destruction of the British ships, which they successfully did, though they only had 5 anti-ship missiles, and 80% of the bombs that had hit the target did not explode. The British were very lucky to have such a weak and unprepared enemy

          And air-o-air losses were very high - the Argentines bravely attacked modern ships with air defense systems on subsonic attack aircraft. "We went to the chest on the machine guns." True, the British air defense systems were not so hot - that's why the Muchachos succeeded in something

          6 ships sunk, over 20 damaged

          Argentine A-4 Skyhawks are attacking!
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 03: 31
            +1
            ... and lost 86 aircraft.
            Weak and unprepared?
            Fighter-bomber aircraft - modern French supersonic and pilots were trained by ihrailtians.
            All this is the British British VTOL handed out with a dry account.
            Not a single UDC, not a single floating shipyard, not a single aircraft carrier was sunk.
            Su-25s are also subsonic attack aircraft.
            The Argentine Air Force's mission was to avoid aerial combat, because after the first encounters with the subsonic but super-maneuverable Harriers, they nicknamed them "Black Death"
            1. Santa Fe
              1 February 2014 04: 00
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              Weak and unprepared?
              Fighter-bomber aircraft - modern French supersonic and pilots were trained by ihrailtians.

              By the beginning of the war, the Argentines had only 5 modern Super-Etandar fighter-bombers and a set of 5 Exocet missiles

              The rest of the crap is A4 Skyhawk without radar, British Canberra and decrepit Daggers (formerly Israeli Nesher without air refueling systems).

              Mirages were recalled to protect the sky over Buenos Aires

              Naval Intelligence - Neptune 1945 Year Built, Passenger Boeing 707 laughing and another liar jet

              Tankers - the only KC-130 tanker

              80% of bombs did not explode - reliable fact

              Here is such a preparation was the torchachos. And then, managed to bomb a third of the squadron. If they had at least all the 14 ordered SuperEthandars and 24 anti-ship missiles, the Britons would have lost the war. By the way, not a single Super-Etandar Harrier could be shot down, but the Britons lost 2 ships from their actions
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 05: 43
                0
                "bombing" is when something goes to the bottom ...
                Still Mirages and Daggers somehow strangely forgot to count ..
                if Argentina had something even more there, the British simply cheaply converted more merchant ships into aircraft carriers and continued to further multiply the Argentine aircraft by 0 Harriers and not to let their submarines deal with anti-submarines.
                Of this supposedly squadron squadron of 83 ships, the majority were auxillary fleet ships - not like marine fuel oil - they had to bring fresh water with them.
                1. Santa Fe
                  1 February 2014 15: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Of this supposedly roaming squadron in the 83 ship, most were auxillary fleet ships

                  by combat:
                  5 atomic submarines
                  1 diesel-electric submarine
                  2 aircraft carrier
                  2 UDC
                  6 landing craft
                  8 destroyers
                  15 frigates
                  5 minesweepers
                  +
                  armed icebreaker and ersatz aircraft carrier Atlantic Cosway
                  Total 45 warships from which half were dropped by bombs
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  if Argentina has something even more British there

                  They planned a landing from a submarine to the Rio Grande airbase - the goal was to kill the pilots and destroy the Super-Etandara
                  This was the plan of Operation Mikado, but it threatened a serious escalation of the war - the hostilities were transferred to the continent
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  "bombing" is when something goes to the bottom ...

                  80% of the bombs that fell into the ships did not explode

                  The squadron was one step away
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 33
                    0
                    The squadron was not one step away. They could just turn around and leave. Damage received 40% sunk only 6 (1 by the British themselves as war grave).
                    There was much more auxiliary fleet there, because the islands were far away.
                    It is better to have two small aircraft carriers than one large one, because with the defeat of one large aircraft, all is lost.
                    Hitting the base made sense. Argentina also wanted to stir up, even with Gibraltar. Then the fiery land is also an island, though it is no longer English.
                    There, everything on both sides was not the limit, but after the landing in San Carlos it became clear that they would repulse the islands, and most likely they would not. because the British generally never gather somewhere far in vain.
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 13: 43
                0
                Daggers are not decrepit, this is a lightweight Mirage with a radar removed. He is like a mirage - supersonic. The Israelis made it easier to catch up on the thrust-weight ratio for the MiGs - in that climate with a large number of clear days, the radar is not really needed.
                More "recalled" mirages and daguerres were shot down than skyhawks.
                The first shot down was the Mirage on May 1st.
                As less valuable ships than Hermes and Invincible, both conversion aircraft carriers / air carriers Atlantic Conveyor and Atlanbtic Causeway were included in the landing group at San Carlos and not the carrier at Port Stanley
                Almost all the Chinooks were destroyed on Conveyor, because of which the Marines had to walk, and on Atlantic Causeway there was a sky-jump and combat sorties from it were carried out for sure. You can’t look for a picture - it survived, and for some reason Wikipedia in Russian doesn’t write anything about it.
                In general, as soon as such an opportunity appeared, Harriers from both transports flew to the coastal FOB on the bridgehead.
                1. Santa Fe
                  1 February 2014 15: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Daggers are not decrepit, this is a lightweight Mirage with radar removed

                  This junk has already served its term in the Israeli Air Force and was sold for nothing to Argentina
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  in that climate with a large number of clear days, the radar is not really needed.

                  The Falklands ("Furious 50s") have 200 days of the year stormy weather with clouds below 1000 feet

                  There is no way to do without a radar. When the enemy has a radar, but the args do not have it, no supersonic will help.
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  In general, as soon as such an opportunity appeared, Harriers from both transports flew to the coastal FOB on the bridgehead.

                  Naturally, after all, aircraft carriers were afraid to approach the database zone - in which case, the Harriers would not protect against an air attack
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 41
                    0
                    It’s not junk, it’s just that with the advent of the F-15I it’s already become not so needed.
                    ...
                    Radars were also only on Sea Harriers, on RAF Harriers recalled from Europe they were not.
                    ...
                    Unnaturally - the Harriers defended against attacks from the air with a score of 23: 0, you just can’t set fire to the airfield and immediately drown it with all the cars, and the cars are right at the disposal of the troops, for which they were made.
              3. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 13: 50
                0
                ... the Argentines had a good preparation, Israeli, and the bombs, like the aircraft carrier and most of the Navy, were British second hand (the aircraft carrier fell through Dutch hands altogether). With all this, they became morose and decided to defeat small Britain wherever possible - the island of St. George, as something a little closer to Avrika, not closer than to Argentina. Although after six months the Falklands would have given them that your Oman was in 1981 - the "psychological" preparation of the population for evacuation had already begun, in particular, the British government refused to supply them with fuel for the winter.
                1. Santa Fe
                  1 February 2014 15: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  and the aircraft carrier and most of the Navy are the English second-hand (the aircraft carrier fell generally through Dutch hands).

                  Why didn’t they use it in the war?
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 1 February 2014 19: 44
                    0
                    The submarine interfered (by the way there were only 2-3 and not 5)
                    And the Harriers interfered with finding hydrobows and sawing out the submarines with screwdriving units (against which it was defenseless).
              4. Kassandra
                Kassandra 1 February 2014 13: 57
                0
                even unexploded weights by the way the ships were sunk - then the helicopter fuel ignited, then just a hole at the waterline.
                one Superetandar incidentally to mine, all the same, returned to the base. He’s not such a spoiler - this is the same Mirage converted into a shock version.
                fuel generation fell slightly into the sea. at least 23 were shot down, with 0 own losses.
  • lx
    lx 31 January 2014 20: 54
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: lx
    PS Oleg: 35go hanging cannon container primarily for work on the ground

    very funny,
    plane for 100 million dollars for such disgrace

    namely, Americans don’t like to trifle
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    . that he won’t even see the enemy in the face, will throw a Small-Diametr Bomb without entering the air defense range, from 50-100 km

    it is obvious that the cannon on the ground when the air defense is already suppressed (or was not at all)
    1. Santa Fe
      31 January 2014 21: 11
      0
      Quote: lx
      namely, Americans don’t like to trifle

      That is why they created the AC-130 ganship.
      Quote: lx
      obviously a cannon on the ground when the air defense is already crushed

      105 mm
  • lx
    lx 31 January 2014 21: 29
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    SWEET_SIXTEEN (1) Today, 21:11 PM ↑ New
    Quote: lx
    namely, Americans don’t like to trifle
    That is why they created the AC-130 ganship.
    Quote: lx
    obviously a cannon on the ground when the air defense is already crushed
    105 mm

    Oleg, don’t need to throw me pictures - I’m aware of ganships (in general, it’s full of other means of direct support of troops from the air)
    It's just a fact - this container is designed to work on the ground and this is the answer to the question in the article "However ... Why F-35B cannon armament, if it is contraindicated to participate in mobile combat?"
    1. Santa Fe
      31 January 2014 21: 53
      0
      Quote: lx
      do not throw me pictures

      What are you! Pictures are the most buzz. Without them boredom
      Quote: lx
      this container is designed for work on the ground

      container just in case. maybe it’s good
      And the article is ironic.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 1 February 2014 00: 35
        0
        the article is not irony, but cerebrospinal ...
        the whole world (not just the USMC) uses STOVL. except for "some" :-)
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 1 February 2014 21: 39
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          the article is not irony, but cerebrospinal ...
          the whole world (not just the USMC) uses STOVL. except for "some" :-)


          In addition to the ILC of the United States, only India and Spain use this little trash (and then in the number of 30-35 units).
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 February 2014 22: 47
            0
            is it after the Falkland 23: 0 trash then?
            Italy, England, yet. The Thai have worked out a resource.
            can be viewed on the Harrier Operators wiki
            Now all F35 are waiting for those who were not accepted into the pioneers.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 1 February 2014 00: 33
      +1
      it is just not contraindicated for him - any VTOL aircraft has a deviating thrust wind and a gas-jet control system, moreover, its thrust-weight ratio is a priori larger than unity (well, something like that - otherwise it is not VTOL).
      :)
    3. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 1 February 2014 11: 44
      0
      And why all the machine guns are super-strong if it is contraindicated in participation in maneuver battles?
      For self-defense, not to mention that the cannon can be set up, or not set up on the F-35B, depending on the situation.
  • Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 1 February 2014 21: 41
    0
    Quote: SarS
    Versatility in military technology - never brought to any good - a pebble in the "garden" of the armata platform.

    Modularity is not universality. It's hard to say that the F-35 is modular.