Military Review

What does F-35 not like in Australia?

194



The Wikipedia article on the F-35 fighter was translated into the 53 language! And along with it, a chapter was devoted to the confrontation between the analytical center “Air Power Australia” and the aircraft manufacturing corporation “Lockheed Martin”. According to the information available, Air Power Australia, in the person of its founder, Carlo Koppa, expressed its distrust of the latest American F-35 fighter, Lightning-2, and almost accused the United States of betrayal in connection with the refusal to transfer to its allies the normal F-fighter 22.

It was Carlo Kopp who owns the famous comparison of Lightning and Raptor with a scooter and a motorcycle.

The apotheosis was a publication claiming an official document and containing a table showing the most important characteristics of the five most modern fighters: the Russian Su-35 and PAK FA, the Chinese Chengdu J-20 and a pair of scandalous products of the American aircraft industry - F-22 and F-35. Four of the five cars presented claim the high title of "fifth-generation fighter." Fifth - Su-35 - has such a powerful combat potential that, being an 4 ++ generation aircraft, it can safely compete with any “Raptor”.







The table quickly spread across the expanses of the Internet, becoming an argument in disputes over the title of the best fighter of the new generation.

The above results are completely atypical for an English-speaking source: according to the results of the table, the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA) was confidently taking the lead. The second place with the same result was shared by Su-35 and F-22 Raptor. In third place was the Chinese.

However, the "second" and "third places" does not happen. In air combat, silver medals are not given - “second place” means death in a fight with a champion.

The “outsider” of the list finished with a big lag - F-35, who collected as many as 8 penalty points in most of the selected categories.

The backlog of Lightning from the Raptor or the PAK FA looks quite convincing - the lightweight fighter was created as a cheaper, simplified version of the fifth generation designed for the mass replacement of F-16 and F / A-18 fighter-bombers, as well as VTOL AV-8 and A-10 attack aircraft.

Another thing is curious: how could a plane described in detail, already released in the number of 100 units, “lose” in a disastrous way to the Chinese J-20, existing only in the number of three experimental prototypes with secret TTX? Showy secrecy in this case indicates that there is nothing to brag about yet.



Hellish mix of American "Raptor" and the closed Russian project MiG.144 ... The Chinese managed to make an uninterrupted cockpit lantern, but no other "innovations" were noted. The aerodynamic design of the duck with CIP, coupled with the enormous size of the fighter itself - all this contributes little to its low profile. And the fact that China still buys Russian fighter jets shows that there is no Chengdu supercar - the Chinese J-20 is just a dream of a “fifth generation”. To compare this scarecrow with already existing machines, moreover, to confidently pass a verdict in his favor, is extremely incorrect.

The remaining findings of Mr. Kopp are also not credible, and in some cases look very doubtful. I propose to carefully analyze the table to understand - what does all this mean?

What does F-35 not like in Australia?

Is the F-35 fifth generation fighter?


1. Cruising supersonic.

F-35 immediately received a penalty score. In this case, the Kopp is not too far from the truth - there are justifiable doubts that the single-engine F-35 is able to go to supersonic without switching on the afterburner.

The best was recognized by the PAK FA, whose design, according to experts, is designed for the 2 Mach cruising speed.

2. Over-maneuverability.

F-35 again received a penalty score. The best performance is in Russian Su-35 and PAK FA. In this case, Kopp is undoubtedly right.

However, an overly scornful attitude towards LTH F-35 is fraught for two reasons. First, according to the developers, Lightning retains control at angles of attack up to 53 ° and is capable of maneuvering with overloading up to 9g - like any normal fighter of its class. Secondly, in a real combat situation, the Lightning will have an advantage over any 4 generation fighter (even the Su-27 and Su-35) due to the internal suspension of the weapons and, in view of this, removed piloting restrictions with suspended ammunition (see item number XXUMX).

3. Excess thrust.

Excess thrust depends on the particular flight mode selected.
For example, the light-engine Cessna for flying at an altitude of 800 m with a speed of 140 km / h requires power 60 hp. Max. engine power "Cessna" is 100 hp - therefore, 40% engine power is an “overload” and can be spent on increasing the speed / altitude of the flight, or making a maneuver with an overload of no more than 1,6g.

There is no explanation in the Carlo Koppa table. It remained unclear, for which same "Lightning" slapped "minus". Probably just in case.

4. Driven vector thrust.

The “raptor” is equipped with a motor with the OBE in the same plane (2D).

Su-35 and PAK FA are equipped with a thrust vectoring engine in horizontal and vertical planes (3D). However, Kopp is somewhat mistaken - the engines of the “first stage” AL-41Ф1 and AL-41Ф1С are pseudo-multi-round: the deviation still occurs in the same plane, “down-in” and “up-out”. As for the "second stage engines" for the Russian PAK FA, the so-called “129 product” in which all planned innovations will be realized, then its creation is a matter of the near future.

F-35, as usual, received a penalty score, due to the complete absence of UHT.

5. Airborne electronic equipment (avionics).

If Carlo Kopp was keen to search for truth, he would immediately put FNXX on 35 positive ratings. By the capabilities of its avionics "Lightning" many times ahead even of its progenitor - F-10.
Integrated aiming and navigation complex. Fantastic means of detection. Self-testing and automatic troubleshooting. Interference-free MADL communication channel with the possibility of highly targeted radiation and random frequency tuning. 8 million lines of software code against 2 million lines of code from "Raptor". In the future - the installation of an infrared communication system IFDL, necessary for covert data exchange between the "stealth machines."



In all that concerns electronics, "Lightning" out of competition.

6. Radar station with phased antenna array (PAG).

Modern combat aviation switches to radars with active headlights - the advantage of such systems is their reliability and increased sensitivity. A large number of AFAR receivers allows the radar to continuously monitor dozens of air targets and simultaneously perform mapping of the underlying terrain.

The result is the following alignment:

PAK FA - experimental radar with AFAR H050;
F-22 "Raptor" - radar with AFAR AN / APG-77;
F-35 "Lightning-2" - radar with AFAR AN / APG-81;

Su-35 - equipped with a radar with a passive HEADLIGHT H035 "Irbis". Due to its power and technological excellence, the Irbis is in no way inferior to the Raptor radar in detecting air targets.

The Multipurpose Lightning fighter with its AN / APG-81 stands alone. For the creation of this radio engineering miracle, the Northrop Grumman development team could seriously claim to receive the Nobel Prize.

The APG-81 radar's mass is less than 1% of the F-35 take-off mass, but this device determines the combat capabilities of the aircraft. Lightning radar has modest dimensions and aperture (antenna dimensions), therefore, objectively, it is inferior to Irbis and APG-77 in the range of detection of air targets. It was originally intended: light multipurpose "Lighting" is not a specialized interceptor.


Radar images of the surface, obtained using radar AN / APG-81.
"Shadows" should not be misleading: there is always such a moment on radar images




The radar complex of the front-line fighter, first of all, is focused on performing tasks in the air-to-surface format. Synthesis of the aperture (the mode of operation in which there is an “artificial” increase in the width of the radiation pattern by coordinated signal processing), coupled with high sensitivity of the AESA - all this makes it possible to obtain images of the earth's surface with an incredibly high resolution. The APG-81 is capable of detecting at a great distance and taking dozens of ground targets for tracking, automatically identifying them and directing weapon. Other features of the APG-81 include stealth mode with passive data collection, operation as an electronic intelligence station and an electronic warfare station.

The penalty score received by the F-35 for the “small” aperture of its radar antenna can be easily interpreted in 10 positive ratings.

7. Side view antennas.

There is a clear advantage for the PAK FA - the Sukhoi design bureau experts plan to equip their flying masterpiece with an integrated radar system with five AFARs, four of which are located in the slats. This will increase the noise immunity and neutralize the stealth technology opponents PAK FA.

Initially, two side-cover AFARs were planned to be installed on the American Raptor, but the proposal did not receive development due to the exorbitant cost of such a system.

As for the F-35 - “Lightning” is deprived of radar with side-view antennas, but it has its own know-how ...

8. Situational awareness.

The F-35 does not have side-view radar; instead, an all-advanced AN / AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) detection system operating in the infrared range is installed on board. Six DAS sensors are able to detect the jet torch of an enemy aircraft at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, leveling all attempts to reduce visibility in the range of radio waves. The system allows you to make low-altitude supersonic throws at night, to warn the pilot about the missiles launched by the enemy, calculate the launching points of the missiles and the anti-aircraft artillery positions, detect the ballistic missile torches at a distance of 1300 km!


Optical-electronic sighting system fighter F-35

In addition to the unique AN / APG-81 radar and DAS system, the fighter is equipped with an AN / AAQ-40 high resolution infrared TV camera capable of detecting the heat of a passing car and the embers of an extinct campfire. The camera provides automatic capture and tracking of any air, ground and surface objects.

All this is complemented by a widescreen touchscreen display in the cockpit with mixing (overlay) of the incoming information. As well as the helmet-based target designation and display system HMDS, with the ability to control the rotation of the head and, in perspective, the illusion of a "transparent" aircraft.


Su-Xnumx. Also there is something to be proud of!

It is strange that Carlo Kopp disregarded all of these technologies, equating Lightning to the Chinese dummy J-20.

9. The possibility of using weapons on supersonic.

We are talking about the possibility of opening the wings of the weapons bays at high speed. According to experts, this advantage will have only one fighter of the "fifth generation" - the Russian PAK FA. The design of the other "Raptors" does not imply the use of weapons at supersonic speeds.

For Su-35, this item does not matter, since there is no built-in bomb bay.

F-35 received its legitimate "minus".

10. Thrust-to-weight ratio

Of course, the F-35 was again wronged - the conclusion about its low thrust (0,8) is evident from the official press releases of Lockheed Martin. The remaining machines with thrust-weight ≈ 1, received an equal rating.

11. Combat ceiling (where possible maneuvers with an established reversal speed of more than 7 degrees / sec.)

According to Carlo Kopp, the F-35 combat ceiling does not exceed 45 thousand feet (13700 m) - 3 is less than a kilometer less than its competitors. So it is in reality, or Air Power Australia again provides incorrect information - it has little value in the era of anti-aircraft missile systems and the general transition of combat aircraft to low altitudes (the trend was set back in the distant 60s, hello to Mr. Powers!)

F-35 received a penalty score. Just in case.

12. Stealth.

By a strange coincidence, opposite the F-35 is the inscription "Partially." Of course, Lightning is not an invisible hat and will suffer losses from the effects of enemy fire. But if you look at his rivals - “Raptor” and the PAK FA, their advantage over “Lightning” is not as obvious as Carlo Kopp believes. The layout of the PAK FA with protruding engines and “fins” of air intakes suggests that, when it was created, the “stealth” parameter played a far from central role.



Purely logically, "Lightning" should have the smallest ESR among all existing fighters, with the exception of the F-22. This is facilitated by:

- the small size of the fighter (wingspan of the entire 10,7 meter);
- diamond "flat" fuselage;
- parallelism of all faces and edges (“stealth” of the 2 generation);
- besperepletny cabin lantern;
- internal suspension of weapons;
- widespread introduction of radar absorbing coatings;
- computer-controlled assembly with reduced gaps and a small number of fasteners (CAD CATIA);
- “sawtooth” shape of the casements;
- the absence of radio-contrast parts on the surface of the wing and fuselage.

These measures are required to give a significant effect on reducing the visibility of the fighter (much less than 1 sq. Meter when irradiated from the frontal direction).

13. Fuel stock in internal tanks.

The advantage of Russian fighters - according to Carlo Kopp, the internal fuel supply of the Su-35 reaches 25 thousand pounds (over 11 tons!) - three tons more than is placed in F-35 tanks.

On the other hand, the F-35 is positioned as a lighter single-engine vehicle. The Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine has lower fuel consumption than two AL-41F1S engines.

Finally, the use of air-to-air refueling systems makes a further dispute over fuel reserves irrelevant.

14. Internal suspension weapons.

One of the main requirements for the "fifth generation fighter"! The internal suspension of weapons contributes to a radical decrease in the EPR of the aircraft and reduce its drag. In addition, it allows you to make more vigorous maneuvers and reach speeds up to 2M, without the risk of detonation of ammunition from heat.

All the aircraft on the list (with the exception of the Su-35) have the possibility of internal suspension of ammunition. The advantage of the Russian PAK FA is that due to its large size, the PAK FA bomb bay has the largest dimensions and capacity (length 5 meters, width 1,3 meter). As a result, the 8-10 suspension points against four of the F-35 fighter.

It is a shame that Carlo Kopp paid a lot of attention to the calculation of suspension points, but did not at all reflect in his table such an important point as the nomenclature of used ammunition.

In this ranking, the absolute advantage for the F-35. Planning the 119-kg Small Diameter Bomb, the Paveway laser-guided bombs, the JDAM GPS-guided munitions, the Mk.80 family of free-falling bombs, the CBU cluster munitions, the Mayric and JASSM cruise missiles for life times.
Combat load 8 tons on 10 suspension points (4 internal, 6 external), given its low profile and the latest sighting and navigation tools - F-35 can successfully compete with any tactical bomber.



And at the same time, the fighter remains a fighter - a unique radar, infrared circular vision system, AIM-120 AMRAAM long-range missiles, low-profile and low-level power at the level of the 4 + generation fighter. All this turns Lightning into a serious air rival.

The claims of Dr. Kopp are based on the weaker flight characteristics of the Lightning, compared with the Russian Dryers, traditionally distinguished by their excellent LTH. But you need to understand that Lightning was created under a completely different concept of warfare. Traditionally for Americans, the niche of light front-line fighters is occupied by multipurpose fighter-bombers, oriented to work "on the ground." And here there is absolutely nothing to blame F-35.

As it turned out, the reason for the loud confrontation between Air Power Australia and the aircraft corporation Lockheed-Martin was precisely the latter’s reluctance to export F-22. Carlo Kopp is not a fool. He is a sincere patriot of his country. And he tried with all his might to "knock out" for the Royal Australian Air Force a full-fledged Raptor interceptor fighter, the most satisfying of the defensive concept of the Australian armed forces.



Author:
194 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Skipper
    Skipper 3 February 2014 08: 09
    +9
    When we have 2.500 pieces of such "terrible fighters" riveted, I will put a prus, but for now nothing
    None of the T-50 analogs is planned to purchase 60 units, a serious threat to a potential adversary, however ...
    1. jjj
      jjj 3 February 2014 09: 08
      +6
      Do they fly in the rain? And in the cold 40 degrees can fly up?
      1. AVV
        AVV 3 February 2014 11: 32
        0
        Quote: jjj
        Do they fly in the rain? And in the cold 40 degrees can fly up?

        Our aircraft are adapted to work in the Arctic, this is unambiguous, but American is unlikely !!!
        1. postman
          postman 3 February 2014 13: 28
          +17
          Quote: AVV
          Our aircraft are adapted to work in the Arctic, this is unambiguous, but American is unlikely !!!

          ??
          Yes you?
          At an altitude of 10 km already -60 ° C, at 12 km to -75 ° C
          Quietly (lasting more than 10 hours) not only US military aircraft fly, but also AMERICAN passenger aircraft
          ...
          X-15 (1959-1960) 6 Machs, height 75190 meters
          at the terminals + 300 / 400grS
          at the tips and in the aerodynamic shadow up to −88 ° С.
          1. jjj
            jjj 3 February 2014 13: 50
            +5
            Fly is one thing. The temperature inside is positive. But when the car is outside the warm hangar, then will all the systems be able to function normally. And then - icing, lightning discharges
            1. postman
              postman 3 February 2014 14: 18
              +5
              Quote: jjj
              But when the car is outside the warm hangar, then will all systems be able to function normally

              1.Alaska are worth nothing
              2. In any case, it takes time before taking off for combat duty (that we, that they, or a warm hangar)
              3. For electronics itself (today's elemental base), as a rule, it is cold-GOOD, and heating HARM (polyalphaolefin (PAO) is a liquid refrigerant)
              4. as not a serious argument: Western ATS (auto), paintwork, steel, rubber and plastic - "work2 without problems at subzero temperatures.
              And Liebherr, for example, produces cranes (of the whole spectrum, which are unique in themselves), which can work (!) At temperatures of -40 and below. And terex-daemag / We just have NOTHING like that

              Quote: jjj
              And then - icing, lightning discharges

              1. look at civilian airports for what (?) Machines are used for de-icing and whose chemistry. / Just buy a seat on a flight CLOSER to the wing and be the first to board)
              2. The thunderstorm is not terrible ... and (in my opinion) THEY DO NOT HAVE THEM IN THE ARCTIC
              1. Foxmara
                Foxmara 7 February 2014 09: 52
                0
                E-kam banned flights in the north. In any case, the raptors are so accurate. And they (35s) ​​are also afraid of thunderstorms. Lightning is afraid of lightning. wassat Generally shy birds. "According to the Defense News newspaper, flights of aircraft based in Alaska have already been completely banned, since the bases located there are difficult for an emergency landing. In other states of America, according to the new order, fighters must be in the range of the runways in order to if necessary, the pilots could make an emergency landing. " In 2013, all 35 flights were banned altogether. We looked for turbine problems. Raptors are afraid of heights. Or they were afraid. I don't know if the bug was fixed or not.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 7 February 2014 19: 29
                  0
                  if about F-22 then this is misinformation. they were primarily deployed in alaska
                  about normal bands for the F-35B - it is, think right, comrade. they will stay with them for 2 to 5 years, then they will be decommissioned. at best only F-35A and C.
            2. VAF
              VAF 3 February 2014 15: 45
              +7
              Quote: jjj
              Fly is one thing. The temperature inside is positive. But when the car is outside the warm hangar, then will all systems be able to function normally


              Always, when reading such articles and "making such hasty conclusions," it is advisable to know at least a little. and what is this all about ... an airplane wassat



              And then, as you read, so generally .... an aircraft carrier is ... "motionless and not maneuvering" target, which we "throw" .... "urya-missiles" fellow



              1. postman
                postman 3 February 2014 16: 26
                +1
                Quote: vaf
                and what is this thing ... a plane

                This is a masterpiece of technology. Hedgehog is understandable, just look at the range of T, humidity and variable loads, where it is operated (the car is resting).
                And why, I forgot, I’m studying, and you are a pilot tongue
                Quote: vaf
                ..the aircraft carrier is ... "stationary and not maneuvering"

                add: BADFUL ... and?
                And unnecessary, as OK claims (author -> author -> author)
                1. VAF
                  VAF 3 February 2014 16: 35
                  +6
                  Quote: Postman
                  And why, I forgot, I’m studying, and you are a pilot


                  Hi Vasily drinks Well ... it happens lol



                  Quote: Postman

                  add: BADFUL ... and?
                  And unnecessary, as OK claims (author -> author -> author)


                  And they echo him ... but as soon as the "case" concerns "Kuznetsov", then everything is "unparalleled in the world", "all Americans and NATA are already ussa ... and usra ..." from one formidable look, "yes, now we are all in Syria ... on h..nagem" etc., etc. ", but I forgot about the order ... because with it there are already 2 tugboats, a tanker and a support vessel crying

                  And the fact that real aircraft carriers and real AUG are already "visiting" each other without problems ... about that..tsss- .. "not patriotism" repeat





                  1. postman
                    postman 3 February 2014 16: 51
                    +1
                    hello.
                    Did you take the last picture yourself? (good)
                    / This is the case when you demanded an emergency landing on the deck of the Americans (left or right of their choice) ....motivatingthat there is no dry closet on the bot, but your parents from childhood have taught about ecology to learn about the ecology) ????

                    =============
                    I’m going to write to you here!
                    Why did you take all the snow for yourself (you have a blockage, but we only have the first "falls", skiing on the grass, and NG celebrated in the swamp ...
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 21
                    +1
                    maybe even a deck pilot?
                  3. Santa Fe
                    3 February 2014 19: 24
                    -2
                    Quote: vaf
                    And they echo him ... but as soon as the "case" concerns "Kuznetsov", everything is "unparalleled in the world," "all Americans and NATA are already ussa ...

                    Well, I never claimed this. Personally, I don’t care what will happen to Kuznetsov - the sooner he falls apart, the better, there’s nothing to save money on maintaining the miserable existence of this bucket

                    It is much more interesting how things are with the domestic "Lada" (not Kalina), "Ash" and titanium babies (since they have already built, they must be used)
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 20: 32
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      It is much more interesting how things are with the domestic "Lada" (not Kalina), "Ash" and titanium babies (since they have already built, they must be used)

                      Ash-tree is most likely in 2017, two at once, if there will be no next revolution.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        3 February 2014 23: 11
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Ash-tree is most likely in 2017, two at once, if there will be no next revolution.

                        Yes I know, I know
                        As if repeating the fate of SiWulf
                    2. bask
                      bask 3 February 2014 22: 28
                      +4
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                      Personally, I don’t care what will happen to Kuznetsov - the sooner he falls apart, the better, there’s nothing to save money on maintaining the miserable existence of this bucket

                      But I personally care. This is the only thing that we have left.
                      Without Kukznetsov, deck pilots will disappear into the RS of the Navy as a class.
                      Beautiful ship.
                      клик
                  4. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 20: 42
                    +1
                    Quote: vaf
                    And the fact that real aircraft carriers and real AUG are already "visiting" each other without problems ... about that..tsss- .. "not patriotism"

                    I have long wanted to ask you as a professional.
                    according to the developers, “Lightning” maintains controllability at angles of attack up to 53 °
                    For the F-18 Super Hornet, this figure is 35 °, due to which the F-35 reaches such high values?
                    1. iwind
                      iwind 3 February 2014 21: 19
                      +1
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      I have long wanted to ask you as a professional.
                      according to the developers, “Lightning” maintains controllability at angles of attack up to 53 °
                      For the F-18 Super Hornet, this figure is 35 °, due to which the F-35 reaches such high values?

                      I will join the question. As I understand it, one of the main advantages is a good EDSU.
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 21: 33
                        0
                        Quote: iwind
                        I will join the question. As I understand it, one of the main advantages is a good EDSU.

                        My personal opinion is that this is not a real video. More like a cartoon.
                      2. patsantre
                        patsantre 3 February 2014 22: 10
                        +2
                        Of course, one cannot believe one’s eyes, it turns out that the penguin is not a penguin and flies very normally! I understand that it’s hard to believe someone who is used to thinking that only our equipment can fly normally.
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 17
                        0
                        in the course of the video it’s clear that there is no EDSU there, otherwise they would have put the same on F18 (with better aerodynamics).
                        he simply moonlights as a gas-jet control system
                      4. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 4 February 2014 00: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: patsantre
                        Of course, one cannot believe one’s eyes, it turns out that the penguin is not a penguin and flies very normally!

                        Eyes open a little, it is more like a fall with a taxi.
                    2. iwind
                      iwind 3 February 2014 22: 13
                      0
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      Quote: iwind
                      I will join the question. As I understand it, one of the main advantages is a good EDSU.

                      My personal opinion is that this is not a real video. More like a cartoon.

                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      My personal opinion is that this is not a real video. More like a cartoon.

                      Consider this a compliment for the aircraft. :) it’s real, I’ve never caught Lockheed for dramatization. There is no reason not to trust official sources and reports on the f-35 program, including about this video.
                      Is this also photoshop?

                    3. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 23
                      +3
                      Lockheed and not only many times have been caught in dramatization, including with F35
                      but this video may be real.
                    4. iwind
                      iwind 3 February 2014 22: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      Lockheed and not only many times have been caught in dramatization, including with F35
                      but this video may be real.

                      Proof, what kind of video or photo about f-35 was a staging? With reference to the publication on the official website.
                    5. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 40
                      -1
                      oh, a lot and everything on YouTube.
                      basically how he sits down. and not only him. X-32 was generally a flying dummy and hung on a retouched gantry
                      do you really think that they will show you one truth and only the truth, and nothing but the truth, so that the Chinese copy this plane as soon as possible?
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 23: 57
                  0
                  Quote: iwind
                  Is this also photoshop?

                  Looks like they poured kerosene with oil that he is so childish.
                3. tomket
                  tomket 4 February 2014 01: 37
                  +1
                  did not catch Boeing, Lockheed on what just did not catch .....
                4. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 4 February 2014 02: 42
                  0
                  X-32 - Boeing, still caught
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 20
          0
          apparently it was not the F-35B that was meant because the latter, due to the gas-jet control system (which he needs in the hover mode), can generally turn as he wants.
        3. Santa Fe
          3 February 2014 23: 14
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          I have long wanted to ask you as a professional.

          Michael, not funny

          I was guided by this video (iwind)
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 4 February 2014 10: 12
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Michael, not funny

            In general, I seriously asked Sergey, I respect him. I didn’t post the video, I repeat once again it causes me doubts, the speed of the gas stream, the smoke? On other videos, it looks different. But I could be wrong. At the beginning of the tests, the angle of attack was 22 °, and here it was 53 °. They may have forgotten to clarify that this is the F-35V.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Tiamat2702
        Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 44
        0
        Sorry, Sergey (Vaf), looking at your avatar, I had a question - and you, whose air force pilot? ))) It seems to me that the flag on your profile and the plane from the avatar belong to diametrically opposed states.
    2. Santa Fe
      3 February 2014 19: 19
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      And unnecessary, as OK claims (author -> author -> author)

      And you, Comrade Postman, have examples of the opposite (for the last 50 years, the era of jet aircraft, air bases and air refueling systems)

      ?
      1. postman
        postman 3 February 2014 21: 05
        -2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And you, Comrade Postman, have examples of the opposite.

        is.
        It :
        1.the availability of these and the construction of new
        2. Smart guys in the Pentagon and the US Navy, which are grazed by state senators, WHERE THE CARRIERS ARE NOT BUILDING
        3.Livia - they provided the strike of the Air Force and AWACS gave
        1. Santa Fe
          3 February 2014 21: 51
          +2
          Quote: Postman
          1.the availability of these and the construction of new

          But this does not prove their need with military point of view
          Quote: Postman
          2. Smart guys in the Pentagon and the US Navy, which are grazed by state senators, WHERE THE CARRIERS ARE NOT BUILDING

          If you publish to the public data on the facts of the combat use of these waffles (without unnecessary boltology and "loud phrases" like projection of force) - only numbers, performance characteristics,% of combat sorties from air force sorties

          - half of the smart uncles to lose their posts, along with a good half of them, udk uosp and f-35b
          Quote: Postman
          3.Livia - they provided the strike of the Air Force and AWACS gave

          Yeah don't laugh

          They were driven there only because they were built, and now they need to be used at least somewhereotherwise see paragraph above

          Of course, Sentry could not provide AWACS. And F-16 with Sauda Bay (Crete) would have done worse than the Intruders.

          In 2011, everything repeated exactly according to the specified scenario

          "Prairie Fire", 1986 (well, for those who might not know)
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 22
            0
            But how did the camera get ahead of the plane? or on the cell removed from the lead?
            Sentry - he couldn’t, he would have been shot down from C-200 like Syria had in 1983
          2. Kars
            Kars 3 February 2014 23: 15
            +2
            Quote: Kassandra
            But how is the camera ochutilas

            )))))This is a picture
          3. Santa Fe
            3 February 2014 23: 17
            +2
            Quote: Kassandra
            But how did the camera get ahead of the plane?

            An airship flew ahead
            Quote: Kassandra
            Sentry - he couldn’t, he would have been shot down from C-200 like Syria had in 1983

            Well, firstly, Sentry never shot down
            Secondly, Hokai is different from Sentry, but only for the worse
          4. The comment was deleted.
          5. Kassandra
            Kassandra 4 February 2014 01: 44
            0
            in the same place, the 707th Boeing was shot down to the south of the sea, 50 crushmen were covered at once, the Agency was in great mourning
        2. postman
          postman 3 February 2014 23: 31
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          Sentry - he couldn’t, he would have been shot down from C-200 like Syria had in 1983

          1.Boeing E-3 Sentry


          Destruction of such an airplane ... THIS IS THE EVENT OF THE CENTURY !!!


          Dislocation:

          27 - Tinker Air Base in Oklahoma. 4 aircraft in the Pacific Fleet Aviation (PACAF). 1 was in trial operation of the Boeing company (in the summer of 2012 it was sent for disposal). 18 at the disposal of the European command of NATO, with deployment at Geilenkirchen airbase (Germany)
          In the attack on the ATS was not used.

          2. Syrian units deployed in the Bekaa Valley ONL ground forces at low altitudes over Lebanese territory were destroyed ONLY 2 American carrier-based fighter, captured by an American pilot (the second died during the bailout).

          3. The 220th zrp transferred military equipment to the Syrian side (commander Colonel A. Dukanji) and in mid-October 1984 returned to his homeland
          A little more than eighteen months, the regiment's combat crew was in these battle formations, and I spent about thirty thousand goals.
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra 4 February 2014 01: 48
          +1
          is it according to CNN or IBA?
          707th piled with the MiG-23
    3. Kars
      Kars 3 February 2014 23: 14
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      If the public disclose data on the facts of combat

      You will be shot dead by good uncles from the US military-industrial complex, owners of shipyards and contractor firms. Maybe even several hundred thousand workers will be thrown off for a dollar so that there would be no work.
    4. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 00: 06
      0
      Quote: Kars
      Good uncles from the US military-industrial complex will shoot you

      From a pistol Hyacinth-B
    5. Kars
      Kars 4 February 2014 00: 25
      +2
      Do not vryatli. Most likely glock, Beretta. And maybe an accident on the dog.))))
  2. postman
    postman 3 February 2014 23: 44
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    But this still does not prove

    I doubt that there are donkeys and taxpayers donkeys.
    The goal and task, nevertheless, EXCELLENCE, DOMINATION, and not "sawing the dough" (so far the sawing is observed only with us, with impunity)
    It’s simpler, if you consider your statement true, set up nuclear submarines and destroyers, and patch battleships forward.
    But no
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    If you make public

    You are not the only one to make public + hearings in the Senate + the conclusion of military experts (I sent you) ... however?
    However, all at their posts, new aircraft carriers are built, and the F35 is the same

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Yeah don't laugh

    3x 6 F-111F and one F-111E in each ... 1 she returned (from the sea, having run into intense fire from the Shilok and other anti-aircraft weapons, she turned sharply to the west from the coastline and dropped bombs, not reaching the target .)
    Subsequent strikes against the Tripoli air defense group were inflicted (at 4 a.m. - 30 a.m. and at 4 a.m. - 35 a.m.) US 6th Fleet Deck Aircraft. As a result, she managed to destroy and damage 9 targets.

    On April 15, the first strikes were carried out by 14 attack aircraft A-6E, A-7E from the famous aircraft carriers America and Coral Sea with the support of 12 F / A-18 aircraft. In the city, 4 buildings were seriously damaged and completely destroyed, 5 aircraft, 4 helicopters were destroyed, 4 more aircraft and a helicopter were damaged. Four Harm anti-radar missiles destroyed a self-propelled reconnaissance and guidance unit of the Kvadrat battalion, which was firing at the enemy.
    Then the destruction of 4 SAM
    and this is not "funny" ???

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Of course, Sentry could not provide AWACS.

    From Geilenkirchen (Germany), and who will risk it when there is a "long arm" (S-200) and who will weaken NATO (and even at such a moment) in the European theater of operations?
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And the F-16 with Sauda Bay (Crete)

    Yeah 6 (!) × F-16AM 15MLU Falcon Multifunction light fighterkanechna
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    "Prairie Fire", 1986 (well, for those who might not know)


    yeah in Tripoli were with60 tons of bombs were thrown, including the 900-kg Peyvway-2 Mk-84 and 230-kg free-fall bombs in the KTI-351 A / V, GBI-15 and Mk-82 Snekai versions.
    And?
    and as a result, 4 were destroyed in the capital, up to 80 buildings and 3 Il-76 aircraft were damaged. The fire of the Libyan ZSU "Shilka" destroyed one F-111F (2 pilots) and another damaged.
    Was it worth it to drag 2.800 nautical miles (5.200 km), having stayed in the air 13-14 hours
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Santa Fe
    4 February 2014 00: 31
    +2
    Quote: Postman
    I doubt that there are donkeys and taxpayers donkeys.

    Taxpayers are always donkeys
    Quote: Postman
    The goal and the task, nevertheless, EXCELLENCE, DOMINATION, and not "cutting the dough"

    This does not mean that some in the Pentagon do not value their places (count the rank of those who command the AUGs!).

    AUG is not even suitable for demonstrating military power (they are few and rarely come out) - look who came to the Black Sea. And completely ineffective in war (5 wheel in relation to the Air Force).
    Quote: Postman
    You are not the only one to make public + Senate hearings

    I can imagine what will happen to those who say that AUGs are not needed - an attempt on the age-old traditions and "pride of the nation", accusation of infringing on the interests of the national. dropped ... uuuu
    Quote: Postman
    and this is not "funny" ???

    Once again = they were driven there, because they were built and now they had to be used. Otherwise, the question will inevitably arise - why ??

    All these vehicles (A-6,7,18) could be successfully deployed at air bases in Europe.
    Quote: Postman
    From Geilenkirchen (Germany)

    What prevented him from being placed in Siganella or Sauda Bay? Greek Araxos? There are airbases, like olives

    And about Germany you are in vain - an extra hour of flight - NOTHING for a jet Boeing-707 (Sentry)
    Quote: Postman
    yep 6 (!) × F-16AM 15MLU Falcon multi-functional light fighter, kanechna

    I remember the Falkens successfully bombed Ozirak
    And there the distance was more. B / p are the same - 2000 fnl.
    Quote: Postman
    Was it worth it to drag 2.800 nautical miles (5.200 km), having stayed in the air 13-14 hours

    Yankees are kidding, practicing ultra-long range
    What prevented placing them closer to Libya? In Greece? Turkey? In Malta? In Spain (Rota) or France (Istres)?
    Quote: Postman
    Was it worth it to drag 2.800 nautical miles (5.200 km), having stayed in the air 13-14 hours

    Maybe not
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 19
    +2
    Right in the photo, compare the deck area of ​​those ships on the right and those ships on the left,
    then read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal_fire
    then watch the movie:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440129/?ref_=nv_sr_1
    where racial galactic Tajik fishermen did a very good job of "hail",
    and good luck ...
  • Santa Fe
    3 February 2014 19: 17
    +6
    Quote: vaf
    And then, as you read, so generally .... an aircraft carrier is ... "motionless and not maneuvering" target, which we "throw" .... "urya-missiles"

    Is this about the main article on the site (flash player)?

    My opinion is simple - Augs cannot in any way threaten the continental RF and fight them - like with windmills

    If there is a need to destroy the bastards? Why look for them in the Ross Sea request if they want to fight - let them come by themselves - and rake off from the shore (Su-34 strike group + Su-35 cover against the Nimitz air group - the outcome is clear. + space reconnaissance + submarines. AWACS - A-50 / 100 / Sentry, etc .. No aug can resist the coastal aircraft)

    Now "realists" will run in and start talking about the lack of the required number of Su-34/35, ammunition, money, etc. So what is the problem??? If you want to fight the Augs, spend at least 100 full-fledged "Dryers" and the same number of shock machines!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 39
      -2
      there is one but (even 3):
      1. overseas allies, as well as their interests, are left to their own devices
      2. Japanese Navy can block the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka right now
      3. The arktka has expanded and the missile defense there is designed only against strategic aviation and not tactical aircraft of the AUG.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 3 February 2014 20: 45
      0
      1) Aviation is not only for strikes along the coast
      2) You’re right, the Su-34 + Su-35 in the group with the A-50U will probably make a similar-sized air group. And who said that carrier-based aircraft would just fly to meet death? First, the tomahawks will fly around the airfields, and -second deck aviation is an excellent addition to the basic one. And it will strengthen it very much.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 29
        0
        especially strategic, like escort fighters. especially since the Arctic is now expanding and the AUG can go there.
        1. user1212
          user1212 6 February 2014 05: 20
          +2
          And why are we building icebreakers, everything melted there laughing
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 6 February 2014 05: 56
            0
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/09/arctic-sea-ice-at-minimum-extent/
          2. user1212
            user1212 6 February 2014 12: 38
            0
            AND? A historical minimum has been reached since 1979. Think AUG will pass? Something I don’t remember ice class aircraft carriers
          3. Kassandra
            Kassandra 6 February 2014 16: 25
            -1
            They already go there for 8 years. There is nothing to oppose them because airfields are rare and anti-bombing interceptors on them.
  • Santa Fe
    3 February 2014 23: 33
    +1
    Quote: patsantre
    1) Aviation is not only for strikes along the coast

    A Boeing flying a London-New York flight crosses the ocean in 7-8 hours.

    Modern tactical ground-based aviation can cover the sky practically over any region of the world’s oceans (except for Easter Island) - the main thing is to have more bases and allies (well, but bases and allies do not appear from nowhere - you must first have your interests in one or another Earth region)

    The idea of ​​floating airfields died from the advent of jet engines and refueling systems + a developed network of air bases
    Quote: patsantre
    And who said that carrier-based aircraft just fly to meet death?

    Of course not! She, as usual, will hide behind the backs of "Raptors", "Strike Needles" and "Rivit Joints" of the Air Force
    Quote: patsantre
    first tomahawks will fly on airfields

    Do you represent how many military and civil airfields in any developed country? (poor affrica doesn’t count)
    And HOW MUCH submarines with tomahawks will be required to gouge them all ???

    In Yugoslavia, the Yankees launched 700 axes - but the Serbian MiG-21,29 continued to fly until the very end of the war !!! Although it would seem ...
    Quote: patsantre
    carrier-based aviation is an excellent addition to the basic one. And it will greatly strengthen it.

    I doubt that the lonely Russian AUG can do anything in the event of a hypothetical military conflict between Russia and the United States (ie NATO). With a power ratio of 10: 1, when the ocean is teeming with NATO submarines, when there are a bunch of air bases in Europe - Ulyanovsk (let’s say it was completed and equipped with PAK FA) will sink faster than it reaches the Faroese border

    That is right. Pearl of the US Air Force - Kaden Air Base (Okinawa)
    Russia needs to get the same
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 4 February 2014 02: 12
      0
      ATS non-nuclear-mindedly bombed all NATO airfields in less than 2 days
      carrier-based aircraft are already in place, airfields fly with many refueling. Do you have this nightmare?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refuelling.plan.black.buck.svg
      floating CATOBAR airfields only got bigger until STOVL appeared
      Yugoslavia was bombed when Kuznetsov left without a rotational replacement.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 4 February 2014 13: 25
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      A Boeing flying a London-New York flight crosses the ocean in 7-8 hours.

      Modern tactical ground-based aviation can cover the sky practically over any region of the world’s oceans (except for Easter Island) - the main thing is to have more bases and allies (well, but bases and allies do not appear from nowhere - you must first have your interests in one or another Earth region)

      The idea of ​​floating airfields died from the advent of jet engines and refueling systems + a developed network of air bases


      While all this will fly to cover the surface of the naval group, they will sink it 10 times.

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Of course not! She, as usual, will hide behind the backs of "Raptors", "Strike Needles" and "Rivit Joints" of the Air Force


      And why suddenly does not go with them in the same ranks?


      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Do you represent how many military and civil airfields in any developed country? (poor affrica doesn’t count)
      And HOW MUCH submarines with tomahawks will be required to gouge them all ???

      In Yugoslavia, the Yankees launched 700 axes - but the Serbian MiG-21,29 continued to fly until the very end of the war !!! Although it would seem ...


      I agree that there will be a lot of axes needed. And where, by the way, will there be specialists at civilian airfields capable of servicing fighters, or for example, where will the missiles for replenishing ammunition come from?
      1. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 18: 05
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        While all this will fly to cover the surface of the naval group, they will sink it 10 times.

        Who will drown her?

        And how - if the convoy at the entire passage is covered by aviation
        Quote: patsantre
        And why suddenly does not go with them in the same ranks?

        What can Hornet decide if the Raptor and the F-15E are nearby ... I can’t compare his combat load with the B-1B

        The Navy has no analogues of Rivit Joint, and without this thing, to climb into the airspace of another country is pure suicide. Hokai is a kind of Sentry. The Navy also does not have its own tankers (Hornet’s hanging container is nonsense) - all hope is for the Air Force Stratotankers and Extenders
        Quote: patsantre
        specialists capable of servicing fighters? Or for example, where will the missiles for replenishing ammunition come from?

        C dr.aviabaz with dr. The end of the country
        According to the conditions of the task, we concentrate aviation in a given region.

        That’s how the valiant U.S. carrier-based aircraft fueled during a desert storm. Yankees 160 tankers drove - this is not a joke
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 February 2014 18: 23
        0
        it's all long, and deck aviation is already in place
        a nightmare with tankers, even for strategists, not like fighters
        in Iraq, she flew more generally from land bases because the coastline was 12 km away. what is she to fly along this corridor?
        RC-135W from an aircraft carrier, if it takes off, then back to it as the S-130 does not land.
        refueling of superhornets by superhorrents this is why F-14 was removed
      3. patsantre
        patsantre 4 February 2014 19: 37
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Who will drown her?

        And how - if the convoy at the entire passage is covered by aviation


        Yeah. A group of destroyers is carrying out planned combat duty somewhere. And about 20 pieces of fighter jets fly and a couple of AWACS planes. Around the clock. Funny.
        Those. in peacetime, they should have hundreds of two planes in the air around the clock. Yes, so the planet will remain without oil for next year.
        And if you send these planes only during a threatened period or an emergency, it will be too late, by the time they fly.
        This bunch of airbases, which you constantly scare everyone, can be shot by the KRs quite quickly. In general, you don’t need to destroy everything. Yes, the KR needs a lot. Is it Iraq or Libya that could not do anything. And if Russia? Although we still have that with KR they strained themselves, yes. But for now.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What can Hornet decide if the Raptor and the F-15E are nearby ... I can’t compare his combat load with the B-1B

        The Navy has no analogues of Rivit Joint, and without this thing, to climb into the airspace of another country is pure suicide. Hokai is a kind of Sentry. The Navy also does not have its own tankers (Hornet’s hanging container is nonsense) - all hope is for the Air Force Stratotankers and Extenders

        Is F-35C bad?
        Well, the Americans did not flood the raptor, so what? The aircraft carrier is not to blame.
        The Hornets do not really need refueling, the aircraft carrier takes them where they need to.
      4. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 20: 12
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        . Carries a group of destroyers planned combat duty anywhere

        Why do they need air cover in peacetime
        Right now, the Yankees' ships have sunk into the Black Sea - is someone someone covering them from the air?
        Quote: patsantre
        And if you send these planes only during a threatened period or an emergency, it will be too late, by the time they fly.

        Are you familiar with the concept of "conflict escalation"?

        And what should a couple of destroyers do off the coast of the enemy in an endangered time period? If they go there, then only as part of a convoy / squadron. With air cover.
        Quote: patsantre
        And if Russia?

        Russia has a millionth army, the second largest fleet and nuclear weapons.

        The rest of the 200 + countries in the world are not able to withstand the Amer Air Force
        Quote: patsantre
        Is F-35C bad?

        Much weaker than the F-35A
        I don’t even compare with the Reptor
        Quote: patsantre
        Well, the Americans did not flood the raptor, so what?

        it's complicated
        Norm take-off mass - 30 tons of Reptor, SuperHornet - 20
        If you install everything you need on the Raptor (folding wing, hook, reinforced chassis) - it will become even heavier than tons on the 5
        Quote: patsantre
        The Hornets do not really need refueling, the aircraft carrier takes them where they need to.

        Directly by land?
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 20: 53
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        then she will need much more for duty, taking into account the travel time
        7-8ч

        You probably understand that 7-8 hours need to be divided in half.

        1. Fighters have nowhere to rush - they are already constantly "hanging" over the convoy, replacing each other - during the week, while the convoy crosses the Atlantic

        2. Three hours is an extreme case, the middle of the Atlantic. The rest of the time the convoy will be much closer to the coast.

        3. Fighters do not need to fly from London, there are bases on islands in the middle of the ocean
        Quote: Kassandra
        on black hide behind the airfields of NATO, that de Turkey

        And communications in the Atlantic hide behind airfields in Iceland and the Faroe Islands
        Quote: Kassandra
        A-5 Vigilante flew like an aircraft carrier

        Norm take-off weight 25 tons
        Quote: Kassandra
        Sea is 70% of the Earth's surface

        Continents and islands are distributed over the entire surface of the earth - everywhere there is a suitable a / base
        Quote: Kassandra
        somehow I forgot about the fact that the pilots have a rest and the toilet

        Is it okay that the normal duration of the Hornet's combat mission over Afghanistan from an aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea was 10-15 hours?

        And the toilet - let the Yankees Wed @ t in pants))))
        And ours have
      7. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 February 2014 21: 22
        +1
        Well, why? Supersound tankers do not go.
        ..
        Tied balloons are hanging. Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_fighter
        ..
        Communications in the Atlantic are blocked only by NATO coastal anti-submarine aircraft
        ..
        This is debatable, but the S-130 is undeniably what? Which boarded the aircraft carrier and took off from it?
        ..
        If so, how much of this time did the Hornet spend on Afghanistan?
        ..
        As for putting the larva, this device is useless, but maybe there are gadgets for it to make it boring?
        The Americans used fecal bags until recently they bought a normal toilet from Roskosmos.
        ..
        The aircraft carrier on station and the reaction time within the release of 1-3 links is almost instantaneous. All these perversions are useless.
      8. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 21: 46
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        Well, why? Supersound tankers do not go.

        Why do they need it?
        Quote: Kassandra
        Communications in the Atlantic are blocked only by NATO coastal anti-submarine aircraft

        It will be necessary - they will cover with tactical combat aircraft
        Refueling combat radius allows
        Quote: Kassandra
        but C-130 is indisputably what?

        And what is his landing speed and wing load?

        2 times less than jet fighters!
        Quote: Kassandra
        If so, how much of this time did the Hornet spend on Afghanistan?

        Hour 2-3
      9. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 February 2014 22: 13
        0
        And in order to catch the fighters on alert to the dying convoy.
        Aircraft carriers will be enough - they will do so.
        The load on the chassis and not on the wing. Do you think the deck of the F-22 will not stand? In fact, he, like the F-15, will not withstand 4 m / s on the deck.
        These were Australian with Diego Garcia.
      10. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 22: 41
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        The load on the chassis and not on the wing.

        WING LOAD
        Determines the lift, landing speed and maneuverability of the aircraft

        The wing area of ​​C-130 - 162 sq. meter
        Reptor's wing area - 78 sq. meters

        Norm Raptor take-off weight - 30 tons (the deck version will have even more)

        Hercules take-off mass on deck AB Forrestal ~ 45 tons

        Count
        Quote: Kassandra
        alarm fighters

        Why should they keep up somewhere?
        They are constantly in the air in the area of ​​the convoy, replacing each other
      11. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 01: 22
        0
        There is nothing to consider - the landing weight is important and not the take-off!
        Hercules did not sit in the air finishers.
      12. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 01: 25
        0
        You need to succeed not to them, but to the same as them (gain) in this square if that.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 34
    0
    In 10-15 hours you can fly from Moscow to Tokyo, after 10 hours of flight even the second pilot will not help you from fatigue, by the way, the urinal on the fighter was already there during World War II. Just to accompany the bombers.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 4 February 2014 20: 41
    +1
    on black hide behind the airfields of NATO, the same Turkey, it’s small
    the threatened period can be very short, aviation will not have time with refuellers, then it will need much more for duty, taking into account the travel time
    7-8 hours there and as much back + sleep = on combat duty in the air the fighter no longer has time
    The A-5 Vigilante was flying from an aircraft carrier, it’s just that the F-22 was originally an airfield aircraft, they could not be converted into deck ones. at least the Americans don’t have a single conversion, and the MiGs of Su were made initially with such an opportunity, like the MiG-23
    The sea is 70% of the earth's surface and only the most remote regions of Eurasia are missing from it, so the US Navy even argued with the USAF who was more important.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 37
    0
    You ? Any aircraft can be converted into a deck, if only the size fits.
    F-4 served in the Air Force and aircraft carriers.

    The sea is 70% of the Earth’s surface, but 90% of this surface is needed only by fish, people don’t live on water.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 5 February 2014 01: 16
    0
    What are you"?
    F-4 is a deck, this is a U.S. Navy deck interceptor
    a decked aircraft can fly from an aerodrome but an aerodrome from an aircraft carrier - no.
    carrier-based and airfield aircraft are very different, with virtually no conversion aircraft. there must be a very durable glider and landing gear to withstand such landings
    In the USA, these are F-22,15,16 and aerodrome F-14,18.
    This is a STOVL drum on the lawn to sit gently or on deck. There is a difference only in sealants and other materials to withstand the salty environment.
    there still SSBNs live from which it is necessary to drive away Neptune or Tu-142
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 4 February 2014 20: 28
    0
    in my opinion it is simply inadequate. and somehow I forgot about the fact that the pilots should rest and go to the toilet
    the tanker is certainly not an "aircraft carrier" to which it flew up and hooked like a ZRS-4 airship
  • Fedya
    Fedya 3 February 2014 23: 41
    +1
    Why throw it? Here in this picture of the technique, with the help of a grinder, the cockpit lantern is cut to get the pilot out of Raptora! So they themselves are tormented by fighting!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 4 February 2014 02: 15
      0
      would give a mount ..
  • iwind
    iwind 3 February 2014 15: 56
    +10
    Quote: jjj
    Fly is one thing. The temperature inside is positive. But when the car is outside the warm hangar, then will all the systems be able to function normally. And then - icing, lightning discharges

    I understand that Americans are by definition stupid and RPM F-22 is washed away by rain.
    Interestingly, these 22 have a positive temperature inside?
    1. VAF
      VAF 3 February 2014 16: 04
      +7
      Quote: iwind
      that Americans are by definition stupid and rpm F-22 is washed away by rain.


      +! drinks
      And their aircraft carriers ... only "southern" ... can not go to the BD. And even more so "release" aircraft in the Northern latitudes wassat

      1. Santa Fe
        3 February 2014 19: 27
        +5
        Quote: vaf
        And their aircraft carriers ... only "southern" ... can not go to the BD. And even more so "release" aircraft in the Northern latitudes

        Southern, southern

        Snow also occurs in Virginia. But Virginia is not the Norwegian Sea at all.

        In the northern seas in winter, any NK turns into a frozen pile of ice. Priority only for submarines
    2. postman
      postman 3 February 2014 16: 23
      +2
      Quote: iwind
      Interestingly, these 22 have a positive temperature inside?

      1. If there is no external source (heat and energy is not visible in the photo), the temperature eventually approaches the environment T, except for some elements of the on-board electronics (there ak and heating it)
      Ну и что?
      2. Only that in St. Petersburg (or rather) there were frosts below -28 and a humidity of 99%.
      The temperature of the entire filling of the car was equal to T okr. Wednesday.
      Started up warmed up, everything works (air suspension, navigation, on-board electronics, gu) .. the passenger door lock froze current (I foolishly jumped into the sink before that), "warmed up", as it became -10
      3. And the snow is swept away, not in order to "warm", but (I suppose):
      - pour de-icer
      - that he (the snow) does not drift into an unnecessary gap, where he thaws, then freezes and gets up with a stake, or he makes a crack
      1. iwind
        iwind 3 February 2014 16: 38
        +3
        Quote: Postman
        1. If there is no external source (heat and energy is not visible in the photo), the temperature eventually approaches the environment T, except for some elements of the on-board electronics (there ak and heating it)
        Ну и что?
        2. Only that in St. Petersburg (or rather) there were frosts below -28 and a humidity of 99%.
        The temperature of the entire filling of the car was equal to T okr. Wednesday.
        Started up warmed up, everything works (air suspension, navigation, on-board electronics, gu) .. the passenger door lock froze current (I foolishly jumped into the sink before that), "warmed up", as it became -10
        3. And the snow is swept away, not in order to "warm", but (I suppose):
        - pour de-icer
        - that he (the snow) does not drift into an unnecessary gap, where he thaws, then freezes and gets up with a stake, or he makes a crack

        So I agree with you, it’s just ridiculous to read when they write that for an airplane the minus temperature is worse than a nuclear war. Or RPM short climb from the wind and rain. They work with brooms, judging by the description, they are prepared for departure
        And in Alaska it can be very cold.
        1. postman
          postman 3 February 2014 16: 53
          +1
          Quote: iwind
          Or RPM short climb from the wind and rain

          yes this is nonsense. someone gave a duck, and they quote it, well, like a stealth based on a plasma generator.
          LKP (including radar absorbing) of aircraft (any) will give 100 LKP of the car (and they have at least 12 years of guarantee from the through)

          aircraft operating conditions, this is not a car
  • spech
    spech 3 February 2014 18: 00
    -2
    X-15 (1959-1960) 6 Machs, height 75190 meters
    at the terminals + 300 / 400grS
    at the tips and in the aerodynamic shadow up to −88 ° С.

    and the letter X doesn’t say anything?
    1. postman
      postman 3 February 2014 18: 08
      +4
      Quote: spech
      and the letter X doesn’t say anything?

      Famous H.
      So what?
      Does letter X cancel material science or does it somehow form a special environmental temperature?
      Concorde, Shuttle - "serial" products
      1. spech
        spech 3 February 2014 18: 12
        +1
        maybe about it?
        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5-15
        1. postman
          postman 3 February 2014 18: 45
          +1
          Quote: spech
          maybe about it?

          We are talking about something else! And what about the Soviet rocket?
          About This, About This:

          http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/bna/x15.page

        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 46
          0
          you can also beat such ships
          1. spech
            spech 3 February 2014 19: 51
            +1
            Yeah, it was like a jap's name was called)
            Well, the flyer for 1 time lol
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 18
    0
    Quote: Postman
    Quote: AVV
    Our aircraft are adapted to work in the Arctic, this is unambiguous, but American is unlikely !!!

    ??
    Yes you?
    At an altitude of 10 km already -60 ° C, at 12 km to -75 ° C
    Quietly (lasting more than 10 hours) not only US military aircraft fly, but also AMERICAN passenger aircraft
    ...
    X-15 (1959-1960) 6 Machs, height 75190 meters
    at the terminals + 300 / 400grS
    at the tips and in the aerodynamic shadow up to −88 ° С.


    In order for a plane to reach an altitude of 10 km, it must first be built on the ground. But will the F-35 engines and systems start at -60 ° C?
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 18
    0
    Quote: Postman
    Quote: AVV
    Our aircraft are adapted to work in the Arctic, this is unambiguous, but American is unlikely !!!

    ??
    Yes you?
    At an altitude of 10 km already -60 ° C, at 12 km to -75 ° C
    Quietly (lasting more than 10 hours) not only US military aircraft fly, but also AMERICAN passenger aircraft
    ...
    X-15 (1959-1960) 6 Machs, height 75190 meters
    at the terminals + 300 / 400grS
    at the tips and in the aerodynamic shadow up to −88 ° С.


    In order for a plane to reach an altitude of 10 km, it must first be built on the ground. But will the F-35 engines and systems start at -60 ° C?
  • Wurger
    Wurger 3 February 2014 17: 01
    +2
    In Alaska they fly and nothing. They just have normal hangar storage.
  • aviator_IAS
    aviator_IAS 17 February 2014 15: 40
    0
    Quote: AVV
    Our aircraft are adapted to work in the Arctic, this is unambiguous, but American is unlikely !!!

    F-22 are based including and in Alaska, and there are far from the tropics.
  • Andrey78
    Andrey78 3 February 2014 16: 13
    0
    Fly, only low-low :)
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 18: 14
    0
    Quote: jjj
    Do they fly in the rain? And in the cold 40 degrees can fly up?

    Temperature conditions in height. (Click)
  • T-100
    T-100 3 February 2014 11: 06
    -4
    None of the T-50 analogs is planned to purchase 60 units, a serious threat to a potential adversary, however ...

    But we don’t need much, airplanes are for the most part weapons of attack, we are a peaceful country and we’re not going to attack anyone, 60 pieces will be enough to maintain the status of a power, we don’t have left money that wasn’t stolen, like some we have, but for protection there is a powerful air defense system, which even the Americans admitted that the survival of their aircraft is striving for 0.
    1. yehat
      yehat 3 February 2014 18: 24
      +4
      our air defense, unfortunately, never steals on high-tech aircraft,
      because it needs to be spread over a vast territory.
      Stealth f-22 and f-35 planes are needed not to proudly plow the space from Kaliningrad to Vladik, but to strike in a weak spot, preferably from a distance.
      we only have about 30-40 air defense batteries capable of punishing them for a cautious attack scenario because of range and so on. And the rest - if they fly up to 15-30 km, i.e. almost flush.
      Just for this, Mig-31, Pak FA and others are being created to complement stationary air defense with interceptors.
      Just do not forget that the Americans do not like to attack in splendid isolation with the "Coming at you" flag sticking out of the cockpit, most likely a large air force from different aircraft will be used against 1 air defense battery.
      Therefore, I do not experience unnecessary illusions about our air defense. Yes, it greatly complicates life, but it is not an insurmountable shield. It takes 20-30 years to live in the USSR to raise technology to a level close to this.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 47
        0
        for the air defense of the USSR, they would not pose a threat, so it was very thinned out during the "reforms"
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 18: 52
        0
        Well just fuck you how smart you are. We are waiting for an attack on Moscow through Kamchatka.
    2. Wurger
      Wurger 4 February 2014 12: 20
      0
      How will we shoot down enemy planes outside the air defense zone? Our country, to put it mildly, is not small, is the entire air defense covered? For a country like Russia, not only 60, 600 aircraft - it’s LITTLE. No less than 1,5-2,0 thousand should be.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 3 February 2014 13: 27
    +10
    Quote: Skipper
    planned to purchase 60 pieces


    this is only the first contract. where did you get that there will be no further contracts?
    1. Vittt
      Vittt 3 February 2014 20: 42
      0
      If you see who is in the government, questions will disappear.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 4 February 2014 00: 28
        0
        I already see who is there, but I also see who is the guarantor of the constitution, and I see who is the Minister of Defense. Of course, it’s not worth entering into euphoria, but I would not advise falling into pessimism either!
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 15
    0
    Quote: Skipper

    None of the T-50 analogs is planned to purchase 60 units, a serious threat to a potential adversary, however ...

    I note that the T-50 is a Raptor classmate. And the US also has a few Raptors (about 160). Moreover, the plan of our MO to purchase T-50 in the number of 60 pieces is primary. The need of our Air Force in this aircraft is estimated at 200 pieces, and under other favorable circumstances, do not hesitate, they will be purchased. And 2500 pieces of the F-35 do not get a symmetrical answer. Since 2500 is not only for the United States, but for all NATO countries, this is the time. Two, it is that there is some doubt that there are real buyers for 2500 pieces, given the real price of this aircraft. And three - even if they make all 2500 pieces, it is technically impossible to counter them all to our native Air Force.
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 22
    0
    Quote: Skipper

    None of the T-50 analogs is planned to purchase 60 units, a serious threat to a potential adversary, however ...

    The T-50 is a Raptor classmate, and there are also a few Raptor in America (about 160). And then the purchase of 60 pieces of T-50, this is the primary plan. The need of our Air Force is estimated at 200 T-50, and with other favorable conditions, do not hesitate, they will be purchased.
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 22
    0
    Quote: Skipper

    None of the T-50 analogs is planned to purchase 60 units, a serious threat to a potential adversary, however ...

    The T-50 is a Raptor classmate, and there are also a few Raptor in America (about 160). And then the purchase of 60 pieces of T-50, this is the primary plan. The need of our Air Force is estimated at 200 T-50, and with other favorable conditions, do not hesitate, they will be purchased.
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 26
    0
    Quote: Skipper

    None of the T-50 analogs is planned to purchase 60 units, a serious threat to a potential adversary, however ...

    I note that the T-50 is a Raptor classmate. And the US also has a few Raptors (about 160). Moreover, the plan of our MO to purchase T-50 in the number of 60 pieces is primary. The need of our Air Force in this aircraft is estimated at 200 pieces, and under other favorable circumstances, do not hesitate, they will be purchased. And 2500 pieces of the F-35 do not get a symmetrical answer. Since 2500 is not only for the United States, but for all NATO countries, this is the time. Two, it is that there is some doubt that there are real buyers for 2500 pieces, given the real price of this aircraft. And three - even if they make all 2500 pieces, it is technically impossible to counter them all to our native Air Force.
  • Kubatai
    Kubatai 3 February 2014 08: 16
    +8
    I agree not to correctly compare the plane that went into the series and the plane with unknown LTH, the Chinese are put in the table for mass use ..
    But the plane is declared as a "station wagon" with a capital letter - it can do everything .. but in fact, an unobtrusive tactical bomber with an excellent radar, with a small radius and a bomb load .. no, of course you can hang it on external points, but then to hell with stealth .. which cannot but raise questions ..
    1. spech
      spech 3 February 2014 18: 09
      +1
      great bomber with radar?
      and who entot radar saw live?
  • Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 3 February 2014 08: 31
    +10
    All these disputes, from empty to empty, only military use will show who is worth what.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 February 2014 08: 45
      +9
      Quote: Volodya Sibiryak
      All these disputes, from empty to empty, only military use will show who is worth what.

      But you do not consider technical search and development of new technologies! That is what, first of all, is valuable B-2, F-22, F-35

      As for their combat use, there was no particular need for these machines.
      So far, the 4 generation fighters are quite coping

      The main striking force of the US Air Force (as well as the combat core of the Israeli Air Force, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Singapore) is F-15E.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 February 2014 08: 58
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As for their combat use, there was no particular need for these machines.
        So far, the 4 generation fighters are quite coping

        Oleg. I think there are no questions about the Raptor and Bi-2, they were not intended for the war against the Taliban or Hussein. But the Americans rightly believe that the capabilities of the air defense systems do not stand still and that in the future it may be necessary to face more powerful air defense and you need to be a cut above.
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 3 February 2014 11: 02
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The main striking force of the US Air Force (as well as the combat core of the Israeli Air Force, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Singapore) is F-15E.


        The F-35 is going to replace light fighters and attack aircraft. And what will replace the F-15C and F-15E? "Reptors" less than 200 units, I doubt that they can replace about 600 "Needles" and "Strike Needles". Another option in that a temporary replacement could be the F-15SE Silent Eagle, a 4 ++ generation fighter.
        1. 0255
          0255 3 February 2014 16: 54
          +6
          .And what will replace the F-15C and F-15E? "Reporters" less than 200 units, I doubt that they are capable of replacing about 600 "Needles" and "Strike Needles". Another option is that a temporary replacement can be the F-15SE Silent Eagle, generation 4 ++ fighter.

          The F-22 and its competitor YF-23 were planned as a replacement for the F-15, they wanted to build them in large numbers (500-600 pieces, if I'm not mistaken). But in the end, the "Raptors" were built in the amount of 183 pieces, and the "Raptors" fought only in the first "Transformers" laughing And F-15, F-16 and F / A-18 are fighting for oil.
          Rich America cannot afford to lose the expensive F-22 in battle, then even think of a non-combat reason for its loss. wassat
          And as for the F-15SE, it is still unknown whether he will go to the troops or not.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 3 February 2014 17: 30
            +2
            Thanks for the information! wink
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 48
            0
            The F-22 was never planned as a replacement for the F-15.
            YF-23 was actually better
            F-22s save for China and Siberia, however, the Russian Federation now has rare air defense everywhere.
            The United States has not yet climbed into any country that even has the old Su-27s ... therefore, the sale of these aircraft required special permission from Boris the most drunk
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 3 February 2014 17: 59
              -1
              Quote: Kassandra
              YF-23 was actually better


              According to the LTX, the YF-23 did not even pull with the F-15. Only his stealth was not much better than the F-22.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 37
                +1
                American professionals do not think so
                he pulled quite well and had a controlled thrust vector. aerodynamics were better too.
                1. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  American professionals do not think so


                  So the YF-23 lost in the competition?

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  American professionals do not think so
                  he pulled quite well and had a controlled thrust vector. aerodynamics were better too.


                  What are you talking about, what is the best aerodynamics? He was clumsy, like a turtle. And the F-22, meanwhile, performed such maneuvers that only the MiG-29M and Su-30 could compare to at that time.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 50
                    +2
                    YF-23 aerodynamics are closer to the Su-27 glider, while the latter has the best so far.
                    that is why F-cams needed gas rudders (flat nozzles), after which OBT was also added to Sushki.
                  2. Vittt
                    Vittt 3 February 2014 20: 52
                    -4
                    It’s as if you’ve worked out everything yourself at Lockheed and Boeing. Shut up your smart opinions without knowing anything about it. We can only judge these planes by the US Air Force commercials! Nothing concrete is known about them.
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 33
                      0
                      from the Yakovlev Design Bureau to Lockheed, by the way, a lot left. the rest were killed.
                  3. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 5 February 2014 14: 54
                    0
                    lost because the lobby decided so, with the streamlined wording that although the YF-23 is better, in the future the YF-22 may be more "agile" as a fighter.
                    they are generally both drummers, and were made as a replacement for the F-117 and not the F-15
                2. Vittt
                  Vittt 3 February 2014 20: 55
                  -2
                  And as far as it was reported in the press, the F-23 lost to the F-22 for two reasons: due to the wild cut of the dough and the too futuristic F-23.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 33
                    +1
                    because of the lobby
            2. spech
              spech 3 February 2014 19: 48
              +2
              F-22 save for China and Siberia
              and how will 22 fly to Siberia?
              refueling? but there are refuelers sloppies? wassat
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 04
                0
                Alaska is nearby (they were primarily stationed on it). Guam and Okinawa are not very far. Bases in Japan.
                in addition, they can melt each other like F-18
            3. 0255
              0255 3 February 2014 23: 19
              +1
              The F-22 was never planned as a replacement for the F-15.

              The F-22, like its competitor from Northrop and McDonnell-Douglas, was planned precisely as a replacement for the F-15.
              YF-23 was actually better

              did you fly them to judge who is better? )))
              Could Rockwell's YF-25 project be the best? )))
              1. 0255
                0255 3 February 2014 23: 21
                0
                here is his model, I don’t know if this is Photoshop or not?
                1. 0255
                  0255 3 February 2014 23: 22
                  0
                  or here is his drawing. Maybe dishonest competitors also ruined him?
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 4 February 2014 01: 57
                    0
                    Well, did he fly? no? was there anything to ruin?
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 4 February 2014 01: 56
                0
                just as an addition, because at first he was only a drummer (replacement of F-117)
                and here are all the American test pilots gathered?
          3. Vittt
            Vittt 3 February 2014 20: 47
            0
            Goes. Along with the F-15SE. Extends the time. The enemy does not sleep.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 13: 15
        0
        The process of finding new solutions is ongoing on experimental machines.
      4. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 24
        0
        and no one climbs into any country where there is a Su-27 +
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 3 February 2014 10: 52
      -1
      Well, actually, behind these disputes there is the distribution of the most serious dough, so they are trying. "Our competitor does not have airplanes but g ..", in this regard.
  • 31231
    31231 3 February 2014 08: 49
    +6
    The article is good. Especially for a loser like me.
  • Professor
    Professor 3 February 2014 08: 59
    +9
    Actually Carlo is a famous expert. I translated and posted his articles here. However, his biased love for the Chinese invisibility and not his love for the F-35 are at least puzzling.

    Preliminary evaluation of the prototype of the unobtrusive Chinese fighter Chengdu J-XX [J-20]
    1. jjj
      jjj 3 February 2014 09: 10
      +5
      He just can know a little more about what is customary to hold back
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 3 February 2014 12: 49
      +1
      The Australians wanted the F-22. So kicked as F-35 could
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 February 2014 05: 22
        +1
        between F-18 and F-35 were chosen. F-22 no one will give for export, even to the UK. F-35 and then terrible service restrictions
    3. Do not care
      Do not care 4 February 2014 04: 40
      0
      Or maybe he is fulfilling an order for misinformation?

      I have been investing in the stock markets for a long time and I can say for sure that all well-known experts are engaged and are periodically used to throw misinformation.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 February 2014 05: 20
        0
        do you think in airplanes?
        No one would give F-22 for export, and the Australians ranged between F-18 and F-35.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 February 2014 09: 04
    0
    "Say a word about the poor hussar ..."
    Good article, but I think it will not affect the opinion of "F-35 flying g ...", and Carlo Coppa's libel will be waving like a flag for a long time without going into details.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2014 09: 05
    +7
    Weighted article, I liked it :)
    The truth is - it is completely unclear how to compare the electronics of the F-35 and Su-35 and PAK FA. If there is any data on American electronics, then on our ...
  • ZU-23
    ZU-23 3 February 2014 09: 27
    +1
    Su-Xnumx. Also there is something to be proud of!
    It is strange that Carlo Kopp ignored all of these technologies, equating Lightning to the Chinese dummy J-20. Amerikosy constantly ignore Russian military equipment, their logic is this, so what’s the Russians saying that China is a competitor, it’s always so for the public that it’s not to be dishonored with our equipment one on one.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 32
      0
      they can’t do it because they are still almost inferior in almost everything, and the same F35 is a copycut from the Soviet Yak-141
      The J-20 is generally a drummer, and from a different weight category, so it's all boltology - no one will tell you the truth, otherwise you will become even wiser and you will know more than these hereditary fools who only know how to fool people.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 3 February 2014 18: 01
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        J-20 is generally a drummer, and from a different weight category


        I doubt that he is drawn to the fifth generation.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 42
          0
          F35 definitely does not pull
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 38
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            F35 definitely does not pull


            The data on it is at least known, but not on the J-20. The F-35 does not correspond to 2-3 parameters of the fifth generation. And how many does not correspond to the Chinese counterpart can only guess.
  • de bouillon
    de bouillon 3 February 2014 09: 29
    +3
    Article plus

    But the author missed a little. At supersonic, the Raptor threw bombs. True lightweight SDB, but there have been tests.

    http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123107101

    but PAKFA so far, that only in theory should throw, but how in practice is unknown. Although the Americans also switched from theory to practice :)
    1. i.xxx-1971
      i.xxx-1971 8 February 2014 16: 21
      0
      Tests of the PAK FA were conducted to open the chassis at supersonic, which ended successfully. Accordingly, there will be no problems with launching missiles.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 February 2014 09: 31
    0
    We are talking about the possibility of opening the wings of the weapons bays at high speed. According to experts, this advantage will have only one fighter of the "fifth generation" - the Russian PAK FA. The design of the other "Raptors" does not imply the use of weapons at supersonic speeds.

    For Su-35, this item does not matter, since there is no built-in bomb bay.


    According to P. Bulat, the F-22 can use weapons on transonic, the problems already begin, with the risk of the fur animal coming from a powerful sonic boom. Regarding Su-35, I refer to the same Bulat and his article on launching supersonic rockets, Su-27 initially has a restriction on such twists, since su-35 also has an atypical mode, this item must be important for him .

    Six sensors of the DAS system are able to detect the jet engine torch of an enemy aircraft at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, leveling all attempts to reduce visibility in the radio wave range.


    Then stealth technology could be considered dead, even in frontal projection such a thing should see any enemy at a decent distance. However, I already have doubts that this crap will see through the clouds.

    The penalty score received by the F-35 for the “small” aperture of its radar antenna can be easily interpreted in 10 positive ratings.


    And it can also be interpreted in the fact that the concept of a single aircraft is initially delusional and we should say NON-Fighter-NON-Bomber. This does not take into account completely different requirements for fighters and bombers in aerodynamics and combat load, from which completely different requirements for strength and weight, respectively, follow.

    According to Carlo Kopp, the F-35 combat ceiling does not exceed 45 thousand feet (13700 m) - 3 is less than a kilometer less than its competitors. So it is in reality, or Air Power Australia again provides incorrect information - it has little value in the era of anti-aircraft missile systems and the general transition of combat aircraft to low altitudes (the trend was set back in the distant 60s, hello to Mr. Powers!)


    This parameter actually characterizes the capabilities of the vehicle as an interceptor. The transition to low altitudes means that all discussions about "out of zone" air defense are simply delusional, and the Su-34, with its passive protection, remains the best strike aircraft in the world. And even more so forget about gliding bombs and other verbal diarrhea. And the F-35 will die from the very first Tunguska battery. Like Rafale.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2014 09: 54
      +6
      Quote: EvilLion
      According to P. Bulat

      I would not trust her too much. After Bulat managed to declare the possibility of maneuvering at supercritical angles without loss of energy ...
      Quote: EvilLion
      Then stealth technology could be considered dead, even in frontal projection such a thing should see any enemy at a decent distance. However, I already have doubts that this crap will see through the clouds.

      Everything is incomprehensible there. We have these IR direction finders for a long time (OLS), but they do not give such a detection range as a radar
    2. iwind
      iwind 3 February 2014 10: 14
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      According to P. Bulat, the F-22 can use weapons on transonic, the problems already begin, with the risk of the fur animal coming from a powerful sonic boom. Regarding Su-35, I refer to the same Bulat and his article on launching supersonic rockets, Su-27 initially has a restriction on such twists, since su-35 also has an atypical mode, this item must be important for him .

      It is a pity that only the F-22 itself does not know about it, apparently P. Bulat did not read the article.
      All he perfectly apply.
      http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f22_article.html?item_id=101
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 February 2014 09: 32
    +4
    but he did not at all reflect in his table such an important point as the nomenclature of the used ammunition.

    In this ranking, the absolute advantage for the F-35. Planning the 119-kg Small Diameter Bomb, the Paveway laser-guided bombs, the JDAM GPS-guided munitions, the Mk.80 family of free-falling bombs, the CBU cluster munitions, the Mayric and JASSM cruise missiles for life times.


    WHAT ?? The armament of the F-35A / C is only 2 bombs weighing 900 kg. Or 4 air-to-air missiles. Which he is going to launch from distances at which even the Serbian MiG-29 with idle radars easily avoided defeat. In the stealth configuration, the F-35 is practically unarmed, I do not even consider the Small diameter bomb against the KAB-1500. In this regard, the very concept of the F-35 is incomprehensible, whether it is a first-strike machine like the F-117, or a barge for transporting several tons of bombs, while Congressmen are not told if possible that these bombs will hang outside and the plane will still glow, like a christmas tree. In general, when I wrote an article about the prospects of LFI, I forgot about the fact that I have a C-21 scheme, I added the drawing later, carefully studying it along the way, and it clearly shows that for a MiG-29 class fighter, you can place a maximum of a couple of KAB-500 and a couple more rockets, the F-35 is larger, and therefore it gets a little larger. Now we can only say that more weapons have been developed for the F-35 than for the PAK FA, but the latter has much more potential.

    Finally, the use of air-to-air refueling systems makes a further dispute over fuel reserves irrelevant.


    The air refueling system assumes at least one tanker for 4 vehicles, how much will it cost? An excellent argument, by the way, in favor of not suffering from the LFI bullshit, but to build more PAK FA on the money saved on R&D and refuellers. In the event of any serious war, you can forget about refueling, and the interceptor has no time to refuel. I don't see any sense in talking about the consumption, since 2 Russian engines are stupidly much more powerful, but the specific consumption of the F135 is nothing special. In general, the meaning of a huge fuel reserve to the detriment of flight data is just an attempt to show that the F-35 is steeper than a comparable "superhornet" in weight, otherwise the question arises, if in stealth mode the plane is almost useless, then what is its advantage over existing excellent waste machine.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 February 2014 11: 37
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      Or 4 air-to-air missiles. Which he is going to launch from distances at which even the Serbian MiG-29s with idle radars easily avoided defeat.

      Unclear. Do you have a claim to a specific missile or to the ability to hit air targets at a range of 80-120km.? How did the Serbian MiG-29s with the radar switched off detect the release of long-range missiles on them and did missile defense? Maybe Che didn’t understand, but what distance are we talking about?
      Quote: EvilLion
      In the stealth configuration, the F-35 is virtually unarmed

      Please argue. Standard load F-35A 2XAIM-120D (335 lbs each) and 2XGBU-31 / JDAM (2000 lbs each), for a total of approximately 2120 kg. If it is "practically unarmed", then what is your opinion about the capabilities of the PAK-FA T-50 for internal loading, weight, standard nomenclature?
      Quote: EvilLion
      Small diameter bomb vs KAB-1500 I don’t even consider

      Absolutely agree. Firstly, the KAKB-1500 will simply not fit into the internal compartment of the PAK-FA T-50, secondly, to compare the KAB-1500 with a range of 6-8 km. with an SDB that plans on 120km. not even decent. It can not even be compared with a 2000 pound JDAM, it flies at 25-28km. Not to mention the JSOW S-1 weighing about 500 kg., Which flies to 120km.
      To your objection, why KAB-1500 cannot have a simple answer, at a distance of more than 5 km. the spot of the laser beam is blurred so that the GOS KAB cannot capture it and therefore, when dropped more than 5 km. ground lighting required. These are their descriptions of the KAB-1500.
      Quote: EvilLion
      Now we can only say that more weapons have been developed for the F-35 than for the PAK FA, but the latter has much more potential.

      The potential is possible, but KTRV’s inability to use it is depressing.
      Quote: EvilLion
      A refueling system in the air involves at least one tanker for 4 cars, how much will it cost?

      No more money. A refueling system is the best solution than sacrificing aircraft characteristics for a greater range. This is especially true in Russia, with our open spaces and the length of the border.
      Quote: EvilLion
      otherwise the question arises if in stealth mode the plane is almost useless

      What is the use of stealth technology useless?
      1. iwind
        iwind 3 February 2014 12: 11
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        Please argue. Standard load F-35A 2XAIM-120D (335 lbs each) and 2XGBU-31 / JDAM (2000 lbs each), for a total of approximately 2120 kg. If it is "practically unarmed", then what is your opinion about the capabilities of the PAK-FA T-50 for internal loading, weight, standard nomenclature?

        I’ll add a little, but what will prevent the F-35 from installing external suspensions on the AGM-158 JASSM? This cruise missile itself will not greatly increase the EPR.
        EvilLion you like to read, the goals of the "first day"?
        The range of affected objects is very limited mainly by radar, means of communication and a long-range advanced radar system.
        There is no need to drag a bunch of bombs.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 February 2014 13: 19
          +3
          Learn about the circulation of F-117, the question immediately arises, what for play it in 3000 copies.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 3 February 2014 17: 16
            +2
            Quote: EvilLion
            Learn about the circulation of F-117, the question immediately arises, what for play it in 3000 copies.

            Googled this F-117. What can I say, a miserable sight.
            1. 31231
              31231 3 February 2014 23: 31
              0
              Such a good iron. Especially during an accident. The catapult refused, a lot of time to try to fall out of it.

      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 13: 18
        -6
        For a fool, I inform you that there is such a thing as a radiation warning station. About bombs flying tens of kilometers I already explained to you in a neighboring topic. All go do not stink.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 February 2014 14: 45
          +4
          Quote: EvilLion
          For a fool, I inform you that there is such a thing as a radiation warning station. About bombs flying tens of kilometers I already explained to you in a neighboring topic. All go do not stink.

          Before going without exuding a stench, I would like to remind you of your argument: "I do not believe that they fly such a distance, the laws of physics and aerodynamics do not allow this, so this cannot be."
          The argument is certainly stunning, but the manufacturers of CABs seem to be unaware of your opinion. I regret that I drove you into a stupor with my questions, because of which you rolled into vile rudeness, but I hope you are ashamed of yourself.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 3 February 2014 17: 18
            +3
            Quote: Nayhas
            How did the Serbian MiG-29s with the radar switched off detect the release of long-range air-launched missiles on them and did missile defense maneuvers?

            Quote: EvilLion
            there is such a thing as a radiation warning station.

            You need to poke your nose so that you calm down?
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 February 2014 18: 56
            +2
            For those who skipped physics at school, I inform you that the argument about physical impossibility, confirmed by calculations, is ALWAYS the last resort.
    2. VAF
      VAF 3 February 2014 15: 09
      +7
      Quote: EvilLion
      WHAT ?? Armament F-35A / C is only 2 bombs weighing 900 kg


      Oh how belay ? It is necessary to tell Lockheed quickly, otherwise they do not know something about the "enti" knowledge of "keyboard racial aviation specials" wassat





      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 15: 40
        +1
        So what? What are these pictures for? For your information, a KAB-500-type bomb has a length of about 3 m, the weapons of the F-35 are easily online on a million official advertisements, 2200 kg of weapons on the internal suspension, the rest is external. If you did not know this, then study the materiel.
        1. VAF
          VAF 3 February 2014 16: 23
          +3
          Quote: EvilLion
          So what? What are these pictures for?


          What would you do before you write something ... although you would think. I'm not talking about that. what would .. know lol
          Or do you need to constantly poke and remind the table with a face "? wassat
          Here is your "pearl" from the comments:".... The armament of the F-35A / C is only 2 bombs weighing 900 kg."
          Here for clarity wink





          And more .. "take an interest" at what range 120D already fly wink
          wassat
          And "vneshka" or "not vneshka" .. this is from .. "another opera"
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 February 2014 17: 02
            -1
            At leisure, take an interest in the size of ammunition of different weight categories, and just official information from LohKid, maybe you will write less nonsense with the appearance of an all-knowing pro.
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 February 2014 16: 47
          +2
          Quote: EvilLion
          So what? What are these pictures for? For your information, a KAB-500-type bomb has a length of about 3 m, the weapons of the F-35 are easily online on a million official advertisements, 2200 kg of weapons on the internal suspension, the rest is external. If you did not know this, then study the materiel.

          Two 2000 pound JDAMs and two AMRAAM
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 19: 35
            +3
            Quote: Nayhas
            Two 2000 pound JDAMs and two AMRAAM

            Typical internal suspension (options A and C) - two AMRAAM missiles and two GBU-31 JDAM KAB with a caliber of 908 kg. An alternative suspension option is two AMRAAMs plus eight small caliber CABs (SDBs). The internal sling can also accommodate: KR AGM-154 JSOW (on Air Force aircraft), KAB "Peyvway" II caliber 227 kg and GBU-38 and GBU-32 JDAM (227 and 454 kg), British promising KAB PGB (227 kg) , RBK CBU-103M105 "Rockay", ATGM "Brimstone", as well as British ASRAAM short-range air combat missiles.
            Here it can be a line-up, in any case, about 2,2 tons, everything else is still on the pylons.
      2. Beck
        Beck 4 February 2014 01: 01
        +2
        The article and some comments are similar to the past - "The armor is strong and our tanks are fast ...".

        What hatchery yourself a consolation to do. All the airplanes presented are serious things and there’s nothing to it. - Yes, ours will fly over everyone, turn everyone off, knock everyone down. Such a cheer, in history, always ended in failure.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 February 2014 09: 32
    0
    The layout of the PAK FA with protruding engines and “ribs” of the air intakes suggests that the “stealth” parameter did not play a major role in its creation.


    And I recently came across an article "Russian invisible", the year 2003, I recommend that you familiarize yourself, there is also about the nozzles.

    Traditionally for Americans, the niche of light front-line fighters is occupied by multi-role ground-based fighter-bombers. And here F-35 is completely nothing to blame.


    You know, I really don't like the Mi-28. Primarily because of their ruined sound concepts of combat use. The United States will soon die of F-15Cs, newer and, in general, also bombing F-15Es, less than 300 units were built by EMNIP. F-22 in the amount of 180 pieces, if further production is abandoned in 10-15 years, will cease to have at least some value for air defense. In general, there is simply no heir for the "eagle". I admit that the United States itself does not care a little, the airliner will be able to intercept the F-35 in case of anything, but they impose this concept on all buyers. And no one guarantees that in 10 years the United States will not face a serious war with the same China somewhere in Taiwan, or in Indonesia. LochKid, in general, has made her car vparivaniya everywhere, even where it is of little use, under the false sauce of a beautiful fairy tale about "a single fighter".
  • nov_tech.vrn
    nov_tech.vrn 3 February 2014 09: 42
    +5
    "The combat load of 8 tons at 10 suspension points (4 internal, 6 external), taking into account its stealth and the most modern sighting and navigation aids - the F-35 can successfully compete with any tactical bomber" - what stealth we are talking about when using ammunition on the external suspension? and without it, the bomb load is small, well, again, the range is small.
    1. postman
      postman 3 February 2014 17: 01
      0
      Quote: nov_tech.vrn
      what stealth are we talking about when using ammunition on an external sling?

      But is EPR (radar signature / radar cross section) not only an external suspension?

      Suppose a carrier having 1 m² EPR (F-22 = 0,4), weapons on a suspension of 2 m²,in the amount of 3 m² (stupidly so averaged)


      And if the carrier is a Su-27 or an American F-15 - they have a reflected surface coefficient that characterizes the radar signature of the aircraft, within 12 m².
      + 2 m² (armament), in SUM = 14m²

      3 and 14 m²
      Can we "talk" about stealth?
      The answer is obvious.

      / chief designer of the PAK-FA T-50 aircraft - A. N. Davidenko said (about EPR)
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 18: 58
        0
        Obvious. About very limited stealth, since the detection range is proportional to the root of the 4 degree of their EPR, therefore, the detection range will decrease by one and a half times.
        1. postman
          postman 3 February 2014 19: 51
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          since the detection range is proportional to the root of the 4th degree of their EPR

          Well, take the 4th root of 14 and 3x.
          FEEL THE DIFFERENCE
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 3 February 2014 10: 47
    +3
    A very interesting article showing all the pros and cons of both American and Russian fighters. For what I love to read articles by Oleg Kaptsov, so for the fact that he objectively analyzes the capabilities of our and Western military equipment. I put the article "plus"!
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 3 February 2014 11: 25
    +1
    Quote: EvilLion
    LochKid, in general, has made her car vparivaniya everywhere, even where it is of little use, under the false sauce of a beautiful fairy tale about "a single fighter".

    EviLion expressed basically what I intended to express, only better.
    Once, in YouTube, I came across a video advertising the F-35, and so, the F-35 flew in a straight line and the F-22 maneuvers at a decent distance, immediately the thought that someone wants to hang noodles on someone’s ears.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 3 February 2014 15: 29
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      I came across a video advertising the F-35, and so, the F-35 flew in a straight line and the F-22 maneuvers at a decent distance, just the thought that someone wants to hang noodles on someone’s ears


      With this video, they wanted to fool that the F-35 is super-maneuverable, which it does not have. But Lockheed-Martin is not going to make high maneuverability, because. this is not entirely consistent with the American doctrine of air combat. "The first to see, the first to launch a missile, the first to shoot down." And if the enemy aircraft managed to reach close range, then the Americans mean a mistake. Our doctrine is built quite the opposite.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 15: 51
        +4
        You explain this to the MiG-31 that it must engage in close air combat. Our doctrine assumes the destruction of the enemy, or disruption of his combat mission, and how this will be achieved is the tenth thing. "The first saw - the first shot" is more typical for random skirmishes, and just in this regard, the MiG-29 and Su-27 had good capabilities due to the OLS. In the event that a raid is repelled, the attacking side in air combat will be interceptors, which by definition act against an already detected target. Almost now, in a head-on collision, aircraft with speeds of 900 km / h (15 m / min) from a distance of 100 km, which may exceed the range of weapon use, can go into close combat in about 3 minutes. And the F-22 with PAK FA will, at best, have time Pull at each other once and already dog-fight.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 16: 36
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          You explain this to the MiG-31 that it should engage in close air combat


          He should not categorically, since he is no longer a heavy fighter, but a long-range interceptor. His task is simple: to intercept a target at a great distance, launch a rocket destroying a target, fly back to base, and in no case enter Dog Fight with the enemy, since MiG-31 was not created for this.

          Quote: EvilLion
          Almost now, in a head-on collision, airplanes with speeds of 900 km / h (15 m / min) from a distance of 100 km, which may exceed the range of weapons, can go into close combat in 3 minutes


          It should be borne in mind that before entering the near stage, fighters can shoot each other 1-2 times with medium-range missiles. And the side that can do this by destroying part of the enemy aircraft will already have a victory in Dog Fight.

          Quote: EvilLion
          And F-22 with PAK FA in the best case will have time to pull one another at once and already a dog-fight.


          For opposing fifth-generation fighters, the battle without a doubt immediately goes to the close one. Since the T-50 and F-22 have stealth, in most cases they will see each other only at a short distance, where close combat can no longer be avoided. maneuverability, as was the case with 1st and 2nd generation aircraft.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 February 2014 17: 07
            +5
            A bullet on a convergence is a normal tactic, everyone does this, it is unlikely to shoot down, it will be useful if in the end it will be possible to take a more advantageous position. And "the first saw - the first shot down" generally refers to situations before the appearance of radars and warning systems, when the enemy who had entered the tail was recognized only when the tracks began to rush past. And it’s even more strange to talk about this in the presence of AWACS aircraft on both sides.
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 3 February 2014 17: 25
              +1
              I agree with you on this.
          2. yehat
            yehat 3 February 2014 18: 36
            0
            interesting, but will the availability of the gun decide? repeat
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 3 February 2014 20: 11
              +2
              If you can’t maneuver vigorously, then the gun will no longer help. recourse
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 05
        0
        super maneuverable any stovl
        it and the Su-27 was added without any problems
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 18: 41
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          super maneuverable any stovl
          it and the Su-27 was added without any problems


          I have already written everything on a different topic to the VTOL account, but you didn’t understand anything then. And VTOL is only one variant of the F-35.
    2. de bouillon
      de bouillon 3 February 2014 17: 45
      -1
      video to the studio
    3. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 53
      +1
      oh there are many such interesting videos .. even half a century ago.
      and they often write that the F35 flew to Fanborough near Paris, forgetting to add the letter "C" to the F35, or rolls with inattentive and hypnotic.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 3 February 2014 11: 53
    +6
    "8 million lines of code"
    That's why all the "oddities" of the assessment. Apparently, Mr. Kopp was dealing with these Lightnings. And he is better informed about this "masterpiece" than we are. Well, I take a little look through the walls and gave it ... 8 million lines of code are unstable and nothing good can be seen in the waves. All amazing novelties will be saved from the Nobel Prize by the fact that they work normally in a matter of minutes. In addition, it is far from always possible to determine the moment when a luxurious picture no longer shows reality, but complete crap. But the pilot is guided by it ... at one time our teacher at the military department began lectures with a melted lump of duralumin. This, he said, 8 lives is the result of poor interaction between equipment and people during the approach.
    Until the number of lines of code can be reduced at least tenfold - the Anglo-Saxons have no planes at all! Absolutely! You can simply laugh at the gross output indicators of these coffins, it can neither fly nor fight. The main thing we do not reach for this nonsense.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 February 2014 13: 21
      +1
      Several million lines of code, this is the size of an OS like Windows. If you write in a normal language, and not on the pros, then you can debug.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 3 February 2014 21: 29
        +2
        No you can not. Since not a single Windows is so debugged and was not, even the best, XP. And also have never been debugged, not debugged now and will never be debugged to the end, none of the operating systems. All of them are equipped with various devices for operational rebooting, all in real time are insured by entire teams of specialists, and all of them constantly throw their knees one more wonderful one.
        Only somewhere in the atomic power station enough multiple backups, teams of admins in place and the company’s on-site duty remotely. But on a plane, nothing of the kind can be applied! What threatens the aircraft with a quick restart of systems? Given the fact that almost all control has been transferred to them? It doesn’t look like in a movie - everything twitched, went out and lit again. And a little differently - the plane twitched and the pilot went out! From overload, for example, in half a je. Or the plane went out, only durals flew to the sides ...
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 February 2014 17: 41
      -1
      I wonder how many lines were in Yak (they say that there are two levers and two wings), maybe according to GTR, these 8 million lines weigh more, so it flies worse?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 19: 00
        0
        Do you even know how difficult it was to ensure the take-off of the Yak-38 from a short run? A very healthy ACS is needed for this.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 31
          +1
          it is the Americans thought so. You are an American?
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 February 2014 22: 24
            0
            The most difficult technical tasks are considered easy by those who have no idea about them at all. And the same V-22 sawed 30 years. Turn the screws all the way.
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 33
              0
              exactly what they sawed for> 30 years because the Canadian CL-84 was ready back in the 60s
              you have no idea.
    3. Fofan
      Fofan 3 February 2014 22: 35
      0
      8 million lines of Hindu govnokoda .... omg .....
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 3 February 2014 12: 06
    +10
    Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to some logical inconsistencies.

    If the author says "... the combat ceiling of the F-35 ... has little value in the era of anti-aircraft missile systems ...", then what's the point of saying "... The system allows ... to detect ballistic missile torches at a distance of up to 1300 km ! "

    Is it from low-level flight that it is supposed to detect the "torch of missiles" at distances of 1300 km? So I will disappoint - it will not work, the geometry of the Earth will not allow.

    Или:

    If we are talking about all-angle radar, then why drag in a system of infrared sensors here? All modern fighters are somehow equipped with similar systems and can be compared on this basis. And no need to make logical twists.

    Или:

    Speaking about the range of ammunition "In this category, there is an absolute advantage over the F-35. ..." At the same time, being born as an interceptor, the Su-35 carries anti-aircraft missiles with a launch range of more than 35 km, which are difficult to place in the fifth fighters, to put it mildly. And the F-200 has 8 suspension nodes only with external mountings.


    Or.

    If we are talking about super-maneuverability, then this is: "... according to the developers, Lightning maintains controllability at angles of attack up to 53 ° and is capable of maneuvering with overload up to 9g - like any normal fighter ..." absolutely. Super-maneuverability is, after all, the ability of an aircraft to maintain its direction of controlled flight while changing its own position in space. And not the ultimate overload and angles of attack.

    Or.

    "... Finally, the use of air-to-air refueling systems makes any further controversy about fuel reserves irrelevant ..." Well, it probably is. Be it a lightning strategic bomber or a patrolling fighter. But he is a light "frontline" fighter. What is it, it is assumed that tankers will approach him above the contact line? Isn't it sur?

    Или:

    "..This is how it was originally conceived: the light multipurpose" Lightning "is not a specialized interceptor ..." Lightning "was created for a completely different concept of warfare. Traditionally for the Americans, the niche of light front-line fighters is occupied by multipurpose fighter-bombers, focused on earth. "And here there is absolutely nothing to blame the F-35 for ..."

    How is it nothing, if it is completely clear that he is conceptually not an independent machine. After all, it turns out that he only makes sense as an assistant to the Raptor. And that's exactly what I was thinking.
    In fact, shtatovtsy "threw" their partners in the project, giving them an inferior aviation complex, and moreover depriving them of the opportunity to supplement this complex. After all, the United States offered it precisely as a replacement for the entire fleet of outdated cars, and not one segment. And only in this case its prohibitive price is somehow justified.


    So the claims are well founded. Lightning does not live up to his expectations. And most importantly, cannot fulfill them.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 3 February 2014 14: 39
      +4
      Quote: abc_alex
      How can there be nothing if it is perfectly clear that he is conceptually not an independent machine. After all, it turns out that he only makes sense as an assistant to the Raptor. And this is exactly what I intended. In fact, shtatovtsy "threw" their partners in the project, giving them an inferior aviation complex, and moreover depriving them of the opportunity to supplement this complex.

      - good drinks Respect. I read the entire argument with interest, there are good posts, but I really liked yours. And one cannot blame cheers for patriotism, and Lightning's shortcomings are shown quite accurately and objectively. Originally Lightning -
      Quote: abc_alex
      Raptor Assistant

      - and that's it. Lightning in tandem with the Raptor is really a formidable force, but only the States have this formidable force and on a very limited scale. All the rest are in flight. If you want to be a sucker - be friends with the States. Such friendships will greatly enhance your self-esteem and at the same time ease your wallet. laughing
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 February 2014 16: 43
      +2
      Quote: abc_alex
      The system allows ... to detect ballistic missile torches at a distance of up to 1300 km! "
      Is it from low-level flight that it is supposed to detect the "torch of missiles" at distances of 1300 km? So I will disappoint - it will not work, the geometry of the Earth will not allow.

      It all depends on the height at which the F-35 and the ballistic missile. So there’s nothing unnatural. The launch torch of ICBMs can be located at 50km. altitude and above, and the F-35 at an altitude of 15km., so 1300 km. falls. The question, of course, is how it is possible to see the thermal trace of a rocket engine torch at such a distance. On the other hand, the temperature of the torch is not one thousand degrees Kelvin ...
      So far to see through EOTS

      Quote: abc_alex
      If we are talking about all-angle radar, then why drag in a system of infrared sensors here? All modern fighters are somehow equipped with similar systems and can be compared on this basis.

      Quote: abc_alex
      If we are talking about all-angle radar, then why drag in a system of infrared sensors here? All modern fighters are somehow equipped with similar systems and can be compared on this basis.

      The EOTS F-35 is more than just an ordinary OLS. What Oleg wrote is probably more than the intentions of the developer, while debugging is not going very smoothly. EOTS crashes, is unstable, incorrectly determines the coordinates of the target, currently working on debugging software.

      Quote: abc_alex
      It would be nice to clarify that the Su-35 is capable of carrying almost everything that exists in Russian arsenals, including anti-ship missiles.

      Well, drawing or standing with mock-ups is one thing, integrating ammunition on board is another. The arsenal of the Su-35, even with the ancient R-27, X-25 and S-25L, is not very large. Of the more or less modern ammunition we have the R-73 (the pride of our military-industrial complex), the RVV-SD (the most mysterious missile, whether it is, or whether it is not), this is V-V.
      At the same time, it was precisely when it was born by the interceptor that the Su-35 carries anti-aircraft missiles with a launch range of more than 200 km, which, to put it mildly, is difficult to deploy in fifth fighters.
      But here it is unlikely that the RVV-DB is not included in the Su-35 nomenclature, do not believe it, look at the website http://www.sukhoi.org.
      From the VZ missiles we see more or less modern Kh-31, Kh-59M2 and Kh-38. Unfortunately they are more consistent with the level of the 90s, pointing to large radio contrast targets, the presence of favorable weather conditions, this is the last century. We have nothing similar to JASSM, KEPD-150/350 TAURUS, Storm Shadow. About domestic KAB it is better not to stutter at all, they are expensive, and fly no further than 6-9 km. About the integration of RCC is not yet heard.
      The Su-35 has great potential, but the KTRV fails a lot ...
      1. vadson
        vadson 3 February 2014 23: 36
        0
        Today the news was that Indians with Su 30 Brahmos were planning to launch at the end of this year
    3. de bouillon
      de bouillon 3 February 2014 18: 00
      -2
      your last paragraph is also a logical inconsistency

      So the claims are well founded. Lightning does not live up to his expectations. And most importantly, cannot fulfill them.

      not knowing the topic and the product itself, however, you categorically declare, that is, you are ordinary hamster
  • Max_Damage
    Max_Damage 3 February 2014 12: 57
    0
    f22 and f35 even look like some kind of starships from the future. I especially like the golden lantern of the cabin f22. Just a sight for sore eyes.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 3 February 2014 15: 35
      0
      Quote: Max_Damage
      Especially like the golden cab lantern


      The golden lantern of the cabin was made (as far as I know) to reduce visibility. Moreover, both the Raptor and Lightning do not have bindings on the lantern (everything was done strictly according to the stealth technology).
  • Max_Damage
    Max_Damage 3 February 2014 12: 59
    +3
    In general, as far as the Australian is trying to convince the f35 insignificance, the authors are trying to convince us of the opposite. Sometimes it hurts the eye))).
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 February 2014 13: 27
    +1
    In general, you can recall the "striker" brigade, the "striker" itself is complete crap, this is an BTR-60 with computers, and the self-propelled gun on its chassis is generally not capable of combat. But if you reproduce such a structure on the basis of the BTR-82A, and other normal equipment, then it will still be unfeasible, and extremely weak in its main anti-papuan designation, until a tank battalion is introduced into its composition, I'm not talking about the PV, it can be given if necessary. So it makes no sense to build the Air Force on bombers alone.
  • Altona
    Altona 3 February 2014 13: 49
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    But you do not take into account the technical search and development of new technologies! That is what, first of all, are valuable B-2, F-22, F-35

    As for their combat use, there was no particular need for these machines.
    So far, the 4 generation fighters are quite coping

    ----------------------------
    I also always repeat this thesis ... The Empire of Good has not yet encountered an opponent of equal technological capabilities, and there is more than enough of the barbarians and the potential of current weapons ...
    1. yehat
      yehat 3 February 2014 18: 47
      +1
      this is not entirely true. The United States is trying to replace a whole group with 1 airplane - jamming aircraft, fighter jets, fighter-bombers, AWACS aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft. Their price and content cost a pretty penny, so there is a motive to create something universal for the price.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 49
        0
        Strange as it may seem, the F-15 is not one of them. Yes, and the F-18 seems to be like that too.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 44
          +2
          Quote: Kassandra
          Yes, and the F-18 seems to be too


          The F / A-18 will be replaced by the F-35C. But the F / A-18 Super Hornet will remain in operation, and will most likely be used with the 35th for decades to come.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 59
            0
            Non-Superhornets are already almost all replaced and sold to other countries.
            Super Horn is now considered better than F-15
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 3 February 2014 22: 25
              -1
              Kill yourself up the wall.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 36
                0
                welcome to ... boa
            2. supertiger21
              supertiger21 6 February 2014 20: 12
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              Non-Superhornets are already almost all replaced and sold to other countries. Superhornets are now considered better than the F-15


              Firstly, Super Hornets are mass-produced for the US Navy (about 500 units), exported only to Australia.
              Secondly, comparing the Super Hornet with the F-15 is a gross mistake, since the latter refers to heavy fighters. I think you should not explain the differences between a light and a heavy fighter.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 7 February 2014 01: 32
                0
                It was written "non-Superhorny", i.e. the first F18, they are besides the USA in 7 countries. In the USA, they are supplanted by the Super Hornets.
                The empty Superhornet weight is 2t more than the empty weight of the F-15
                It cannot be compared in the first place because it is a deck aircraft. by the way, it’s not much lighter than the F-22
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 February 2014 20: 35
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      I also always repeat this thesis ... The Empire of Good has not yet encountered an opponent of equal technological capabilities, and there is more than enough of the barbarians and the potential of current weapons ...

      But this does not mean that the development of its own armed forces should be focused only on a possible war with underdeveloped countries?
  • ed65b
    ed65b 3 February 2014 13: 53
    +2
    I did not convince Olezh. if the lightning is just a truncated version, besides the lightest fighter as cheap as possible, why break the spears? since the stump means ...... not r of course, but close by, and even for the price it did not live up to expectations. Therefore, the Australian is right. For such a loot they wanted to get a gorynych snake in an invisible hat but got .....
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 3 February 2014 15: 53
      +1
      Quote: ed65b
      moreover, the price did not live up to expectations


      I’ll argue about the price. Lockheed Martin promises that with the start of large-scale production, the F-35A will cost $ 75 million. The price of the F-35B and F-35C will also decrease. Not a big enough price. For example, the Su-30MKI costs 83 million, and Eurofighter 2000 will cost only 123 million. So, the Lightning price is inferior even to some 4+ and 4 ++ fighters. Talk about a high price is too exaggerated.
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 3 February 2014 16: 01
        +2
        Quote: supertiger21
        Quote: ed65b
        moreover, the price did not live up to expectations


        I’ll argue about the price. Lockheed Martin promises that with the start of large-scale production, the F-35A will cost $ 75 million. The price of the F-35B and F-35C will also decrease. Not a big enough price. For example, the Su-30MKI costs 83 million, and Eurofighter 2000 will cost only 123 million. So, the Lightning price is inferior even to some 4+ and 4 ++ fighters. Talk about a high price is too exaggerated.

        this is a conversation in favor of the poor, today the price tag is very, very impressionable.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 16: 42
          0
          But now they’re not buying it yet. The plane is being brought to mind. Starting next year, they will start adopting the USA. And already in 2016-2020 export deliveries will begin. By this time they say that the price will decrease.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 16: 06
        +1
        And how are the Americans going to make an aircraft superior to the "typhoon", but for much less money?
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 3 February 2014 16: 24
          +2
          But our patriots claim that our planes are better and cheaper.
          And you yourself probably think that the T-50 is better than a raptor at a lower price.
          Americans are going to reduce the cost of aircraft due to a large (very large) series
          Although 75 million Baku apiece is hardly trusted
          Just as it is hardly believed that a typhoon, a light fighter even without radar with AFAR and stealth technology, can cost 123 lem. This is a figure from a wiki, it should not be taken seriously. The price for some first and very small one is probably indicated party.
          Or maybe they stupidly took the value of the export contract and stupidly divided it by the number of airplanes. Naturally, they didn’t take into account that the export of equipment was more expensive, they did not take into account that the price of the contract included armament and maintenance. Typhoon Lyamov 60 is a red price with a good series.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 February 2014 17: 08
            +1
            In the Russian Federation, wages are lower.
          2. supertiger21
            supertiger21 3 February 2014 17: 21
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            Just as it is hardly believed that a typhoon, a light fighter even without radar with AFAR and stealth technology, can cost 123 lem. This is a figure from a wiki, it should not be taken seriously. The price for some first and very small one is probably indicated party.


            The price is certainly high, but the fighter is quite profitable. The last modification of the Typhoon has UVT. And as they say PGO + UVT = very high maneuverability. In this Typhoon can argue even with the Su-35 and F-22. It also uses radio-absorbing materials to reduce EPR So Eurofighter is a highly maneuverable and a bit stealth aircraft.
        2. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 17: 01
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          And how are the Americans going to make an aircraft superior to the "typhoon", but for much less money?


          Imagine an aerial battle of the F-35 link and the EF-2000 link at a distance of 100 km, and they fly frontally to each other. The first to find the enemy, of course, are Lightings, although Typhoons have some stealth technology. Against radars with AFAR AN / APG-81 Typhoons will not have big advantages in stealth, and their radars are weaker. F-35 will be the first to launch AIM-120D missiles and destroy about half of Eurofighter. But the remaining Typhoons will be able to fly to the 35th and enter Dog Fight (where Eurofighter has huge advantages in maneuverability) .However, the probability that a small number of Eurofighters will defeat Dog Fight over superior Lights by no more than 30-40%. Therefore, the only chance for Eurofighter (like any generation 4) is to reduce the distance for starting a maneuverable battle. In this he surpasses the F-35.
  • postman
    postman 3 February 2014 14: 10
    0
    Quote: Author
    Modern combat aircraft is switching to radars with active headlights - the advantage of such systems is their reliability and increased sensitivity

    Not only
    - weight saving (and substantial): hundreds of low-power transmitters versus 1 powerful
    - super magnification
    -Small dimensions and a correspondingly smaller overall fairing.Hence the large “noses” of the Su-27/30 and MiG-29 aircraftLESS WEIGHT
    - reinforcement of individual transceiver modules -: the range of angles through which the beam can be deflected increases significantly, and thus many of the limitations of the geometry of gratings that have conventional phased gratings can be circumvented.
    - the ability of various modules to operate at different frequencies.
    - a much wider frequency range, which makes it possible to change the operating frequency with each pulse of solid-state transmitters
    - low probability of interception of the radar
    -reduced RCS (radar cross section)
    - "combat" resistance - destruction / damage of the 1st, several modules does not disable the radar
    - the ability to use several elements to receive common radar signals, eliminating the need for a separate warning radar receiver.
    - very high bandwidth of the data transfer channel (you can be a repeater of TV programs, Wi-Fi radio)
    In 2007, tests by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications allowed the Raptor AFAR system to act as a Wi-Fi access point capable of transmitting data at 548 megabits per second and receiving at a gigabit speed, which is much faster than the Link 16 used by the US aircraft (total TO 1 Mbit / s).
    Cons:
    -value
    The active headlamp combines 2-2,5 thousand modules, each of which is a transmitter and a receiver. Now the cost of one module, created, for example, for the F-22A and JSF, is about 10 thousand dollars. Accordingly, the entire radar is more expensive than an airplane. sad
    The Americans set the task to bring the price of the module to $ 400.
    - cooling (polyalphaolefin (PAO) refrigerant): the reliability of GaAs MMIC chips improves at low operating temperatures


    Quote: Author
    FAR N035 "Irbis". Due to its power and technological excellence, Irbis is in no way inferior to the Reptor radar in the detection of air targets

    Radar N035 "Irbis" with passive headlight and mechanical two-stage (in azimuth and roll) electrohydraulic drive- the essence of a quasi-mechanical antenna.

    ======================
    And how can well-known experts (Carlo and Oleg) T-50 (or Chinese) compare (launches of SD on supersonic, etc.), which (s) are still not de facto with the American ???????????? ????


    ================= EXPECT
    intelligent cladding (conformal antenna arrays with flexible backing)

    The smart English word, conformal antenna array technologies, other “fractional” mathematics (created by Leibniz, Riemann, Abel, Lagrange, Letnikov, Heaviside) - traditional mathematics is not suitable with the representation of signals in the space of integer dimension and smooth functions,
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 3 February 2014 15: 20
      +3
      Of the advantages of AFAR, it could be added that, in combination, it also operates an EW station. Therefore, by the way, the specialized EW station is not mentioned anywhere.
      But what Irbis essentially had was a quasimechanical antenna — incorrectly. Mechanical (or quasi-) if it would wave the radar all the time. And so the mechanics only increase the viewing sectors to values ​​larger than that of the PAR
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 15: 59
        +1
        http://www.avanturist.org/wiki/index.php/АФАР_против_ПФАР,_или_лучшее_-_враг_хор
        oh

        Enlightened.
      2. postman
        postman 3 February 2014 16: 43
        +1
        Quote: sivuch
        if only the radar waved her all the time. And so the mechanics only increase the sectors of vision to values ​​larger than that of the PAR


        Radar N035 "Irbis" with passive headlight and mechanical two-degree (in azimuth and roll) electrohydraulic drive. Canvas PFAR N035 installed on gimbal
        of course there is no data on the "waving" frequency, you have to watch the N035 "Irbis-E" radar
        the two-stage drive EGSP-27 radar "Irbis-E" is a further development of the single-stage drive EGSP-6A radar "Bars".

        Viewing angles: ± 120 ° (with antenna rotation), electronic ± 60 °
        Possibility (!) Of viewing in an extremely large range in azimuth (+/- 150 degrees (with antenna twist), electronic ± 60 °)
        power consumption - NO data (will be more than peak)
        And the peak is more than 20W


        1. You can compare (offhand) with

        AN / APG-77
        Viewing angle +/- 60 degrees. horizontally and vertically, in close air combat it decreases to +/- 30 degrees, while the pilot can change the vertical viewing angle within 10-60 degrees.

        weight 553,7 kg
        power consumption 16533 W
        ==============================================

        "somewhere" is lost about (more) 3500 W!
        can there be an answer about the "frequency" of waving?
    2. Santa Fe
      3 February 2014 19: 06
      0
      Quote: Postman
      - weight saving (and substantial): hundreds of low-power transmitters versus 1 powerful

      What about the special cooling requirements of the AFAR?
      Quote: Postman
      - smaller dimensions and a correspondingly smaller overall fairing. Hence the large “noses” of the Su-27 / 30 and MiG-29 aircraft, LESS WEIGHT

      Therefore, a smaller aperture and power - respectively, the worst opportunities in terms of detecting targets at long distances

      Quote: Postman
      And how can well-known experts (Carlo and Oleg) T-50 (or Chinese) compare (launches of SD on supersonic, etc.), which (s) are still not de facto with the American ???????????? ????

      Here we were talking about 35. The rest is background
      Quote: Postman
      English word smart

      Here we do not need this foreignism !!
      1. postman
        postman 3 February 2014 20: 25
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What about the special cooling requirements of the AFAR?

        Quote: Postman
        cooling (polyalphaolefin (PAO) refrigerant)
        , and each module !!!

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Therefore, a smaller aperture and power - respectively, the worst opportunities in terms of detecting targets at long distances

        do not repeat nonsense, this is nonsense
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Here it was about the 35th

        what's the difference?
        how many f-35s already riveted? Is it adopted (operational readiness)?
        Opposite the T-50 and the Chinese, who were seen under the "time" program, and the knowledge base = inferences of home-grown and other experts


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Here we do not need this foreignism !!


        YES! I wonder how Comrade Apollo did not delete the comment (he loves this business, regarding me, see a special order) _
        1. Santa Fe
          3 February 2014 23: 57
          0
          Quote: Postman
          with each module !!!

          And HOW does it fit with yours
          Quote: Postman
          - weight saving (and substantial): hundreds of low-power transmitters versus 1 powerful

          Quote: Postman
          do not repeat nonsense, this is nonsense

          You cannot do without educational program. Power = Signal Range
          no power - no range request
          Mb does sensitivity affect AFAR?
          Quote: Postman
          what's the difference?

          therefore about T-50 it is told only casually
          Quote: Postman
          YES! I wonder how Comrade Apollo did not delete the comment (he loves this business, regarding me, see a special order) _

          And expropriate dollars for the needs of the world nuclear war!
          1. postman
            postman 4 February 2014 00: 02
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And HOW does it fit with yours

            What's the problem?
            "cooling" each module is without losing weight, it is a problem of HEAT REMOVAL from each module.
            In PFAR, it is necessary to cool a 1n emitter of 10 (20 kW) and 400 waveguides

            In AFAR it is necessary to cool 400 modules of 100 watts

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            . Power = Signal Range

            Do not forget the efficiency. Okay?

            AN / APG-77
            Quote: Postman
            consumed power 16533 W


            Radar N035 "Irbis-E"
            Quote: Postman
            А peak more than 20 000W


            Quote: Postman
            "somewhere" is lost about (more) 3500 W!
            can there be an answer about the "frequency" of waving?

            yet it
            Quote: Postman
            and a two-stage mechanical (in azimuth and roll) electro-hydraulic drive are the quasi-mechanical antenna.


            A drive (low-inertia, high-speed, powerful) two-stage EGSP-27 - NECESSARY AND COOL
      2. iwind
        iwind 3 February 2014 20: 58
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        We are talking about the possibility of opening the wings of the weapons bays at high speed. According to experts, this advantage will have only one fighter of the "fifth generation" - the Russian PAK FA. The design of the other "Raptors" does not imply the use of weapons at supersonic speeds.

        For Su-35, this item does not matter, since there is no built-in bomb bay.

        F-35 received its legitimate "minus".

        By the way, why?
        On July 16, the AIM-120 rocket was launched at a speed of 1.2 max.
        EMNIP was already opening the hatch and flying at a speed of 1.4 mach.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 February 2014 22: 26
          0
          1.2M is still transonic, in general it depends on the speed of flow around a particular compartment, it can also be subsonic.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 3 February 2014 14: 46
    0
    Oleg, are you seriously analyzing one of the most crap and unprofessional tables on this topic?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2014 15: 37
      +2
      And what? In my opinion - a very good analysis turned out
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. supertiger21
      supertiger21 3 February 2014 15: 42
      -1
      Why is the table not professional? The minuses and pluses of the F-35 are compared objectively with respect to the analogy.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 3 February 2014 16: 00
        -1
        You would at least read the article before declaring the objectivity of this funny scribble.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 17: 07
          -1
          Quote: patsantre
          You would at least read the article


          I read, at what carefully, and some moments several times.

          Quote: patsantre
          before declaring the objectivity of this funny scribble.


          And here, please argue. Oleg's articles are almost always objective, and they have neither "sympathy for the United States" and "hurray-patriotism."
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 3 February 2014 17: 45
            0
            I’m actually talking about the table, I added plus to the article and completely agree with Oleg.
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 02
              0
              Well, I'm talking about the same thing as you. Just for what you gave me a "minus" I did not understand.
              1. patsantre
                patsantre 3 February 2014 21: 01
                0
                Reread your comment. You yourself defended this table. So you put it wrong. Do not blame me for that minus.
    4. yehat
      yehat 3 February 2014 19: 00
      +1
      the table raises some questions, the real answers to which depart from advertising and help to better evaluate the plane. Therefore why not discuss wink
      Personally, I have big doubts that the f-35 is able to withstand 9g loads. It doesn’t happen that a huge bunch of awesome requirements the project copes with and you have to sacrifice something. I think that strength was not without victims (after all, the plane was made easier for vertical take-off and the glider went unified for all 3 models).
      Surely, there are some more hidden flaws such as the strange problem of oxygen supply on f-22
  • postman
    postman 3 February 2014 17: 11
    0
    Quote: Author
    Initially, two side-cover AFARs were planned to be installed on the American Raptor, but the proposal did not receive development due to the exorbitant cost of such a system.

    and is AN / ALR-94 small?
    The radiation warning station consists of 30 sensors located in the wings and fuselage, which provides an overlap of 360 ° on all ranges.The system is capable of detecting, tracking and identifying a target at a distance of 460 km or more.When approaching a target at a distance of at least 180 km, target designation is provided for the APG-77 using the tracking file generated by the ALR-94 system..ALR-94 determines the direction, type of threat and distance to it, and then calculates the distance at which the enemy radar can detect the F-22.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 3 February 2014 18: 55
      0
      And why would he then radar with such happiness?
      1. postman
        postman 3 February 2014 20: 28
        +1
        Quote: sivuch
        And why would he then radar with such happiness?


        this is passivation (working on the emitter), but you also need:
        find (those who are in "twilight") and give control and guidance (for weapons) at all
        AN / ALR-94 this cannot be








        that’s why the 2nd AFAR of the side (and sometimes require aft) review is not clear: they don’t know how to shoot either sideways or backwards
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 12
          0
          situational awareness.
    2. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 19: 03
      0
      The system only works if the target itself emits.

      Otherwise (using AWACS aircraft, ground guidance stations, radar radiation from one of the group’s planes), attacking planes will go unnoticed.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 February 2014 20: 06
        0
        What difference does it make who irradiates, the very fact of irradiation is forced to engage electronic warfare and maneuvering.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 20: 16
          +2
          wassat

          How to maneuver? Where? if the direction of the attack is unknown? or are you going to maneuver with any exposure to the enemy?
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 February 2014 22: 28
            0
            It is necessary to maneuver from the rocket, and not from the direction of radiation, that is, without detecting the rocket it will not work out.
      2. postman
        postman 3 February 2014 20: 33
        +1
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        attacking planes will go unnoticed.

        Right!
        If?
        If you do not use APG-77
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 20: 39
          0
          What it is?
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 3 February 2014 21: 02
            0
            Radar Raptor.
        2. Meteor
          Meteor 3 February 2014 21: 47
          0
          Quote: Postman
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          attacking planes will go unnoticed.

          Right!
          If?
          If you do not use APG-77

          The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search for a fighter aircraft equipped with STR / RTR equipment without the target knowing that it is being irradiated. Unlike conventional radars that emit powerful pulses of energy in a narrow frequency range, AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes return, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as a conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has a significantly lower amount of energy and a different signal structure, it will be difficult for the target to detect the F-22.

          The F-22 has an ALR-94 electronic intelligence station, which allows, if the enemy has an UAV turned on, to launch missiles on it including its own radar very shortly, or even not including it at all.
  • lx
    lx 3 February 2014 17: 34
    +1
    Quote: de Bouillon
    but PAKFA so far, that only in theory should throw, but how in practice is unknown. Although the Americans also switched from theory to practice :)

    In practice, the PAK FA has never flown with open bombs at any speed, and not that it threw any of them (no one even reported this, not to mention any evidence). But it’s time for a long time. And this, as it were, hints ... about problems with the glider.
    I don’t know how much Carlo is a well-known and respected expert, but he made himself an absolute amateur in this case, regardless of why he wrote this scary publication.
    1. de bouillon
      de bouillon 3 February 2014 17: 47
      -3
      I wrote about it, i.e. all these promises and bells and whistles about PACFU are just gibberish, but it’s irrelevant and in recent years we don’t know anything

      and here the local quilted jackets nobly ran for me
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 18: 14
        0
        a penny is the same padded jacket, only worse.
        with a padded jacket everything was done in practice back in the 80s, others just sawed loot in sheepskin coats
        in the majority of T50 shown, the aerodynamics of the first T10 and not the second (Su-27)
        of the innovations, only the installation of a new engine from Cermet, before installing the same on Scraptor, they did not pose any threat.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 10
          0
          Kassandra Remember our argument about GDP aircraft? I hope you no longer think that people like Harrier are super maneuverable. laughing
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 36
            0
            Don't all VTOL aircraft have deflectable nozzles and a gas-jet control system? or is Harrier not VTOL?
            I hope you someday type in Google at least what VIFF-ing is, and what was the ratio of victories in air battles at Falkland.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 3 February 2014 22: 31
              +1
              Kill already up the wall with your stormtroopers on the Falklands. In such an environment, the Su-27 would have performed too badly. Although taking into account the complete file in the defense of corbles, not so badly even Argentine scrap metal came out. Well, VTOL cannot fly normally. Because WEIGHT, WEIGHT and again WEIGHT. Yak-141 compared to the MiG-29 is just a pile of iron.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 3 February 2014 22: 46
                0
                boy, grow up already and kill yourself :-)
                23: 0 for mirages and daggers, this is not an attack aircraft ...
                a complete file is in your head - not a single UDC was drowned, not one Aircraft carrier and no infantry was injured in the unloading zone
                what is WEIGHT? VTOL has a thrust ratio of obviously more than one. and a driven thrust vector, then, another 30 years ago.
            2. supertiger21
              supertiger21 4 February 2014 19: 10
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              Don't all VTOL aircraft have deflectable nozzles and a gas-jet control system?


              And how does this affect over-maneuverability. Is it really lazy for you to search the Internet for what the concept of over-maneuverability means?! At VTOL, this system is needed only for vertical take-off and landing.

              Quote: Kassandra
              I hope you ever type in Google at least what is VIFF-ing


              I don't need to type this. I have been familiar with this concept for a long time. But you, without even knowing what this system is for, claim that "it gives super-maneuverability."


              Quote: Kassandra
              and what was the ratio of victories in aerial battles at the Falkland.


              On this account, I have explained to you many times. If you are not too lazy, go to a neighboring topic "La Muerte Negra (" Black Death "). Episodes of the Falklands War".There I explained everything to similar commentators like you.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 4 February 2014 20: 23
                0
                Uhh ha ha ha ha! commentator, And how does super-maneuverability come about in non-VTOL? On the same Raptor F-22 or Su-35? It seems like using deflectable nozzles?
                Who said that a gas-jet control system is needed for the shuttle (VTOL pardon) only for take-off and landing?
                Folkend has been writing about VIFFing harriers for a long time. This is not a system, but a battle technique (like Cobra Pugachev, if you know about it of course).
                I will definitely go. But you can try again here ... Stopped in already! Why don't you have a topic there, i.e. air battles with a score of 23: 0 (why "Black Death"), and again the intrusive images of just a few sinking or burning ships from the squadron for 100th (together with the Auxillary Fleet)?
                Argentines had 287 jet aircraft. 170 participated in the raids. Against 20-22 harriers - 8 this was a replenishment after the loss of 6 vehicles from accidents and anti-aircraft fire from the ground. Because of such a quantitative superiority, which is constantly multiplied by "7", something from the Argeninian armada broke through and bombed, and after the first air battles avoiding meeting with its "Black Death". Moreover, not one English UDC (where there would have been much more casualties than on Belgrano), not a single aircraft carrier, and not a single floating barracks were harmed.
                In general, including due to the air defense of sunk 5 ships, Argentina lost 86 aircraft.
                1. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 4 February 2014 21: 17
                  0
                  Eh you, I thought that at least now you would understand the meaning of my words, but “again twenty-five.” Your logic is not clear to me.

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  On the same Raptor F-22 or Su-35?


                  If you even understand a little bit about Aviation, you should know that the Su-35 and F-22 nozzles deviate in fast flight and are connected to an on-board computer that strictly controls their movement. At Harriere, they are exclusively for vertical take-off and landing. affect.

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  (like Cobra Pugachev, if you know about her of course).


                  Offend, Cobra can only be performed by aircraft of the Su-27 and MiG-29 family, as well as F-22. For any VTOL aircraft, this maneuver is not possible.

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Why don't you have a topic there, i.e. air battles with a score of 23: 0 (why "Black Death"), and again intrusive images of just a few sinking or burning ships from the squadron for 100 (together with the Auxillary Fleet)?


                  You did not read carefully. Read my comments there, as well as Oleg (SWEET_SIXTEEN). All VTOL fans (like you) could not find the words to defend the "mighty and unique" Sea Harrier.

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Argentines had 287 jet aircraft. 170 participated in the raids. Against 20-22 harriers - 8 this was a replenishment after the loss of 6 vehicles from accidents and anti-aircraft fire from the ground. Because of such a quantitative superiority, which is constantly multiplied by "7", something from the Argeninian armada broke through and bombed, and after the first air battles avoiding meeting with its "Black Death".


                  Argentine Daggers did not go to air battles. Their task was to bomb the ships of the British Navy (with which the Argentines did a good job). And already on the retreating aircraft, the Sea Harriers fired a rocket. On the next topic I already wrote why the Daggers could not go to Dog Fight with Harriers. If you are not too lazy to read.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 4 February 2014 22: 04
                    0
                    and you thought that it’s possible to deceive? in vain ..
                    ..
                    those who understand significantly, know that the Su-35 is not statically stable (the focus of aerodynamic pressure is in front of the center of mass), therefore, it is controlled through the EDSU, and this is not necessary at Harrier.
                    In addition to deflectable nozzles, the harrier also has a gas-jet control system, it can be used not only in the hover mode ...
                    VIFFing through which all Argentines were shot down translates as "the use of the deflected thrust vector in horizontal flight" - takeoff / landing has nothing to do with it.
                    ..
                    no offense - ViFFing was done before the cobra and before the dynamic cast on the F-14
                    it's not quite the same, but the effect is even better
                    ..
                    they didn’t go and they were shot down, and they still went to the attack (or from?) and didn’t go to battle ..
                    daggers could not go to dogfight because they are not super-maneuverable and would have been shot down. Harriers were also at the limit of their range.
                    ..
                    The Argentines did not cope with the bombing — only 5 out of 100 crashes were sunk, and not a single aircraft carrier, UDC, or floating ship.
                    they lost 80 aircraft at the same time. if all the detonators of the bombs worked, then it would not have led to the defeat of the agglisans.
                    ..
                    if the British let AIM on "retreating" then what does it have to do with its "all-aspect ratio"?
                    basically they were intercepted before reaching the target, otherwise they would have really drowned all 100 and not just 5
                    ..
                    you live in US / UK, do you want to make Russian fools? or where else? the pilots just know all these matters. they are not allowed to engage in close combat with the harrier
                    1. supertiger21
                      supertiger21 4 February 2014 22: 34
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      and you thought that it’s possible to deceive? in vain ..


                      You are trying to deceive me, telling all sorts of tales about the fact that the Harriers have super-maneuverability)))

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      VIFFing through which all Argentines were shot down translates as "the use of the deflected thrust vector in horizontal flight" - takeoff / landing has nothing to do with it.


                      On Harriers, this does not give super-maneuverability. It can simply help to keep the plane during flight at very low altitudes (for example, during assault missions).

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      daggers could not go to dogfight because they are not super-maneuverable and would have been shot down. Harriers were also at the limit of their range.


                      Daggers did not go to Dog Fight with the Sea Harriers, because they performed shock work, and were completely loaded with fuel and bombs. They did not have a radar station, so even entering an air battle (let alone winning) could not be and speech.

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      otherwise they would really have drowned all 100 and not just 5


                      80% of the bombs (by the way American production) launched by the Mirages, Daggers and Skyhokhs did not explode. If they worked, it would be unlikely that Britain would still have the Falkland Islands.

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      you live in US / UK, do you want to make Russian fools? or where else? the pilots just know all these matters. they are not allowed to engage in close combat with the harrier


                      I live in Russia, and not a fan of star-striped. In close combat with Harrier, both our Su-27 and MiG-29, as well as the American F-15, F-16 and F-18, will deal with it.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 01: 07
                        0
                        Why doesn't he have one? Due to the lack of a computer?
                        ..
                        Any VTOL aircraft due to the gas-jet control system necessary for the hovering mode, and the OVT nozzles, have super-maneuverability.
                        VIFFing is used for quick speed relief and a small climb, to let the enemy aircraft go into the tail, and thereby be in the tail itself. With all the consequences for the enemy.
                        Nobody creeps on a helicopter attack on a helicopter - they will be shot down due to low speed. When evading anti-aircraft fire, VIFFing is rarely used because, although the course changes dramatically, the speed drops drastically, which then makes it easier to aim the anti-aircraft gun. That's exactly how one of the anti-aircraft gunners was shot down when he made it from one, and was removed from the other.
                        ..
                        Half of the harriers also had no radar, and the daggers came with mirages on which the radar was.
                        they could still work with cannons, Nurs blocks, and their own IR missiles (mats were better than sidewinders).
                        If a laden with bombs is attacked, then he drops them and fights, and the harriers were loaded with fuel no less than the Argentines, because they also operated at the limit of their radius.
                        ..
                        if they worked, it would still have - not one of them was stuck in the UDC, floating ship or in an aircraft carrier.
                        ..
                        A fan of what? Spitting on harriers?
                        Absolutely all Su, Migam and F engage with enemy fighters even in a group subsonic maneuver battle is forbidden if there is at least one harrier in the square.
                        If 23: 0 and the nickname Balck Death from those who were trained in the IDF is not taught anything because they called it an attack aircraft (although the attack aircraft was only GR3 and SiHarrier is a fighter), then this is a diagnosis.
                      2. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 5 February 2014 13: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        VIFFing is used for quick speed relief and a small climb, to let the enemy aircraft go into the tail, and thereby be in the tail itself. With all the consequences for the enemy.


                        That is, you want to say that he was the first to perform "Pugachev's Cobra" ... fellow Harrier wassat ??? I want to remind you that the first aircraft capable of doing the "maneuver you described" was the Su-27. When Pugachev showed it in Farnborough in 1989, all Western observers, including. and the British (the creators of Harrier) were shocked. Do not propagate nonsense, maybe even with the people from the Sukhoi Design Bureau you can argue that they did not create the first super-maneuverable aircraft. laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Half of the harriers also had no radar


                        There was no radar only on the ground Harrier GR.3, because. they did not conduct air battles, but performed shock work. All Sea Harriers had a radar station, so they only gave them work to destroy Argentine bombers and attack aircraft.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        A fan of what? Spitting on harriers?


                        A fan of realism, and no empty chatter about "invincible, super-maneuverable and unique Harrier")
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 14: 37
                        0
                        You are propagandizing nonsense just because VIFFing is VIFFing and they gasped because a similar maneuver was made by an ordinary plane and not by STOVL, and thus the English monopoly fell away from this maneuver. By the way, then by the way - no. it was done only on Su with OVT
                        ..
                        Any VTOL aircraft is highly maneuverable. The first Soviet super-maneuverable was the Yak-36. By the way, he was the first small-scale one used for trolling Americans in the Mediterranean Sea from Moscow / Leningrad helicopter carriers, after which they ran to throw Hawker Siddeley Corporation (AV-8 - unlicensed) with Harrier.

                        Gr3 also fought aerial battles while being led by Sea Harriers. the latter, if necessary, urgently worked on the ground. Her Majesty took care of her infantry ...
                        Mirage and Dagger are fighters. Attack aircraft are Skyhawks.

                        23: 0 is it unreal? Well, in a sense, yes ... Ah, the chatter is yours. The realism is that the USSR Air Force found how to get out of melee from Harrier through a series of maneuvers only after 6 months, and only if the other type of aircraft from the enemy’s side did not participate in the battle. Which simply being supersonic catches up and knocks down. Or drag melee again, in which Harrier has already knocked down.
                        Laugh "smilies" ... laugh ... You will cry later.
                      4. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 14: 45
                        0
                        So all the same, why should Harrier suddenly have super-maneuverability? Due to the lack of a computer?
                        OVT as on the F-22 and Su-35 he has. But there is no gas-jet control system just on the F-22 and Su-35.
                        The Harrier has one drawback, he, unlike the Yak-141 and F35 (its copies), is subsonic.
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 15: 54
                        0
                        They might have gasped from the Su-27, and when the Yak lowered the nozzle, their head was wrapped around the navel and they became really bad. Because the pipes are not so gnuzzo. And because after that their Harrier, like the American supercarriers, just rests.
                      6. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 5 February 2014 22: 56
                        0
                        Still, to convince you that Harrier is not super-maneuverable, you will not succeed. But then simply answer, if Harrier is so cool, why didn’t he gain distribution in the world and is used in a limited way? Answer to this, why ???
                      7. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 30
                        0
                        and you didn’t try ..
                        so you answer why is it suddenly he is not super-maneuverable? because there is no computer? although there is an OB and a gas-jet control system ..
                        it is not so limited in use, albeit subsonic.
                      8. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 6 February 2014 16: 24
                        0
                        If you are not lazy, then write in Gegle or in Yandex "Harrier Operators", and you will see "how many countries love VTOL aircraft", it is already difficult to cross)))

                        Hawker Siddy Harrier GR.1 / GR.3, Operators:
                        British Air Force / Navy (withdrawn)
                        United States ILC (filmed)

                        BAE Sea Harrier, Operators:
                        British Navy (filmed)
                        Indian Navy (exploited)

                        American A-8 Harrier II, Operators:
                        United States ILC (operational)
                        Spanish Navy (in use)
                        Italian Navy (filmed)
                        Thai Navy (filmed)

                        British A-8 Harrier II, Operators:
                        British Navy (filmed)

                        Convinced of the low popularity (at a stretch) of your "invincible and unique Harrier" ???!
                      9. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 February 2014 16: 42
                        0
                        I'm not lazy, and you forgot about countries like Belize, for example. On which his safety depends entirely. The British Commonwealth is great, although the United States is nearby.
                        In Italy, it is not filmed.
                        They shoot them for the development of the resource, and new ones are not made because the F35 is on the way. With the exception of small Britain, in which all 74 of them were simply bought by the United States, because it is late (it seems they understood that it might not happen at all).
                        Harrier with still Falkland 23: 0 (and then he only improved) "all-defeated" chtol?
                        Well, in Latin America, after all that was definitely not for sale, in the post-Socialist camp, too.
                        In Africa, in general, there is really no modern combat aircraft anywhere.
                        From Asia, just Thailand was with its U-Tapao a very trusted country.
                        F-22 is not sold anywhere.
                        The fact that he is in such a miserable structure as the United States Commission is popular does not bother? Or should the world’s top-notch ILCs fly in the village of J7?
                      10. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 6 February 2014 20: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        They shoot them for the development of the resource, and new ones are not made because the F35 is on the way.


                        Harrier not only now, but 10,20,30 years ago, bought reluctantly. The aircraft is a youth aircraft, this explains its non-prevalence. F-35 will be bought only by three countries that had VTOL (USA, Britain, Italy).

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, in Latin America, after all that was definitely not for sale, in the post-Socialist camp, too.


                        Before "after all that was" in Latin America, there was an opportunity to sell just such an aircraft to these countries. And about the Social Camp is generally ridiculous. If the social countries wanted VTOL aircraft so badly, they would have bought the Yak-38 from the Soviet Union ...

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        In Africa, in general, there is really no modern combat aircraft anywhere.


                        Algeria has a Su-30 and MiG-29, South Africa Gripeny, Ethiopia Su-27, etc. There are many more such African countries. You probably got stuck in the first half of the 20th, when there were no propeller planes in Africa .Now the modern world, new technologies, new achievements, come out of the cave at last !!!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-22 is not sold anywhere.


                        But haven't F-15, F-16, F / A-18 been sold or sold anywhere? They have been used at least in practice many times, and your VTOL aircraft are only formidable fighters in dreams and theories.
                      11. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 7 February 2014 01: 35
                        0
                        Your untruth ..
                        Harrier (6-7 "operators") is also common as the F-18 non-Superhornet (8 operators). it turns out that "Hornet" is a little needed aircraft, and Superhornet (2 operators), F-14 (2 operators) or F-15 (4 operators) are completely unnecessary.
                        and F-22 (1 operator) - absolutely, completely unnecessary.
                        The British Harrers were all willingly bought by the United States.
                        ..
                        In Latin America, after all that was NOT to sell prudence was.
                        ..
                        After what the Hungarian MiG-15s did on tanks in Budapest in 1956, and what they stopped only after breaking their airfields - I don’t think.
                        ..
                        Algeria Ethiopia is a former Socialist camp, a non-NATO friendly country. Like Libya nearby. South Africa, too, now how they kicked the whites out is unfriendly. During apartheid, they were sanctioned and all aviation was their own.
                        In the cave you are sitting, and in the wrong one.

                        All of you aunt are lying again. F-15 and F-18E / F in terms of the number of exploiters sold worse than Harriers.
                        F-16 (25 operators) is a corrugated plane for the fight against air defense systems, it is taken as a simpler fighter country or those with which, in the case of the next Nazi uprising or the Taliban uprising, the normal twin-engine fighters of the vile empire should not be hard to understand.
                      12. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 7 February 2014 15: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        operators). it turns out that "Hornet" is a little needed aircraft, and Superhornet (2 operators), F-14 (2 operators) or F-15 (4 operators) are completely unnecessary. And F-22 (1 operator) is completely unnecessary. British Harrers were all willingly bought by the USA.


                        You think like a 10-year-old child. First of all, a sea plane is horned, and besides this, it has a compatriot-compatriot F-16, so only 8 countries use it. And they don’t buy Super Hornets because they are waiting for F-35A (not for VTOL for evil) .F-15 is very necessary but expensive, so not every country is able to spend enough money on it. F-22 was banned from selling to anyone.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Algeria Ethiopia is a former Socialist camp, a non-NATO friendly country. Like Libya nearby. South Africa, too, now how they kicked the whites out is unfriendly. During apartheid, they were sanctioned and all aviation was their own.


                        Algeria is a member of the community of former French colonies and no one forbade him to buy VTOL. Ethiopia did not enter the social camp, but nevertheless did not buy vertically soaring trash. South Africa bought Gripen from Sweden not long ago, did not buy Harrier or Yaki, and doesn’t want to buy the F-35B. If you are too lazy to rummage around in the sources, then just go to Wikipedia or ask those who know. I hope to catch WiFi in the cave)))

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        All of you aunt are lying again. F-15 and F-18E / F in terms of the number of exploiters sold worse than Harriers.


                        Both "Eagles" and "Super Hornets" are massive airplanes. 1800 Hornets were launched, 500 Super Hornets, 15 F-1500s. Because they are necessary airplanes, unlike Harrier.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-16 (25 operators) is a corrugated plane for the fight against air defense systems, it is taken as a simpler fighter country or those with which, in the case of the next Nazi uprising or the Taliban uprising, the normal twin-engine fighters of the vile empire should not be hard to understand.


                        "Gofnosplaneta" are your Harriers, Yaki-38 and F-35B. The F-16 is the most massive fighter of the fourth generation, having won more than 70 air victories with about 10 air defeats. How can you say such nonsense "F-16 aircraft for combating air defense systems ". Naturally, for shock work, too, a good plane, but it was created as a hunter for the MiG-21. However, after being put into service, he had to fight with the more modern MiG-23." Fighting Falcon "fought in almost all wars from 1981 to N. Until the mid-1980s, the F-16 did not have a single worthy enemy in the world capable of confronting it on equal terms or superior. This continued until the appearance of the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000. However, they did not become so widespread. 16 produced more than the F-15, F / A-18 combined, and your Harrier isn't worth a single F-16 engine.
                      13. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 7 February 2014 20: 25
                        0
                        A child, the F-16 F-18mu is not even a competitor to the first, so all those who are smarter and did not enter the social camp take the F-18 like dates or Swiss.
                        The Israeli F-16 is a lot to suppress Arab air defense.
                        F-15 was only sold in
                        1. Saudi Arabia against Iran, which had previously been thoughtlessly sold F-14 (against the USSR),
                        2. Japan immediately against the USSR and China, and
                        3. to Israel from its numerous Arab cousins.
                        ..
                        Algeria fought with France and was a USSR friendly country with a socialist economy, Ethiopia, like Somalia, too. Rummage properly in the sources yourself. In South Africa - yes, flu! Not even the F-16 ... all for those sanctions. To evil. They now have no one to fight with. No one would sell Harrier there. To Algeria or Ethiopia - even more so.
                        ..
                        Harrier was released no less than the superhornets. Write why he suddenly became an unnecessary plane. after 23: 0. And the presence of the Air Force and Navy is only among the most devoted NATO allies. Nobody will fight with India, but it will come in handy against China too, especially in the Himalayas (the air there is cold by the way).
                        ..
                        The F-16, which had been knocked down a lot, almost did not shoot down anything in its entire career - in these "70 of his bugs" it was recorded that in fact it was not at all heroically shot down by the F-15 with long-range missiles. Mainly because of the Central Lebanese ridge and with guidance from American AWACS. That is, the F-15 simply jumped out passively without turning on its radar and launched a rocket and hid back behind the mountains.
                        During the war in the Gulf, absolutely ALL shots were from the F-15
                        ..
                        As a hunter for the MiG-21, the F-15 was created according to the results of the Vietnam War! And he (and not some F-16, which was created as a cheap "Wild Weasel") because of this had problems from the MiG-23, especially from their non-export but normal modifications, that is, with a strong engine, normal aerodynamics and with radar.
                        The main Arabs have always been MiG-21 and not MiG-23. The latter were almost always deteriorated almost all the time, and nahua they are generally like them with such a large fairing but without a radar! If only for 5 times more expensive operation from short bands and in a bomber modification (such as not to MiG-27 and not to Su-24).
                        Until 1988, there was nothing cooler than the MiG-23MLD (like the F14, with variable wing geometry). Then, in the competition with the F-15, his single-engine effect affected.
                        Harrier is also single-engine, but he has over-maneuverability due to OB and gas jets. And the thrust-weight ratio is higher than that of the F-16 (in general, it should be able to take off vertically).
                        ..
                        Harrier F-16go will bring down. The only one it will be difficult for him to shoot down is the F-15I and Su-27, whose thrust-to-weight ratio is even greater. They break away from him on the verticals, but they cannot climb into the melee with him. from a distance he can bring them down now with AMRAAM radar too.
                        ..
                        If one engine from F-16 will fly, then maybe it can fly away from the harrier, maybe even hitting it - bring down
                        laughing
                      14. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 7 February 2014 23: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Harrier was released no less than the superhornets. Write why he suddenly became an unnecessary plane. after 23: 0. And the presence of the Air Force and Navy is only among the most devoted NATO allies. Nobody will fight with India, but it will come in handy against China too, especially in the Himalayas (the air there is cold by the way) ...


                        Themselves invented or who said? laughing If you are not so informed, I want to remind you that the Hornets and Super Hornets have released almost 2,5 thousand units. About 500 are released by Harriers of all modifications (including American). The ratio is 5: 1 and the plane is more important.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The F-16, which had been knocked down a lot, almost did not shoot down anything in its entire career - these "70 of his bugs" recorded the fact that, in fact, they were not heroically shot down by the F-15 with long-range missiles. Mainly because of the Central Lebanese ridge and with guidance from American AWACS. That is, the F-15 simply jumped out passively without turning on its radar, launched a rocket and hid back behind the mountains. During the war in the Gulf, ABSOLUTELY ALL shootings were from the F-15


                        Before talking nonsense, write once again in the search engine "combat use of the F-16". I do not deny that "Fighting Falcons" did not participate in the Gulf War. All victories over Iraqi fighters belong to the F-15. Most of all the victories of the F-16s won during the Lebanon War of 1982. Its main opponents (albeit a little outdated) were the MiG-23MF and Su-17, not the MiG-21. And more than 70 victories were won by the 16th. The more powerful and heavy F-15 in official US data received 104 air victories (although I do not really trust these data). The MiG-23MLD was not inferior to the F-16 if there was a link-to-link battle. Our MiG was inferior to the 16th in maneuverability and avionics.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Harrier F-16go will bring down. The only one it will be difficult for him to shoot down is the F-15I and Su-27, whose thrust-to-weight ratio is even greater. They break away from him on the verticals, but they cannot climb into the melee with him. from a distance he can bring them down now with AMRAAM radar too.


                        To shoot down Harrier, it is not necessary to have a fourth-generation aircraft. The MiG-23 or Mirage F-1 can be dealt with Kharkom. They just have to bring Harrier to a height and start turning with overloads. Harrier has a fuselage that is not the most overload-resistant, and 4 small nozzles Do not give much traction with a dizzying Dogfighting. Either the MiG (or Mirage) will hit its tail, or Harrier himself will explode from overload.

                        Kassandra, I’m asking you, let's continue the debate when a new article about Harrier or F-16 comes up. I’m just sick of being tired of returning to a topic that began on February 3rd. Here is another article, and then I bet.
                      15. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 February 2014 02: 25
                        0
                        Oh, don’t even ask! Nobody argues with you ... Do you continue to invent everything with digits? Superhornets have released 500, this is probably a very unnecessary plane, right? crying
                        ..
                        You can ask Google "MiG23 in Lebanon" or it’s in Bl.Vostok. It's time to stop relying entirely on Sokhnutov's books.
                        The MiG-23MLD was slightly superior in the avionics and light aircraft (variable wing geometry) even the twin-engine F-15 - the F-16 was out of the question.
                        In vertical maneuverability, it was slightly inferior to the F-15, and this allowed the latter in a dueling situation to gradually accumulate height and leave the battlefield. F-14 caught up with the MiGs only in 1994 when those had already caught a trace.
                        In all Arab-Israeli wars, losses in aerial battles were about bash for bash except 1982 (1: 3,4) where there was a trick with AWACS about which it was written above, to which the F-16 just did not have anything to do, and in which the radar SAF had no field beyond the Lebanese mountains. As soon as these AWACS were shot down, the losses immediately returned to normal. In the ensuing war, where the American battleship beat on the coast and on the IDF side, the NATO Air Force got involved, the Syrians generally yielded many more times in numbers. Because for the first time they delivered a normal plane, including a radar.
                        The MiG-21 was in the Syrian Air Force more than the MiG-23, it is cheaper, easier to maintain and more dynamic (than not MLD).

                        ..
                        Even the fifth plane could not cope near Harrier. The biggest overloads during the battle are below, and somehow it didn’t fall apart from mirages even with a deltoid wing on the Falklands.
                        It is necessary to go up from him himself, so that there is a chance to get out of the battle with afterburner at supersonic.
                        F-16 has less thrust-to-weight ratio ... These 4th small nozzles give a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 1c. And they are rejected. Like nozzles on F22 or Su35, only .. with a large angle. In addition to them, a gas-jet control system and airflow of the wing helps in the reversal.
                        ..
                        F-16s did not participate in the Gulf War. Stop lying. They didn’t shoot anything there (but they shot them down in air battles) and were engaged in what they were intended for - suppression of air defense
                        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
                      16. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 8 February 2014 11: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Superhornets have released 500, this is probably a very unnecessary plane, right?


                        You first delve into what I said, and then write the answer. Super Hornet, unlike Harrier, has proven itself very well, because. from it and a fighter, and a bomber, and an attack aircraft, and a reconnaissance, and a good deck, and an electronic warfare aircraft. This is not your Harrier, which even in the Middle East did not participate (sometimes only experimentally and very limited). Learn the history of Yankee wars. "Eagles", "Faiting Falcons", "Hornets", "Thunderbolts", "Apaches", but there were no Harriers, not now, and will not be in the future. laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        You can ask Google "MiG23 in Lebanon" or it’s in Bl.Vostok. It's time to stop relying entirely on Sokhnutov's books. The MiG-23MLD was slightly superior in avionics and flight characteristics (variable wing geometry) even to the twin-engine F-15 - the F-16 was out of the question. In terms of vertical maneuverability, it was somewhat inferior to the F-15, and this allowed the latter in a duel situation to gradually accumulate altitude and leave the battle. The F-14 caught up with the MiGs only in 1994, when they were gone.


                        I don’t want to act as an attorney for American airplanes, but you ... fellow said such nonsense fool which caught me laughing. The variable wing geometry was not only on the MiG-23MLD, but also on the old MiG-23 (as well as the MiG-27 and Su-17). This function reduces takeoff and landing, and also makes some modes convenient But it has little to do with aerial combat. In the USSR, in 1983-1985, aircraft appeared much more powerful than the MiG-23MLD. They were the Su-27 and MiG-29, which exceeded the maneuverability of both their predecessors and the American counterparts F -15 and F-16.Look about the Lebanon war, I hope you know this conflict ?! laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        and somehow it didn’t fall apart from mirages even with a deltoid wing on the Falklands.


                        I explained to you about the Falklands many times. There were no Dog Fights. The C Harriers simply intercepted and shot down the Daggers (without radar) who were carrying out the bombing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-16s did not participate in the Gulf War. Stop lying. They didn’t shoot anything there


                        Do you have problems with reading or with memory? I did not tell the F-16 that I fought air battles in the Gulf. There he worked against Iraqi air defense systems and Sklad complexes. He was forbidden to fight because the Iraqi Air Force had a MiG-29, superior in speed and to some extent in maneuverability. Only the F-29 was entrusted with the destruction of the 15s
                      17. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 February 2014 14: 44
                        0
                        I have long delved into motivation.

                        The Super Horn shot down less in aerial combat than the Harriers. The last shot down in the Falkland 23: 0, is this - is it to prove itself badly? With an ABSOLUTE score?
                        ..
                        Superhorns did not participate in the Arab-Israeli wars. They appeared later. The F-18 is just hornet in general too. And the harrier was not supplied to the Israelite. There are no British weapons at all. Including as gratitude for the many stories of the King David Hotel.
                        You wrote about the Lebanon war. Not only about 1982 but also about 1983-84
                        There, all the roles of the F-16 and F-15 were the same as in the Gulf War. Because the planes were the same. ABSOLUTELY all victories in the Gulf were for the F-15. In Lebanon, almost everything. Recording the downing of F-15s with pointing their missiles from Avax to F-16 is an ordinary Israeli disa.

                        In air battles, wing re-laying really helps, and was just used intensively. Outside the USSR, nothing was cooler than the MiG-23 until 1988. Then his one-engine effect affected.

                        Just fools. Daggers were led by the Mirages who had radars. Neptune had intelligence. Radars were not at all harriers. When an air enemy appeared, the daggers dropped bombs anywhere and took the battle, and did not try to pose as invisible and fly in a straight line further. The largest battle was in general where 6ka daggers attacked only two Harriers and all but one got a starship.

                        You have a conscience problem. In that comment, you wrote that the F-16 did not participate in the Gulf War at all.
                        Was they immediately catapulted at the start of the air battle? or pretend that nothing is happening?
                      18. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 8 February 2014 16: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The Super Horn shot down less in aerial combat than the Harriers. The last shot down in the Falkland 23: 0, is this - is it to prove itself badly? With an ABSOLUTE score?


                        Enough to hang me "noodles", the Super Hornet was adopted in the US Navy in 2000, and the Harriers (of all modifications) have been in service since 1969-1985. What prevented the Harrier from being successfully used in many conflicts in 45 years. to participate in Afghanistan (14-present), in Iraq (2001-2003), in Libya (2010), and very successfully. And your Harrier only showed himself in the Falklands, after that it became clear Harrier full ...

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        There, all the roles of the F-16 and F-15 were the same as in the Gulf War. Because the planes were the same. ABSOLUTELY all victories in the Gulf were for the F-15.


                        Who can argue ??? !!! It’s clear that only the F-15 fought air battles in the Gulf. I’m talking about the war in Lebanon, in which the F-16 was used many times. And you tell me “Gulf, Gulf, F-15 , F-15 ". It is not your fault that among the wars between the Yankees and Israel, you only remember the Desert Storm.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        You have a conscience problem. In that comment, you wrote that the F-16 did not participate in the Gulf War at all. Was it immediately catapulted at the start of an air battle? or pretend that nothing is happening?


                        I don’t have to attribute to what I did not say. I Russian language wrote:F-16 did not drive aerial battles in the Gulf, and was used to destroy the Scud complexes and fight the Iraqi air defense. I hope I don't have to explain a third time ?!
                      19. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 February 2014 18: 37
                        0
                        Doshirak - you, and in addition to the loan, your own. Because they are not mistaken. Although maybe someone else helped.

                        F-16, F-18 Hornet and Superhornets all taken together over their entire career shot down less than shot down by the Harriers. Which are not produced for 10 years now. Comparable to the Harriers, only F-14s were shot down but they, like the F-15, suffered losses themselves. Stop reading some American and Israeli glossy magazines.
                        All coalition shots were with the F-15 (but anyone could participate there).
                        Harrier, like Superhornet, also participates in the Afghan war, by the way, but there are no air opponents there even for the Superhornet, and in Iraq, 3/4 of all sorties (more than only AH-64 helicopters) carried out harriers to support the troops and expose the war zone. Harriers participated in the intervention in Libya, including the Italian.
                        The Mirage / Dagger to which the MiG-21 was in the teeth in many (but not in most) cases, it turned out to be the teeth of Harrier himself, and ABSOLUTELY in all cases.

                        Not all that absolute pus that confuses with an absolute score.
                        lol
                        It's just that after Falkend to "Black Death" no one is trying to chase her close. Fly around on supersonic. Fortunately, she herself is subsonic. Until then.

                        You don’t even argue, you just constantly turn from end to end. What about the Gulf, what about the Arab-Israeli wars, what about the Falklands.

                        About what you "wrote in Russian" in the air defense unit, they just wrote to you. F-16 air-to-air missiles in Iraq went astray. Like the F-18e and the F-15. Only none of them in response except the F-15 shot down anything.

                        "Explain" as many times as you like.
                        Your magnificence of the cool F-16 fighter which for some reason is constantly engaged in air defense alone speaks for itself. In the Arab-Israeli wars, he, as a non-air defense fighter, was technically only worse (an unfinished engine).

                        You specifically wrote:
                        "I don't deny that Fighting Falcons did not participate in the Gulf War."
                        to you here:
                        http://www.maximonline.ru/statji/_article/policy-bullsheet/
                        unless of course you are from there
                        "affirm" is the opposite of "deny".
                      20. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 February 2014 18: 43
                        0
                        Oh! and where from this thread in general and from the comments on the article in particular supertiger21 dlsa?
                        am
                      21. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 February 2014 18: 46
                        0
                        Here is his last comment, so if anything, the Motherland should know its "heroes":

                        =====
                        Quote: KassandraSuperhornites shot down less in aerial combat than Harriers. The last shot down in the Falkland 23: 0, is this - is it to prove itself badly? With an ABSOLUTE score?

                        Enough to hang me "noodles", the Super Hornet was adopted in the US Navy in 2000, and the Harriers (of all modifications) have been in service since 1969-1985. What prevented the Harrier from being successfully used in many conflicts in 45 years. to participate in Afghanistan (14-present), in Iraq (2001-2003), in Libya (2010), and very successfully. And your Harrier only showed himself in the Falklands, after that it became clear Harrier full ...

                        Quote: Kassandra There all roles in the F-16 and F-15 were the same as in the Gulf War. Because the planes were the same. ABSOLUTELY all victories in the Gulf were for the F-15.

                        Who can argue ??? !!! It’s clear that only the F-15 fought air battles in the Gulf. I’m talking about the war in Lebanon, in which the F-16 was used many times. And you tell me “Gulf, Gulf, F-15 , F-15 ". It is not your fault that among the wars between the Yankees and Israel, you only remember the Desert Storm.

                        Quote: Kassandra You have a conscience problem. In that comment, you wrote that the F-16 did not participate in the Gulf War at all. Was it immediately catapulted at the start of an air battle? or pretend that nothing is happening?

                        I don’t need to attribute to me what I didn’t say. I wrote in Russian: the F-16 did not conduct air battles in the Gulf, but was used to destroy the Scud complexes and fight the Iraqi air defense system. I hope I don’t have to explain a third time ?!

                        ======
                        The answer is above.
                      22. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 9 February 2014 14: 18
                        0
                        Sooner you rejoice, I didn’t leave. It was just that things were and it wasn’t about VO, so I was temporarily blacklisted.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-16, F-18 Hornet and Superhornets all taken together over their entire career shot down less than shot down by the Harriers. Which are not produced for 10 years now. Comparable to the Harriers, only F-14s were shot down but they, like the F-15, suffered losses themselves. Stop reading some American and Israeli glossy magazines.


                        Kassandra has exhausted all the arguments about the "invincible Harrier" now begins to invent new myths))) Look at the statistics of victories and defeats of the F-16, and you will see that he has 3,5 times more aerial victories than the Harrier. Moreover, the Israeli F-16s won more worthy than the British Sea Harriers. At least the MiG-23 fought back and fought with the Fighting Falcons. And the Daggers and Mirages (without radar) did not fight back, and just got lost by the British.

                        When I said "did not participate" I meant did not conduct air battles. And do not cling to the wrong expression. I tell you "Lebanon", you give me "Bay". Because you yourself know very well that the F-16 showed itself very well there Harrier never fought an air battle, he only intercepted and shot down planes that did not resist. If this time you have new bikes, you will have to explain the 4th time.
                      23. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 9 February 2014 19: 29
                        0
                        You somehow strange added to the black list - your comments here were not visible. Rather, they brought you in. By the way, that was on your hand. But then, at the request of the workers, they unlocked them.
                        What kind of bret do you think of Argentinean non-resistance daggers? Well, right by Tolstsovskman.
                        lol
                        Almost all of the peredis were actually won by the F-15, in the Gulf - in general, everything.
                        Even if you take the Israeli disa for the truth, the F-16, released with a total circulation of 4500+, compared to Harrier, shot down significantly less.
                        In fact, he shot down even less absolutely, and they themselves were riddled with plenty in air battles. And the Harrier in an aerial battle with his 23: 0 was not shot down even once. Or just one Matroi with a radar seeker from afar.
                        Rosin mozk to someone else what did you mean there, "daggerman-non-resilient".
                      24. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 10 February 2014 17: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Almost all of the peredis were actually won by the F-15, in the Gulf - in general, everything.


                        In your dream, maybe yes, actually. laughing But in our reality, the F-16 won 72 air victories, and the F-15 104.15th mainly fought against the MiG-25 and MiG-29, and the 16th against the MiG-21 and MiG-23.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Harrier shot down many times less specific, but in fact he shot down even less, and they themselves were knocked out in air battles. And the harrier in aerial combat with his 23: 0 was not shot down even once. Or just one Matra with the radar of the GOS izdal.Kanifol brain to someone else what did you mean there, "daggerman-non-resilient".


                        "HALVA, HALVA, HALVA, but it doesn't get sweet in the mouth." Is it not true Kassandra fellow laughing ??
                      25. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 10 February 2014 23: 20
                        0
                        you can google "MiG-23 in Lebanon" and follow the first link ...

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        The F-16 won 72 air victories, and the F-15 104.15th mainly fought against the MiG-25 and MiG-29, and the 16th against the MiG-21 and MiG-23.


                        Well, in your parallel reality it may be, but in Lebanon it really was like this:
                        http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23liv/mig23liv.html

                        The MiG-29 was not there and the F-15 turns out to be engaged in only 1-2 MiG-25? Is it after this that the Americans are still shaking when it is passed by them on taxiways?
                        lol

                        you don’t have halva, it is "candied" ...

                2. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 9 February 2014 17: 07
                  0
                  Anyway, I've already told you everything. Kassandra had the opportunity to understand the truth and agree, but he decided to support the myth of the "invincible, unique and super-maneuverable Harrier." My job is to tell the truth as it is. And to believe me, I don't believe this already business of the interlocutor. Of course, you can continue to praise Harrier, and his supposed superiority and advantages, but this will not change reality. Do you know the saying?: "And what you say three times Halva will not become sweeter in your mouth."
                3. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 9 February 2014 19: 35
                  0
                  Oh, you’ve written many times already, moreover, one lie completely.
                  23: 0 this is invincible. Because super maneuverable. Netuti from other aircraft have a gas-jet control system, and deviated nozzles (except Jacob) appeared 25 years later. They did not repeat it in the USSR — they did better.
                  Eat your candied halva yourself.
                4. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 10 February 2014 20: 18
                  0
                  After all, you shout "HALVA", which means you should eat it. I told you everything, you could agree with the truth, but continued to believe in your dream of VTOL aircraft. I am not going to continue the dispute on this topic, I have already written everything. Your problem is the fact that you are an optimist for VTOL aircraft and a pessimist for classic takeoff aircraft (in particular the F-16). I, in turn, recognize only reality, looking at everything objectively. If you want to tell me something further or prove to me, go to today's topics about the PAK FA, MiG-29, F-35. That's where I will comment and argue. I no longer write comments on this topic, and I will not even read your arguments here. Come on today's topics, unless of course there is no fear of getting a minus.
                5. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 10 February 2014 23: 10
                  0
                  Do you think everything will turn out to cover up 23: 0 Kharirov with certain mirages and daggers-non-opponents? Not here so where else?
                  you shouted something about halva here, you wrote. so eat it yourself.
                  To my modernist it's better to ban you as a class, but if it's easy so that your trail of "lion's" paw remains on the tables of history.
                  because similar fabrications according to Tolstoyan "deliver" :-))
                6. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 11 February 2014 14: 37
                  0
                  I have already said that you tell me your dreams about VTOL aircraft on new topics (if you are not afraid of "minuses") .I am not going to comment on and answer your tales here.
                7. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 11 February 2014 18: 52
                  0
                  23: 0 in the Falklands,
                  3/4 of all flights in Iraq.
                  You confused who has dreams here and all that, "ostrich" ...
                  Not answering - don't answer.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 7 February 2014 02: 20
    0
    Belize (this is not in Africa but in Latin America, formerly a British colony, before 1981) - oh how you need it ... In general, the penedekhos from Guatemala are somehow strange, they have already required 200 years under the terms of a peace treaty to build from the British through the swamps from Belize the road to them so that they can capture him. :-)
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 42
    0
    36000 Built IL-2 hardly shot down at least 3600 German aircraft. IL-2 sucks!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 00: 35
      0
      IL-2 is not super maneuverable. but in the front hemisphere, Luftwaffe pilots were forbidden to attack him.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 40
    -1
    The F-22 is not super-maneuverable, just like this idiot "harrier".
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 00: 39
      -1
      F-22 is super maneuverable. but melee is worse than harrier. It is also forbidden to pilots with him in it (India has, not an ally).
      Do you consider yourself smarter than British scientists and aircraft designers?
      "Stupid" "attack aircraft" somehow drove Argentine fighters near the Falklands 23: 0
      not 36000 il-2 of course, but ..
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 18: 59
    +1
    Finally, the use of air-to-air refueling systems makes a further dispute over fuel reserves irrelevant.

    What stupid thing?

    Already for this alone - a minus article. How can this be smoked at all?
    1. postman
      postman 3 February 2014 20: 38
      +1
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      What stupid thing?

      most likely the distant range and time spent in the air (for decks)
      + for ASM-135 ASAT, of course
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 21
    +1
    By the way, not only the F-141B has a relationship with the Yak-35, but also the "A" and "C" variants. Lockheed Martin borrowed the tail design from the Yakovlev design bureau.On Yak, the engine nozzle is located deep in the tail. It also has two keels (which is rare for single-engine aircraft). And all this was done to reduce infrared visibility.The creators of Lightning borrowed (note, did not copy) this scheme from Yak. All these moves were made to improve the stealth technology on the F-35.
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 19: 34
      +6
      This is Yak Design Bureau stole the idea from the F-35, but they could not bring to mind fool

      Just like the AK-47 is a copy of a German assault rifle.

      So will local liberals say in 50 years.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 3 February 2014 19: 52
        0
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        This is Yak Design Bureau stole the idea from the F-35, but they could not bring to mind


        ))))) The prototype Yak-141 made its first flight in 1987, and the prototype F-35 in 2001. I couldn’t have a time machine at Yakovlev Design Bureau) wassat And I was not talking about vertical take-off and landing, but about the tail layout. Think before you write nonsense.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 20: 01
          +3
          After 50 years, do you think our liberals will be interested in this?

          Read carefully. In my words sarcasm.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 3 February 2014 20: 16
            0
            Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
            In my words sarcasm.


            Judging by your flag, I'm not surprised! laughing
          2. supertiger21
            supertiger21 3 February 2014 20: 20
            0
            I'm telling you about borrowing the F-35 from the Yak-141.

            Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
            This is Yak Design Bureau stole the idea from the F-35, but they could not bring to mind


            Read a little literature about the creation of these aircraft. Maybe you will understand something. fool
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 3 February 2014 20: 29
              0
              Fuh.

              Well, of course, that the F-35 borrowed a lot from the Yak-141.

              I’m talking about how the heirs of the Rezuns, Venediktovs, Latynins and other trash in the future will lie.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 15
                0
                already they are lying all the way, though referring mainly to VJ101E and 3BSN :-)
                this life-sized illiterate clumsy crap exploded very nicely at the messerschmitt at the stand.
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 7 February 2014 04: 35
                0
                1. German-English 3BDSM nozzle lol during its "bending" it did not remain in the axial plane, because of which the aircraft would overturn while hovering
                2. at the test bench it was not a model but a life-size test — it burst. due to the fundamentally incorrect internal profiling and all this stray as a whole. therefore, the reports write that they tested only up to 60% of the actual size. and in the cold they bent 100% of the natural.
                therefore, on the German prodigy VJ101 ATV, they wanted to put two of these engines side by side in order to compensate for both of these factors, and two small engines nearby were the reason why the Soviet Union abandoned the Yak-36 - the instability of one and the aircraft would capsize. instability can even be from atmospheric conditions (local drizzle charge) and not just from defects or combat damage.
                such 3BSN-metal hoses, which the British and Germans tried to attach to a jet engine, have been known for a long time in metallurgy, just the point is that not everything is a hole, then ... even if it is written around it. sad
                During Yak's show at Farnborough, when he turned the nozzle down, almost everyone from the crowd of onlookers became ill and only one Englishman from Rolls-Royce cursed (or two, maybe some German from MAN yet). everyone felt bad because the pipes are not so gnuzzo! and those few simply worked on their crap in 1964, and they did not receive it. these glands are actually fundamentally different (except for counter-rotation).
                to make such a fool and fit it on an airplane is "not quite a trivial task", so the Harrier, with its two small side nozzles, "water fittings", was and is subsonic. for supersonic sound, a huge nozzle is needed so that it is centered and, when shifted, does not walk to the left and right of the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, otherwise the aircraft will overturn in 1,5 seconds while hovering.
                It's just that it is strange that none of the "anti-Soviet" here have written anything about this ZBDSM, and did not reproach that supposedly the yaks plagiarized the Germans and rollsroys, because YouTube is swarming with this. already disgusting.
              3. Kassandra
                Kassandra 7 February 2014 05: 52
                0
                The Americans didn’t take something from Yak, but all the technology on Yak was copied by Lockheed and Rolls-Royce officially 1,5 g and for only 500 thousand US dollars, their specialists plodded around the design bureaus and factories poked their nose everywhere and were authorized to ask any question. That is because not only the construction but also the materials and production technology of all this. Some, however, behaved with dignity, although it came to the point that they even asked questions why their stray didn’t work in 1964. By the way, in the USSR they learned about it only in the late 70s when Yak was already finishing it and it almost brought down the project. the ministers wanted to cut funding because they say that even the British didn’t get a similar thing ..
                about their torment can be found here
                http://www.robertcmason.com/textdocs/GermanVSTOLFighters.pdf
                on page 29 a beautiful photo of a dummy made later, a real burnt engine on page 50
                well it's written right there:
                Nozzle tests conducted
                - Half-scale actuated
                - Full-scale nonactuated
                - afterburner
                operations
                it exploded and worked crookedly, mainly because (but not only) because the afterburner was drawn from conical and not cylindrical segments - the confuser in the turbojet engine must be one! but even knowing this they WANTED very much, well, it would have seemed like a little more than a couple of years of accidents at the stand and 2 * 2 will be 5
                and all this insanity ended on 54str and 19 years old so that they didn’t get anything, everything was removed and it turned out from AVS .. Tornado.
                Messer VJ101D is generally a shiz
                only the twin-engine nacelle VJ101C flew, in which there were 2 engines in the hull behind the pilot's cabin, like the Yak-38 and 4 in rotary engine nacelles at the ends. if the Yak-38, when one of the two lifts failed, the second was put into forced mode and the plane did not crash (but this cheap engine from RCC was then replaced), then in the case of the messer it would be clear that at least one of them had failed 6
                and these are all competent Germans yet .. and cultural British. and the ovs didn’t have a stone flower at all, and progress didn’t go further than Bell X-14, and they first mounted ZhZhpoy on the British (AV-8 is unlicensed, only its engine), and then on the Yak-41
                he wanted to buy Argentina for any money, but all this was presented in the USA. and a lot of specialists somehow strangely died later, and some were given the opportunity to bury the family first.
                and in 93g after that they went all over the entire military-industrial complex and showed them absolutely everything from their hands. and then in all OKB all the key employees died. of those who have not left. or not rebuilt. the most interesting thing is that the KGB thought of the CIA but in most cases made a mistake with this,
                all this is nearby.
              4. Kassandra
                Kassandra 7 February 2014 05: 56
                0
                they probably hoped that they would be lucky as Americans with their F-1 rocket engine, which then for some reason was no longer put on anything
                then the astronauts when they found out what they flew more for this thing did not climb, for no money.
              5. Kassandra
                Kassandra 7 February 2014 06: 01
                0
                Under Stalin, only 10% of convicts worked in sharagi, the rest hid behind the guarded fence themselves. Moreover, together with relatives. And there were no such stories. A man knew what he was doing.
                It’s easier to bang 200 people than to be defeated in some war. But everything of course has its measure. Sometimes they start because of such things. Moreover - the same bitterness. Or even worse.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 08
          0
          not in 1987 but in 1978, work on it began in 1974-75. It was ready for mass production no later than 1981. made it in 3g, the project slowed down for 12 years.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 4 February 2014 16: 36
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            not in 1987 but in 1978, work on it began in 1974-75.


            Well, what am I talking about ?! I’m saying that it was Lockheed-Martin who borrowed the design of the airframe from Yakovlev, while Mr. Ivanov claims the opposite! laughing
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 4 February 2014 17: 42
              0
              he is about the same thing, it was just srachmas
              everything was borrowed there for 500 thousand, then they started sawing billions for 15 years playing with all this as with Lego.
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 53
        +2
        already .. and not only local. in the states - Latinos and emigrants from the USSR mainly who want to seem even more US than the gringos themselves.
        Incidentally, the German machine, if opened, repeats the SVT-40.
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra 17 February 2014 14: 29
        0
        yes flashed already on this site
        http://topwar.ru/21918-yak-141-prervannyy-polet.html
        comments right from the fourth on top.
        detailed answers to curzons here in the branch below.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 February 2014 20: 44
      0
      This relationship is due to the fact that the Yak was precisely copied and not borrowed. It was an official event. Then they redid it a little, and added stealth.
      The half-two-beam scheme also improved IR stealth on the Yak and protected against IR missiles.
    3. postman
      postman 3 February 2014 21: 00
      0
      Quote: supertiger21
      By the way, not only the F-141B has a relationship with the Yak-35, but also the variants "A" and "C". Lockheed Martin borrowed the tail design


      and who has Boeing?

      Boeing's JSF Project

      and McDonell-Douglas?

      McDonell-Douglas JSF Project

      ...
      just had to meet the requirements of the US Defense Department


      Quote: supertiger21
      which is rare for single-engine aircraft

      DH.100 Vampire Fighter Bomber (1946)

      Quote: supertiger21
      .And all this was done to reduce infrared visibility

      two keels and a nozzle "visible" from the lower hemisphere - in NO way contribute to a decrease in IR signature.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 February 2014 21: 41
        0
        JSF began after the purchase of the Yak, in this program the X-23 was a dummy based on Harrier, McDonell - copied, only with pelican tail
        it helped a little vampire because the beams are thin
        1. postman
          postman 3 February 2014 23: 57
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          JSF started after buying Yak,

          1.Yak-did not buy
          2.Joint Strike Fighter Program started essentially in 1984, when the F-16 Agile Falcon for Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) and A-12 Avenger II (1983) failed

          3.
          Quote: Kassandra
          in this program, the X-23 was a mess at Harrier’s base,

          when creating a variant of a rotary lifting nozzle, the company refused to cooperate with the British company Rolls-Royce

          In addition to the "200" configuration, other schemes were considered, in particular, the "190" configuration (normal aerodynamic configuration) and "191" ("duck" configuration with a triangular VGO). When forming the appearance of the aircraft, 65 different parameters were taken into account (range, combat load, handling characteristics, cost, etc.). One of the reasons for abandoning the front horizontal tail was a somewhat large mass of such an aircraft. Lockheed Martin company to work on the project attracted Russian Design Bureau A.S. Yakovleva.

          Quote: Kassandra
          it helped a little vampire because the beams are thin

          And, what in your understanding is "a lot of help" ???
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 4 February 2014 02: 30
            -1
            Was purchased all the technology for Yak, for 500 thousand American rubles. In 1992 The knowledge transfer process took 1,5g. Bonded consulting of their specialists and examination of their failed projects since 1964 were also carried out.
            Rolls-Royce is on the F35 (he was also advised), Lockheed is not engaged in engines.
            JSF with its "competition" X-35 with X-32 started later in 1994 as a cover for all this shame.
            ..
            help from IR - what is now, and what is on Yak.
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 4 February 2014 16: 32
              0
              Here, Kasandra, I agree with you 100% good
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 4 February 2014 02: 33
            0
            1st Amendment: as a cover for all this shame and a clearing for cutting dough, because the money was allocated a lot, but it was bought almost everything and for only 500 thousand.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 February 2014 22: 21
    +1
    9. The possibility of using weapons on supersonic.
    We are talking about the possibility of opening the wings of the weapons bays at high speed. According to experts, this advantage will have only one fighter of the "fifth generation" - the Russian PAK FA. The design of the other "Raptors" does not imply the use of weapons at supersonic speeds.
    For Su-35, this item does not matter, since there is no built-in bomb bay.
    F-35 received its legitimate "minus".

    In the 2013 Director, Operational Test and Evaluation annual report. on page 35, in the F-35 JSF section, the paragraph regarding the F-35A tests performed, tail numbers AF-1, AF-2, and AF-4 indicate the following:
    • The test team completed supersonic clean wing flutter testing
    with the weapons bay doors open and closed, clearing the
    F-35A Block 2B envelope to 1.6 Mach / 700 knots calibrated
    airspeed.

    Roughly speaking, the aircraft was tested for flutter without external suspension with open and closed compartments at a speed of 1,6M.
    Those. the use of weapons from the compartment at supersonic speeds is possible.
    1. iwind
      iwind 3 February 2014 22: 31
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      Roughly speaking, the aircraft was tested for flutter without external suspension with open and closed compartments at a speed of 1,6M.
      Those. the use of weapons from the compartment at supersonic speeds is possible.

      Thank! I remembered what happened, I even saw a photo. But damn forgot what report he wrote about it.
  • vm68dm
    vm68dm 4 February 2014 00: 11
    +2
    F-22 vs Su-30 Su-35
    1. USNik
      USNik 4 February 2014 11: 43
      +1
      F-22 vs Su-30 Su-35

      Thanks for the video, I watched it with pleasure. Apparently the man tried, but for some reason he compared only those maneuvers that turned out well both in the Raptor and in the Dryers. And where is the Flat Corkscrew for 5-6 turns? Where is the bell, because the F-22 can handle it? Where is Pugachev's cobra? After all, the 22nd does it, but it is crooked and not beautiful. Where is the turn "in place" with a change in the direction of attack by 180 degrees (xs as it is scientifically called)?
      1. vm68dm
        vm68dm 4 February 2014 12: 29
        +1
        hi I agree. But in my opinion this is the first attempt to compare maneuverability visually.
  • orsker
    orsker 4 February 2014 00: 27
    +1
    Good article.
  • ddd1975
    ddd1975 4 February 2014 01: 45
    +1
    Only real air combat will show what is what ... but the "gasket" in the cockpit has not been canceled yet.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 4 February 2014 02: 45
      0
      smart people always look ahead, and whenever possible prepared for it climb into the battle.
      while the Americans have to go 1k3 or even 1k4 on the wall of the Russian Air Force and they are happy and already rude that the proportion of the presence of airplanes is much greater.
  • Santor
    Santor 4 February 2014 11: 37
    +1
    The article was interesting, I decided to pick the latest information on the car

    According to the annual report of J. Mile Gilmore, director of the operational testing department, the strength test of two F-35 variants - F-35A, intended for take-off and landing from conventional aerodromes, and F-35B - a version with a short take-off and vertical landing, produced for Marine Corps, showed the formation of cracks in the engine mount, fuselage, bulkheads and flaps. In one case, the bulkhead completely broke.

    “All detected defects require correction, including changes in the design of some parts and an increase in their mass,” the report says.

    In the variant for the US Navy F-35Си, which is supposed to fly from aircraft carriers, cracks were also found in the floor of the avionics and power distribution compartments, as well as on the F-35Б in stiffening ribs.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 4 February 2014 17: 48
      0
      The F-35C was supposed to be the most brittle because, apart from others, it slams heavily on the deck and then its aerofinisho slows down so that pilots get their eyes out
  • Santor
    Santor 4 February 2014 11: 39
    0
    and catch up from there

    “The first results of using Block 2B software revealed problems in the operation of the radar, navigation equipment, electronic-optical guidance system, distributed aperture system, helmet-mounted sight and data transmission system,” the report said. "These shortcomings do not allow completing tests on the Block 2B program, including the weapons integration program."

    Lockheed increased the number of engineers working on software, and the Pentagon, in turn, assembled a group of experts to study this problem.

    According to the report, the F-35 remains “vulnerable to all types of ballistic fire”, its computer logistic system - Autonomic Logistics Information System was adopted with great flaws, the F-35 program is unlikely to pass tests on the Verification System (VSim) system .
  • Santor
    Santor 4 February 2014 11: 44
    0
    Unfortunately, the report itself has already been deleted from the link, and a stripped-down version where the flaws are said casually and vaguely can be read here http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/31/pentagon-f-35-operational-flights-to- start-in-
    2015 /
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 15 February 2014 23: 12
      0
      http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 4 February 2014 15: 32
    0
    And it's not bad when someone else's assessment of our aircraft is compared with the advanced aircraft of a "potential enemy". From the outside, perhaps some nuances are visible more clearly.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 14 February 2014 09: 53
      0
      When the enemy praises you - think about whether you are doing everything right.
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 15: 56
    0
    "cruise missiles" Maevrick ""

    ))) And how long has Mawerick become a WING missile?
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 15: 59
    0
    "Combat load of 8 tons at 10 suspension points (4 internal, 6 external), "

    Yeah, and the choice: either stealth with only four pendants, or 8 tons in all ten, but no stealth.
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 17 February 2014 16: 03
    0
    "But you need to understand that Lightning was created for a completely different concept of warfare."
    Is there confidence that in the event of a confrontation with Dryers, Dryers will allow you to put into practice a "different concept", and not impose your own?)))
  • chingachguc
    chingachguc 22 March 2018 13: 04
    0
    Electronics F-35 had too many complaints. Lots of failures. Unreliable.