According to the US Air Force Command, the F-35 fighter without F-22 is useless

February 13 2014 44

In an interesting, honest, one might say, striking interview, US Air Force Commander General Michael Hostage told the Air Force Times about the difficult decisions made by the Air Force as a result of budget cuts, and voiced an opinion about the F-35 fighter.

First, there is no way to keep the A-10 attack aircraft in service. According to Hostage, one of the few ways to save money is to abandon obsolete weapons. And while the “Warthog” still performs its tasks, it is completely unpromising for future conflicts.

A less radical solution - to leave half the fleet of A-10 aircraft - does not make sense, because in this case most of the costly supporting infrastructure that exists now will remain.

Another area of concern is information gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance. Politicians force purchases to continue drones "Global Hawk" manufactured by Northrop Grumman. But given the amount of funds allocated, the Air Force cannot afford both the U-2 Dragon Lady reconnaissance aircraft and the Global Hawk at the same time. Most likely, the command will abandon the first and spend a lot of money trying to get these massive drones to perform the same tasks that U-2 aircraft have been able to do for decades.

Speaking of the unified shock fighter F-35, Hostage said he would "fight for him to the last breath." Putting into operation the X-NUMX units of the F-1763 (“no less”) is the only way to keep up with opponents who are creating their own air force, which will surpass the existing US air force.

No matter how modernized the F-15 and F-16 are, they will still become obsolete in the next decade.

But to support the F-35, the F-22 Raptor fighter is needed, and a new problem arises here. When building the aircraft "Raptor" they were put so outdated on-board computers that such "you will not find even in the game console of the child." And yet the US Army was forced to use these stealth fighters in this configuration, because it was spelled out in technical terms. But now the F-22 aircraft need to undergo costly upgrades with extended life.

“If you do not keep the F-22 fleet in working condition, the F-35 airplanes, to be honest, will do little. F-35 is not intended as a fighter of air superiority. He needs the F-22, ”said Hostage.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Vladimirets

+12

13 February 2014 08: 42

"Firstly, there is no way to leave the A-10 attack aircraft in service."

Well dear, Thunderbolt is a good workhorse.

"But now the F-22s need to go through costly upgrades to extend their lifespan."

That's where the dog rummaged, give me the money.
1. The comment was deleted.
2. Nayhas
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2014 09: 22
  
  Quote: Vladimirets
  Well dear, Thunderbolt is a good workhorse.
  
  It is long out of date. To spend a lot of fuel on the transportation of almost two-ton GAU-8 which is not used is simply stupid. It is impossible to dismantle it, the alignment is violated, against the goals that the Thunderbolts have to work with their cannon, the GSh-23 weighing 50 kg is enough + shells. In the arsenal of the US Air Force, a lot of guided munitions allow you to work outside the zone of small arms and MZA with MANPADS, which makes armor unnecessary. Those. Thunderbolt carries an extra mass in the form of useless armor and an air gun.
  1. Vladimirets
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2014 12: 45
    
    Quote: Nayhas
    In the arsenal of the US Air Force, a lot of guided munitions allow you to work outside the zone of small arms and MZA with MANPADS, which makes armor unnecessary. Those. Thunderbolt carries an extra mass in the form of useless armor and an air gun.
    
    Yes Yes. Only in the same Iraqi companies was this the most efficient device. He sat down with serious injuries, but sat down. With a gun, of course, questions, but he did his rough work on the battlefield.
    1. Nayhas
      
      +2
      
      13 February 2014 16: 37
      
      Quote: Vladimirets
      Yes Yes. Only in the same Iraqi companies was this the most efficient device. He sat down with serious injuries, but sat down. With a gun, of course, questions, but he did his rough work on the battlefield.
      
      So when it was that ... In 1991. the proportion of guided munitions used was no more than 30% (I don’t remember exactly, maybe less), after 12 years in 2003. already exceeded 50%, and now (after 11 years) already 80% reaches all. Now detection tools (USA, NATO) allow with 10km. heights to distinguish between armed man or not,
      Sniper xr
      
      LITENING targeting pod
      
      and kits for remaking unguided munitions into managed ones are already installed on ordinary NURSs.
      
      It makes no sense to go down to 500m. substituting for automatic guns and MANPADS.
      PS: In the United States, they are seriously carried away by "adding brains" to conventional ammunition. For example, we have developed a kit for 155mm. artillery shells Precision Guidance Kit (PGK), which is screwed in instead of a fuse, using GPS guidance, control planes can increase the CEP from 200m. up to 30m., and plans to increase the accuracy to 15m. At the same time, when the CEP is exceeded over 150m. PGK blocks the fuse.
3. tilovaykrisa
  
  0
  
  13 February 2014 20: 37
  
  Perhaps they will not find Obama (Gorbachev) for a period of 3,4,5!
4. VseDoFeNi
  
  0
  
  14 February 2014 05: 42
  
  Does the inscription on the tail of the BF-02 aircraft mean that the aircraft was assembled using BF-2 glue or is it just a coincidence? :)
  1. Nayhas
    
    0
    
    14 February 2014 11: 20
    
    Quote: VseDoFeNi
    Does the inscription on the tail of the BF-02 aircraft mean that the aircraft was assembled using BF-2 glue or is it just a coincidence? :)
    
    I believe that most of your jokes have not been understood because for many years nothing has been heard about BF-2, and it was sooooo good glue! Anything good ...
Santa Fe

+13

13 February 2014 08: 47

F-35 aircraft, frankly, will do little. The F-35 is not conceived as a fighter for air superiority. He needs an F-22

Said nothing surprising

Front-line fighter-bomber + heavy interceptor = standard scheme of the US Air Force
Such were the F-15 and F-16. Or their deck interpretation of F-14 and F / A-18

F-35 is focused on performing percussion tasks. Stealth bomber - loading up to 8 tons of bombs using external sling. Able to fend for himself in aerial combat
1. Lomicus
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2014 09: 01
  
  It turns out the F-35 is a rough analogue of the Su-34?
  1. Nayhas
    
    -2
    
    13 February 2014 09: 25
    
    Quote: Lomikus
    It turns out the F-35 is a rough analogue of the Su-34?
    
    Our Air Force will have an analogue of the Su-30SM and Su-35.
    1. supertiger21
      
      +3
      
      13 February 2014 16: 48
      
      Quote: Nayhas
      Our Air Force will have an analogue of the Su-30SM and Su-35.
      
      You don't compare correctly at all. The F-35's analogue is the MiG-35, a lightweight 4 ++ fighter.
  2. Odysseus
    
    +3
    
    13 February 2014 09: 31
    
    Quote: Lomikus
    It turns out the F-35 is a rough analogue of the Su-34?
    
    No, in the USA after F-111 they do not create front-line bombers at all. The only analogue of the Su-34 is the JH-7A. A remote analogue can be called the F-15E.
    According to the tactical niche, the Su-35CM (adjusted for the difference in weight and technology) can be called some analogue of the F-30A.
    1. supertiger21
      
      +1
      
      13 February 2014 16: 51
      
      Quote: Odyssey
      In the USA, after F-111 they do not create front-line bombers at all.
      
      This is of course yes, but the de facto receiver of the 111th is the F-15E Strike Eagle.
      
      Quote: Odyssey
      According to the tactical niche, some analogue of the F-35A can be called the Su-30SM
      
      They are similar in purpose, but it is more correct to compare the "Penguin" not with Sushki, but with the MiG-35.
      1. Odysseus
        
        +3
        
        13 February 2014 19: 35
        
        Quote: supertiger21
        They are similar in purpose, but it is more correct to compare the "Penguin" not with Sushki, but with the MiG-35.
        
        I did not write about the MiG-35, since there is no such aircraft, de facto
        When there will be then and there will be an opportunity to say something real.
  3. Wedmak
    
    +2
    
    13 February 2014 09: 40
    
    In no case. We have no analogues at all.
    1. Odysseus
      
      +1
      
      13 February 2014 09: 59
      
      Quote: Wedmak
      In no case. We have no analogues at all
      
      F-35A? Well, I wrote it to some)) Both the Penguin and the Su-30SM are multi-purpose, though the F-35 is hypothetically more of a striker, the Su-30SM is still more in the air.
      1. Wedmak
        
        +4
        
        13 February 2014 10: 29
        
        And Penguin and Su-30SM multi-purpose
        
        Do you think they should be compared? Two pilots and one is already a huge difference. The United States signed up for a very expensive program - in one fell swoop to make three essentially different aircraft. And now they will catch glitches and modify cars for a long time to come.
        They do it differently with us, they made an excellent platform in the form of the Su-27 and on this basis modifications are already being developed. There is already a front-line bomber, a fighter-interceptor and a naval one. The Su-30SM is multi-purpose, but debate about its use is still ongoing. What prevents to do, developing a theme, attack aircraft?
        
        Odysseus
        
        0
        
        13 February 2014 19: 41
        
        Quote: Wedmak
        Two pilots and one is already a huge difference. The United States signed up for a very expensive program - in one fell swoop to make three essentially different aircraft. And now they will catch glitches and modify cars for a long time to come.
        
        This, of course, is true, the planes are completely different, but I had in mind precisely the analogy in the tactical niche.
        Of course, a somewhat distant analogy ...
2. Vadivak
  
  +4
  
  13 February 2014 09: 56
  
  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
  Front-line fighter-bomber + heavy interceptor = standard US Air Force scheme These were the F-15 and F-16.
  
  All right. And if you dig even further (earlier), you can see that after I-16 Polikarpov created the highly maneuverable and light I-153.
FunkschNNX

+1

13 February 2014 09: 12

it’s cool at his wheels (pictured), with the working fan running they can also create lift. Well this is what a smart computer should manage all this when changing modes. It may cause controversy as a combat unit, but as a technical device, it is magnificent in its manufacturability and amazing in complexity of the device.
1. Odysseus
  
  +2
  
  13 February 2014 09: 33
  
  Quote: Фкенщь13
  It may cause controversy as a combat unit, but as a technical device, it is magnificent in its manufacturability and amazing in complexity of the device.
  
  But I am plagued by vague doubts as to how this truly amazingly complex device will work in "field" conditions when normal maintenance is difficult.
2. Vadivak
  
  +3
  
  13 February 2014 10: 02
  
  Quote: Фкенщь13
  Well this is what a smart computer should manage all this when changing modes
  
  Sophisticated car. Hence the cost.
  1. supertiger21
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2014 16: 56
    
    Quote: Vadivak
    Sophisticated car. Hence the cost.
    
    A complex machine is the F-35B VTOL (in your photo) .F-35A and F-35C are simpler machines, and they are better than the VTOL variant and cheaper than it.
3. iwind
  
  +2
  
  13 February 2014 10: 15
  
  Quote: Фкенщь13
  it’s cool at his wheels (pictured), with the working fan running they can also create lift. Well this is what a smart computer should manage all this when changing modes. It may cause controversy as a combat unit, but as a technical device, it is magnificent in its manufacturability and amazing in complexity of the device.
  
  There the computer is VERY smart, it takes a huge part of the pilot’s work on itself, right up to taking the plane out of a tailspin. In terms of integration of electronics, he is ahead of the rest.
  Quote pilot relocated with the F-16.
  “Although the controls are very different, the f-35 does NOT require strict control, and critical errors in piloting will be leveled by the computer.
  1. supertiger21
    
    0
    
    13 February 2014 17: 02
    
    Quote: iwind
    “Although the controls are very different, the f-35 does NOT require strict control, and critical errors in piloting will be leveled by the computer.
    
    Inside the cockpit, the F-35 is straight "like in a starship." Even with the Raptor and the PAK FA, it looks more classic like that of the 4th generation aircraft. In terms of maneuverability, of course, the Penguin is far from us, but in avionics it clearly has no analogues.
    1. iwind
      
      0
      
      13 February 2014 22: 40
      
      Quote: supertiger21
      Inside the cockpit, the F-35 is straight "like in a starship." Even with the Raptor and the PAK FA, it looks more classic like that of the 4th generation aircraft. In terms of maneuverability, of course, the Penguin is far from us, but in avionics it clearly has no analogues.
      
      On the one hand, I do not agree with the other, for example, in the SU-35, the cockpit looks even more futuristic.
      But the F-35 is a new word in avionics, the display has auxiliary functions, the main flow of information goes through the helmet. If interested, I can write a little more detailed somehow.
      "There is no need to be distracted and look away while flying and using weapons, which is very convenient" - F-35 pilot.
      I now read new entertainment and listen to pilot interviews.
    2. dmitrij.blyuz
      
      +1
      
      14 February 2014 13: 48
      
      And, most importantly, the "loop" of the catapult.
      1. Alex 241
        
        +1
        
        14 February 2014 13: 51
        
        Hi Dim, "bones" overboard, sacred cause
        
        dmitrij.blyuz
        
        0
        
        14 February 2014 13: 58
        
        Sasha! Well, as without it. It is not so striking in our eyes. Red color. And they seem to be the main "device" for practice.
4. askort154
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2014 15: 28
  
  Fkenschen13 ... he has cool wheels (in the photo), while the working fan is working, they can also create lift. Well this is what a smart computer should manage all this when changing modes
  
  Actually in the photo, he already left the deck, i.e. with horizontal incoming V.
  And not a smart computer ....?
  1. FunkschNNX
    
    0
    
    17 February 2014 09: 53
    
    Quote: askort154
    Actually in the photo, he already left the deck, i.e. with horizontal incoming V.
    In fact, an ordinary aircraft with such a rudder position would not even come off the deck, and when the deck ended, it was re-qualified as an underwater vehicle. Here, the diving moment created by the rudders is compensated by the draft of the fan.
Duke

+2

13 February 2014 09: 25

F-22 Raptor
Type stealth multirole fighter
Developer Lockheed Martin Corporation
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
US Flag Boeing Defense, Space & Security
First flight YF-22: September 29, 1990 [1]
F-22: September 7, 1997 [1]
Start of operation December 15, 2005
Status in operation, mass production completed
Main Operators United States Air Force Flag United States Air Force
Years of production 1997-2011[2][3]
Units produced total: 195[4]
serial: 187 [3]
Development program cost $ 66,7 billion [5]
(together with the cost of serial production of $ 74 billion) [6]
Unit cost $146,2 million (excluding R&D)
$ 379,5 million (including R&D) [7]
Base Model YF-22
AnaBat

+1

13 February 2014 09: 28

During the construction of the Raptor aircraft, they were equipped with so obsolete on-board computers that such “you will not even find in the child’s game console”. And yet, the US Army was forced to use these stealth fighters in this configuration, because it was registered in the technical specifications. But now F-22 aircraft need to undergo costly upgrades with extended life.

It seems that the Americans will have to invest an enormous amount of dough also on the modernization of the raptors ...
vorobey

+1

13 February 2014 09: 40

Yesterday I just read these articles.

But the blog also provided comparisons.

American corporation Lockheed Martin will continue production of the F-16 series even after the start of mass production of the fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets, which were initially positioned as a replacement for the F-16. New modifications may be in demand in the markets of many countries because of the low cost compared to the F-35, DefPro reports, citing research data published by the American analytical center Forecast International. In particular, as the newspaper notes, the latest modifications of the F-16 50 / 52 and 60 / E / F are not only more affordable than new fighters, but also meet the most modern requirements for aircraft of this class. In addition, F-16 is still in demand by consumers ... According to Forecast International experts, the production of F-16 will continue at least until 2016, although it is possible that after this period, Lockheed Martin will receive orders for fighters.

Totally here
http://nnm.me/blogs/OlDi/mify_i_realnost_razbor_poletov/
1. supertiger21
  
  0
  
  13 February 2014 17: 11
  
  F-22 price of 350 million, Su-35 price of 35 million
  
  One of the stupidest tables I've seen. The F-22 costs 146 million (2,5 less than the table), and the Su-35 costs 83 million (2,5 more than the table). Not a raptor fan and very I love our Su and MiG, but the table is very far from reality.
Odysseus

+3

13 February 2014 09: 40

In the face of budget cuts, the US Air Force is fighting like lions ... For every penny))
And give them F-35 in astronomical quantities, and upgrade F-22. But the Navy will not leave them behind, they have no less influence and no less appetites.
Apparently, as everything is always being cut off at the expense of the fleet, in the USA the Ground Forces will have to puff for all.
1. patsantre
  
  -2
  
  13 February 2014 14: 00
  
  You say with such gloating)) they have every penny the size of our entire budget.
  1. Odysseus
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2014 19: 42
    
    Quote: patsantre
    You speak with such gloating))
    
    Rather sarcasm
sinukvl

+7

13 February 2014 09: 43

"According to the US Air Force Command, the F-35 is useless without the F-22." The F-35 class is useless without the F-22, and the F-22 is useless both without the F-35 and with the F-35, it is generally useless. In before they created, in truth the USA became the homeland of elephants!
mountain

+1

13 February 2014 09: 48

Fussed, s, smell the smell of panties. I am glad that this situation, they lose strategically, they are used to attack. It's time to defend yourself.
ia-ai00

+1

13 February 2014 10: 07

During the construction of the Raptor aircraft, they were equipped with so obsolete on-board computers that such “you will not even find in the child’s game console”.

Well, at least some PLEASANT NEWS about US Air Force flight equipment!
... US Army forced to use these invisible fighters in this configuration because it was spelled out in the technical conditions.

It means that there are also Serdyukovs there, and this, excuse me, pleases! It is necessary to recommend them (in a "partnership"), take this Mr. as an advisor, if he is not imprisoned, for even greater "efficiency" of the US Air Force, he ate a dog on this.
Andronic

+1

13 February 2014 10: 13

All eggs in one basket. In principle, this is very good, they invested a lot of money, and the output was bullshit.
ars_pro

+4

13 February 2014 10: 17

I’m interested in F35 will be allowed to export, and referring to this general, without F22 which are not for export, they are less functional, in general, foreign customers suffer again with what I congratulate them
tomket

0

13 February 2014 13: 25

Quote: sinukvl
"According to the US Air Force Command, the F-35 is useless without the F-22." Class F

Yes, who would doubt .....
spirit

0

13 February 2014 13: 41

It's funny Our generals, for the most part conservatives, constantly complain that it’s not necessary to take too hard, but here they complain that the computer on the raptor is already old !!!
I think the computer there just right)) just in someone’s understanding it is already old, but in someone’s too complicated))))
chunga-changa

+1

13 February 2014 14: 04

The command of the Russian Air Force may also say that the Su-25 without the Su-35 are useless, and will be right. What is the intrigue, it is not clear.
dmitrij.blyuz

0

13 February 2014 14: 22

And we will not declare. Su-35S. It is possible that the Americans are simply panicking, despite the fact that Russia is producing. Their "pregnant" Raptor is also much inferior to our generation 4 ++. It was created as an air combat fighter, and it turns out, it can mainly work on the ground.
1. supertiger21
  
  0
  
  13 February 2014 17: 24
  
  Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
  It was created as an air combat fighter, but it turns out that it can work mainly on the ground.
  
  Everything is exactly the opposite. The F-22 is not the best drummer, inferior in this to his younger brother F-35. The reptor was created for air combat, entering Dog Fight in an emergency. In the world, no not a single serial fighter, capable of fighting the Raptor at medium / long distances. Only a number of 4 ++ fighters are able to soak the Raptor in a "dog meat grinder". The F-35, on the contrary, is not the best in aerial combat, but it is excellent as a strike machine. The US Air Force has two multipurpose vehicles, but with a different bias in anti-air and anti-ground work.
  1. SV
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2014 21: 03
    
    .F-22 is not the best drummer. In the world there is not a single serial fighter capable of fighting with the Reptor at medium / long range.
    
    Well, apart from statements about him, little is known, especially in terms of its combat use.
    known with a coating problem, etc. can it be protected from prying eyes due to insolvency?
    1. supertiger21
      
      0
      
      13 February 2014 21: 51
      
      Well, I talked about the theory of what F-22 is. And in practice, of course, he still hasn’t shown himself, but I don’t think he will.
dmitrij.blyuz

0

13 February 2014 14: 26

Id = RnYlM24np3k]
The comment was deleted.
nightingale

+2

13 February 2014 15: 33

another American bluff and some fell for it
supertiger21

+1

13 February 2014 18: 14

F-22 and F-35 will be complementary to each other in the form of an air and strike fighter. We have the role of a heavy fighter 5P assigned to the PAK FA.Light version 5P, that is, an analogue of the F-35, we do not have.