Military Review

F-35 world debut in the UK

92

The US Department of Defense approved the first transatlantic flight of the F-35 fighter developed by Lockheed Martin to participate in two air shows in the UK, which will be held in July not far from London, 16 reports in April news.yahoo.com referring to statements by American and British officials.


The new military aircraft will take part in the annual Royal International Air Tattoo air show and the Farnborough International Air Show, which is held a year later.

“The United States and the United Kingdom have worked closely in the F-35 program since its inception. This is a fifth-generation stealth fighter that will go into service with the British military aviation and it’s logical that the F-35’s international debut will take place in the UK, ”said British Secretary of Defense Philip Hammond.

The appearance of the fighter in the UK will attract the close attention of potential buyers, including Canada and Denmark, who have been involved in financing the development of the aircraft, but are currently reviewing their procurement plans.

F-35 proponents say that the upcoming debut reflects growing confidence in the success of the program worth 392 billion US dollars, but skeptics claim that the plane still faces problems in developing the software necessary for integration weapons on the fighter.

The UK was the first foreign participant in the program, invested $ X billion in the creation of an aircraft, and plans to buy 2 machines.

Pentagon officials say the challenge is to reduce the cost of the aircraft from the current 112 million to the 80 million by the 2018-2019 years. But on Tuesday, the Pentagon warned that if Congress did not change the course of military spending cuts, in 2016-2019, the number of fighters purchased could be reduced by 17 units.

Lockheed Martin is developing three F-35 options for US military aircraft and 8 program countries (Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands). The acquisition of F-35 was officially announced by Israel, Japan and South Korea.

According to current plans, several air fighters of this type are expected to participate in the airshow, among them will be at least one of the three F-35Bs built for the UK, which will be piloted by a British pilot. It is reported that the United States and the United Kingdom will conduct a full range of measures for the safety of aircraft flights.

In 2011, Airbus was forced to abandon the demonstration of the A400 military transport aircraft at the Paris Air Show, when problems occurred with the gearbox in one of the aircraft’s powerful turboprop engines.

The Pentagon said that during transatlantic flights and participation in airshows, logistics and aircraft maintenance, an air refueling system and operational safety outside the United States will be checked.
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Stalevar
    Stalevar April 18 2014 10: 16
    +7
    Excessively expensive machine. And its combat effectiveness raises many questions.
    1. iwind
      iwind April 18 2014 10: 34
      +4
      Quote: Stalevar
      Excessively expensive machine. And its combat effectiveness raises many questions.

      The XM is priced from 80-90mln for a contract in 2019 for a year with engines, for 5 the generation is not expensive, and there are simply no other options.
      1. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 24
        +2
        Quote: iwind
        Quote: Stalevar
        Excessively expensive machine. And its combat effectiveness raises many questions.

        The XM is priced from 80-90mln for a contract in 2019 for a year with engines, for 5 the generation is not expensive, and there are simply no other options.


        If its price is really within 90 million dollars apiece, despite the constant anti-advertising (deserved or not), he can even make his way to markets in the countries of the 2 World. Our answer is what is in the class of light and medium fighters? MIG-35?
        1. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ April 18 2014 12: 28
          +3
          Quote: Nevsky_ZU
          If its price is really in the range of $ 90 million apiece, then despite constant anti-advertising (well-deserved or not), it will even be able to break into markets in the countries of the 2nd World. What is our answer in the class of light and medium fighters? MIG-35?

          The cost of 90 million is a pipe plan and only for the countries participating in the financing of the creation project. That is, R&D is not included in this cost and this is the price of an airplane without engines. And this is only according to official data, adjusted for advertising. The real cost was much higher and will be.
          1. clidon
            clidon April 18 2014 13: 16
            +2
            The Pentagon promises to reduce to 60-70 million dollars. Without engines. And while the price really falls. R&D, and so in general it does not include, except for developers.
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 22 2014 13: 15
              0
              while it seems like 112 for a single-engine aircraft.
      2. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ April 18 2014 12: 09
        +3
        Quote: iwind
        The XM is priced from 80-90mln for a contract in 2019 for a year with engines, for 5 the generation is not expensive, and there are simply no other options.

        This is if there is such a price and this is the price without R&D and it is not clear to anyone. So far, the price of a piece is not known until the end, but exceeds 130 million. And this is for a light fighter with very mediocre characteristics ...
        All the know-how of the F-35 program was precisely in its unusually low cost. it was for this that the project was unified for all customers in order to launch it into the "mega series" of more than 3500 pieces, which should have reduced its price. because of such versatility, it has so many problems that it is unlikely to be able to resolve.
        For comparison, the cost of the Su-35 is about 30-35 million dollars, and this is with the small series of this aircraft. if the order for the Su-35 is higher than 1000 units, then its cost may decrease significantly lower. And this is under conditions of significantly lower operating costs and class aircraft.
        Given these characteristics, the F-35 program is a complete failure or, more precisely, a serious cut of money by a Boeing, when it receives its technologies for civil engineering at the expense of customers.
        1. iwind
          iwind April 18 2014 12: 30
          -2
          Quote: Gluxar_
          This is if there is such a price and this is the price without R&D and it is not clear to anyone. So far, the price of a piece is not known until the end, but exceeds 130 million. And this is for a light fighter with very mediocre characteristics ...

          You will argue with the curator of the program from the pentogon LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHRISTOPHER C. BOGDAN, he has more data.
          http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/April%202014/April%2010%202014/T
          he-Best-Laid-F-35-Plans.aspx
          For 2013, the cost of the aircraft is $ 112.
          R&D - this money will always come back handsomely.
          Quote: Gluxar_
          its price. because of such versatility, he has so many problems that are unlikely to be resolved.

          Detailed where and what problems he has not been solved?
          Quote: Gluxar_
          Given these characteristics, the F-35 program is a complete failure or, more precisely, a serious cut of money by a Boeing, when it receives its technologies for civil engineering at the expense of customers.

          What TTX failure? And here is BOEING ????
          1. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ April 18 2014 13: 04
            +6
            Quote: iwind
            You will argue with the curator of the program from the pentogon LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHRISTOPHER C. BOGDAN, he has more data.
            http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/April%202014/April%2010%202014/T

            he-Best-Laid-F-35-Plans.aspx
            For 2013, the cost of the aircraft is $ 112.
            R&D - this money will always come back handsomely.

            Of course I will. I have one fact in my allies. According to the program, the cost of one aircraft was supposed to be in the range of $ 30-35 million. If you are acting here in the role of a lawyer and defender of this aircraft, then do not be lazy to raise all the information on it. Today it costs 3 times more, and this does not include the "related" costs.
            The problem with f-35 is that R&D in his case failed. Colossal funds were spent on cheaper and unification of structures, which in the end only increased the cost of the project itself. The F-35 spent a lot of money to make the plane cheaper, but in the end its cost grew 3 times and today a new price of 100 million is considered normal, but even there is no such price. There is a price of 112 million for the simplest version without engines, but this is far from the original plans of 30 million apiece. But f-35 uses a lot of groundwork for other projects that f-35 got as if for free. with this in mind, the real costs of this project are even higher.
            Quote: iwind
            Detailed where and what problems he has not been solved?

            Are lightning protection issues resolved? Or are they resolved by prohibitions on approaching storm zones for 40 km? Then it is no longer an all-weather aircraft and it automatically falls to the 3rd generation, but not to 5. It is solved the problem of detachment
            elevator coverings? The problem of excessive oscillations of rudders and flaperons during the transition from subsonic to supersonic speed was resolved. How is the progress with the software for the plane?
            And these are only open sources, and how many problems are hidden so as not to scare potential customers ...
            Quote: iwind
            What TTX failure? And here is BOEING ????

            So far, for all possible. From maximum speed to maneuverability .to the climb parameters and flight and operating conditions.
            Lockheed Martin has several joint ventures with Boeing. Therefore, part of the technologies being developed flows from this project to others. That is why LM's profit figures of $ 3 billion, despite the failure of the main program. The point is that large industrial companies develop some technologies with the money of the government, which they then successfully apply in other areas.
            1. iwind
              iwind April 18 2014 13: 42
              +2
              Quote: Gluxar_
              Are lightning protection issues resolved? Or are they resolved by prohibitions on approaching storm zones for 40 km? Then it is no longer an all-weather aircraft and it automatically falls to the 3rd generation, but not to 5. It is solved the problem of detachment
              elevator coverings? The problem of excessive oscillations of rudders and flaperons during the transition from subsonic to supersonic speed was resolved. How is the progress with the software for the plane?
              And these are only open sources, and how many problems are hidden so as not to scare potential customers ...

              And do you have any evidence of your words not from the yellow press? I was not too lazy to bring.
              About the problems in the annual DOTE report for 2013, these problems have nothing. Unless there is a RECOMMENDATION not to fly in a thunderstorm, until the next study.

              Quote: Gluxar_
              So far, for all possible. From maximum speed to maneuverability .to the climb parameters and flight and operating conditions.

              With hatches up to 1.6 Mach accelerated.
              on maneuverability and overloads, all the performance specifications were fulfilled.
              http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/may/130516ae_f-35a-com
              pletes-high-angle-attack-test.html
              1. kostyan77708
                kostyan77708 April 18 2014 14: 12
                +1
                data from http://www.lockheedmartin.com and this should begin laughing What normal manufacturer will scream to the whole world that he has problems with manufactured products?
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 18 2014 17: 23
                +3
                Quote: iwind
                http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/may/130516ae_f-35a-com

                pletes-high-angle-attack-test.html

                Please explain what happens to the airplane in this video? What is over-maneuverability here? What is being checked on the video?
                1. iwind
                  iwind April 18 2014 20: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Please explain what happens to the airplane in this video? What is over-maneuverability here? What is being checked on the video?

                  NO, no f-35 over-maneuverability. The air force had a requirement for maneuverability so that it would not yield to the empty F-16 at standard load and ease of management and all.
                  Yes, he doesn’t need it, he has all-round guidance of missiles.
                  "Testing is done at high angles of attack, positive and negative angles, in several configurations, including deliberately getting the plane out of control. This involved flying in a stealth configuration initially. This was followed by testing with external air-to-air pylons and rockets, and then and with internal compartments open. For all trials, recovery from out of control flight was 100 percent successful without the use of the anti-spin parachute present to maximize safety. "
                  Here about the F-35C
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm April 18 2014 23: 59
                    0
                    Quote: iwind
                    NO, no f-35 over-maneuverability.

                    Probably really not, and okay. Vidio probably confirms that the F-35 is able to get out of a flat and vertical peak, also demonstrates the angle of attack.
                    Quote: iwind
                    so that it does not concede to the empty F-16 at standard load and ease of control and all.

                    I have never seen the F-35 do those aerobatics like the F-16, perhaps it will demonstrate in the UK.
                    1. iwind
                      iwind April 19 2014 00: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      I have never seen the F-35 do those aerobatics like the F-16, perhaps it will demonstrate in the UK.

                      possibly. In general, I don’t see that he can be prevented from doing this better than F-16. Although, if you compare it with f-16 c uvt (it was like that) ....
                      The main thing that pilots note is that flying the F-35 is much easier than flying the f-16.

                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      And what is there for a 5th generation engine? Probably small, lightweight, economical and silent ?.

                      did not quite understand the question. engine Pratt & Whitney F135, in the foreseeable future will be tumbled by the most powerful engine.
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 19 2014 10: 00
                        0
                        Quote: iwind
                        did not quite understand the question. engine Pratt & Whitney F135, in the foreseeable future will be tumbled by the most powerful engine.

                        GE90-115B is more powerful but also more and heavier, I was interested in the ratio of power, weight, efficiency, etc.
                        Quote: iwind
                        In general, I don’t see that he can be prevented from doing this better than the F-16.

                        There are doubts, they have different aerodynamic characteristics
                      2. iwind
                        iwind April 19 2014 14: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        GE90-115B is more powerful but also more and heavier, I was interested in the ratio of power, weight, efficiency, etc.

                        If compared with AL-41F1, then somewhere 10% heavier and longer. thrust for AL-41F1 8.800 for Pratt & Whitney F135 12.700. I didn’t delve deeply (I’m not particularly interested) into yes and again everything is classified as AL-41f.
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        There are doubts, they have different aerodynamic characteristics

                        I remembered, you didn't believe in this video before. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the F-35 flies well? When interviewing pilots, the "empty" F-35 flies better than the empty F-16, with a standard load the F-35 flies like an empty f-16. In terms of controllability at high angles of attack, the F-35 competes with aircraft with SWT. Overloads are the same 9g.
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 19 2014 20: 32
                        0
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqjjHDGWm4Q
                      4. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 19 2014 22: 41
                        0
                        Quote: iwind
                        I did not delve into much

                        Quote: iwind
                        Remembered

                        You already decide, although it does not really matter in the context of this topic.
                        Quote: iwind
                        When compared with AL-41F1

                        I didn’t mean it. Many consider the F-135, 119 voracious engines. The most interesting thing is that the mass and size of the F-100 is almost equal to the F-135
                        Quote: iwind
                        I remembered that you did not believe in this video before.

                        I am still skeptical of him.
                        Quote: iwind
                        Why is it so hard for you to believe that the F-35 flies well.

                        I have not yet seen a single video where the F-35 would perform aerobatics, so I still have doubts, the interviews with the pilots somehow do not convince me, as they say it's better to see once than hear 100 times.
                        Quote: iwind
                        In handling at high angles of attack, the F-35 competes with aircraft with uv.

                        The angle of attack is also strange, at first they claimed 22 degrees.
                        Americans always need to be checked, otherwise they can
                        Range of flight:
                        maximum:
                        F-35A: 2200 km
                        Combat radius without PTB and air refueling
                        F-35A: 1080 km
                      5. iwind
                        iwind April 19 2014 23: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        The angle of attack is also strange, at first they claimed 22 degrees.
                        Americans always need to be checked, otherwise they can
                        Range of flight:
                        maximum:
                        F-35A: 2200 km
                        Combat radius without PTB and air refueling
                        F-35A: 1080 km

                        combat radius and flight range are two different things, there is no contradiction.
                        In the corners of the attack, too, these tests passed in several stages.
                        I gave you two videos where the F-35 does everything that it should do multi-functional fighter , if you don’t believe the video, then this already goes into the question of faith, and this is more to the church.
                        And aeroprocessing is good at an air show, no more.
                        .Amerika had super-maneuverable aircraft in the years 80-90, so they know how to build such aircraft.
                        Quote: saturn.mmm

                        Quote: iwind
                        When compared with AL-41F1

                        I didn’t mean it. Many consider the F-135, 119 voracious engines. The most interesting thing is that the mass and size of the F-100 is almost equal to the F-135

                        AND? The F-35 has a combat radius of 1080 km, which completely suits all customers.
                      6. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 20 2014 09: 29
                        0
                        aerobatics dodge missiles and explosives
                        and it’s also important in close combat maneuvers

                        By the way, the church Bible is the recorded testimony of contemporaries.
                    2. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 20 2014 09: 22
                      +1
                      Americans themselves call this video "controlled fall."
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 19 2014 21: 33
              +1
              but even with it it flies worse because aerodynamics are much worse
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 20 2014 11: 04
                0
                Quote: iwind
                combat radius and flight range are two different things, there is no contradiction.

                The combat radius directly depends on the flight range.
                Quote: iwind
                I gave you two videos where the F-35 does everything that a multifunction fighter should do

                Well, if that's all he has to do, then I'm calm.
                Quote: iwind
                if you don’t believe the video, then this already goes into the question of faith, and this is more to the church.

                There was also Stanislavsky.
                Quote: iwind
                And aeroprocessing is good at an air show, no more.

                The Americans did not know about this, they spent a lot of money and effort and piled the F-22.
                Quote: iwind
                AND? The F-35 has a combat radius of 1080 km, which completely suits all customers.

                Well, if you are satisfied with customers, you won’t be able to do anything.
              2. iwind
                iwind April 20 2014 12: 23
                0
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Quote: iwind
                combat radius and flight range are two different things, there is no contradiction.
                The combat radius directly depends on the flight range.

                the combat radius is usually somewhere in half the flight range. Everything is logical.
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Quote: iwind
                And aeroprocessing is good at an air show, no more.
                The Americans did not know about this, they spent a lot of money and effort and piled the F-22.

                Aircraft gaining superiority in the sky and a multi-functional fighter are two different things.
                Secondly, the F-35 all-perspective pointing missiles, it makes no sense to someone spinning.
                In all other respects, it is a superbly controlled and maneuverable aircraft.
              3. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 20 2014 14: 20
                0
                And the F-22 is not all-angle? Does the Basic or C ++ version not allow?
              4. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 20 2014 22: 43
                0
                Quote: iwind
                the combat radius is usually somewhere in half the flight range. Everything is logical.

                If only it were that simple.
                Quote: iwind
                Aircraft gaining superiority in the sky and a multi-functional fighter are two different things.

                MULTIPURPOSE FIGHTERS
                A fighter is a military aircraft designed to destroy air targets. It is used to escort and protect bombers, transport aircraft, as well as civilian aircraft from enemy fighters. It is also used to protect named objects from attacks by enemy aircraft and to gain air superiority over the battlefield. Less commonly, fighters are used to attack ground and sea targets.
              5. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 21 2014 13: 30
                +1
                air superiority fighter is not multifunctional. he exclusively deals with this (air combat).
                usually they are more multi-functional and with a large radius of action.
              6. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 21 2014 13: 37
                0
                from the US it’s like F-15,
                the similar F-18 fighter of gaining air superiority is no longer
              7. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 21 2014 13: 56
                0
                F-16 is kind of multifunctional, but mostly SEAD "Wild Weasel"
                MiG-29 - front-line, to gain superiority in the air over the rear of the enemy, unlike the Su-27, he lacks range.
                F-14 was a naval drummer / interceptor
                F-22 Half Hammer
                F-35 crap full of it near the MiG-17 and MiG-21 knock
                The F-117 could not conduct an air battle at all. also a "fighter" (F)
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 21 2014 13: 25
              0
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
              look at what this "superbly controlled and maneuverable aircraft" is,
              in the previous video it was only about air-to-air, the second half of this was already seen about air-to-ground.
  • iwind
    iwind April 18 2014 13: 58
    0
    Quote: Gluxar_
    The problem with f-35 is that R&D in his case failed. Colossal funds were spent on cheaper and unification of structures, which in the end only increased the cost of the project itself. The F-35 spent a lot of money to make the plane cheaper, but in the end its cost grew 3 times and today a new price of 100 million is considered normal, but even there is no such price. There is a price of 112 million for the simplest version without engines, but this is far from the original plans of 30 million apiece. But f-35 uses a lot of groundwork for other projects that f-35 got as if for free. with this in mind, the real costs of this project are even higher.

    By the way, $ 112 is a full fly-off capability cost.
    There was no analog of the DAS system.
    Virtual cockpit too
    A transparent cabin is similar.
    I don’t remember such a number of different electronic detection systems.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 18 2014 18: 27
      +1
      all this whit was still on the MiG-27, F-35 (which was cut off from the Yak-141 by a wonderful sawn-off just for 500 thousand tanks), by the way, if it will, it will solve about the same tasks as the MiG, because as a fighter for gaining air superiority they no longer positioned.
      crying
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 18 2014 19: 35
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        F-35 (which was cut off by a miraculous sawn-off from Yak-141 for just 500 thousand tanks)


        Do not write nonsense! Common with the Yak-141 has only the F-35B, and then only in the power plant.

        Quote: Kassandra
        because as a fighter for gaining superiority in the air, they no longer position it.


        The materiel is crying for you! F-35 is primarily for shock tasks, and then for air supremacy.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 18 2014 19: 59
          -1
          Don’t write it yourself. The whole plane was copied. Explained to you already. Then they decided to add anti-radar swamps for stealth and put a lifting vertifier from XV-5.
          Then the "extra parts" were thrown out of the F-35B and so your favorite F-35A appeared.

          And before they wrote that the F35 is just a light fighter, but it can also be bonbon.
          I just know this materiel apart from you.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 18 2014 20: 05
            +2
            Quote: Kassandra
            Don't write yourself. The entire plane was copied. You have already been explained. Then they decided to add anti-radar bogs for stealth and install a lifting rotator from the XV-5. Then they threw out the "extra parts" from the F-35B and so your favorite F-35A appeared.


            In your parallel story it was, I do not argue! laughing

            Quote: Kassandra
            I just know this materiel apart from you.


            And do not dream! lol
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 19 2014 08: 23
              +1
              look on the Internet how Lockheed and Rolls-Royce 1,5g copied Freestyle.

              so you dream, but I know this materiel really ... and by harrier too. laughing
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra April 18 2014 18: 19
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=F35
    read the headlines there in 2/3 of the video, and choose for example this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqjjHDGWm4Q
    in the comments a bunch of ipanko esessno came running who consider themselves smarter than this uncle, and hto he is google ...
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 18 2014 17: 29
    0
    Quote: Gluxar_
    For comparison, the cost of the Su-35 is about 30-35 million dollars, and this is with the small series of this aircraft. if the order for the Su-35 is higher than 1000 units, then its cost may decrease significantly lower.


    The cost of the Su-35S is at least $ 80 million. Good is never cheap.

    Quote: Gluxar_
    Given these characteristics, the F-35 program is a complete failure or, more precisely, a serious cut of money by a Boeing, when it receives its technologies for civil engineering at the expense of customers.


    If you don’t know, it’s not Boeing who designs the F-35, but Lockheed Martin.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm April 18 2014 17: 19
    +2
    Quote: iwind
    The XM is priced from 80-90mln for a contract in 2019 for a year with engines, for 5 the generation is not expensive, and there are simply no other options.

    And what is there for a 5th generation engine? Probably small, lightweight, economical and noiseless?
    I wanted to ask the author what the gearbox looks like in a powerful turboprop airplane engine?
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 18 2014 18: 36
      +2
      continue
      wassat
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 18 2014 19: 32
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        continue


        Well, what are you a troll, you can’t find your food ??? laughing
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 18 2014 20: 00
          +2
          But essentially? (affected by saturn.mm issue).
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 18 2014 21: 41
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            But essentially? (affected by saturn.mm issue).


            What’s the essence? The fact that you are getting nervous with your trolling visitors is essentially ??? fool
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 19 2014 08: 38
              -1
              essentially engine boxes ...
              and you don’t get nervous.
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 19 2014 14: 28
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                essentially the engine’s box ... and you don’t get nervous.


                I am grateful for the advice, I ask you not to answer my posts anymore! I’m tired of feeding the trolls) laughing
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 19 2014 19: 28
                  -3
                  As for feeding, turn around on yourself,
                  and you knew about the box along the way, so it came about right away.
                  slept badly ...
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 20 2014 09: 31
      0
      yeah, and with a silencer ...
  • Gluxar_
    Gluxar_ April 18 2014 11: 59
    +4
    Quote: Stalevar
    Excessively expensive machine. And its combat effectiveness raises many questions.

    This is not particularly significant for NATO countries. First of all, F-35 is a marketing project of a new vision of the future world order. At the planning stage, it was assumed that he would have no competitors at all, not by a qualitative comparison of characteristics, but would not be at all in principle. That is, modern aviation will remain only with NATO, Russia at this point should have collapsed in the agony of a civil war, and China is suffocating from a lack of energy. Hence the failure in the quality of the aircraft and its capabilities.
    However, it is still the best practice in manufacturing and marketing in the aircraft industry. And in the conditions of the global economic crisis, the relevance of the success of this project is only growing.
    Unfortunately for Russia, we do not even have plans for any series of aircraft in the amount of 3000+ pcs. A Boeing in many ways wants to make money on the F-35 using some of the groundwork for this project in its civilian aircraft.
    The only thing that can really deliver a serious blow to NATO is the complete failure of this aircraft if it crashes or explodes during demonstrations. But the likelihood of such an event is extremely small.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 18 2014 17: 33
      +1
      Quote: Gluxar_
      A Boeing in many ways wants to make money on the F-35 using some of the groundwork for this project in its civilian aircraft.


      The F-35 actually designs Lockheed Martin, not the Boeing, which is its main competitor.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 18 2014 23: 11
        +2
        Yes, do not try to argue with degenerates who simply do not know the materiel and are seriously convinced that aircraft of the almost fifth generation (Su-5) can cost 35 lyam apiece.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 19 2014 14: 23
          0
          Quote: patsantre
          Yes, do not try to argue with degenerates who simply do not know the materiel and are seriously convinced that aircraft of the almost fifth generation (Su-5) can cost 35 lyam apiece.


          good
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 19 2014 19: 25
          0
          Is he selling somewhere for dollars?

          the bottle was worth and the bottle will cost! Seriously... laughing
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 21 2014 13: 45
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            Is it really selling somewhere for dollars? The bottle cost and the bottle will cost! Seriously...


            A unit of the Su-35S costs $ 80-85 million. At least on account of this, do not show your "troll teeth"))) laughing
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 21 2014 14: 00
              0
              You don’t understand - it will cost how much there in dollars when it will be sold for them.
              no one plans to sell it even in India from T-50 even to India. MiG-35 would be sold.
  • Army1
    Army1 April 18 2014 14: 30
    +1
    The plane, then they will bring to mind there is no choice, there are already more than 100 of them, and the price for a large series will fall, though amers will have to use external suspensions, and here it is already difficult to talk about "super invisibility".
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 18 2014 17: 36
      +1
      Quote: Army1
      though amers will have to use external suspension, and here it is already difficult to talk about "super invisibility".


      If the enemy's air defense is weak, then it will be possible to use external suspension points. But with a dangerous enemy, you will have to limit yourself to 4 internal compartments, 2 AGM-158 air-to-surface missiles and two AIM-120 air-to-air missiles. with such a small arsenal, the F-35 is quite dangerous.
  • svp67
    svp67 April 18 2014 10: 17
    +3
    Well, well, let's look at the "birdie" ... it's interesting.
  • pensioner
    pensioner April 18 2014 10: 19
    +8
    US Department of Defense Approves First F-35 Transatlantic Flight

    I hope that the inflatable boat, oars and rocket launcher of the pilot will still be ...
    1. kostyan77708
      kostyan77708 April 18 2014 14: 15
      +3
      oh and it’s scary in the course of the pilot of this product to fly through okiyan, but for some reason I think that he will be brought from the mattress incognito, and on TV they will say that he arrived
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz April 18 2014 10: 20
    +3
    And the PAK FA at this air show will present? No one in the know?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch April 18 2014 10: 27
      +13
      Quote: Wiruz
      And the PAK FA at this air show will present? No one in the know?


      PAK FA to cover them over the Atlantic will be from the evil SU-24 laughing
    3. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 26
      +5
      Quote: Wiruz
      And the PAK FA at this air show will present? No one in the know?


      On the territory of a potential enemy? I do not think. laughing This is not SU-35.
  • KAPITANUS
    KAPITANUS April 18 2014 10: 25
    +11
    The bird is fatter in the air intake.
    1. igordok
      igordok April 18 2014 11: 37
      +7
      Quote: KAPITANUS
      The bird is fatter in the air intake.

      On the contrary, more hardened.
  • Semen Semyonitch
    Semen Semyonitch April 18 2014 10: 26
    +5
    The US Department of Defense approved the first transatlantic flight of the F-35 fighter ...

    Fly away? Maybe it's better to swim?
    1. 0255
      0255 April 18 2014 11: 33
      +2
      Quote: Semen Semenych
      The US Department of Defense approved the first transatlantic flight of the F-35 fighter ...

      Fly away? Maybe it's better to swim?

      I’ll laugh if I don’t reach for any reason ...
  • understudy
    understudy April 18 2014 10: 28
    +6
    It would be necessary to intercept him as well, as was the case with the drones. That would be "advertising" for buyers! laughing
  • Good cat
    Good cat April 18 2014 10: 38
    -3
    I wish he fell apart ...))
  • Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 April 18 2014 10: 40
    +4
    Maybe he fucked ..... on the heads of the English military! repeat
    1. iwind
      iwind April 18 2014 10: 59
      +5
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      Maybe he fucked ..... on the heads of the English military!

      And maybe not fucked ....
      Recently, the total flight time exceeded 15.000 hours during this time. NOT ONE aircraft was lost. For the new aircraft is a unique indicator.
      https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-fleet-surpasses-15000-flying-hours
      1. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 28
        +1
        Quote: iwind
        Quote: Siberia 9444
        Maybe he fucked ..... on the heads of the English military!

        And maybe not fucked ....
        Recently, the total flight time exceeded 15.000 hours during this time. NOT ONE aircraft was lost. For the new aircraft is a unique indicator.
        https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-fleet-surpasses-15000-flying-hours



        Well, of course, if you invest almost 300 billion in the development of an aircraft in a leading country in the world, then it simply must show such a result. Although the time of actual operation in the Air Force will tell.
        1. iwind
          iwind April 18 2014 11: 42
          +2
          Quote: Nevsky_ZU
          Well, of course, if you invest almost 300 billion in the development of an aircraft in a leading country in the world, then it simply must show such a result. Although the time of actual operation in the Air Force will tell.

          it is already operated in two completely self-real bases (LUKE and Eglin Air Force Base) and several UDC
          from 15.000, 8050 raids on serial F-35, occur about 60 flights a day. This is the usual combat pilots.
          1. Nevsky_ZU
            Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 44
            +1
            Quote: iwind
            Quote: Nevsky_ZU
            Well, of course, if you invest almost 300 billion in the development of an aircraft in a leading country in the world, then it simply must show such a result. Although the time of actual operation in the Air Force will tell.

            it is already operated in two completely self-real bases (LUKE and Eglin Air Force Base) and several UDC
            from 15.000, 8050 raids on serial F-35, occur about 60 flights a day. This is the usual combat pilots.


            Then I take off my hat if these are real facts. hi
            1. iwind
              iwind April 18 2014 11: 59
              0
              Quote: Nevsky_ZU
              Then I take off my hat if these are real facts.

              http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/april/140415ae_f-35-fleet-
              surpasses-15000-hours.html
              Eglin

              LUKE

              UDC
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 18 2014 18: 40
              0
              you can put it back on - in fact, with UDC you can use them only if there is an airfield nearby
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 20 2014 09: 50
              -1
              the F-35C from landing on the deck of mother-in-law on the hull,
              both RN aircraft carriers and unfinished under it are put into reserve, one of them being put up for sale.
              and the F-35B has a lot of vertical landing failures,
              therefore, even if they take off from the UDC, it lands then often on the usual coastal strip

              F-35A pilots are not satisfied with both aerobatic performance and impact capabilities.
      2. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ April 18 2014 12: 30
        +1
        Quote: iwind
        And maybe not fucked ....
        Recently, the total flight time exceeded 15.000 hours during this time. NOT ONE aircraft was lost. For the new aircraft is a unique indicator.

        And how many hours of flight outside the laboratories? Did they teach how to board an aircraft carrier? The real problems of such aircraft appear only during everyday service, as it was and is with the F-22.
        1. iwind
          iwind April 18 2014 12: 38
          0
          Quote: Gluxar_

          And how many hours of flight outside the laboratories? Did they teach how to board an aircraft carrier? The real problems of such aircraft appear only during everyday service, as it was and is with the F-22.

          about daily service above (8000 hours) 60 flights per day.
          They taught that by autumn he flies to an aircraft carrier, now confident capture in more than 90% than cases.
          http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2014-04-08/us-dep
          uty-program-manager-outlines-f-35-fixes
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 18 2014 19: 44
          0
          more than 5 have already been lost, and with UDC it can only be used if there is a shore nearby where your airfields are located.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 18 2014 20: 02
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            more than 5 have already been lost, and with UDC it can only be used if there is a shore nearby where your airfields are located.


            Brad! negative
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 19 2014 08: 17
              0
              What is so immediately nonsense? google ... an order was issued to fly to F35 with UDC only if there is a coastal airfield nearby
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 19 2014 14: 21
                +1
                Quote: Kassandra
                What is so immediately nonsense? google ... an order was issued to fly to F35 with UDC only if there is a coastal airfield nearby


                When a person cannot give any reference to the source, he is a balabol ... negative
                Sorry of course for such expressions hi but think about it!
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 19 2014 19: 57
                  0
                  if you see this link, an Internet worm, then for you it will immediately become true?
                  maybe I'm sorry. read here ...
                  now, now I’ll give up everything and run to you to look for her!
            2. iwind
              iwind April 19 2014 09: 25
              +1
              [quote = supertiger21] Bullshit! [/ quote]
              I recommend that you do not pay special attention to Kassandra, well, a person wants to write nonsense, let him write. Well, or in emergency situations.
              [quote = supertiger21] [quote = Kassandra] more than 5 have already been lost, and with UDC it can only be used if there is a shore nearby where your airfields are located. [/ quote]
              I’ll ask you once.
              Any proofs about 5 lost F-35s?
              I would like to look at a virtual cockpit and a system of all-round visibility with a thermal imager and night vision 3 generations at instant 27 ...
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 19 2014 14: 18
                +1
                Quote: iwind
                I recommend that you do not pay special attention to Kassandra, well, a person wants to write nonsense, let him write. Well, or in emergency situations.


                Thanks for the advice yes It’s really better not to pay attention to Cassandra’s nonsense, he will carry the same lie without any facts, but in an emergency I won’t throw him.

                Quote: iwind
                Any proofs I will be about 5 lost F-35s? I would like to look at a virtual cockpit and a system of all-round visibility with a thermal imager and night vision 3 generations at the moment 27 ...


                Well, he won’t give you a link to the alleged 5 lost F-35s. How many times he demanded from him at the expense of other delusional statements, but even the simplest sources didn’t throw me off. I suggest you also not run into this troll. hi
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 19 2014 20: 19
                  -1
                  why did you come here again as soon as so right away? bully

                  you yourself are nonsense. from and to laughing
                  with their:
                  1.the retreating formation and foot by foot by the "attack aircraft" Mirage and Dagger, who allowed themselves to be shot by the harriers without turning around,
                  2. the world's first stealth plane F-117 chopped from bevel and built on the curves (!) Of Ufimtsev,
                  3. the uselessness of ground STOVL (well, of course, Ivanushki and Saidushki will have them - forge again you will have 1941 or 1967 with them).

                  further down the list ...

                  and not% ery to discuss me here.
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 19 2014 20: 08
                -1
                Do you have data how many Su-24 or F-22 or F-117 crashed during testing and debugging?
                Do you think the F-35 is lighter than air and therefore cannot fall?

                you would think that you saw it all on the F-35 laughing
                about the MiG-23 and MiG-27 ask the Israelis, they will show you. standing in a museum
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky April 18 2014 10: 45
    +3
    Few people are waiting for him! wassat
  • 120267
    120267 April 18 2014 10: 47
    +2
    Quote: Stalevar
    Excessively expensive machine.


    PAK FA is also valued at $ 100 million
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 29
      +4
      Quote: 120267
      Quote: Stalevar
      Excessively expensive machine.


      PAK FA is also valued at $ 100 million


      PAK FA belongs to another class of fighters, to heavy. How much can you compare it with F-35 !? am
    2. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 18 2014 17: 47
      +1
      Quote: 120267
      PAK FA is also valued at $ 100 million


      PAK FA in size and weight is larger than the F-35 and is designed for several other tasks. Compared to the F-35, the MiG-35 is closer.
  • Krsk
    Krsk April 18 2014 10: 48
    +3
    And there we’ll take a look at huh. Is there any jerk off of this: is it worth 392 billion US dollars, it must fly ass forward and that’s at least ...

    Otherwise, he will become a flying ass.
    1. Krsk
      Krsk April 18 2014 11: 34
      0
      Quote: KrSk
      : valued at $ 392 billion
      - inaccuracy changing a lot.

      So it should be: programs worth $ 392 billion, oversight of my litter ...
  • ambiorix
    ambiorix April 18 2014 10: 49
    +4
    And sho there with the MiG-35? You can not lag behind ...
    1. Krsk
      Krsk April 18 2014 11: 05
      0
      Quote: ambiorix
      And sho there with the MiG-35? You can not lag behind ...



      He at Le Bourget, as it were, showed how we "lag behind" ...
      1. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 31
        +1
        Quote: KrSk
        Quote: ambiorix
        And sho there with the MiG-35? You can not lag behind ...



        He at Le Bourget, as it were, showed how we "lag behind" ...


        Was he there? It seems that the SU-35 was the star of the air show?

        And where does the MIG-35 lag behind, except for the absence of stealth?

        1. Manul
          Manul April 18 2014 13: 30
          0
          "MiG-35 is the first Russian aircraft with such a locator" .. (with PAR)
          I don’t understand anything. Mig-31 already flies with it how much .. Or am I confusing something? what
          1. clidon
            clidon April 18 2014 14: 53
            +2
            The Mig-31 is equipped with a passive phased array, and the Mig-35 will someday get an active phased array, which is now being redesigned. Own PFAR stands on the Su-30/35.
        2. clidon
          clidon April 18 2014 14: 57
          +3
          Nevsky_ZU
          There is no stealth, there is no internal weapons compartment, as long as there is no comparable "side", there is no version of the "vertical" and even on trifles.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 18 2014 19: 41
            0
            what kind of "scientists" are all gathered here ...
            and MiG is not a Yak, for stealth, make him a plastic rocket, and you will be happy
        3. Berxen
          Berxen April 18 2014 17: 28
          +2
          Quote: Nevsky_ZU
          And where does the MIG-35 lag behind, except for the absence of stealth?



          Its main difference from those already listed is that it is essentially a deeply modernized 29th with a deeply modernized RD-33.

          The Anglo-Saxons piled a new engine and have already launched two aircraft on it in a series. Yes, the F-35 is still under development and it’s fashionable for us to pour mud on it - but they were ALREADY built more than the Su-35 and Su-34 combined. And the transatlantic flight - this is serious - the T-50 made three intermediate landings during the haul from Komsomolsk.
  • Vtel
    Vtel April 18 2014 11: 03
    +2
    But here everything is cheap and cheerful, and our valiant SU-24 proved it.
    1. clidon
      clidon April 18 2014 11: 13
      0
      Could fly?
      1. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 32
        +3
        Quote: clidon
        Could fly?


        But in Western Ukraine in the hands of Bandera, SU-24 could not laughing
        1. clidon
          clidon April 18 2014 11: 39
          +1
          Well then, I agree, an achievement. True that Su-24 could not sit down.
          1. Nevsky_ZU
            Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 11: 49
            +1
            Quote: clidon
            Well then, I agree, an achievement. True that Su-24 could not sit down.


            One xr.r.u. In the hands of a good warrior and a stick will be able to shoot, in the face of a talentless super-duper plane above 7 km, oxygen will stop being supplied.
            1. Marine One
              Marine One April 18 2014 12: 00
              +4
              Quote: Nevsky_ZU
              per-duper aircraft above 7 km, oxygen will stop supplying.

              This problem did not surface with 35-x, but with F-22 three years ago. Solved.
              1. Nevsky_ZU
                Nevsky_ZU April 18 2014 13: 04
                0
                Quote: Marine One
                Quote: Nevsky_ZU
                per-duper aircraft above 7 km, oxygen will stop supplying.

                This problem did not surface with 35-x, but with F-22 three years ago. Solved.


                And I did not say that it was in F-35
            2. clidon
              clidon April 18 2014 13: 12
              +1
              Well, technical problems then everyone can have. Not an indicator.
  • desant_doktor
    desant_doktor April 18 2014 11: 03
    0
    I heard from competent comrades that the car was crude, capricious, expensive and incapable of conducting highly maneuverable air combat. It is interesting, of course, to see the plane live, or to test in training battles with the latest modifications of dryers or with the PAK FA. Only, there is an opinion that if you offer mattress makers to play Pokryshkin, they will refuse. Seems to me, so as not to get into an awkward situation, like with "Donald Duck, sorry, Cook".
    1. clidon
      clidon April 18 2014 11: 13
      0
      So he is still not in service.
    2. iwind
      iwind April 18 2014 11: 20
      +1
      Quote: Thought Giant
      I heard from competent comrades that the car is raw, capricious, expensive and incapable of waging a highly maneuverable air battle

      How much they write about it, but WHY? He has an all-round missile guidance. by adding an AIM-9x court ... Vidio 2000 (Aim-9x BLCOK 0) of the year now, aim-9 has already undergone three or four upgrades.
    3. Berxen
      Berxen April 18 2014 17: 33
      +1
      Quote: desant_doktor
      It is interesting, of course, to look at the plane alive, or to test in training battles with the dryers of the latest modifications or with the PAK FA


      In order to participate in training battles PAK-FA will learn how to shoot).
  • Giant thought
    Giant thought April 18 2014 11: 07
    +2
    It is necessary along the F-35 flight path to fit our any ship that has C-300 air defense, and check how our equipment will fight its invisibility, unfortunately, C-400 has not yet been installed on existing ships.
    1. clidon
      clidon April 18 2014 11: 13
      +4
      And he will fly with transponders so it is useless.
  • 1812 1945
    1812 1945 April 18 2014 11: 54
    +1
    Sorry for the fish. Such shit from all over - to the water! They would bring on a boat, harnessed a horse and rode across the field. They’ll buy it anyway. Common sense has nothing to do with it ...
  • kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 April 18 2014 11: 55
    0
    "and operational safety outside the United States"- key phrase))))))
  • GRune
    GRune April 18 2014 12: 35
    +1
    What if it doesn’t reach ??? Or ours suddenly decide to demonstrate the SU-24 which the destroyer flew in the Black Sea and accidentally turn on something when Amer flies ???
  • mig31
    mig31 April 18 2014 13: 54
    +1
    I would not advise them to meet with us ......
  • sv68
    sv68 April 18 2014 14: 20
    +1
    as Stanislavsky said, I don’t believe. All data on f35 comes only from the interested party of the manufacturer and if the car has serious problems, they will not say anything about them or say a few words. However, at the price and with such characteristics the car is prohibitive
    1. clidon
      clidon April 18 2014 14: 59
      +2
      Well, Americans have such a thing as a "lobby" - that is, by no means everyone is interested in a good project. Therefore, it is much easier to learn from the Americans about the problems of their cars than about ours. Officially, "everything is going well with us."
  • federal
    federal April 18 2014 14: 54
    +2
    I don’t understand anything in aviation, but when I watched the video about PAK FA, I cried with pride
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 18 2014 17: 43
    +1
    Not happy with this news No. , because. again there is a kind of advertising for the F-35, to attract export orders. It would be nice for us to hold such events with the MiG-35 in order to "attract" foreign customers. There would have been a hope for raising the RSK MiG, although under Uncle Poghosyan this is unlikely will happen. recourse
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 20 2014 10: 48
      0
      Well, sell the Yak-141 somewhere else, blasphemy ... only he won't let you do that. and he is not alone. in the early 90s, many people wanted to buy it (the same Argentina), and "for money" and not as Americans for 500 thousand. only that's why it was not sold to anyone. And the Su-27 began delivering over the hill with a great delay and to a very limited range of countries.
      otherwise Pindos would sit on its sub-continent and not show its nose from there.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 21 2014 13: 53
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        Well, sell the Yak-141 somewhere else, blasphemy ... only he won't let you do that. and he is not alone. in the early 90s many people wanted to buy it (the same Argentina), and "for money" and not as Americans for 500 thousand. only that's why it was not sold to anyone. And the Su-27 began delivering over the hill with a great delay and to a very limited range of countries. Otherwise, the pinnacle would sit on its sub-continent and not show its nose from there.


        Cassandra, I don't know what to do when I see your posts - laugh or cry. How good it turns out in parallel reality) Say hello to "parallel me"))) lol
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 21 2014 14: 03
          0
          give it to yourself ...

          better cry, America then "bought" for 500 thousand, but in Argentina for some reason they did not sell any money.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 21 2014 15: 33
          0
          You have reality, according to Riemann, but in mine:

          1. F-117 facet was needed against LIDAR, for the same, it is painted black,
          against the radar, it is simply fiberglass (like a nose radar), and its metal engine is hidden in radar swamps (like the acoustic panels that are in recording studios so that there is no echo).
          Since eta facet worsens aerodynamics and therefore the F-117 nighthawk was
          it wasn’t a subsonic one or a fighter in general, then when moving to the F-22, they generally simply retracted the anti-lidar stealth, the more so during the day it would be clearly visible in battle (SR-71 like U-2 flew high, there’s a sky like since black, on the contrary, such a color is needed).
          Lidar is an optical location station if you didn’t know.

          2. radar stealth
          provided by application
          - reinforced plastics instead of metal
          - mutual cancellation of reflected radio waves (reverberation, anti-radar swamps),
          - ferrite paint (quadrupole)
          - metamaterials (so-called imaginary reflection)
          - cermet engines (since 2006)

          3. stealth is caught by changing the radar frequency (in the main way there is a detuning from the interfering effect of swamps).
          serial anti-stealth radars starting the MiG-29 do this automatically.
          Because of the sintered metal planes, which by themselves have a low RCS even without the use of the surrounding "swamps", the F-22 (started and almost canceled twice back in the 1980s) began to become a dangerous aircraft only in 2006.
          because of them (cermets) from the hangars in 2005 they rolled out the T-50, which at the very grandfather is older than the T-10-2, F-22 and phobos soil.

          4. Conformal tanks are needed by the F-15E because the air-surface weapon that it carries has a large mass and a large frontal projection, which causes increased air resistance and excessive fuel consumption in cf. with the usual F-15 c with single air-to-air missiles.
          In the F-15SE, they were additionally equipped with anti-radar swamps (these tanks are also suitable for the F-15E).

          5. no one on the harrier in flight to move the nozzle individually does not prohibit, compensating for this insufficient efficiency of the ailerons (and
          rudders / heights) at low speeds and large angles of attack of the wing.

          6 so-called super cruise like “generations” is fiction.
          generations in the west until recently were not. the new-fangled political leaders who ran for a long biscuit from the police department to NATO, still cannot enter anything American or European into the 3rd generation, except for a tornado that is not a fighter.
          in the US, tactical aircraft are graded on:
          Attacker, multirole fighter / bomber, SEAD, close air support, stealth, low observable, air superiority, ELINT
          On a pure afterburner super cruise, for example, the SR-71 flew, it passed air from the air intake past the compressor directly to the afterburner behind the turbine, because the compressor at these speeds is simply no longer needed (a turbine in the compressor station is unnecessary to spin it too). there the incoming air flow to the desired density is compressed in the air intake itself, and it turns out ramjet,
          ramjet (ramjet engine) is on the S-200.

          7. to the question of letter designations and brain-fucking ... (as with the F-117 and F-111, etc.): everywhere they write that the A-12, like the SR-71, was a strategic reconnaissance, although "for photographs" he had to pass over the target, and the letter "A" indicates a completely different purpose. But lop-eared people believe!
          request
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 21 2014 15: 57
          0
          .. especially since all Skunk works were under the authority of the CIA, and the CIA is not involved in bombing, it is the USAF (United States Air Force).
          so not only Americans are stupid.