Military Review

Will Boeing be able to snatch a piece from the F-35 budget?

62
According to the "Military Parity", with a link to fool.com, Boeing representatives say that the characteristics of the deck aircraft EW EA-18G Growler are higher than those of the fifth-generation fighter F-35 Lightning II, which was awarded the title of “technological masterpiece” in countering new threats in all ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum.


But it seems that this is just a ploy for lawmakers to convince them to purchase more EA-22G Growler 18 units for the US Navy before the 2015 year. It is worth noting that if the additional contract is not signed, then Boeing may have to close production in Missouri.

According to the company's specialists, to fully perform combat missions, especially in the “early days of the war,” F-35 fighters will need support from EW aircraft. Otherwise they will be vulnerable to detection by the enemy. The Boeing is confident that at the moment the development of radar technologies is beginning to outpace the development of stealth technologies. In addition, it is noted that China and Russia are developing and using variable frequency radars, infrared sensors, as well as network radars that can detect stealth targets.

In turn, a representative of Lockheed Michael Rein said that “the stealth capabilities of the F-35 are unprecedented in the military aviation. A comprehensive analysis of the combat survivability of the F-35, combined with stealth, advanced sensors, data merging technology, sophisticated electronic countermeasures, showed that it has undeniable advantages over other modern aircraft. ” In other words, Lockheed believes that the Boeing wants to mislead legislators.
Photos used:
http://www.fool.com/
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. diff
    diff April 22 2014 13: 09
    +6
    And there they have a lie too good
    1. SS68SS
      SS68SS April 22 2014 13: 15
      +11
      And they and there is a lie and wherever they are, only a lie and nothing more ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB April 22 2014 13: 27
      +4
      Garbage both planes ... merchants praise their bullshit, if only someone would buy ...
      1. olegkrava
        olegkrava April 22 2014 14: 56
        0
        let them buy Su24, this is better than their 35.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 22 2014 19: 36
          +1
          fool ..................
  2. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam April 22 2014 13: 10
    +2
    the development of radar technologies is beginning to outpace the development of stealth technologies.
    In addition, it is noted that China and Russia are developing and using variable frequency radars, infrared sensors, as well as network radars that can detect stealth targets.

    This is to be expected. It's amazing that this topic has excited aviation for so long. The plane is invisible in a certain frequency range. Change the frequency. It's like in the tank forces: they became defenseless against RPGs, and they created the "Arena" - a complex of active tank protection. It's simple. In words, of course.
  3. svp67
    svp67 April 22 2014 13: 11
    +1
    EA-18G Growler carrier-based fighter
    This is something new. Or a fighter or an electronic warfare plane, one thing. It turns out that Boeing made an electronic warfare plane and rightly expects that the US fleet will buy them ... I think that after the "adventure of Donold-Duck" in the Black Sea and his meeting with our electronic warfare plane, this is a very real prospect ...
    1. Manul
      Manul April 22 2014 15: 07
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      I think that after the "adventure of Donold-Duck" in the Black Sea and his meeting with our electronic warfare aircraft, this is a very real prospect ...

      How much can we discuss the use of electronic warfare with our Su-24 against Donald Cook? I have never seen evidence or official confirmation anywhere. I myself would like to believe in it. But for now, a beautiful fairy tale, turning into hatred.
  4. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 22 2014 13: 11
    +5
    So who is stronger - Boeing or Lockheed? It’s more profitable for us that additional electronic warfare aircraft are not produced in the USA. And so, let them gnaw each other's throats, gentlemen mattresses.
  5. Aleksey11
    Aleksey11 April 22 2014 13: 11
    +9
    F-35 is a song. Well it is necessary to create such a monster. Grandma eats and eats wassat and still not get enough.
    This is what the desire to create "everything in one bottle" leads to, as well as Aegis.
    1. Duke
      Duke April 22 2014 14: 19
      0
      F-35 is a song. Well it is necessary to create such a monster. Eats grandmother and eats wassat and still can not get enough.

      Like past stealth, for example F-115.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 22 2014 16: 56
        +2
        Quote: Duke
        F-115.


        F-117 !!!
        1. Duke
          Duke April 23 2014 00: 34
          +1
          I agree, it was wrong.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 22 2014 15: 15
      -2
      it was bought in the Russian Federation in 1992 for 500 thousand (Yak-141), adding anti-radar reverb swamps to the F-15 in order to get the F-15SE (as the Americans did with the Yak-141), like the F-15 it’s not a completely different plane does.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 22 2014 18: 16
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        It was bought in the Russian Federation in 1992 for 500 thousand (Yak-141)


        Not bought it, but the documentation for the Yak-141 to create a power plant F-35B.

        Quote: Kassandra
        adding anti-radar reverb swamps to the F-15 to make the F-15SE


        Do you even know what the F-15SE is fool ?!

        Quote: Kassandra
        like the F-15 doesn’t do it completely different.


        From the MiG-29 - the MiG-35 is possible, but from the F-15 - the F-15SE means no))) Where is the logic? At least learn to lie smartly! wassat
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 22 2014 18: 50
          -1
          The purchase of engine documentation takes 5,5 seconds (while the transaction goes to the grandmother for the folder with it), and not the transfer of the full technology throughout the aircraft and consultations of the specialized firms Lockheed and Rolls-Royce that were present on the territory of secure enterprises for 1,5 years asking questions all this time. Including those who did not hesitate to ask questions why their "similar" mu-mu / dovina did not work (even in 60% of life size it exploded at the stand, if you mean the engine).
          Distributed lift, they thought they thought the 6-8 processor onboard supercomputer, but it turned out that there were 2 levers and two wings. It was not at the harrier - it is built around just one turbofan engine.
          The layout with balancing and flow around the supersonic STOVL is also very different from the subsonic harrier, they also had no experience in this - that is, they had no experience with F-35 / Yak-141, not only with dvig.

          You’ve already been explained the logic of F35 a hundred times - the MiG-35 from the MiG-29 is NOT a simple suspension of conformal fuel tanks.
          see also item 4 of 7 in a long comment on a link that you, like half the rest, did not read, or forgot:
          http://topwar.ru/44418-mirovoy-debyut-f-35-sostoitsya-v-velikobritanii.html#comm
          ent-id-2330964
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 22 2014 19: 11
            +1
            Quote: Kassandra
            The purchase of engine documentation takes 5,5 seconds (while the transaction goes to the grandmother for the folder with it), and not the transfer of the full technology throughout the aircraft and consultations of the specialized firms Lockheed and Rolls-Royce that were present on the territory of secure enterprises for 1,5 years asking questions all this time. Including those who did not hesitate to ask questions why their "similar" mu-mu / dovina did not work (even in 60% of its actual size it exploded at the stand, if you mean the engine). Distributed lift they thought that 6-8 processor onboard supercomputer, but it turned out that there were 2 levers and two wings. The harrier did not have it - it was built around only one turbofan engine. The configuration with balancing and flow around the supersonic STOVL is also very different from the subsonic harrier, they also had no experience in this - that is, in nothing according to the F-35 / Yak -141 they had no experience, not only in dviglou.


            I agree with this, I won’t argue. The United States really had no experience in creating VTOL, but it concerns only VTOL, because F-35A and F-35C have no relationship to the Yak-141. The Yak was borrowed for only the F-35B.

            Quote: Kassandra
            You’ve already been explained the logic of F35 a hundred times - the MiG-35 from the MiG-29 is NOT a simple suspension of conformal fuel tanks.


            And I also explained to you one hundred times that the F-15E and F-15SE differ from the F-15 not only in conformal tanks.

            Quote: Kassandra
            see also item 4 of 7 in a long comment on a link that you, like half the rest, did not read, or forgot: http: //topwar.ru/44418-mirovoy-debyut-f-35-sostoitsya-v-velikobritanii .htm
            l # comment-id-2330964


            I read it, it’s just that you again, without knowing anything, began to assert, and all the same, it became clear to me that I won’t be able to convince. Yes, and then I didn’t have time.
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 22 2014 19: 31
              -1
              The Yak-141 (from which the F-35B was copied) is related to both the F-35C and the F-35A, because these two are obtained from the F-35B by "throwing out extra parts" responsible for STOVL and nothing else. The lifting rotator is thrown out and a tank (F-35A) is put in its place, then the thresholds are welded on and a landing hook (F-35C) is attached to them.
              in the same way, you can cut the roof with a Lada, or hang spoilers and take out the spare tire from the trunk, and say that you invented a new car

              F-15E "differ" only in tanks and nothing else. in SE, moldings are still glued to the face, (while in the process). and in their tanks they have stuffed foil that dampens radio waves by repeated reflections.
              and all this turbidity with a modification was invented to fool the Ivanushki and Saidushki, who do not take into account that all F-15s can be easily turned into drums in less than half an hour, and then back into fighters, on the contrary.

              you have time now.
              I think that you just read the truth to you across. besides, the point of your stay here is to compost the brains of the little russians and Arabs that the STOL is bad. because when their aircraft are destroyed at the airfields in June 1941 and in June 1967, that’s good for you.
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 22 2014 20: 10
                +1
                Quote: Kassandra
                The Yak-141 (from which the F-35B was copied) is related to both the F-35C and the F-35A, because these two are obtained from the F-35B by "throwing out extra parts" responsible for STOVL and nothing else. The lifting rotator is thrown out and a tank (F-35A) is put in its place, then the thresholds are welded on and a landing hook (F-35C) is attached to them. Just as you can cut off the roof with a Zhiguli, or hang spoilers and remove the spare tire from the trunk, and say that you invented a new car


                Okay, let's say that this is so))) But why does the United States, which already perfectly knows how to create fighters, "copy" the entire Yak ??? Can you reason logically? Americans are not Chinese!

                Quote: Kassandra
                F-15E "differ" only in tanks and nothing else.


                You yourself forget what you’re saying, I won’t understand. You yourself said that another difference is the spark (which I also spoke about); it has a different radar (type AN / APG-70 at Yandex); hanging containers LANTIRN and so on .F-15E is neither F-15, finally understand!

                Quote: Kassandra
                In SE, moldings are still being glued to the face, (while in the process). and they’re filled with foil in the tanks, which repeatedly extinguishes the radio waves. And they invented all this turbidity with a modification to fool the Ivanushki and Saidushki, who don’t take into account that all F-15s can easily be turned into drums in less than half an hour, and then back into fighters vice versa.


                If your words were true, then there would be no F-15E and F-15SE fighters. And the old F-15A would continue to serve. The logic is like a child)))

                Quote: Kassandra
                you have time now.


                I'm not going to waste time on trolling! I'm sorry!

                Quote: Kassandra
                I think that you just read the truth to you across. besides, the point of your stay here is to compost the brains of the little russians and Arabs that the STOL is bad. because when their aircraft are destroyed at the airfields in June 1941 and in June 1967, that’s good for you.


                I’m not trying to prove that VTOL is not necessary. For helicopter carriers they are just right, but not for land. Your words were relevant for 1941 and 1967, when the aircraft had an ancient avionics and stealth technologies were not planned. words are not relevant for about half a century.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 22 2014 23: 15
                  -1
                  Not permissible, but it was.
                  Then what of the F-15 or F-22 you do not STOVL. from the MiG-21 too. They made from Mirage but he could fly only 15 minutes.
                  Yes, the Chinese are not Americans — Russians and Germans do not go there to emigrate, and Yak was not sold to them either. Although there is a J-20.

                  This is not what you still do not want to understand what "modification" is in general. This is when the internal armament, glider, engine changes.
                  The radar is the same. Sparky D is.

                  You're trolling here. And brains ... about 1941 and 1967 with their "ancient avionics, and stealth technologies and plans were not"when all Soviet and Egyptian aviation was destroyed at the airfields. And from such a scenario, it is precisely the non-aerodrome base that STOVL / VTOL aircraft provide that saves from such a scenario.
                  1. supertiger21
                    supertiger21 April 23 2014 16: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Not permissible, but it was.


                    No... stop Still, let’s say, because in reality THIS (in your understanding) WASN’T !!!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Then what of the F-15 or F-22 you do not STOVL. from the MiG-21 too.


                    Why do they need GDP, if they already don’t kick anyone back. The MiG-21bis could well stand up to Harrier if they don’t have AIM-7 missiles.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Although there is a J-20.


                    That is, you want to say that the J-20 is an VTOL belay ??? Read about this aircraft, it is (or at least trying to) an analogue of the American F-22 and our T-50.


                    Quote: Kassandra
                    This is not what you still do not want to understand what "modification" is in general. This is when the internal armament, airframe, engine changes. The radar is the same. Sparky D is there.


                    Gags and I didn’t know fellow ))) In your opinion, what am I trying to rub for a week with you ??? So you yourself answered your own question, the Su-35C is also a modification of the Su-27.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    You are busy trolling here.


                    To begin with, learn the definition of "trolling". A troll is someone who argues for the sake of a dispute, does not recognize anything, tries to anger the opponent, and likes to abruptly translate topics when he starts to "lose".

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And brains, about 1941 and 1967 with their "ancient avionics, and stealth technologies were not in the plans," when all Soviet and Egyptian aviation was destroyed at the airfields. And from such a scenario just saves the non-aerodrome bazirovaine that STOVL / VTOL aircraft give.


                    Hypothetically, if the Egyptians had a Harrier, then the outcome of the war would not have changed anyway. The pilots from them are nowhere.
                    And we delivered hundreds of MiG-21s and Su-7s to these boobies WITHOUT CARE. Not only that 3 years after Doomsday Won, they completely severed all relations with the USSR. It is better not to mess with countries like Egypt at all, because ... they are still the devils.
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 24 2014 13: 41
                      -1
                      It was with me. And on the Internet it is written in sufficient detail.
                      and your "WAS NOT" brain..batel, this is not "PERMISSIBLE" but already a statement.

                      "Why does the plane need a runway?" Answer, someone is already this unique!

                      MiG-21 will be shot down by Harrier just like Mirage / Dagger
                      to get out of the duel with Harrier (but not defeat him) became possible only on the MiG-29, and only if there is nothing supersonic even like the F-104

                      That is, it was written that the J-20 is Chinese,

                      The Su-27 differs just from the Su-30 by a glider, outwardly it just looks like an aerodynamic.
                      The F-15E is no different, especially a glider, from the F-15. all differences trailed.

                      Not only, and you have even worse trolling (see the first paragraph).

                      In practice, the Brezhnevs did not deliver to them the MiG-21 but defective trash, 90% of which could not even just stay in the air. because the national composition of the Politburo and the Knesset did not differ much. Then, when Egypt left under the USA because of this, they were not joking with Syria anymore.
                      1. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 April 24 2014 18: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        "Why does the plane need a runway?" Answer, someone is already this unique!


                        Why answer if for land these aircraft are needed as a goat button accordion. At least look at the modern doctrine of the use of VTOL.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The MiG-21 will be shot down by Harrier just like the Mirage / Dagger exiting the duel with Harrier (but not defeating him) became possible only on the MiG-29, and only if there is nothing supersonic even like the F-104


                        Oh well))) In your opinion, the USSR aviation until 1983 trembled with fear at the mere mention of Harrier))) Bullshit on you, on the Harrier GR.3 is enough even with the skillful use of the MiG-17.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The Su-27 differs just from the Su-30 by a glider, outwardly it is simply similar in aerodynamics. The F-15E is no different, especially the glider, from the F-15. all differences trailed.


                        Well, b_o_l_v_a_n fool ))) The Su-30 on the glider from the Su-27UB practically does not differ (only the addition of PGO) Otherwise, its difference is the newest avionics and the air-blast system on engines. The F-15E differs from the F-15 in approximately the same way.
                      2. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 24 2014 19: 54
                        -1
                        Me Research Institute "Bet" what doctrine you came up with there.
                        These aircraft were created for aerodrome-free basing so that there are no such tricks with aviation (destruction at airfields) as in 1941 and 1967 that you love so much.

                        Yes, trembling. Exactly what. Whole half a year. And from the F-14 Navy trembling for 2 years but not so much. Nothing will suffice for him (hayer) in close maneuver combat.

                        Dumb - you. Su-30 is inside a completely different plane.
                        any F-15 is converted into an F-15E by hanging conformal tanks and a WTO container (and vice versa) in less than half an hour. pornography with "modification" was invented in order to hide this fact from the goy's brains, when suddenly a whole cloud (1600) of these "F-15Es" will fly in instead of only 400 on the list

                        Based on their 1st and 3rd paragraph, you are simply a paid Zionist-propindos troll.
                      3. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 April 25 2014 19: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        You are the idiot. The Su-30 is a completely different aircraft inside. Any F-15 is converted into an F-15E by hanging conformal tanks and a WTO container (and vice versa) in less than half an hour. pornography with "modification" was invented in order to hide this fact from the goy's brains, when suddenly a whole cloud (1600) of these "F-15Es" will fly in instead of only 400 on the list


                        Agree that only a boob can write the same thing that you are now!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Based on their 1st and 3rd paragraph, you are simply a paid Zionist-propindos troll.


                        To walk so to walk))) Well, you are a pseudo-patriot with childish logic, and the troll with a paralleled universe is still the same! fellow
                      4. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 27 2014 21: 29
                        0
                        walk pioneer ...

                        take another 30 kopecks from the shelf,
                        (you will exchange it for the agora at the rate).
                      5. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 27 2014 22: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        walk pioneer ...
                        take another 30 kopecks from the shelf,
                        (you will exchange it for the agora at the rate).

                        What could not convince? Your arguments, probably, were rather weak and were not supported by eminent experts?
                      6. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 27 2014 23: 03
                        0
                        yes, useless, they will tie a bow to him there ... the pioneer will disappear without earning his first shekel from the Moroccans.
                      7. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 27 2014 23: 04
                        -1
                        Well, something like this:
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmp8LbxLAyg
  • Vyacheslav73
    Vyacheslav73 April 22 2014 13: 12
    +4
    The Yankees are also sawing budget money ...
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 22 2014 13: 14
      +4
      Quote: Vyacheslav73
      The Yankees are also sawing budget money ...


      And how? Ours before them still grow and grow. This is the issue of the absence of corruption in the US and the EU.
      1. Aleksandr12
        Aleksandr12 April 22 2014 13: 21
        +3
        Quote: Vyacheslav73

        And how? Ours before them still grow and grow. This is the issue of the absence of corruption in the US and the EU.

        I hope that they will underdevelop smile
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 22 2014 15: 16
          0
          in general, one hebrew actually.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 22 2014 13: 50
        -1
        Quote: mamont5
        Ours before them still grow and grow. This is about the absence of corruption in the US and the EU.

        You confuse corruption costs and production. In the first case, the output is zero without a stick, in the second a modern airplane.
        1. Fiero
          Fiero April 22 2014 16: 05
          0
          Production costs equal to THREE GDP of Ukraine?
        2. Fiero
          Fiero April 22 2014 16: 06
          0
          Production costs equal to THREE GDP of Ukraine?
      3. Oleg14774
        Oleg14774 April 22 2014 15: 08
        0
        Quote: mamont5
        And how? Ours before them still grow and grow.

        here it’s just better not to grow! :)
    2. sledge
      sledge April 22 2014 13: 14
      +2
      They not only saw them but also steal
    3. Igor Gor
      Igor Gor April 22 2014 13: 40
      +2
      Only they have a rubber budget, as much as they want to print as many greenbacks ... until these diarrheal papers are economically stopped and the collar with a muzzle is not worn)))
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • Arh
    Arh April 22 2014 13: 15
    +2
    ))))))))) The Boeing is again awry)))))))))
  • bulvas
    bulvas April 22 2014 13: 21
    +3
    It remains to supplement the idea that in order to promote sales of the F-35, it was necessary to brew porridge in Ukraine in order to show the NATO allies the need to increase defense budgets.

    How many reports have there been that NATO members are decreasing F-35 bid requests
  • cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 April 22 2014 13: 23
    +5
    The USA has been and remains for Russia the enemy No. 1. There can be no illusions. Whatever they do, we will endure. negative
    1. MBA78
      MBA78 April 22 2014 15: 10
      +2
      let it be better that they don’t do anything ... rust and rot ...
  • fedor13
    fedor13 April 22 2014 13: 25
    +2
    Let them send, and we will test. laughing
  • mig31
    mig31 April 22 2014 13: 25
    +3
    They already had "invisibility", I would like the following to be "invisible" ...
  • Not angry
    Not angry April 22 2014 13: 27
    +2
    Quote: diff
    And there they have a lie too good



    There they always have a lie. wassat In another they do not know how. laughing
  • Vorodis_vA
    Vorodis_vA April 22 2014 13: 31
    0
    even before the heap they dump loot into unmanned fighters, and in the conditions of real military operations they are useless, electronic warfare and air defense systems deal with them once or twice.
  • andj61
    andj61 April 22 2014 13: 46
    0
    I once met the info long ago that in 70-80, through the detected but not exposed spies, our United States leaked information to the United States on developments in the field of radar, which was then indirectly repeatedly confirmed in the 90s. Based on this, the stealth technology was developed in the states, including for the F-22 and F-35. And the development of our radars was already taking into account this. As a result, our perfectly see the invisible. And now the use of 5th generation American aircraft without electronic warfare is recognized as dangerous. True, this may be a commercial move for the sale of EW funds.
    Although, the experience of Yugoslavia shows that the S-125 air defense system, which has been in service since 1958 (the final version of 1961), could well bring down the F-117 invisibility. Moreover, when working alone, not as part of a regiment or brigade, without ACS, which significantly reduces its capabilities.
    Therefore, experts recognize that our Su-35 generation 4 ++, created without stealth technology, is not inferior to these Americans, or even surpasses them.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 22 2014 19: 41
      +2
      Only one nighthawk was shot down, which flew constantly along one route and was detected by optical guidance. Are you kidding?
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 22 2014 20: 02
        -5
        they themselves recognize the loss of 4x
        over Baghdad in 2003, they were shot down in 18 pieces in just one night, after which they were retired.
        though they managed to bomb almost everything they wanted.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 22 2014 23: 52
          +2
          What kind of wet fantasies? Is there at least some evidence, give at least one serious source a link? Reading this ridiculous is already ridiculous.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 23 2014 00: 18
            0
            But isn't it easier to send you "so serious" to Google?
            bully

            just like that, airplanes (F-117) suddenly for no reason are withdrawn from service, while those released 10 years earlier, they are still flying themselves.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre April 23 2014 15: 48
              +1
              We all know what Google gives out. ONE plane was lost. There is no evidence of the loss of a larger number. The rest is just your speculation. A premature write-off is never a proof.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 24 2014 13: 06
                -1
                No, why? Google gives out about 18 downed over Baghdad in just one night. No need la la la ...
                The Americans already officially recognize the loss of not "just one", but 4 (probably they forgot to consult with you, the Sokhnutov trolls),
                although a quarter of their park was actually lost.
                laughing
                Premature write-off is the most proof.
                1. patsantre
                  patsantre April 24 2014 14: 54
                  +1
                  Well, at a direct request, he finds Old about 18 shot down. True, you can write anything, absolutely no evidence of this nonsense.
                  Maybe you bother to show where, when and who claimed the loss of 4 nighthocks? I don’t know from which nedopatriotic murders you subtract nonsense, but you need to somehow filter out explicit nonsense from realistic information, don’t you?
                  There can be a lot of reasons for premature write-offs, from where the confidence that it is the one you are talking about?
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 24 2014 15: 32
                    -3
                    You can write, here you are a sack here and continue to write about only one shot down, although the Americans themselves have long recognized the loss of 4. So you have nonsense.
                    Where did you find that the Americans themselves recognize the loss of 4 - also find through Google, yourself, as you have found about 18 before.
                    1. patsantre
                      patsantre April 24 2014 21: 28
                      +2
                      Nothing of the kind was found on requests for "official losses of the F-117", "the Americans admitted the loss of 4 F-117s". Apparently, some stupid troll like you invented once again something that did not exist, and you read and believed.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 25 2014 02: 24
                        -2
                        look for escho ...

                        that is, they just removed all the F-117 miracles from armament and at once?
                      2. patsantre
                        patsantre April 25 2014 13: 02
                        +2
                        Maybe you just show me where you read it, or admit that you yourself came up with?
                        Maybe F-117 and the shit is an airplane, maybe there really are losses denied by the amers, but there is no direct evidence for this, only speculation, and it makes no sense to discuss myths.
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 25 2014 16: 33
                        -2
                        maybe you just. run around and find yourself?

                        And you will estimate that due to the loss of only one aircraft "all 64" (in fact, about 40 remaining), no one is removing from service?
              2. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 24 2014 18: 03
                +1
                Quote: patsantre
                I don’t know from which nedopatriotic murders you subtract nonsense, but you need to somehow filter out explicit nonsense from realistic information, don’t you?


                Anton, let’s leave this troll. Its conclusions are based only on subjective fabrications from the head. Only you will spend your nerves with Cassandra, but you won’t convince him. He carried nonsense, carries nonsense, and I suppose that he will continue to bear it.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 24 2014 20: 07
                  0
                  jump still baby, they will "confirm", yeah
                  see at least "unconfirmed losses of the F-117" in the wiki article in Russian about it
                  for the entire 2nd Iraqi exactly at least 15 cars were lost
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre April 24 2014 21: 26
                    +1
                    These are unconfirmed losses, there is no evidence for them, except speculation, how can you be sure that they definitely lost at least 15 cars? Before that, you generally brought other numbers.
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 25 2014 02: 12
                    -2
                    This is data confirmed by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

                    the first invisibility was dumped on the second day of the 1st Iraq war
                    samples taken from it were taken out of Iraq.

                    really ippet you?
                    what will happen to you if you are reminded of 3375 aircraft lost by pendos in Vietnam ...
                  3. patsantre
                    patsantre April 25 2014 13: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    This is data confirmed by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


                    Can you at least once give a link to the source, where did the information come from? Or is this source your sick imagination?
                  4. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 25 2014 16: 35
                    -1
                    Call and ask the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, an Internet worm, ask for a link from them.
                  5. patsantre
                    patsantre April 26 2014 00: 38
                    +1
                    Scarecrow, you probably personally called and asked them about the loss of the F-117 in Iraq? Thrust yourself deeper, from where it came out and do not yap here anymore, disgrace yourself and your whole family.
                  6. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 27 2014 22: 11
                    -1
                    No, I worked as a cleaner there. laughing
                    and you disgrace your kind
                  7. supertiger21
                    supertiger21 April 28 2014 12: 25
                    -1
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    No, I worked as a cleaner there.


                    Here is my flooring!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    and you disgrace your kind


                    And how does he disgrace his kind? By writing the truth and not a lie, and not a troll, unlike you wassat ?!
                  8. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 28 2014 14: 29
                    0
                    the same as you (that you just intoned).
                    laughing
                  9. supertiger21
                    supertiger21 April 28 2014 14: 47
                    -1
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    the same as you


                    And you didn’t have enough mind for a larger argument, troll ?? ??? And how am I to disgrace it?
                  10. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 28 2014 15: 19
                    0
                    Are you worth it? then is the point?
                    crying
                    so that you yourself scrambled higher (as if, repeat).
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra April 25 2014 02: 24
    -1
    saw the shura, saw ...
  • dr.star75
    dr.star75 April 22 2014 13: 47
    +2
    As they say nothing personal, just business.
  • Cossacks
    Cossacks April 22 2014 13: 51
    +1
    Whatever it was, this is the next 5th generation airplane. F-22 is discontinued. But Poghosyan, know for yourself, adds pluses to the Su-27, the T-10 flew 37 years ago.
  • 3vs
    3vs April 22 2014 14: 23
    0
    Yes, in uniforms as elsewhere - sawing budget money.
    Who hangs more noodles, but the rollback tastes better will promise - that is the order.
  • Dyatko Nebatko
    Dyatko Nebatko April 22 2014 14: 41
    0
    In my memory, that there was a certain broadcast on TV and there one of our honored engineers (scouts?) Said that one of the American manufacturing companies always lied about the characteristics of their aircraft, supposedly so that the Russians did not know what to fear, and the other honestly indicated their data. But his conclusion was built that characteristics were not attributed to the Russians, but that Israel and Arabia would get all kinds of excited and buy these planes ...
    And who is still lying? I would like to say that Lightning manufacturers are lying ...
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 28 2014 00: 46
      -1
      General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) usually lied and McDonnell Douglas wrote the truth
      the point is that with the F-35 Lockheed, so far, he himself does not know the whole truth, which is worse than his lies.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 28 2014 12: 23
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin)


        General Dynamics is not Lockheed Martin! These are completely different companies, it’s just the F-16 that it developed and produced for 15 years, and then (in 1993) the license for this plane was given to Lockheed Martin.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 28 2014 14: 27
          0
          not a license, but the entire GD aviation division transferred to Lockheed in 1993,
          GD returned to the aviation business in 1999 with the purchase of Gulfstream (business jets).

          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 28 2014 14: 48
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            not a license, but the entire aviation division of GD passed to Lockheed in 1993, GD returned to the aviation business in 1999 with the purchase of Gulfstream (business jets).


            This is not the point, but the fact that these are different aircraft building companies, but not how you wrote!
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 28 2014 15: 18
              0
              the bottom line is that mine wrote correctly, but yours didn’t. and continues ...
  • Trevis
    Trevis April 22 2014 15: 22
    +1
    Now Yaniki left to arrange a war where it will be possible to test the F-35. Syria no longer feeds)
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 22 2014 16: 52
      0
      let them test themselves in the bathtub; for sure, he’s definitely not suitable.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 22 2014 17: 43
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        let them test themselves in the bathtub; for sure, he’s definitely not suitable.


        Although I am not an F-35 fan, this fighter is very dangerous and at the moment it is surpassed only by the Raptor and PAK FA. Your stupid sarcasm is useless. negative
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 22 2014 18: 12
          -1
          when you already look at it, smart guy with knowledge of English?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
          can start at 1:45
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 22 2014 18: 40
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            when you already look at it, smart guy with knowledge of English?


            I do not speak English very well, therefore I am not able to fully understand the essence of what was said.

            Quote: Kassandra
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nwможно начать с 1:45


            This is just an expression of your subjective opinion and no more. I hope you are not so stupid as to perceive all this as pure truth. belay
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 22 2014 19: 02
              0
              wow! you couldn’t understand what was there?
              it was an interview with one of the main developers of the F-16 and A-10
              in short: "F-35 is as turkey" and "no wing - no turn".
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 22 2014 20: 17
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                wow! you couldn’t understand what was there?


                In some places, the meaning of the words is clear.

                Quote: Kassandra
                it was an interview with one of the main developers of the F-16 and A-10


                Only where it was said (or written).

                Quote: Kassandra
                in short: "F-35 is as turkey" and "no wing - no turn".


                I see, that's just how I understand the words "F-35 as a Turk" request ?!
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 22 2014 23: 24
                  0
                  But for the most part - no.

                  here (or here) in the video title.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey

                  not "like a Turk" but "like a turkey" in the sense of slapping him, and sit down to eat please.
                  untranslatable English folklore.
  • Lesorub
    Lesorub April 22 2014 16: 35
    +2
    In any case, F 18 is not a competitor for F 35, the United States has invested heavily in F 35, and this is a new technological level for both detection tools, weapons and, of course, stealth technologies.

    Quote: Vorodis_vA
    even before the heap they dump loot into unmanned fighters, and in the conditions of real military operations they are useless, electronic warfare and air defense systems deal with them once or twice.


    Drones will soon occupy their niche in the Air Force, like Russia, the United States and other countries, since they are an effective means of destroying ground targets, and in the future air ones (and pilots are safe).
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 22 2014 17: 01
    +2
    Both Lockheed and Boeing are trying to hang on to their ears in order to achieve big contracts, to take their glory for the pure truth is not worth it. However, the EA-18G and F-35 are good in themselves, but I think that the Penguin is still stronger, because it is not. to. Avionics and stealth technologies are higher.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman April 22 2014 18: 15
    +1
    "Boeing", "Lokhkid", "IGL" .... give a shit about shooting down our air defense.
    Russian air defense - this is not a no-fly zone over Libya to build!
    So all this is the next cut.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 22 2014 18: 21
      0
      Quote: silver_roman
      "Boeing", "Lokhkid", "IGL" .... give a shit about shooting down our air defense. Russian air defense is not a no-fly zone over Libya to build! So all this is just another cut.


      For the most part, I agree in some ways, but underestimating the enemy means digging your own grave. crying
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman April 22 2014 18: 48
        +1
        Quote: supertiger21
        For the most part, I agree in some ways, but underestimating the enemy means digging your own grave.

        I agree. my previous comment should be taken as humor. it’s just that the main battle and the decisions of the fate of entire states take place at international meetings, and not on the battlefields!
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 22 2014 19: 02
          +1
          Quote: silver_roman
          it’s just that the main battle and the decisions of the fate of entire states take place at international meetings, and not on the battlefields!


          Totally agree good ! Strong is the one who knows how to defeat with his tongue and not with his fists. angry
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 28 2014 00: 51
          0
          this is when the south was bombed and then got into Iraq-2 and all the UN Security Council pretended that the paw sucked?