Military Review

Australia will spend 12 billions of dollars on F-35 fighters

86
According to the "Russian Planet", The Australian government has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (USA) to supply X-NUMX F-58 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter fighter-bombers with a total value of 35 billion dollars. Thus, by the year of 11.6, the Australian Air Force will be equipped with 2020 of such machines.


Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that along with the Super Hornet and Growler electronic warfare aircraft, which are already in service, the new F-35 will provide full protection of the airspace, allowing reconnaissance, reconnaissance and observation.

The first F-35 will be delivered to Australia in 2018 year, and its commissioning is scheduled for 2020 year. In addition, the contract provides for the cost of acquiring additional weapons, as well as training of service personnel. Almost 1.5 billion dollars will be needed for the construction of the necessary infrastructure in the territory of the military bases of Tyndall and Williamtown.

It is worth noting that the F-35 will come to replace the Hornet fighter jets, which have been operated by the Australian Air Force for 30 years.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, opposition officials commented on the government’s decision. In particular, the liberal MP Dennis Jensen considered him “idiotic,” and according to the leader of the Green Party, Adam Bandt, the government once again demonstrated its extravagance. “Tony Abbott’s priority should be pensions, not inefficient planes,” he said.

It is worth noting that Lockheed Martin Aeronautic F-35 fighters buy seven more countries: Canada, Great Britain, Norway, Turkey, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands.
Photos used:
http://rusplt.ru/
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mig31
    mig31 April 24 2014 14: 39
    +4
    They have paranoia there too ...
    1. Salamander
      Salamander April 24 2014 14: 45
      +6
      Yes, if paranoia ... But "the doctor (USA) said to the morgue - it means to the morgue." They will also buy B-29, if ordered. Besides, what else can a US vassal buy? F-22s are not for sale ...
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 24 2014 17: 55
        -5
        let the Yak-141 buy from which for 500 thousand tanks the F-35 was copied, cool ... lol
        the point is that they need to cut the loot, and not so that all this will fly later.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 24 2014 18: 40
          -1
          Calm down already, trolls, you can’t justify one of your vysers, just guesses and ravings from obscure sources.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 25 2014 00: 03
            -4
            catch, peddy:
            https://www.google.ru/#newwindow=1&q=f-35%20copy%20of%20yak-141
            really cuts the uterus?
            1. patsantre
              patsantre April 26 2014 00: 45
              +1
              The same layout does not make it a copy! You can understand that in addition to the glider, the aircraft has avionics and propulsion, which the F-35 and the yak have nothing in common at all! As for the airframe, it cannot be a priori a copy either, if only because the Yak, unlike the lightning, has nothing to do with stealth technologies, it does not have internal weapon compartments. It only applied some of the best practices from Yak and nothing more.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 27 2014 21: 24
                -2
                it makes a copy of what it was copied from, including the same layout. It was officially copied for 1,5 years, and not only the entire design but also the entire technology was copied.
                for stealth, the glider is encircled by radar swamps.
                engine over time changed to another. 22 years have passed
                converted to F-15SE F-15 (with conformal tanks and compartments for weapons in them) it is still F-15. in which engines and avionics also change over time
                also with the F-35 and Yak-141.
                Americans for stealth didn’t even change the round nozzle to a flat one, as they had long been established on the F-117 and F-22 - in the least ...
                Mercedes-Brabus with moldings and spoilers is still a Mercedes, not Audi and not Honda.
      2. clidon
        clidon April 24 2014 17: 55
        0
        Can buy F-18, F-15SE, F-16.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 24 2014 18: 35
          0
          before the 2nd Iraqi they, together with Rosvor, seriously considered the purchase of the Su and T-90 (even the T-95) and they were happy with this opportunity. all the more from one type of Chinese and Indonesian dryers they were not well.
          at least their rifles are Austrian, and the tanks are mostly German.
          If they choose from what is written, then almost everything else will be bought by the Super Hornites. Or read French. Swedish aircraft for them will be small in range.
    2. Civil
      Civil April 24 2014 14: 51
      +2
      So much they asked Fe-22, in the end I had to take what was forced to kick
      1. Desert Fox
        Desert Fox April 24 2014 15: 17
        +3
        besides, it’s not enough to buy an airplane and it must also be serviced. the cost of one F-35 flight hour is approaching the cost of the F-22 flight hour ($ 44000). Although once said the amount of $ 24000 for f-35.

        We wish you success in feeding these aircraft. How much more taxpayer money is thrown into the pipe ...
        1. clidon
          clidon April 24 2014 17: 56
          0
          When they enter service, the cost of an hour will drop significantly.
  2. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim April 24 2014 14: 39
    +1
    Better buy f-18, the sense of more costs is less (if you really want to buy American weapons!).
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 24 2014 16: 50
      0
      Quote: tronin.maxim
      Better buy f-18, the sense is more costs less


      I would not say so, because the F-18 does not have a single significant advantage over the F-35. The only plus of the Super Hornet is its lower price, in the usual configuration up to $ 67 million. But according to experts, the Hornet may lose this advantage , because. it is planned that from 2020 the F-35A (standard version) will cost $ 75 million, relatively cheap for the 5th generation.
      1. tronin.maxim
        tronin.maxim April 24 2014 17: 52
        +3
        Quote: supertiger21
        because it is planned that from 2020 of the year F-35A (standard version) will cost $ 75 million

        Oh well! Something vague doubts torment me! winked
        1. And Us Rat
          And Us Rat April 24 2014 23: 30
          +1
          Quote: tronin.maxim
          Quote: supertiger21
          because it is planned that from 2020 of the year F-35A (standard version) will cost $ 75 million

          Oh well! Something vague doubts torment me! winked

          $ 75 million is mentioned in only one deal - this is the estimated price of the F-35I, roughly speaking, the body, engine, and basic control system are therefore cheap.
      2. clidon
        clidon April 24 2014 17: 57
        0
        75 million dollars without engines? And he promised that 70 for a "carcass" is not the lower limit.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 24 2014 18: 22
          -1
          Quote: clidon
          75 million bucks is it without engines?


          Lockheed-Martin said with engine. "No engine" is prices until 2018.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 24 2014 19: 36
          +1
          there is one engine
          it’s 112 million apiece, and Pierre Spray is projected to grow to 200 million.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 24 2014 20: 03
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            there is one engine


            What did you want?

            Quote: Kassandra
            now 112mln apiece


            and "now" no one is going to buy it in series. With the start of mass production, the price of the main modification of the F-35A will cost $ 75-80 million. Only the price of the minor modifications "B" and "C" will be $ 90-110 million.

            Quote: Kassandra
            and Pierre Spray is projected to grow to 200mn.


            These are already rumors. An airplane that will produce 2800-3100 units may not cost as much for each.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm April 24 2014 23: 34
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              there is one engine

              Quote: supertiger21
              What did you want?

              Quote: clidon
              75 million bucks is it without engines?

              Kassandra posted by clidon
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 25 2014 01: 56
              0
              it said "75 million bucks is this without engines?"

              they will be made only about 1000-500. in this case it will cost more than 300-200 million
          2. patsantre
            patsantre April 24 2014 21: 20
            0
            Get out of your parallel little world, you only see what you want to see. Why should prices rise when they start riveting hundreds of them a year?
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 25 2014 02: 00
              0
              from the fact that they don’t start. F-22 also somehow did not start
              plans to have 1 raptor for 2-3 lightning, no more
              1. patsantre
                patsantre April 25 2014 13: 17
                +1
                They fell on F-22 just the same, but began to grow again after the cessation of production was announced.
                You simply cannot in logic and reasoning.
                And I feel like you're just a fat troll. All the arguments you bring are taken from your sick imagination. In my opinion, everyone knows, and the Pentagon, the Air Force and Lockheed Martin have repeatedly stated that they intend to purchase 2400 F-35s, of which 1763, if I am not mistaken, for the Air Force. How many of them are there for each raptor?
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 25 2014 16: 38
                  -1
                  Also on the F-35 will announce and prices will rise - your logic thought about these?
                  there are at least three more patients here besides you.
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre April 26 2014 14: 40
                    0
                    By your own logic, we can say that all our equipment will be announced and prices will rise. Aren't you tired of carrying nonsense? That's when and if they announce - then you'll post another vyser here. They have no choice, they have nothing more to buy because the fleet is aging.
  3. Salamander
    Salamander April 24 2014 14: 39
    +15
    Tom F-35, this f-35 ... Girls - sale!))) Soon we will measure the country's GDP in F-35))) It is still difficult to judge its combat qualities, but in my opinion, a typical battle on f-35 will look like this:
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 24 2014 17: 58
      0
      Interestingly, but they will require replacing Windows on it with poppy wasps?
      (Apple type headquarters sits in Perth, Australia) crying
      1. clidon
        clidon April 24 2014 18: 07
        0
        Apple-style headquarters sits in Cupertino, California.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 24 2014 18: 43
          +1
          This type fell to us from a parallel universe.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 24 2014 18: 48
            +1
            Quote: patsantre
            This type fell to us from a parallel universe.


            good
            Yes, he was simply kicked out of there, because. and in a parallel world nonsense carried))) laughing
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm April 24 2014 23: 09
            +2
            Quote: patsantre
            This type fell to us from a parallel universe.

            Vysotsky recalled
            Long Troy in a siege position
            Remained an impregnable stronghold
            But the Trojans did not believe Cassandra ...
            Troy, perhaps, would have been used to this day.
            Relentlessly crazy girl
            She screamed: “I clearly see Troy falling to dust!”
            But clairvoyants, however, like eyewitnesses,
            In all ages, people have been burned at the stake!
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 24 2014 18: 46
          -2
          this is an american office
          Intel's Silicon Valley is also just an office.
          mackerel sitting in Perth, Australia
  4. Fiero
    Fiero April 24 2014 14: 40
    +5
    It would be interesting to compare the F-35 with the Su-35, Rafalem and Eurofighter
    Was the game worth the candle? Or was it 400 billion flown into the pipe?
    1. Roman1970
      Roman1970 April 24 2014 14: 41
      0
      Google, you’ll probably find ...
      1. Salamander
        Salamander April 24 2014 14: 48
        +4
        F-35 is pointless to compare with the Su-35 m, etc. - This is now a fighter-bomber. You can compare with the Su-25 - in speed)))
    2. Roman1970
      Roman1970 April 24 2014 14: 41
      +1
      Google, you’ll probably find ...
    3. Biolant
      Biolant April 24 2014 15: 04
      +3
      One "super" fighter was cut from another and sold to their allies.
    4. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 24 2014 17: 04
      0
      Quote: Fiero
      It would be interesting to compare the F-35 with the Su-35, Rafalem and Eurofighter. Was the game worth the candle? Or 400 billion flew into the pipe?


      Fight with the Su-35:
      At a long distance, the F-35 has all the advantages. Subtlety, radar with AFAR, powerful long-range OLS - all this provides more chances of winning out of line of sight. Drying will be detected earlier and the right of the first shot will be behind the Lighting. However, if the Su-35S reach "dog meat grinder" (BVB) then "Penguin" will clearly lose.
      Fight with Rafal:
      Here it is the same as with Sushka, but the Frenchman who has a radar with AFAR has a better chance of detecting the F-35. But since Rafal has a larger EPR, then Lightning will detect it first. And there is only a chance to adequately beat the Penguin in Dogfayte.
      Fight with Eurofighter:
      The Typhoon has about the same chances as the Su-35S with the Rafal, but still less. It has a passive HEADLIGHT (in range less than that of the Su) and it is unlikely that it will be possible to detect the F-35 at a distance of 70-100 km. Eurofighters will simply be shot from a long distance, without realizing who is shooting at them. But again, if the Typhoons reach close range, the pilots of the "Penguin" will cry.
      1. clidon
        clidon April 24 2014 18: 04
        0
        I wouldn’t be so clear-cut for losing the F-35. Considering all-round BB missiles, which seem to be on the way, the planned excellent awareness of the pilot about the environment and the internal suspension of the weapon.
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 24 2014 18: 24
          0
          Quote: clidon
          I wouldn’t be so clear-cut for losing the F-35. Considering all-round BB missiles, which seem to be on the way, the planned excellent awareness of the pilot about the environment and the internal suspension of the weapon.


          Of course, but I think that launching them into the enemy in this position will be very difficult.
          1. clidon
            clidon April 24 2014 19: 38
            0
            It all depends on the energy of the rocket. The speed of the application in Dogfight will be relatively small.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 24 2014 20: 13
          +1
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
          "F-35 is a turkey" at 1:48 - 2:00, and
          "no wing - no turn" 3:00 - 3:50.
          This is an interview with one of the designers of the F-16 and A-10, if that ...
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 24 2014 23: 21
        0
        Quote: supertiger21
        Fight with the Su-35:

        Is this your personal analysis?
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 25 2014 14: 58
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Is this your personal analysis?


          In my opinion, it’s elementary that in theory it will be so. Essentially all sane people, including and experts.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm April 25 2014 21: 58
            0
            Quote: supertiger21
            .This is essentially what all sane people say, incl. and experts.

            You could not write a full name two experts? I want to read from the source.
    5. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2014 18: 42
      +1
      400 lards have not flown anywhere. And oh how they will not fly away soon.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 25 2014 00: 05
        -2
        clear kui. it was bought everything in the USSR for 500 thousand
        400lard - 500tys = PROFIT!
        the truth is likely to be limited to all 300 billion
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 25 2014 15: 00
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          clear kui. it was bought everything in the USSR for 500 thousand
          400lard - 500tys = PROFIT!
          the truth is likely to be limited to all 300 billion


          Learn to think logically, and not balabolite. If you do not want to admit the truth, or rather to look in it only beneficial for yourself, then this is your fellow troll problems. Do not spin people’s heads! stop
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 25 2014 16: 53
            -1
            why so falsetto? another 10 years will pass and such pianists as Sidorovs like you and the patsantre will begin to broadcast that it’s mean Russian licked their yak with F35, and not for 500 thousand wooden ones, but in general for nothing bully
  5. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 24 2014 14: 42
    0
    Let them buy more expensive expensive underexplored aircraft, for something else valuable, money may not be enough. We are not going to fight with them yet, but if we arrive, we will meet with C-400.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2014 18: 44
      +1
      Read the article carefully, purchases will begin in 2018, now nobody is buying unfinished.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 25 2014 00: 11
        0
        and then the donkey or emir will die
      2. iwind
        iwind April 26 2014 16: 59
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        Read the article carefully, purchases will begin in 2018, now nobody is buying unfinished.

        Not quite right. This is the second tranche (increase in order), the first F-35 They will teach in 2-3 months, the first F-35 is almost ready.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 27 2014 22: 44
          0
          almost almost ...
          for 15-20 pcs, they will stop during the trial operation at best, if only again with their ass some hole like the Dardanelles is not closed.
  6. Wiruz
    Wiruz April 24 2014 14: 50
    +2
    Australian fauna replenished with penguins smile.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm April 25 2014 13: 22
      0
      Quote: Wiruz
      Australian fauna replenished with penguins

      You won’t surprise Australians with penguins; they have been living there for centuries.
  7. vorobey
    vorobey April 24 2014 14: 51
    +5
    You can’t forbid to live beautifully. Let them spend it. Claims know where to direct.

    F35 is the most kangaroo drive.
  8. nvn_co
    nvn_co April 24 2014 14: 53
    +1
    Well, well, I'll see how they pull out money and buy ... They always want a thread, and then look for a replacement on the side ... Although "Uncle Billy" will say - the last pants will be sold and bought, but still ... winked
  9. Gagarin
    Gagarin April 24 2014 14: 53
    +5
    America is building too many ambitious plans for 2018-2020 ...
    FIRST LIVE!
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2014 18: 45
      +1
      And what's wrong with planning for the future? That’s why we need to make plans for GOZ-2020, first we need to live out ???
  10. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam April 24 2014 14: 54
    0
    Stupid somehow. Why Australia with short-range and vertical take-off aircraft, burdened with additional vertical take-off equipment? If Luxembourg bought, then okay. Completely sick of Uncle Joe
    1. iwind
      iwind April 24 2014 15: 28
      +1
      Quote: MainBeam
      Stupid somehow. Why Australia with short-range and vertical take-off aircraft, burdened with additional vertical take-off equipment? If Luxembourg bought, then okay. Completely sick of Uncle Joe

      Well actually they buy the F-35A, and its combat radius is greater than F-18.
      And I think they will buy the F-35B, but a little later, otherwise why would they need such a UDC Canberra (Juan Carlos)
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 28 2014 00: 29
        0
        So the country of frightened koalas will fly to the fullest - the Indians will beg for the harriers, or urgently have to put the air finishers for the F-35C.
    2. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 24 2014 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: MainBeam
      Stupid somehow. Why Australia with short-range and vertical take-off aircraft, burdened with additional vertical take-off equipment? If Luxembourg bought, then okay. Completely sick of Uncle Joe


      What a vertical take-off belay , Australians actually buy the F-35A, which with the usual take-off.
      1. Mainbeam
        Mainbeam April 25 2014 17: 56
        +1
        Quote: iwind
        Well, actually they buy the F-35A, and its combat radius is bigger than the F-18.

        Quote: supertiger21
        F-35A, which is the usual take-off.

        Got it, realized.
        Just in the article about the letters A / B / C not a word.

        F-35A - A plane for the US Air Force, the most technologically simple and, accordingly, lightweight and cheap version of the F-35. That it will form the basis of procurement by partner countries and the expected mass export. Equipped with a built-in four-barrel 25-mm gun GAU-22 / A.

        F-35I - Aircraft for the Israeli Air Force. After joining the JSF program, Israel announced plans to create a modification of the F-35A with a significant number of avionics of its own production, in particular electronic warfare systems and cabin equipment, and the integration of weapons of own production into the OMS. The degree to which Israeli engineers will be allowed to go deeper into the modification of the aircraft depends primarily on the volume of purchases.

        CF-35 - Aircraft for the Canadian Air Force. CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A in the presence of a brake parachute, which is necessary due to the danger of operation from an icy runway, and a refueling system in flight similar to that installed on the F-35B / C - with a hose, not a rod, adopted by the US Air Force. The brake parachute will be installed on the version for Norway, for the same reason.

        F-35B - Aircraft for the United States Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. The main distinguishing feature is the possibility of shortened take-off and vertical landing. Equipped with a hanging container with a 25-mm gun GAU-22 / A. In the future, it should form the basis of the aircraft groups of the new UDC like America, which in essence are light aircraft carriers with limited capabilities for landing and significantly expanded capabilities of the air group compared to the previous generation Uosp ships. It is also planned to base on aircraft carriers in the UK class "Queen Elizabeth" and the Italian aircraft carrier "Cavour".

        F-35C - A plane for the US Navy. The variant has an increased wing and tail area, allowing maneuvering at low speeds when flying from aircraft carriers. A larger wing can also increase payload. Added landing hook. Compared to the F / A-18C, the F-35C will have twice the combat range. In October 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced a decision to prefer the ejection version for F-35B instead of the F-9B. As the reasons were called "great combat capabilities and a longer range at a lower cost," but on May 2012 of 35 of the year, a decision was announced to return to the F-3B purchase plans. The main reason for this decision was a reluctance to incur large expenses (about XNUMX billion $) for the modernization of aircraft carriers.
  11. Roman1970
    Roman1970 April 24 2014 14: 57
    +2
    Quote: Fiero
    It would be interesting to compare the F-35 with the Su-35, Rafalem and Eurofighter
    Was the game worth the candle? Or was it 400 billion flown into the pipe?

    In July, the 2008 was a simulation of air combat with the participation of the Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F / A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was “battered like a child”. The simulation was conducted at the Hikam base of the US Air Force in Hawaii, which was witnessed by at least four representatives of the Air Force and Australian military intelligence. The deputy of the Australian Parliament, Dennis Jensen, knowingly said that in the course of “highly secret modeling”, the F-35 was “mercilessly beaten by the Su-35 fighter”.

    something like that....
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2014 18: 47
      +1
      Well, that’s because the battle didn’t start from a long distance and the system of all-angle viewing was not taken into account in modeling.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 25 2014 00: 20
      -1
      and if the battle begins and ends at a long distance of the patamushta f-35 (by the way - a cherished copy of the yak-141) everyone will win, then does this extra-angle system be needed?
      especially since she was still on the MiG-27
      hamburger eaters can do anything themselves?
      laughing well besides kin about Rimbaud and Clancy’s novels?
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 25 2014 13: 19
        +1
        I see no further point in arguing with stupid trolls.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 29 2014 19: 58
          0
          like, clancy kabysdoh and jackie chan they are now taking more pictures? ... then they have very bad things to do.
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 25 2014 15: 06
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        and if the battle begins and ends at a long distance of the patamushta f-35 (by the way - a kerat copy of the yak-141) everyone wins, then does this extrasystem be needed at all? Moreover, was it still on the MiG-27 that the hamburger eaters can do anything themselves? well, except kin about Rimbaud and Clancy’s novels


        Well, yes, Cassandra. From now on, do not argue with me on scientific topics, because on the first sentence - I was convinced of your backward childish logic. Good luck in the subsequent trolling hi ! Even Apollo will not write about you! lol
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 25 2014 16: 42
          -1
          mu da mu da ... take your 30 kopecks off the shelf.
  12. Barakuda
    Barakuda April 24 2014 15: 09
    +2
    And who are they going to fight there? With the Philippines and Indonesia, there is peace. Are they waiting for Chinese aircraft carriers? Looks decided that the Chinese want to breed with them instead of rabbits. Well, they want to throw the vablo out - please ..
  13. tnship2
    tnship2 April 24 2014 15: 18
    +2
    Maybe the Americans are arming their allies so that they themselves can solve their problems? They say that we are the people of the United States washing their hands. Do whatever you want, the United States will not tear your throat and veins.
  14. Barakuda
    Barakuda April 24 2014 15: 26
    0
    Quote: tnship2
    Like we are the people of the United States washing their hands. Do whatever you want, the United States will not tear your throat and veins

    And they never tore, if they do not need it.
  15. kelevra
    kelevra April 24 2014 15: 40
    -1
    Immediately obvious, the irrational use of funds! For that kind of money, you could buy Russian planes that surpass US planes in all respects! And even more than a dozen!
    1. Barakuda
      Barakuda April 24 2014 15: 46
      +3
      Kickbacks are nowhere and no one has canceled!
    2. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2014 18: 48
      0
      For what everyone, it’s strange? By avionics and stealth, we now have no analogues.
    3. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 24 2014 19: 02
      0
      Quote: kelevra
      For that kind of money, one could buy Russian planes that surpass US planes in all respects


      Only I did not understand "superior in all respects." Among such aircraft, we only have the PAK FA, which is not yet in the series, and for export only after 2020. And the PAK FA costs no less than the F-35A.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 25 2014 00: 29
        -1
        and with what degrees should a twin-engine aircraft cost less than a single-engine?
        although it costs by the way cheaper ... laughing
        By the way, dear, why the F-35A nozzle is not slotted like the F-22 but the same round as the Yak-141?
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 25 2014 15: 09
          0
          Learn to think logically correctly! In the meantime, you are a troll girl - alas, there is nothing to argue about. negative
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 25 2014 17: 00
            0
            And again, you don’t know what to answer the question in the last line?
            then, O great one, go to LJ, to yours.

            if you didn’t notice him then you can answer him and don’t go there.
            shitty with vise then, huh? bully
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 April 25 2014 17: 11
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              And again, you don’t know what to answer the question in the last line?


              I can always answer, and the truth! But your troll head does not want to perceive the truth. Alas, you adhere to the delirium invented by you.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 25 2014 17: 29
                -3
                you haven’t written a word of truth here at all.
                and didn’t answer a single question (you are taught the propindind trolls).
                go to your LJ ...

                the truth is that if he were an F-35 American plane he would have a square nozzle. and not round like on the Yak-41. at least on the F-35C and on the F-35A.
                as it was on the F-117, and is on the F-22.
                1. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 April 25 2014 18: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  so you are taught the propindind trolls


                  Who did you call pin.do.om, troll angry ? If I am objective (unlike you), this does not mean that I am a fanatic of the USA. And who tells me this - YOU? Allegedly a patriot, but in reality a fat troll with a cap-throw syndrome.

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  the truth is that if he were an F-35 American plane he would have a square nozzle. and not round like on the Yak-41. at least on the F-35C and on the F-35A. as it was on the F-117, and is on the F-22.


                  And?
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 27 2014 20: 50
                    -1
                    go, go to LJ ... look there "objectively" for yourself du.racks who will lead to the fact that ground VTOL aircraft are bad and with them it will turn out for the third time to make a fakus of 1941 and 1967 with the destruction of almost all of their aviation at airfields

                    .
                    there is a round nozzle on it like on a Yak, and not a square one like on F-117 and F-22. on all three versions ..... they were too lazy to even redo the tail.
                    1. supertiger21
                      supertiger21 April 28 2014 14: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      go, go to LJ ... look there "objectively" for yourself du.racks who will lead to the fact that ground VTOL aircraft are bad and with them it will turn out for the third time to make a fakus of 1941 and 1967 with the destruction of almost all of their aviation at airfields


                      So such "d.u.r.a.k.o.v" is an absolute majority. But Cassandra is left to the last will defend nonsense. And those who are in the minority, as they say, are full of balabol, because you cannot reasonably state the meaning without unnecessary sarcasm, bullying, trolling, etc. So you talk to me again about 1941 and 1967, there and with the presence of ground VTOL aircraft, nothing has changed, no matter what it all depended on. And what, the Israelis bombed Egyptian airfields, you might think if they had Harriers they "could" both survive and beat the Mirages and Phantoms of the Israelites)))

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      there is a round nozzle on it like on a Yak, and not a square one like on F-117 and F-22. on all three versions ..... they were too lazy to even redo the tail.


                      Firstly, a square nozzle reduces traction, and this F-35 is very unnecessary.
                      Secondly, the inconspicuity from the lateral hemispheres in Laiting will not deteriorate from this, because the nozzle is deep between the keels and the tail.
                      Thirdly, on the F-22, a square nozzle was installed in order to make stealth for UVT.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 28 2014 14: 57
                        -1
                        star again like Trotsky ...
                        but about 1941 with the same destruction of Soviet aviation at the airfields of which the propindindos stalled again? again hotstsa continuation of the banquet?

                        for the sake of this continuation, no less than three accounts ran up to you here, smearing VTOL with their village metz.

                        Of course they could, as the British did, with exactly the same Argentine planes and from the same manufacturer (USA, France, Israel) bully BAE drives.
                        Harrier was made for Europe, because all NATO airfields were knocked out by ATS countries per day. not for the sea - then Great Britain had large aircraft carriers.
                        he came to RN 15 years later than to RAF

                        there isn’t a great deal, stealth is so stealth! on the F-117 it was not round why?

                        firstly secondly and thirdly, a square one, it’s not round, you can’t twist it on the base F-35B, which was copied from Yak, but it was already in the bastard to change it to flat on F-35AiC. although in general it makes sense. only it is difficult
                        bully
                        it's easier to buy everything for 500 thousand bins to wash. the main expenses are on R&D, and all this was done by "quilted jackets". from 400-300 billion to sawing, what profit will it be?
                        eh ... pound! PROFIT = 299,99%!
                        bully bully bully
                        Easy money!
                        laughing
                    2. supertiger21
                      supertiger21 April 28 2014 14: 18
                      0
                      So I don’t understand such "capers" as you. Then people like you will cry and regret when those same F-35 "Penguins" will bomb you.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 28 2014 14: 32
                        0
                        Kalashnikov, he will not get to the B-17
                      2. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 April 28 2014 18: 37
                        -1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Kalashnikov, he will not get to the B-17


                        And you didn’t have enough mind for a more sensible comment?! Yes, trolling is already a diagnosis!
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 29 2014 02: 53
                        -1
                        ..... are you a doctor?
                      4. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 April 29 2014 17: 45
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        ..... are you a doctor?


                        No! But not a cave scientist))) lol
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 29 2014 18: 01
                        0
                        well, then go through the forest.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra April 29 2014 20: 09
    0
    before Iraq-2 such an opportunity was considered
    now it seems that at least 2/3 of Australia's capitalization belongs to the Russian olegarchs
  • mamont5
    mamont5 April 24 2014 15: 52
    +1
    "Australia to Spend $ 12 Billion on F-35 Fighters"

    Yes to health. If you have nowhere to go.
  • pechv
    pechv April 24 2014 15: 55
    +3
    This is called wise military-technical policy. It’s not enough to make an airplane, it’s much more important to sell it expensive. The Australians have already discussed this situation and will surely break many more copies before they are forced to acquire this miracle of engineering technology. The delivery schedule will still shift, the price will increase, functionality will be limited, the contract will not be completed on time, they will present a penalty, etc. The Australians act cautiously - you still need to survive until the 18 year, and there either the shah will die or the donkey will die - somehow it will resolve - they hope
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich April 24 2014 15: 57
    +2
    A very critical situation, it is because of these 12 yards that the pepelats cannot fly. Everything is very arch-serious.
  • Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 April 24 2014 16: 20
    +2
    Well, Australia will never buy any other military aircraft except for the western ones, especially since they were always armed with American (CA-27 Saber, A-4 Skyhawk, F-4 Phantom II, F-111C), English (De Havilland Vampire , De Havilland Sea Venom, Meteor F.8) and French (Mirage III E) cars. Australia is clearly in line with American politics, so its armed forces, incl. and the Air Force took part in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam and in the invasion of Iraq in March – April of the 2003, when the Squadron No. 75, armed with F / A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers, was deployed.
    Moreover, the Australian Air Force is so far the most powerful air force in the region:
    24 fighter bomber Boeing F / A-18F Super Hornet;

    71 fighter-bomber McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet;

    6 Aircraft AWACS Boeing 737 AEW;

    5 Airbus A330 MRTT tanker aircraft;
    19 of the AP-3C Orion base patrol aircraft, which by 2019 are planning to replace with the Boeing P-8 Poseidon and UAV;

    6 heavy MTC Boeing C-17 Globemaster III;
    12 Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules, delivered in 1999 year;
    1. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 April 24 2014 16: 53
      +2
      33 English reactive UBS BAE Systems Hawk 127;

      65 Swiss Pilatus PC-9 TCBs manufactured in Australia under license;
      8 TCB Beechcraft Super King Air.
      The Australian Air Force's main enemy in the Indonesia region, with which Australia had nearly begun an armed conflict over the western part of Papua New Guinea occupied by the Indonesian forces and East Timor, is Australia's 90 times 2,5 Su-11 ; 30 Su-5; 27 F-10 A / B Block 16, it is expected to deliver another 15 F-24 C / D Block 16 upgraded to the standard Block 25; 32 F-11E Tiger II, without AWACS)

      Su-30MK2 Air Force Indonesia
      The Chinese threat is also greatly exaggerated. The only Chinese aircraft capable of reaching Australia is the Chinese clone Tu-16 Xian N-6 (practical range-4300 km; combat radius-1800 km), created back in the 50-s.

      Without fighter cover, these obsolete heavy bombers will be easy prey for the Australian F / A-18F Super Hornet and F / A-18 Hornet, guided by Boeing 737 AEW AWACS.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 29 2014 19: 48
        -1
        every Indonesian Su-30 in battle costs 10-15 F-15 which Australia does not have at all. and those F-18 Superhornets that are worse than Sigrapursky F-15 will be
        the Australian Air Force differs from Singapore for the better in that they have F-18s just hornites instead of F-16s, but for the worse, they don't have F-15s
        Singapore is, if anything, a free island city.
        every Indonesian MiG-29 costs at least 3-4 F-15 or F-18

        the population of Indonesia is 10 times more than the Australian
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 29 2014 19: 41
      0
      No, they wanted to buy dryers and tanks. and Canada even wanted to buy (drying)
      Singapore’s Air Force is stronger, or about the same - they are selling from now.
  • Grey_k
    Grey_k April 24 2014 16: 41
    +1
    I do not exclude the possibility that the United States will bring this plane up to standard, but huge funds will be spent. If the F-35 can be adjusted to the performance characteristics for which it was designed and conceived, then its operation will be very large, and it will just stand in the hangar like its "older brother" F-22. I can imagine how in 2020 they will fly to intercept our strategists - in my thoughts)
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex April 24 2014 16: 46
    +3
    Quote: Barracuda
    And who are they going to fight there? With the Philippines and Indonesia, there is peace. Are they waiting for Chinese aircraft carriers? Looks decided that the Chinese want to breed with them instead of rabbits. Well, they want to throw the vablo out - please ..


    So for me, this secret is great. What devil do they need these pepelats for? Scare the penguins? Australia has no belligerent neighbors or territorial disputes. Participate in all kinds of "peacekeeping missions"? So for this, the modernized machines of the previous generation from the F35 are enough for this, it's like a tank in a hairdresser's. Japan, if anything, will have exactly the same aircraft. And China is a nuclear power, it is simply naive to hope that after the dragons it will rust to ship megatons to the distant mainland. What for?
  • Vasya Ko
    Vasya Ko April 24 2014 17: 01
    +2
    It’s not enough, let them buy 1000, you see, they will remain without pants.
  • Palych9999
    Palych9999 April 24 2014 17: 08
    +2
    So I look, it seems like there isn’t so much gas, and they don’t pump oil like that, and people live well and they find money for such airplanes ...
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 24 2014 17: 11
    0
    Still, the Australians will buy the F-35, although before that they mercilessly criticized it. Compared to the 4th generation fighters, it is very strong, but for the 5th it is only not bad.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2014 18: 59
      +1
      F-35 is in some way a breakthrough, in something, as it seems to many - a misunderstanding. But he did not have the task of being a prodigy, which is 1 on 1 or wall to wall will gut opponents, as in front of the T-50, F-22 or even Su-35. It should be a relatively inexpensive and versatile aircraft. He does not need a super-powerful radar - he will fly AWACS planes with him, he does not need a huge radius - they have a bunch of tankers and bases all over the planet, he does not need maneuverability - it will be compensated by an all-angle viewing system, long-range capabilities and a quantitative advantage. In other words, they saved a lot of money, remaining in these directions at the level of 4 generations, but in such areas as avionics and stealth, the aircraft is breakthrough, and due to them it will leave.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 24 2014 19: 20
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        F-35 is in some way a breakthrough, in something, as it seems to many - a misunderstanding. But he was not tasked with being a child prodigy, which would be 1 to 1 or wall to wall to gut opponents, like the T-50, F-22, or even Su-35. It should be a relatively inexpensive and versatile aircraft.


        I agree that the F-35 was created as a "cheap version" of the F-22. However, in some ways it surpassed the Raptor. The Lightning's avionics are more recent than their older brother.

        Quote: patsantre
        He doesn’t need a super-powerful radar - he will fly AWACS planes with him, he doesn’t need a huge radius - they have a bunch of tankers and bases all over the planet,


        This is obvious because Americans almost always use AWACS. But radars with AFAR AN / APG-81 are not weak, and in some ways surpasses even AN / APG-77.

        Quote: patsantre
        he doesn’t need maneuverability - it will be compensated by a system of all-angle viewing, capabilities in long-range combat and a quantitative advantage.


        As for maneuverability, you can argue for a long time. all-round target defeat is theory so far, and striking from such a position a maneuvering aircraft is not an easy task.

        Quote: patsantre
        In other words, they saved a lot by staying in these directions at the level of 4 generations, but in such areas as avionics and stealth, the aircraft is breakthrough, and due to them it will leave.


        For a universal fighter, this is just the case, but for a fighter of air supremacy this is not a good deviation.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 24 2014 21: 18
          +1
          Quote: supertiger21
          I agree that the F-35 was created as a "cheap version" of the F-22. However, in some ways it surpassed the Raptor. The Lightning's avionics are more recent than their older brother.

          Here, I just do not agree, it was not created to replace the raptor, it is a different class of aircraft and other tasks. According to avionics - yes, it is cooler.
          Quote: supertiger21
          This is obvious because Americans almost always use AWACS. But radars with AFAR AN / APG-81 are not weak, and in some ways surpasses even AN / APG-77.

          A raptor, for example, has a very powerful radar; even without AWAX, it can be hung on anyone.
          Quote: supertiger21
          As for maneuverability, you can argue for a long time. all-round target defeat is theory so far, and striking from such a position a maneuvering aircraft is not an easy task.

          I agree, there is no point in arguing how it will work and whether it will be at all - a mystery to everyone.
          Quote: supertiger21
          for a universal fighter, this is just the case, but for a fighter of air supremacy this is not a good deviation.

          Here I must say that the rejection of the production of raptor looks strange. 187 pieces, of course, are enough to tear apart the air forces of any country except Russia and China (although this is still to be seen - most of our planes are not at all able to fight the F-22, like the Chinese taschetta, and we still have Su-35 very few). In general, 400-500 pieces would be just right, and the price would fall on them, and with lightings they would perfectly complement each other. In general, our happiness is that dinosaurs do not produce.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 25 2014 01: 07
            0
            so put avionics lightning into raptor

            But is not the radar avionics?

            what are we smoking?
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm April 25 2014 13: 59
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              so put avionics lightning into raptor

              Already, everyone has already decided, for each Pterodactyl modernization will cost, according to preliminary estimates, 16 million Dollar USA.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 25 2014 16: 49
                +1
                so fast? or did the two know nothing about this? lol
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm April 25 2014 23: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  so fast?

                  The Americans came to this decision at the end of 2012.
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  or did the two know nothing about this?

                  Perhaps you can’t keep up with everything.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 27 2014 21: 45
                    +1
                    how long did they go.
                    there is something wrong. because pterodactyl can carry a walkie-talkie heavier.
                    or in lockhide the plan is over.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm April 27 2014 23: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      there is something wrong. because pterodactyl can carry a walkie-talkie heavier.
                      or in lockhide the plan is over.

                      They want to teach him to work on the surface.
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      or in lockhide the plan is over.

                      Never.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 28 2014 01: 00
                        0
                        F-22 and so could (F-4 could still). it's just replacing the old avionics with a new one.
                      2. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 28 2014 18: 43
                        +1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-22 and so could (F-4 could still). it's just replacing the old avionics with a new one.

                        It’s kind of like that, but the Americans are not looking for easy ways.
                        At one time, F-22 equipment was implemented in a modular and potentially easily upgradeable architecture, but it was so tightly integrated into a single complex that it was very difficult to make individual improvements. The US military turned out to be dependent on the manufacturers of the Raptor fighter, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and were not able to independently make any significant changes to the avionics of the fighter.
                        The problem with the modernization of the F-22 arose due to the desire of the military to introduce the latest developments of another fighter - F-35. They are created with an open architecture and do not fit with the integrated avionics F-22.
                        Currently, the fifth generation fighter F-22 is being modernized in several programs. So far, the Raptor has received only the first package, Increment 2, which adds the ability to use two 1000-pound (453 kg) JDAM bombs.
                        From the site http://www.mrwolf.ru/

                        The same question from a different angle
                        A few years before that, a dozen and a half firms began work on creating a computer complex for the F-22 fighter. The requirements of the military and the proposals of the main contractor in the person of Lockheed Martin were quite difficult to implement, as a result of which the full project of the onboard computer was completed only in 1996. A few days before the end of these works, Intel announced the cessation of production of several processors of the i486 family. As luck would have it, several particularly important elements of the fighter's on-board computer were created precisely on the basis of these processors. There is information about an attempt by the Pentagon and Lockheed to agree to continue production of the necessary components in small batches, but Intel quickly killed all hopes. After short trials with the search for the guilty, the military and designers began to re-develop the necessary on-board computers based on the Intel i960 processor. The incident with the processors entailed an almost complete alteration of several important hardware modules. It also required rewriting the software for use with the new hardware, testing compatibility with other computer components, and so on. There is no exact financial data on these works, but the size of the overrun of funds for the creation of an on-board computer complex can be comparable to the cost of all R&D on this topic.
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 29 2014 02: 57
                        0
                        they all lie
                        the military standard has long been modular, but no Intel processors
                        just need to punch all the brains and cut the dough
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 28 2014 01: 22
                    -1
                    ... and with the plans of Australia to buy 100 pcs. F-35 Wikipedia says that they need them to replace the Hornites (fighters), of which they have 71 pieces, although the F35 is already, as it were, positioned not as a fighter (but it can). Those. it turns out the attacker / bomber goes to replace the fighter.

                    They brought the superhorites who are the fighter to 24 units, because they wrote off the F-111 bomber, so that they would play an attack role for it. Those. the fighter now replaces the attacker / bomber.
                    That is, the plan for these antipodes, like marsupial bears, is somehow wrong.

                    Now they have also bought a new HMAS Canberra from the Spaniards, and whether they will still be able to cancel the F-35B, most likely they will ask the Indians to ask Harrier for her or to put air finishers for the F-35C. Or she just becomes a helicopter carrier.
                    F-35B is now allowed in the states to be tested with UDC only if there is a coastal airfield nearby for the possibility of an emergency horizontal landing.
            2. patsantre
              patsantre April 26 2014 14: 56
              +1
              I knew about increment upgrades, but the first time I heard that there will be avionics of lightning, maybe partially, but in general it is hardly possible, OLS, for example, cannot be shoved. Why for example on the MiG-29 do not put avionics from the Su-35, in your opinion?
        2. patsantre
          patsantre April 26 2014 14: 54
          0
          Am I deciding?
          Delivered over time, I think. Radar - avionics, what's next? The raptor is more powerful, the lightning synthesized aperture and other chips for their tasks.
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 25 2014 15: 27
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        Here, I just do not agree, it was not created to replace the raptor, it is a different class of aircraft and other tasks. According to avionics - yes, it is cooler.


        Well, first of all, I was not talking about replacement, but as a more affordable version of the 5th generation fighter. Especially in export, because F-22 will not be sold to anyone, and F-35 is going to buy in addition to the United States more than 10 countries.

        Quote: patsantre
        Here I must say that the rejection of the production of raptor looks strange. 187 pieces, of course, are enough to tear apart the air forces of any country except Russia and China (although this is still to be seen - most of our planes are not at all able to fight the F-22, like the Chinese taschetta, and we still have Su-35 very few). In general, 400-500 pieces would be just right, and the price would fall on them, and with lightings they would perfectly complement each other. In general, our happiness is that dinosaurs do not produce.


        I completely agree! The reptor is mostly small because of the US leadership, led by Obama, who reduced the purchase of weapons (we are happy), but I think that we should not worry about the overseas army, but about our own. Think about today's supplies of the Su-35S, Su-30SM and possible (?!) MiG-35. Something slows down our purchase of MiG, which has radar with AFAR, and this would be an even greater step forward. In addition, purchases of training Su-30M2 and front-line bombers Su 34, whose number is already relatively large. Among MiGs, MiG-29K (for the fleet) is now purchased and a contract for 16 MiG-29SMT (in addition to 28 available SMTs) is signed. In general, the situation is better than 5-7 years ago good !
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm April 25 2014 00: 09
    0
    Quote: patsantre
    In other words, they saved a lot by staying in these directions at the level of 4 generations, but in such areas as avionics and stealth, the aircraft is breakthrough, and due to them it will leave.

    There are some allegations that the stealth of the F-35 at the Rafale level in the front plane.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 25 2014 01: 21
      0
      and in the tail he has, unlike the F-117 and F-22, the nozzle is round, not square, which, of course, has a stealth, but it is lame love
      in a word, skidding everything with the Yak-141 did not bother to change even the nozzle to another on the F-35C and F-35A
      in a hurry for a premium and start sawing bucks.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm April 25 2014 12: 14
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      в frontline the plane.

      Sorry, the frontal plane.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 29 2014 20: 17
        0
        front surface drinks
        all normal
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra April 25 2014 01: 14
    0
    but he really doesn’t need anything, because In addition to AVASK and tanker aircraft, there are also F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22
    he don’t even have to fly at all, is he a mantle? it’s enough to lift this eyelid and this pterodactyl immediately right from the ground without even taking off with its all-perspective system with a transparent cockpit will defeat everyone. and then catch up and win again
    Boo-go-ha! laughing
    but in general, at the very beginning, the question was posed so that it should have been a prodigy and replace them all (except for tankers), even harriers crying
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas April 25 2014 10: 41
    0
    Quote: supertiger21
    Still, the Australians will buy the F-35, although before that they mercilessly criticized it.

    He was criticized by Carlo Kopp, a famous hater of the F-35, and he is far from all of Australia ...
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 25 2014 15: 48
      -1
      Pierre Spray is also a hater, only an American. Moreover, the F-16 and A-10 designator - is his opinion worth anything?
      Australians can buy a little F-35A for trial and all. The superhorn is happy with them so far, but
      what is the funniest drying they would buy.
      they have a few Abrams on trial, but the Australian armored forces are almost entirely leopards. Canadian by the way too.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 25 2014 17: 15
        0
        Blah blah blah... wassat
        Another nonsense from the galaxy of Kassandra))) negative negative negative
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 25 2014 17: 32
          0
          all follow and cross their own way, doggie?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm April 26 2014 00: 13
          +1
          Quote: supertiger21
          Blah blah blah...
          Another nonsense from the galaxy of Kassandra)))

          In Canada, really "Lerpards"
  • sv68
    sv68 April 24 2014 18: 35
    +3
    and weakly America dozens of thousands of f35 give ukroine? support the Kiev Dermocracy so to speak
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 24 2014 23: 59
      0
      nahua?
      https://www.google.ru/#newwindow=1&q=f-35%20copy%20of%20yak-141
      give Bulgarian AKMs to them
  • O. BENDER
    O. BENDER April 24 2014 21: 52
    0
    From whom do the Abrasralians want to protect their airspace? From mosquitoes? Will it be a little expensive? Or maybe they want to fight wild boars? lol
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 25 2014 02: 26
      -1
      at least from Indonesia whose population is 10 times larger.
  • 120352
    120352 April 24 2014 22: 13
    +1
    Well, what about Australia without the F-35 in such a hostile environment! The Papuans are around, and with them you need to keep your eyes open, otherwise God forbid, they will stir up the Maidan.
    Although it would be possible to get by with the PO-2 squadron. It is certainly more expensive, a rare device, antiques, one might say, but the speed is suitable, like a running Papuan. Catching them, the Papuans, is more convenient with PO-2. And the F-35 is a good car, but it’s painfully fast, supersonic, and the Papuans haven’t got the hang of it yet.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 25 2014 02: 39
      0
      you have the immense knowledge of George my Druk ... Indonesia is a Muslim country with the largest population (10 seconds we are more than Australian). she is somewhere in Africa, right?
      sad
      here such in autosralia now show teaching children keen for the night
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456941/?ref_=nv_sr_1
      F-18, by the way, the children are knocked down by the sounds of oh and oh, the topic of prepubescent boobs is also revealed in passing (but no more).
      1. 120352
        120352 April 25 2014 18: 39
        +1
        Kassandra
        Oh, the most beautiful (according to Homer, and he usually doesn’t lie to me personally) from the daughters of Priam and Hekuba! Do you remember your story? Apollo, having fallen in love, gave you a prophetic gift, however, being rejected, he did so. that no one believed the prophecies of Cassandra.
        I had to visit Indonesia "on duty" and I noticed that it was definitely not in the Moscow region or even in Siberia. And I also noticed that it is quite crowded there. It is the most populous Muslim country in the world. I don’t know how at that moment, but when I left there, approximately 249 people remained there. This is without me. I'm not Indonesian either. The male population is slightly larger than the female, but not critical. Despite the fact that in 729 alone, the population of Indonesia grew by about 600 thousand, more than 2014 thousand people who wished to part with Indonesia forever turned out to be.
        The country, to put it mildly, is not rich. Every Indonesian has an average debt of about 1400 bucks, and GDP per day is just a little over $ 10 per person.
        Indeed, the majority of the population here is Muslim. But the statistics are lame. They are 86%, then 88%. What is characteristic, territorially Islam occupies less than half the area of ​​the state. There are Christians. Their total is about 9-10%. Not much. But there is, as in the whole world, the flow of Muslims into the Christian religion. Interestingly, Islam is not recognized as a state religion, as, say, in Saudi Arabia. Officially, Indonesia considers itself to be multiconfessional, which is reflected in the Constitution and national philosophy (Panchashila), which does not follow, oddly enough, from Islam, but assumes a single God and guarantees freedom of religion.
        Seriously, Indonesian Islam is not Islam at all. The influence of traditional culture is very strong here. If you remember. among Muslims, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet." So in the Qur'an. And among the Indonesian Muslims there is a belief in guardian spirits, and the shaman and the medicine man have greater public authority than the mullah. In Java, the most popular cult is the cult of the Rice Goddess Devi Sri. In general, local Islam is strongly mixed with Hinduism. (As in Syria, Alavism is a synthesis or even a symbiosis of Christianity and Islam. In any case, the Virgin Mary and Christ are no less honored there than Allah. For this, in particular, they suffer). So you should not treat Indonesians as, say, Muslim Arabs and even Turks, although the Turks, under the influence of Turkish culture, which greatly changed the idea of ​​Islam during the time of Gamal Ata-Turk and his "hat revolution", under the influence of their desire to Europe came up with their own version of Islam, unlike any other.
        However, on this subject I read at the university a 128-hour course, which is not possible to present here.
        So you can not worry about Australia, despite the geographical proximity to Indonesia.
        I wish you success in polishing the plane of humor!
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 27 2014 20: 39
          0
          and were in Australia? (this is somewhere near Indonesia)
          movie on the link, please watch a movie ...
          Australians just can't handle the flood of illegal Indonesians in boats
  • w2000
    w2000 April 25 2014 07: 39
    0
    Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel - these are the rear territories of the United States, the armed forces of which will be used only in the case of a worldwide shecher. Whereas the EU countries, Japan and South Korea are the countries of the first blow in the event of a US conflict with Russia, China or the DPRK. It is unclear why Australia such modern aircraft? Probably all the same, the United States seriously decided to take control of China. Asia-leading countries like Japan, South Korea and Australia have the F-35, while smaller American mongers like the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand have used the F-16, F-15, and F-18.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 25 2014 15: 40
      0
      Already used in Korea, Malaya, Vietnam and Iraq.
      Australia is bordered by Indonesia, which has first-class aircraft and a population of 10 times more. Japan at one time almost reached it with a landing party and seriously bombed. China is also reaching out now.
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 28 2014 14: 34
    +1
    Cassandra, if a troll like you proves the "invincibility" of planes like the Harrier, then WHY (explain to me normally about not troll-like):
    1) Harrier has few exploiters, and each of them has a small number.
    2) There are no fighter modifications of the Harrier since the 1970s. They are produced and used only as carrier-based attack aircraft. But what about the "super-maneuverability" that allegedly proved, according to your theory, the invincibility of the Harrier as a fighter?
    3) Throughout its existence, Harrier "won" 21 aerial victories, and then in the role of an interceptor (not a fighter) and over obviously weak strike aircraft.
    4) Harriers did not beat anyone in the Gulf or the Balkans.
    5) Harriers use only ON SEA. On land they have not been used since the time of the ancient erroneous GR.3.
    6) And no one wants to create a new land fighter that is the successor of the "invincible and super-maneuverable" Harrier.
    There are no excuses for this. negative !!! Keep singing to your tune, but the VTOL aircraft will be used as carrier-based strike aircraft. Your fantasy of land fighter jets will never become a reality.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 28 2014 15: 35
      0
      you explained to the troll as normal still in February.

      as if repeating:
      1. Harrier has more exploiters than F-15, F-14, F-18 and F-18 Superhorn
      quantitatively, there are as many harriers as F-18 Super Hornites
      2. not 3,14zdi - 23: 0 fighter attack aircraft (Mirage Dagger) do not know how
      3. see paragraph 2
      4. in the Balkans, they kept Serbian MiGs on the ground, and in the Gulf they made 3/4 of all combat sorties (more than Apaches only)
      5. They are used in Afghanistan. Now.
      6. For this purpose, the mattress covers "bought" Yak in 1992

      Did you cross the dog again? .. also go to the post.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 28 2014 18: 34
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        1. the harrier of the exploiters has more than the F-15, F-14, F-18 and F-18 Super Horn; there are as many Harriers as there are F-18 Super Horn


        1) F-15s and F-14s are heavy fighters, and heavy ones always have less exploiters. And about Super Hornet it would be better if he was silent, he has been armed for 14 years, and Harrier is 45 years old. F / A-18 in just over 10 years.
        At this point, you again couldn’t prove anything sensibly to me.

        Quote: Kassandra
        2. not 3,14zdi - 23: 0 fighter attack aircraft (Mirage Dagger) do not know how


        2) It’s not ... go it yourself! It’s nowhere to say that the Sea Harriers turned around in air battles which weren’t intercepted. They could intercept the A-10 and Su-25. This makes Sea Harrier an interceptor but not a fighter. In the Iran-Iraq, they managed to shoot down MiGi-23 and F-14 helicopters. Let’s write them in fighters too)))
        Here again, you did not convince, because. Do not rely on facts.

        Quote: Kassandra
        3. see paragraph 2


        3) Well and a lazy dog))) I have nothing to do. Write specifically and do not send somewhere!
        And then he blew, there are no facts, there is no truth ... negative

        Quote: Kassandra
        4. in the Balkans, they kept Serbian MiGs on the ground, and in the Gulf they made 3/4 of all combat sorties (more than Apaches only)


        4) Where did they "keep" the Serbian MiGs, if they were not there and nearby. NATO members had F-15s with F-16s on MiGs, VTOL attack aircraft do not send fighters to fighters. And about 3/4 of combat missions this is nonsense - and nonsense of the last balabol who is not responsible for his words, who only wants to vyaknut more beautiful. This does not look like a man's characterization.
        Facts to the studio, here you lost again.

        Quote: Kassandra
        5. They are used in Afghanistan. Now.


        5) Imagine))) They are not there! Well, if EVEN there, then they do not carry out any combat missions.
        Well, will you rave on ??? lol

        Quote: Kassandra
        6. For this purpose, the mattress covers "bought" Yak in 1992


        6) You know how to read, troll fool ?! "Mattress" are designing a deck strike VTOL aircraft. I'm telling you about the land one, which nobody needs and has died out.
        It’s stupid to argue with you at this point, because you can’t even absorb questions anymore. Repeat the Russian language))) laughing
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 29 2014 02: 45
          -1

          1. Yes, you prove, you're a robot.
          harrier not exported anywhere
          wherever exported only anti-radar (SAM) F-16 which anyone will tear, even a lightweight F-18 which is not super

          2. so mine this disease in ex. from you and two more accounts do not suffer
          nowhere is it just written like yours, fukcing troll.
          a subsonic interceptor is "cool", and the link about maneuverable battles was even in Argentinean Spanish, with a picture
          conflictomalvinas82.blogspot.ru/2011/11/combate-aereo-en-los-cielos-del.html
          but you’ll convince you, you’re a robot.
          http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9646/1vs1harrierdaggerkd4.jpg

          3. are we sick?

          4. Check out Wikipedia about Harrier. and for all these conflicts. Spanish google translator.

          5. raving about you
          what are they doing there then? in the service of orthologists hang and study mountain eagle nests?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ5iizDm0AQ

          6. Is the F-35B a carrier-based strike? jump at the expense of the "extinct land VTOL aircraft" ... you will not get it for the 3rd time with the destruction of all Soviet or Arab aviation at the airfields, as in 1941 and 1967, not-well-chit-Xia negative

          no one convinced you, no one argued with you, and they didn’t prove anything to you - they have been explaining to others by your example for a long time - you are just a shmokodyavka and have been doing for a long time that you “discuss” me here and not the subject.

          In short, go get to the pillar, doggie.

          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 29 2014 17: 43
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            wherever exported only anti-radar (SAM) F-16 which anyone will tear, even a lightweight F-18 which is not super


            1) Leave your subjective for another. The term "tear" is too undeveloped and not adapted for scientific and technical topics. And do you know that this aircraft appeared back in 1974 (the first light fighter of the 4th generation) and before 1983 had no more powerful counterparts. And about the F / A-18 wake up, there is a light Hornet and an average Super Hornet. There are no "non-superhornets". Call a spade a spade.

            Quote: Kassandra
            2. so my this disease in ex. from you and two other accounts I don’t suffer, anywhere it’s not written like yours, fukcing troll. a subsonic interceptor is "cool", and you even had a link about maneuver battles in Argentinean Spanish, with a picture conflictomalvinas82.blogspot.ru / 2011/11 / combate -aereo-en-los-cielos-del
            .html but you’ll convince you, you’re a robot.http: //img223.imageshack.us/img223/9646/1vs1harrierdaggerkd4.jpg


            2) And I still have not seen evidence that Harrier fought aerial battles. So will you troll ???

            Quote: Kassandra
            3. are we sick?


            3) You ?! belay

            Quote: Kassandra
            4. Check out Wikipedia about Harrier. and for all these conflicts. Spanish google translator.


            4) And where in Wikipedia it is said that "the Harriers flew 3/4 of the combat missions in the Gulf" and that "a couple of Harriers did not allow MiGs to take off in the Balkans."

            Quote: Kassandra
            5. you rave, completely. Why are they then doing there? mountain eagle nests hang out and study in the service of orthologists? http: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = XZ5iizDm0AQ


            5) Perhaps so! Purely for show. But the fact remains, except for the Falklands, the Harriers did not show themselves anywhere and did not try to show.

            Quote: Kassandra
            6. Is the F-35B a carrier-based strike? jump at the expense of the "extinct land VTOL aircraft" ... you will not get it for the 3rd time with the destruction of all Soviet or Arab aviation at the airfields, as in 1941 and 1967, not-well-chit-Xia


            6) Well, refute to me the fact that the F-35B is a carrier-based strike aircraft. Apparently, in your parallel reality, the U.S. Navy is purely land-based troops, and UDC is ground-based walking airfields)))

            Quote: Kassandra
            no one convinced you, no one argued with you, and they didn’t prove anything to you - they have been explaining to others by your example for a long time - you are just a shmokodyavka and have been doing for a long time that you “discuss” me here and not the subject.


            What is exhausted, each troll is not endless))) Remember, weren't you the first in February to change your personality, moving away from the topic ?! This is a sign of an elite troll in your image!
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 29 2014 18: 43
              -1
              1.http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_weasel#Current
              Other aircraft, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle and A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog", while capable of engaging mobile SAM launchers and anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) in a CAS role lacking the avionics to perform a true SEAD mission.
              Are you a chtoli scientist to judge this?

              2. see links above.
              ... and bring in the evidence that did not lead laughing besides one more doctor, you also need an ophthalmologist.

              3. no not ya

              4. somewhere it says ... why should mine look for you?

              5. not possible and did you see this video via link?
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ5iizDm0AQ

              the fact that you are a brain robot .. robot

              6. no, you prove ... Isn't F-35 a Joint Strike FIGHTER?
              with UDC, aviation flies to the equipped coastal FOB as soon as possible, for example, so that it is not destroyed all at once along with UDC.
              https://www.google.ru/#newwindow=1&q=san%20carlos%20fob

              "Call a spade a spade."

              cut through, sooter. but all the same, for the third time, with the destruction of the Ivanushka and Saidushka aviation, both in 3 and 1941, it’s not nepuchitsitsa.
              you're not infinite at all - you're fixated on that. Of course, you switched cash in February - you are taught this.
              Detective doggie.
              stop composting the goyim’s brains, and better go do good deeds. because in your parallel unreality behind the nearest blackhol they won’t give you this ...
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 April 29 2014 22: 52
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                1.http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_weasel#CurrentOther aircraft, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle and A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog", while capable of engaging mobile SAM launchers and anti-aircraft artillery ( AAA) in a CAS role lack the avionics to perform a true SEAD mission. Are you a scientist to judge this?


                1) Off-topic grumble again! I told you about the F-16 and F / A-18 said d.u.r.e.

                Quote: Kassandra
                2. see links above. ... and bring in the evidence that you didn’t lead you, but another doctor, to the optometrist.


                2) And again, where are the docks of "excellent combat" by your favorite Harrier ???

                Quote: Kassandra
                4. somewhere it says ... why should mine look for you?


                3) Indeed, how can one look for what is not there ?! lol

                Quote: Kassandra
                5. not possible, but did you see this video via a link? Http: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = XZ5iizDm0AQ the fact that you are a brain-brain ... robot


                4) Hear the degenerate, I asked you to find the information that the Harriers allegedly are actively involved in the Afghan conflict. You did not find it. Conclusion - you are a balabol!

                Quote: Kassandra
                6. no, you prove ... Isn't F-35 a Joint Strike FIGHTER?


                6) Sometimes you need to wiggle your brains, not only troll. JSF - translates as "single strike fighter". Mixed salty with green. I told you about your nonsense, about the fact that the F-35B is a type of land VTOL aircraft. You have not proved your words, therefore again BALABOL.

                Quote: Kassandra
                you're not infinite at all - you're fixated on that. Of course, you switched cash in February - you are taught this.


                Didn't you transfer the dispute to the 2nd person and started Poking at me, and not on YOU ?! And who is this "you", maybe you can classify yourself as a psi. ...

                Quote: Kassandra
                stop composting the goyim’s brains, and better go do good deeds. because in your parallel unreality behind the nearest blackhol they won’t give you this ...


                No! If I do this, then the trollik Kassandra will starve to death, because there is nothing to eat, and supertiger21 is just the food for you! lol
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 30 2014 00: 03
                  -1
                  1. bobot, you were talking about the F-16. There are no other SEADs (Wild Wiesels) besides him.
                  2. for mobile battles - in 2 links, which you "quoted" in italics.
                  3. How can you look for what you do not want? stsuka where links that harrier vdruk did not lead them? bully
                  4,5. so uninvited. the video was about RAF Harrier crash in Kandahar, Afghanistan 2009, you definitely have the wrong genes.
                  6. flew F-35 from UDC to coastal FOB on the bridgehead and immediately became land
                  understood, hamlo toilet? on "you" still wanted ... pinndos you are, a pest. who needs such a GMO? if you don’t do it, they will do it to you - the devil will be food if you don’t rest and don’t do as it was written am
                  1. supertiger21
                    supertiger21 April 30 2014 18: 35
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    1. bobot, you were talking about the F-16. There are no other SEADs (Wild Wiesels) besides him.


                    Proved nothing! Balabol once!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    2. for mobile battles - in 2 links, which you "quoted" in italics.


                    Proved nothing! Balabol a second time!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    3. How can you look for what you do not want? stsuka where links that harrier vdruk did not lead them?


                    You're lying again! Balabol for the third time!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    4,5. so uninvited. the video was about RAF Harrier crash in Kandahar, Afghanistan 2009, you definitely have the wrong genes.


                    Don’t stutter about genes! Balabolish the fourth time!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    6. flew the F-35 from the UDC to the coastal FOB on the beachhead and immediately became overland. on "you" still wanted ... pinndos you are, a pest. who needs such a GMO? if you don’t do it, they will do it to you - the devil will be food if you don’t rest and don’t do as it was written


                    You should be silent, your school brains have not yet learned to think correctly! So he was also going to tell me "he was singing a dull tinny", apparently you don't have enough mind for more. I have never seen such disgusting visitors like you all over VO. communicate with people, otherwise you will repeat the fate of a ballian visitor, shot without any special warnings.

                    Yes, and that I spend time on demagoguery with some kind of trolling, who does not understand a single gram in respect for the opponent. In short, good luck in further trolling fellow ))) lol
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 30 2014 18: 43
                      0
                      so you prove it - you're a bobot, a vaccine in the form of injections and multiple links in the cited text and from below, obviously can not feel for the brain.

                      you are a zapaddle trying to substitute the airplanes of the Ivanushka and Saidushki for destruction at the airfields for the third time (June 1941, June 1967, ...). Respecting such a GMO is the last thing to do.
                    2. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 30 2014 20: 02
                      0
                      1,2,3,4 - still jump for a stick, doggie.
                      I'm bored without you laughing
                      at the end, people like you are shot for real.
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 29 2014 19: 15
              -1
              Here's to you dry on escho, look how they "did not show themselves" in Iraq-1991:
              learn English!
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCe7qeOf6I
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 30 2014 02: 08
              -1
              on those wamm yet:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid
              http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=harrier+in+afghanistan
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCe7qeOf6I 25:10 Залив
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8XGsQvnfKI Босния
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZKojZtappY 47:20 Залив
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGy_rTbCZj4 Ливия
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwsz74adh4
              that something like strange strange land VTOL everywhere in the world.
              in short, sooter, look for yourself in the Roiss of fools who can brainwash in any direction. then to do with them as well.