Business Insider: Russian fighter T-50 can not compete with the American F-35

250
Foreign and domestic media regularly make attempts to compare this or that military equipment. Based on the available information, they are trying to draw conclusions about the superiority of one sample over others. A few days ago, the American edition of Business Insider published an article with the loud title: Russia's New T-50 fighter cannot compete with the F-35. The authors of the material E. Lee and R. Johnson tried to compare the two newest fighters and made disappointing conclusions for the Russian aircraft.

Business Insider: Russian fighter T-50 can not compete with the American F-35


First of all, the authors of the article in Business Insider noted that the three latest fighter projects - the American F-35, the Russian T-50 and the Chinese J-20 - are the main driving force for progress in the field aviation and they will pave the way for combat aircraft in the XNUMXst century. Nevertheless, the Chinese aircraft is not taken into account in further comparisons; it was only an example to describe the existing situation.

The fifth-generation Russian fighter T-50, in addition to the Russian Air Force, will be supplied to countries that have good relations with Russia. In addition, the buyers of this aircraft can become states that are looking for alternatives to the American F-35. The expectation of the American fighter was noticeably delayed, which is why some countries are beginning to study alternative proposals. Lee and Johnson are reminded of the 2011 estimates of the year, according to which more than X-NUMX T-1000 fighters can be built and transferred to customers.

The authors of the article, referring to foreign experts, argue that the countries-buyers of Russian aircraft while it is not necessary to train pilots, since the supply of equipment to foreign customers can take several decades. According to the Russian World Trade Analysis Center weapons, referenced by E. Lee and R. Johnson, deliveries of T-50 aircraft may continue until the end of the thirties. For example, Malaysia, having signed the contract, will receive the first fighters of the fifth generation not earlier than 2035 of the year.

The material touches upon the issues of further development of front-line aviation. The authors of the article note that American experts who doubt the feasibility of developing unmanned fighter aircraft are not alone in their opinion. Many specialists from Russia also do not believe that the further development of aviation should proceed only along the path of creating unmanned systems. An alternative to this could be the development of onboard electronic equipment of existing aircraft.



Turning to a comparison of aircraft, E. Lee and R. Johnson recalled that in recent years, the global aviation industry is working on the creation of fifth-generation fighter jets. To date, only American F-22 aircraft have been commissioned, but in the coming years, the Russian T-50 should replenish the list of fifth-generation fighter aircraft. The authors note that the use of two engines makes the Russian car somewhat similar to the American F-22.

The authors of the publication, as is clear from its name, compared the T-50 with F-35. However, they did so with the appropriate reservation, noting that Russian aircraft manufacturers prefer to compare their new fighter with the older F-22, with which it must compete, although it is the F-35 that is the future of the US Air Force and its allies.

The first parameter by which the planes of the two countries were compared was visibility for radar systems. E. Lee and R. Johnson point out that Russian designers, when developing the T-50, preferred low-profile maneuverability. In this regard, the American F-35 fighter has more chances to go unnoticed in the area of ​​the combat mission.

The fifth-generation Russian fighter T-50 has a speed advantage over the American F-35. According to the data of the authors of Business Insider, the T-50 is capable of a top speed of up to 1300 miles per hour, F-35 - up to 1200 miles per hour. At the same time, it is noted that the American aircraft carrying the payload in the internal fuselage compartments (there are the same compartments on the Russian T-50) is capable of dropping missiles and bombs even when flying at supersonic speeds.

Both compared aircraft will be able to hit not only air, but also ground targets. They will be able to approach targets at a distance of attack, overcoming the enemy's air defense. However, according to E. Lee and R. Johnson, the F-35 fighter has a higher potential for attacking ground targets. T-50, in turn, has the best ability to combat enemy aircraft.



T-50 is considered a good platform for various weapons needed to perform different combat missions. The authors of the F-35 project abandoned the idea of ​​a universal aircraft and developed three fighter versions adapted to the conditions in which they will have to work in the future.

Russian aircraft manufacturers with the T-50 project intend to win a significant share of the world market for fifth-generation fighter jets. According to the authors of the publication Business Insider, the company "Sukhoi" is going to occupy a third of the world market. However, the T-50 project is not yet ready to build serial equipment, and the American competitors, represented by Lockheed Martin, have already signed several contracts for the supply of their F-35 aircraft.

The fifth-generation Russian fighter has high flight and take-off and landing characteristics. For takeoff, he needs no more than 300 meters of runway. As part of the F-35 project, the F-35B fighter was created for the United States Marine Corps and the United Kingdom Navy. This aircraft is equipped with an original power plant with a rotating engine nozzle and a lifting turbine, thanks to which it can perform a shortened or even vertical (under certain restrictions) takeoff.

Finally, the authors of the publication “The New Russian Fighter T-50 still cannot compete with the F-35” pay attention to the state of the two projects. The Russian fighter T-50 is currently undergoing tests. This year the project will enter the so-called. evaluation phase. Working within the framework of the F-35 project, American specialists are already training pilots who will fly the newest fighters of all three modifications in the future.

Based on these comparisons, E. Lee and R. Johnson conclude in the title of their article. Some of the comments of the authors of the publication are based on obvious facts, while others are an attempt to analyze the available information. Nevertheless, American journalists come to a disappointing conclusion for Russian aircraft manufacturers: T-50 cannot yet compete with F-35. To agree or not with this conclusion, which appeared as a result of another comparison of military equipment, is a personal matter of the reader.


Based on:
http://businessinsider.com/sukhoi-t-50-cant-compete-with-the-f-35-2014-6
250 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +48
    6 June 2014 08: 51
    Who would doubt that the amers have the same thing)
    1. +39
      6 June 2014 09: 05
      And then, an old reception as the world - if you can’t produce a product according to your TTX better than that of a competitor, then you just have to compete with the competitor from head to toe, just convincing customers of their superiority. and it doesn’t matter that these are just allegations. as they say - in war, all methods are good.
      let the pindyat - the dog barks, the wind wears ... Time will put everything in its place. wink
      1. +28
        6 June 2014 11: 51
        The bottom line is simple, since our T-50 is not yet ready for the series, it cannot fight the F-35 ... laughing fool
        1. shiman.1378
          +3
          6 June 2014 16: 18
          yeah, and these are also airplanes of different classes, for account of visibility, we already know by the example of the f-117, f-35 with a very big stretch we can call the fifth generation: except that it enters the fifth generation; capricious pendovskoy electronics with high figures on paper and an unbearable price ....
          1. Ataman
            +13
            6 June 2014 16: 57
            The F-35 has long since moved into the "If you can't cheat, you won't sell" category.
            1. +2
              6 June 2014 22: 00
              Quote: Ataman
              The F-35 has long since moved into the "If you can't cheat, you won't sell" category.

              rather "you won't make you buy - you won't sell"
              South Korea wanted the F-15 Silent Eagle, the Australians F / A-18 Super Hornet, the Japanese wanted to beg for the F-22 instead of this miracle of technology. But still, as if on command, they chose the F-35. The owner does not allow to support the Boeing company with bucks?
          2. +2
            7 June 2014 04: 10
            Quote: shiman.1378
            capricious pendovskoy electronics with high figures on paper and an unbearable price ...

            Our electronics are the most advanced, reliable and cheapest!
          3. 0
            9 June 2014 12: 01
            this is not entirely true about electronics. The Americans stole the technologies applied on the Mig-25, MIG-31, SU-27, Su-24 (reconnaissance) (primarily, applied methods of calculation and design) and based on the experience gained made good equipment for the F22 (on the F-35 simpler). But the price ... even in a significant F-22 series, a fully equipped one costs 2 times more than the t50, and in the truncated version it is not at all better than ours in the field of location, it is even slightly inferior, but still much more expensive.
        2. Good Ukraine
          +2
          6 June 2014 19: 23
          negative The article is delusional. Although the author is right that the F-35 can only be compared with a stool, or, in extreme cases, with an iron.
        3. 0
          7 June 2014 02: 36
          100 percent on the T50 is still not worth weapons, but they are already comparing. They decided to give a shit in advance, but those countries that are willing to spend under $ 100 in cheap articles cannot be persuaded.
        4. 0
          7 June 2014 15: 31
          Quote: mirag2
          The bottom line is simple, since our T-50 is not yet ready for the series, it cannot fight the F-35 ..

          Yes, well, their wretched tesha didn’t go to the series yet, she’s just learning to shoot, and their knees are already shaking .....
        5. dmitrij.blyuz
          0
          9 June 2014 05: 59
          Well, yes! We have electronics on lamps and cable management! wassat
          1. +1
            April 18 2017 16: 38
            My friend, if you knew that the lamps are the most resistant to radiation and all kinds of electronic meters. interference, tobish EW, then did not write such nonsense.
            And where they are used, this is done on purpose. It is not for nothing that our electronic warfare equipment is far ahead of the competition. Americans are hopelessly behind in this matter.
      2. Salamander
        +3
        6 June 2014 12: 04
        In quality, no one can compare with the F-35. lol
        1. +4
          6 June 2014 22: 51
          F-35 is so cool that only Bruce Willis can destroy it laughing
      3. SAG
        +5
        6 June 2014 12: 07
        In 2008-2012 (I don’t remember exactly), the Australian Air Force headquarters conducted a comparison by computer simulation of the F-22, T-50, F-35, and Su-35 aircraft. Modeling showed that the F-35 can be considered a flying coffin of the 5th generation. There a big scandal erupted over the purchase plans of the F-35 (they wrote a lot about this), but since Australopithecines had only this piece of gobna to choose from, they decided to purchase it as many as 58 piles at a price of 11,4 billion lol
        1. +13
          6 June 2014 12: 18
          Quote: SAG
          At 2008-2012 (I don’t remember exactly), the Australian Air Force headquarters made a comparison

          Alas, the Australian headquarters had nothing to do with this. These were another fantasies of Carlo Kopp, Air Power Australia, who claimed that the Americans allegedly simulated the training fights of the F-35 and Su-35, according to which the F-35 was broken blind.
          Papa Carlo's article hit the newspapers. A scandal arose. Then the Americans said that they did not simulate anything and suggested to Kopp to explain where he got information about the simulation of the battle. Kopp handed back and apologized for cheating
          Personally, my opinion is that F-35 does not dance against Su-35, but Kopp is still a liar
          1. 0
            9 June 2014 12: 04
            there was modeling, but modeling of front-line scenarios not favorable for stealth aircraft, where not their strengths are important.
            Actually, stealth is not suitable for the front. But that was clear before the simulation.
        2. +6
          6 June 2014 15: 20
          Quote: SAG
          In 2008-2012 (I don’t remember exactly)


          In 2008, nonsense is hard to remember ... laughing

          Quote: SAG
          Australian Air Force headquarters compares


          Not Australian but American - in Hawaii.

          Quote: SAG
          modeling of aircraft F-22, T-50, F-35, Su-35.


          How could there be a T-50 if it appeared in 2010 fool ??? Lie at least rigging the facts and not a lie.

          Quote: SAG
          Modeling showed that the F-35 can be considered a flying coffin of the 5th generation.


          Only these are not the results of the analysis, but the imagination of one of the Australian "experts".

          Quote: SAG
          There a big scandal erupted over the purchase plans of the F-35 (they wrote a lot about this), but since Australopithecines had only this piece of gobna to choose from, they decided to purchase it as many as 58 piles at a price of 11,4 billion


          Tell me at least one aircraft for 2008, which would be a powerful alternative to buying an F-35.
          1. 0
            9 June 2014 12: 11
            Quote: supertiger21

            How could there be a T-50 if it appeared in 2010 fool ??

            he did not appear. He simulated a computer according to the approximate characteristics of the aircraft. By T50, many characteristics are already known to all.
        3. 0
          7 June 2014 04: 17
          Not exactly - Australopithecus died out about 2 million years ago, and Australians live in Australia.
      4. +8
        6 June 2014 12: 38
        in speed of t-50 and stealth, I would argue ... from some sources there was infa that t-50 accelerates to 2,6 mach ... second, it has already been proven in Yugoslavia that maneuverability is priority over stealth (29 instantly detected and knocked down xNUMX) ... third ... how can machines be compared if t117 has not yet gone into production, which means that all of its parameters voiced by both amers and our specialists are arbitrary ... the same can be said about f50, since it’s already for many years, although it was put into production, but it’s being finalized ... (add to this the accident that caused the death of the pilots) ... further, the price our t35 and amerovsky f50, these figures can’t even be compared without laughing ... it is important that our car is the heir to the su35 and the 27 moment, which even American analysts recognized as the best in its class ... the power reserve of the T29 is greater, the handling is better ... we have new engines on our machine, to which amers still have growth and growth ... there are also doubts about the weapons ... let's start with melee missiles ... Russia has no competitors here, in medium and long range, I think our missiles inferior to competitors ... and in conclusion I’ll say, our specialists who work t50 hell is not stupid and they know the real parameters and characteristics of f50 ... since Soviet times it so happened that at the exit to the series, our machines were not just the best, but they also had a lot of modernization than competitors ... I can be blamed for excessive praise of our machine, but ... the creation of an 35 generation fighter is a world-class task and I don’t think that in our KB they don’t understand this ... therefore, I think the T5 will wipe its nose and f50 and f35 ... and what’s oblique the very statement of this magazine, I think that this is an elementary struggle for markets and no more. ..
        1. +4
          6 June 2014 15: 37
          Quote: NEXUS
          it has already been proved in Yugoslavia that maneuverability is a priority of stealth (instant 29 easily detected and shot down f117)


          Only your words do not correspond to the example you cited ... request For since when do maneuverable fighters (MiG-29) have to conduct "air battles" with stealth bombers. With the same success, I can say that the Su-27 is doing the A-10 in aerial combat)))

          Quote: NEXUS
          (add to this the accident resulting in the death of pilots)


          Unfortunately, there were no F-35 crashes yet!

          Quote: NEXUS
          It is important that our car is the heir to the Su27 and Mig29, which even American analysts recognized as the best in their class.


          And moreover, this fact when comparing PAK FA and Lightning ???

          Quote: NEXUS
          start with melee missiles


          Well, let’s begin) Amers AIM-9X Sidewinder is the latest modification with a more modern avionics, fuel supply, and also a shock-and-burner (catastrophically increasing maneuverability). Our P-73 is also very powerful, but it cannot be pulled to Sidewinder-X.

          Quote: NEXUS
          Russia has no competitors here, on average


          In terms of medium-range missiles, the Americans are still in the lead. The medium-range missile AIM-120C-7 is equipped with an active AGSN, has a radius of up to 120 km, which is done due to the large fuel supply. Well, I am silent about the AIM-120D, the range is 180 km.

          Quote: NEXUS
          and long range


          Long-range missiles are designed for larger and less maneuverable targets and not for attacking fighters.

          Quote: NEXUS
          and as regards the very statement of this magazine, I believe that this is an elementary struggle for markets and no more ...


          I agree with that! Yes
          1. +3
            6 June 2014 16: 14
            point by point: the fact that even the Americans recognized the 29 momentum f117 (I spoke about the priority of maneuverability over stealth) ... the Yugoslav pilot was at the helm of the moment ... this time ... second ... f35 fell and did not once, just like a raptor, this was often and detailed in the media ... thirdly, I spoke about the heritage of the Pak Fa and not about comparison ... further, the question is, where did you get that on t-50 will these missiles be exactly you? m ... the weapons of the fa fa have not yet been finalized and approved ... and the last ... aerial combat is not predictable and with olknovenie bombers, attack planes and fighters in a battle predictably ...
            1. +3
              6 June 2014 16: 33
              in addition, as far as I know, Russia has not even announced the development of a light 5 generation front-line fighter, which means that when the t50 arrives in regular units, this function will be assigned to it until there is a light new fighter ... though perhaps the modernization of the 29 moment will close this gap for a while ... and to the answer to your remarks there is another thought: the 5 generation fighter suggests not only more advanced avionics, means of location and stealth, but also a completely new weapon ... and your statement about the arsenal of Pak fa, to put it mildly m premature, maybe, in the final configuration, neither I nor you saw him ... therefore your calculations are premature and little reasoned, both by our machine and by the Amer fighter
              1. +4
                6 June 2014 22: 55
                here I look at this f35 ... and I think, because it looks like a pregnant penguin in profile ... and in Mikoyan’s KB there is such an interesting saying - a beautiful plane and it will fly beautifully
            2. +3
              6 June 2014 17: 11
              Quote: NEXUS
              point by point: the fact that even the Americans recognized the 29 momentum f117 (I spoke about the priority of maneuverability over stealth) ... there was a Yugoslav pilot at the helm of the moment ... this


              There was no such thing. The F-117 shot down the S-125 air defense system, an upgraded version using a Philips thermal imager.
              1. +5
                6 June 2014 18: 07
                here is the answer
                1. +6
                  6 June 2014 18: 54
                  http://inosmi.ru/usa/20120501/191264544.html вот мнение одного из экспертов...
              2. +2
                6 June 2014 18: 14
                Quote: Zymran
                There was no such thing. The F-117 shot down the S-125 air defense system, an upgraded version using a Philips thermal imager.


                This is one case, there is also an unconfirmed victory from the MiG-29.
                1. +4
                  6 June 2014 21: 43
                  here you’ll enlighten the dark, since we are having such a pointless conversation compared to non-existent cars ... tell me, if the F35 is sharpened by stealth and this is its hobbyhorse and trump card, why does it need a gun? That is, it is assumed that this fighter will enter the region close combat with the enemy ... and therefore the enemy will see him ... then the question is, what then will the f35 pilot do if his maneuverability, which is mandatory in close combat, leaves much to be desired? m
                  1. 0
                    7 June 2014 12: 29
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    tell me, if f35 is sharpened on stealth and this is his hobbyhorse and trump card, why does he need a gun?


                    You are an adult and you must understand that there are certain extreme cases when you cannot do without a gun. Now they put guns on all planes, regardless of their purpose.

                    Quote: NEXUS
                    That is, it is assumed that this fighter will enter the melee area with the enemy


                    This is "supposed" only as a last resort, if you cannot beat the enemy at a great distance and if he still manages to enter close combat.

                    Quote: NEXUS
                    and then the enemy will see him ...


                    The question is whether the enemy will be able to see him at all at a distance, even if it is likely to die. And the fact that the F-35 will be visible in close combat is the second question, because the Americans cannot hope for such an outcome of events. in a competent way negative !

                    Quote: NEXUS
                    then the question is, what will the f35 pilot do if his maneuverability, which is mandatory in close combat, leaves much to be desired?


                    This drawback is relevant in theoretical close combat with some Su-35S or EF-2000, where only the advantages of technology are assessed. In reality, more than 50% of the outcome of the battle will depend on the experience of the pilots of the two opponents. In Iran-Iraqi, for example, on MiGakh-21 and Mirazh-F1 managed to shoot down 4th generation F-14A Tomcat fighters, and the reason for this was the excellent training of a number of Iraqi aces.
                    1. +4
                      7 June 2014 21: 40
                      dear, you again did not understand what I was trying to convey to you, but simply went on to begin to judge elementarily about a person and his level of erudition and intelligence, which does not honor you ... but to the question of the gun and generally about melee weapons, after reading your conclusions, I came again, based on your conclusions, to the fact that the gun and melee rockets on the F35 were hung just in case, that was (and now let's estimate how much this is in kilograms ... I think tons and a half, if not two) and if you remember that f35 has one engine, and not two, then I wonder stupid to such, and not too much luxury, these one and a half tons just in case, just for what? m ... and second, listen to you, then the amers stealth system and radar counteraction systems are such that Russian cars are just irons, and like kutyats who do not see anything ... you are again talking about what you have no idea, dear, maybe I’ll repeat it, NOT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE T50 IN A SERIAL OPTION !!!!!! and learn to respect the interlocutor ...
                  2. RAFAL
                    0
                    8 July 2014 22: 10
                    Yes, it is supposed that when he will work everything on the earth and finally enter the defenseless city and begin to shred innocent children and old people from the cannon, because there will be no Tunguska to throw this demon from heaven!
            3. 0
              6 June 2014 18: 24
              Quote: NEXUS
              on points: the fact that instant 29 shot down f117 was even recognized by the Americans


              And I did not deny this shooting down, I talked about your incorrect position when comparing a fighter with a bomber. They mixed salt and green)))

              Quote: NEXUS
              f35 fell and more than once


              Links ?!

              Quote: NEXUS
              just like a raptor, this was often and detailed in the media ...


              I don’t argue! In the accidents of the Raptors, pilots died.

              Quote: NEXUS
              will the missiles listed on the t-50 be you?


              Do you have an alternative opinion? RVV-SD will be the main weapon of the PAK FA in the fight against fighters. The missile is excellent, there is an active GOS and a range of 100 km. But this is lower than the characteristics of the American analog AIM-120 AMRAAM.

              Quote: NEXUS
              aerial combat is not predictable, and the collision of bombers, attack aircraft and fighters in one battle is quite predictable ...


              It is predictable, but it should not be inherently and not standard. You have strange concepts of bombers and fighters to compare. Or were you misled by the letter "F" in the index of the American "invisibility"?
              1. +4
                6 June 2014 18: 32
                you didn’t understand me again ... I talked about PRIORITY OF MANEUVERABILITY WITH RESPECT TO LOW FINE .. maybe the raptor or f35 are more inconspicuous, which is also very controversial, since the serial t50 has not been seen, but the maneuverability is already better t50 now ... I’m not comparing aircraft classes, but talking about the conflict between stealth and maneuverability ... regarding missiles ... I don’t think that the developers are aware of the backlog of our arsenal, and therefore I will take the liberty of asserting that with the serial production of t50, it will the arsenal is not exactly the one you are talking about, but ina What is the point of withdrawing a car that was initially weaker armed than the enemy?
                1. +3
                  6 June 2014 23: 58
                  This is debatable.
                  The point of view of the Americans: "why spin in vain? Shot from a distance,
                  until the enemy sees you, turn around and leave. "
                  Russian point of view: "It is impossible to avoid close combat,
                  and the more agile will win in carousels. "
                2. 0
                  6 June 2014 23: 59
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  otherwise, it makes sense to withdraw a car that was initially weaker armed than the enemy?

                  And if this is not possible, do you propose to do nothing?
                  1. +5
                    7 June 2014 00: 05
                    and who told you that there is no such possibility? m ... what nonsense about the fact that those rockets that hang on 35 or those that are talked about in the media will hang on the pack fa? Now everyone will tell you and show and the drawings will let you know ... in fact that you or I know about Pak fa, without delirium, fantasies and trolling? m ... almost nothing ... but because you can sit and talk until you turn blue ... you need to talk about the case then when t50 will go into series, when it will be clear what kind of avionics, arsenal, capabilities, etc. ...
                    1. +1
                      7 June 2014 12: 31
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      and who told you that there is no such possibility? m ... what nonsense about the fact that those rockets that hang on 35 or those that are talked about in the media will hang on the pack fa? Now everyone will tell you and show and the drawings will let you know ... in fact that you or I know about Pak fa, without delirium, fantasies and trolling? m ... almost nothing ... but because you can sit and talk until you turn blue ... you need to talk about the case then when t50 will go into series, when it will be clear what kind of avionics, arsenal, capabilities, etc. ...


                      Well, then what do you think we "ordinary people" know about the strength and weakness of the F-35? This is if we follow your inventions!
                      1. +4
                        7 June 2014 21: 44
                        you forgot one small subtlety - Ф35 already flies! And what is hung on it is known ... and the parameters for avionics, arsenal, radar component are more or less known ... but what do you know about PAK FA by fact? M .. .or do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?
        2. +1
          9 June 2014 12: 20
          Quote: NEXUS
          I would argue about the speed of the T-50 and stealth ... from some sources there was infa that the T-50 accelerates to 2,6 mach ...
          (1)

          second, it has already been proven in Yugoslavia that maneuverability is a priority of stealth (instantly 29 easily detected and shot down 117) ...
          (2)
          in terms of armaments, too, there are doubts ... let's start with melee missiles ... Russia has no competitors here, in medium and long range, I think our missiles are not inferior to competitors ...
          (3)

          1. in terms of speed, t50 is close to f22, and noticeably better than the F-35. But most importantly, F35 is fundamentally inferior to f22 and t50 because supersonic is only afterburner. Plus maneuverability and range.
          2. In Yugoslavia was completely different. Just competent work in the interaction of a front-line fighter and ground guidance.
          3. Until recently, the Americans were inferior in near missiles and had some advantage in long-range missiles. Recently, the adoption of a new nomenclature of missiles by both countries has leveled up close combat and has gained the advantage of the Russian Federation in the long-range. In the middle distance, approximate parity is maintained. However, the amers have a special niche where they invested at the expense of other areas - anti-satellite missiles.
      5. 0
        6 June 2014 16: 02
        Psacking)))
      6. +2
        6 June 2014 16: 30
        exactly!!!
        Quote: Ryabov Kirill
        The first parameter by which the aircraft of the two countries were compared is visibility for radar systems.

        yeah ... this is the most important thing in a modern aircraft, stealth and hypersound ... I believe that the Americans make aircraft for a weak enemy. In a conflict with an adversary with modern weapons (RF Iran Syria RB China) F35 will be visible and vulnerable and will not be able to take full advantage of the "long-range strike" capabilities, you will have to come closer and with a high probability of combat contact. Where all the flaws of the F35 will come out immediately and forever (one engine, a small weapon capacity, a strong vulnerability of the "stealth" coating of the aircraft (look on the Internet in the Chinese sector for an interesting way of dealing with invisibility in "tank-hazardous directions" even ordinary dust is of course a utopia, but there is something in it, at least you can spray an aerosol and make it rain, and it "cuts" the stealth coating turning f35 into an ordinary, not very maneuverable and not very fast target).
        Well and of course - the t-50 is a fighter on his own. And f35 needs a whole bunch of additions. Remember how they shot down drying in Yugoslavia as a whole crowd on one (sic!) (Avaks, fighters, ships, ground stations ...)

        Quote: Ryabov Kirill
        At the same time, it is noted that an American aircraft carrying a payload in the internal compartments of the fuselage (the same compartments are on the Russian T-50) is capable of dropping missiles and bombs even when flying at supersonic speed.

        Yes, this is an indisputable minus. However, there is no information that the t-50 CANNOT drop bombs and missiles at supersonic level either. For the experience of launching on a supersonic plane at domestic aviation is the sea.

        Quote: Ryabov Kirill
        F-35 fighter has a higher potential for attacking ground targets. T-50, in turn, has the best ability to deal with enemy aircraft ..

        Just an idiotic conclusion. F35 tank or what self-propelled guns or how to save, or God forbid MLRS? It all depends on the type of weapon just the same. And on the amount of ammunition taken on board. So here is a full span with better / worse. Six months later, new missiles will be introduced and the T50 will become better. In another six months, the Americans will replace how to make a fig of electronic and will become better again.

        So the hammer is right - you can’t do it better - shit it :)
        1. 0
          9 June 2014 15: 42
          Quote: Gomel

          It all depends on the type of weapon just the same.

          Not everyone.
          planes see ground targets nearby. They have to come close and here invisibility is important, as well as radar, and the time needed to fire a shot, and the ability to quickly wash off, and a well-thought-out system of enveloping the terrain, stock of traps, electronic warfare, the quality of passive surveillance systems and much more.
          In a number of parameters, the F-35 is really nicer than the T50.
          But to use the T50 as an attack aircraft is idiocy, and in another work the differences are not very large.
      7. +1
        6 June 2014 21: 47
        In general, the article doesn’t specifically indicate what the F-35 is superior to the Teshka. Where is the comparison of technical characteristics, production, cost. So far, I see that cattle breeders, as always, are trying to replenish the raw product to their allies, who refuse it with their hands and feet. While our Teshka is in the testing phase, most of the characteristics are hidden under the bar and we simply cannot know all the features, YES AND CATTLE FUNCTIONS. Probably in this regard, in order not to be left with the nose and without orders, the Pentagon is frantically looking for buyers, and even in third countries, for fear of the publication of the rival, the handsome T-50!
        1. +2
          6 June 2014 22: 25
          Quote: juborg
          In general, the article doesn’t specifically indicate what the F-35 is superior to the Teshka. Where is the comparison of technical characteristics, production, cost. So far, I see that cattle breeders, as always, are trying to replenish the raw product to their allies, who refuse it with their hands and feet. While our Teshka is in the testing phase, most of the characteristics are hidden under the bar and we simply cannot know all the features, YES AND CATTLE FUNCTIONS. Probably in this regard, in order not to be left with the nose and without orders, the Pentagon is frantically looking for buyers, and even in third countries, for fear of the publication of the rival, the handsome T-50!

          The author only gives us an American article. You know that American equipment is the coolest, you can’t shoot down the F-22 and F-35 by any means, not a single Abrams tank was hit, the F-15 was never shot down ... according to the false claims of the US military. Naturally, they will praise their flying iron *** understand what generation.
          Even if they hold an F-35 training battle with Russian fighters, if they win training battles even at long or short range, then I will believe that the Penguin is so cool. In the meantime, I will be of the opinion that the F-35 g ... in lean oil, let and with good avionics.
          Remember the universal F-4 Phantom, that also had to become a strike aircraft and a fighter in one bottle, and tell me at least one war where the Phantoms were successful? Can the US step on the same rake again? Again, do universal UG, repeating the fate of the F-4?
          1. +2
            7 June 2014 00: 26
            Let them at least conduct an F-35 training battle with Russian fighters


            100 Penguins vs 5 T-50s? I'm afraid they will roll out in a moment. The article explicitly states:

            Finally, the authors of the publication “The New Russian Fighter T-50 still cannot compete with the F-35” pay attention to the state of the two projects. The Russian fighter T-50 is currently undergoing tests. This year the project will enter the so-called. evaluation phase. Working within the framework of the F-35 project, American specialists are already training pilots who will fly the newest fighters of all three modifications in the future.


            And they called the article “New Russian T-50 fighter still can't compete with the F-35. " Do not dig! How can he now compete with any adopted aircraft if he is not yet in the series?
            1. 0
              7 June 2014 14: 46
              100 Penguins vs 5 T-50s? I'm afraid they will roll out in a moment. The article explicitly states:

              not necessarily with the 5 T-50, but with the same Su-27 and MiG-29. At least find out the truth that Russian radars see it.
              1. 0
                9 June 2014 15: 49
                the question is not whether they see or not, but how far they see.
                And how far visible themselves.
                Basically, there is enough distance so as not to merge the air battle in advance.
                But if intercepting the work of the F-35 for other purposes - there are questions of efficiency ...
                I would say that the effective response time interval for our aircraft will be reduced.
            2. 0
              7 June 2014 20: 06
              Quote: Assistant
              How can he now compete with any adopted aircraft

              F-35 has not yet been adopted.
              1. 0
                8 June 2014 15: 42
                F-35 has not yet been adopted.


                This is me that in the context of the above excerpt from the article, the authors could well bend the phrases "T-50 still cannot compete with the F-15 or T-50 still cannot compete with the F-16. "As an argument -" Well, if you don't believe, bring your 5 T-50s against 1500 F-15s or 4500 F-16s, let's see who wins. "And again, you won't get undermined.
              2. 0
                9 June 2014 12: 36
                It’s not accepted into service, but more than a hundred have stamped them smile
      8. Vlad Gore
        0
        8 June 2014 09: 37
        The Americans did not provide any convincing arguments in their favor. The American conclusion is based on the principle "we want it so." bully
    2. +13
      6 June 2014 09: 05
      Rotary turbine? belay Specialists will say (I am fuel oil) that this is an increase in the mass of the aircraft and, as a result, its performance characteristics are changing for the worse! This is me about the deck modification. Either I'm a complete ram, or Lee and Johnson are cunning, drawing conclusions. Moreover, most of the fighters are based on aircraft carriers, the main striking force of the shit. Correct who is in the subject! hi
      1. +11
        6 June 2014 09: 12
        Having fallen asleep, F-35 has only one buzzer with communications that ensure its operation at almost 2 tons. Which in a normal airplane (not VTOL aircraft) could be used for something useful
      2. +5
        6 June 2014 09: 31
        Quote: sscha
        Moreover, most of the fighters are based on aircraft carriers, the main striking force of the shit.

        Very, very comrade are mistaken.
        Deck aviation for all the unleashed wars over the past 15 years has carried out in the region of 10% of all military vehicles. And about the number and composition of the Air Force mattress and generally all countries in the world, there were articles on the resource.
        1. +4
          6 June 2014 09: 35
          Senkey! hi
          I say - fuel oil! wink
      3. +2
        6 June 2014 11: 09
        Quote: sscha
        Rotary turbine? Specialists will say (I am fuel oil) that this is an increase in the mass of the aircraft and, as a result, its performance characteristics are changing for the worse!

        I can quote my friend MAIshnik again - according to him, the F-35 was originally conceived as an exclusively vertical one, therefore it has a bunch of design decisions necessary for vertical take-off and hence a lot of negative aspects that seriously worsen TTX, but the implementation of a completely vertical take-off / landing failed, so in the end it turned out neither this nor that ...
        1. +5
          6 June 2014 14: 23
          "but the implementation of a fully vertical take-off / landing has failed"

          How did it fail? The you-tube is full of videos, like the F-35B is very beautiful and
          stably, without even swinging, vertically takes off and lands.
          The vertical take-off version turned out, to everyone’s surprise,
          even better than with a short take-off. The British urgently wanted
          it’s a vertical take-off on their aircraft carriers (they changed the order instead
          shortened)
          1. Jet
            -2
            6 June 2014 15: 27
            nobody cares here)
          2. +4
            6 June 2014 15: 33
            I read somewhere that the F-35 vertical takes weapons many times less.
            YouTube video laughing Well, let's use more serious analytical materials in discussions ...
            1. Jet
              -1
              6 June 2014 18: 34
              right! let's get more serious analytical materials like: "... but I read somewhere that everything American is shit, and we will defeat them .."
          3. +1
            6 June 2014 15: 45
            Quote: voyaka uh
            How did it fail? The you-tube is full of videos on how the F-35B is very beautifully stable, without even swinging, it takes off vertically and sits down. The vertical take-off version turned out, to everyone's surprise, even better than with a short take-off. The British urgently wanted a vertical take-off on their aircraft carriers


            I agree! But nevertheless, vertical take-off is no longer suitable for our reality, so it is more profitable and efficient to use a shortened take-off.
            1. Jet
              +4
              6 June 2014 18: 39
              Well, the F-35B, saving fuel, makes excellent use of shortened take-off, with the help of rotary nozzles and additional engines, but at the same time, in the absence of even shortened runways, it can also use vertical. Russia has long needed a similar aircraft to replace the Yak-38, and if it still does not exist, this does not mean that this type is not needed in principle. Or do you think they correctly did that they hacked the Yak-41 and 43, and handed over its documentation to the Americans, and now together, in impotent rage, is the F-35B high, which in many ways resembles it ?;)
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. +1
                6 June 2014 19: 10
                He has an F-35B-has a fan. And I read the back rotary nozzle in the press, ours helped to do it. Yes, and he has one engine. And for take-off and flight., What is different from Jacob where two more additional Kolesovsky stood. They carried an extra load with them. The design of the engine, in principle, is no different from the helicopter, the gearbox (though more powerful and reliable and is located on the front of the engine), the fan is a rotary nozzle, and the air wheels to hang more stable. And the engine is clearly an order of magnitude more powerful.
                And so the plane is needed. The British understood this long ago, when their Invisible slightly damaged the Argentines and the roll appeared, they shoved planes on aircraft carriers that participated in the operation on the Falklands. Then they also used a tanker. And YOU take off on a short take-off from a tanker ?????? No. From here and the whole conversation.
            2. +2
              7 June 2014 12: 08
              It seems to me, on the contrary: vertical (helicopter) take-off and landing -
              the future of military aviation.
              Reason: there is no dependence on airfields. Airfields with their
              reserves of fuel and ammunition - the weakest link in the Air Force.
              A vetikalka: got into any place, drove a fuel truck and a truck
              with missiles - and charged into battle.
              1. 0
                7 June 2014 14: 13
                And you can act like hot Finnish guys.
          4. +5
            6 June 2014 17: 18
            And let's not forget about "the world's best PR people with stars and stripes." laughing
          5. +3
            6 June 2014 18: 49
            Quote: voyaka uh
            How did it fail?

            Let me explain - it takes off and lands beautifully and smoothly, and most importantly - without failures, unlike the previous vertical lines, but it only burns the fuel in such quantities. that its radius of action falls several times, while it may not take full combat load, in general, the vertical line can be considered a failure for this aircraft, so an unnecessary opportunity for a show-off ...
            1. +1
              8 June 2014 00: 01
              You are right about the vertical weight limits
              but I do not agree that the vertical line is for show-offs.
              There are likely combat situations when it is necessary to take off urgently and desperately -
              at least half the fuel, at least somehow.
              Damaged runway. strip of an aircraft carrier (or airfield) -
              common case.
              And you forgot that the shortened take-off from the springboard of the aircraft carrier, too
              limits take-off combat load.
          6. +3
            6 June 2014 22: 31
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The you-tube is full of videos, like the F-35B is very beautiful and
            stably, without even swinging, vertically takes off and lands.
            The vertical take-off version turned out, to everyone’s surprise,
            even better than with a short take-off.

            maybe because the vertical take-off technology was borrowed from the Yak-141 for some miserable 500 thousand dollars?
            1. +4
              7 June 2014 00: 05
              You are right, the idea was borrowed from a Soviet aircraft.
              But the implementation was possible only with the introduction of
              a computer that controls vertical take-off / landing.
              The pilot only presses the "up" button and no further
              touched by management. At a certain height, the button
              forward and again does not touch the handle until the plane is flying steadily.
              On Yak and on the Harrier, everything depended on the skill of the pilot.
              1. 0
                7 June 2014 20: 14
                Quote: voyaka uh
                You are right, the idea was borrowed from a Soviet aircraft.
                But the implementation was possible only with the introduction of
                a computer that controls vertical take-off / landing.

                The Yak-141 took off and landed vertically, somewhere in 1987.
                On the video, vertical take-off, landing, short take-off
          7. Escander_84
            0
            7 June 2014 19: 37
            You look at the restrictions imposed by vertical take-off (well, at least for take-off weight). What is the point of having VTOL aircraft and at the same time go into combat with a half-empty tank and one missile ???
          8. 0
            9 June 2014 13: 00
            The fact is that after a vertical take-off, and even with armament (despite the fact that armaments will have to be taken much less in any case) you will still have fuel (and you will have to take off not with full tanks, because otherwise there will simply not be enough traction ) about to fly around the deck and land vertically again (I exaggerate of course, but not very far from the truth smile ), and even the risks of accidents are much greater. Therefore, in the dry residue, except take-off / landing, where I want (and even this with a large number of BUT), there are NO real advantages: small ammunition, less engine life, greater accident rate due to the complexity of the systems and, as a consequence, there is a greater danger to the crew. On the tube in the video, everything is beautiful of course, but really the combat effectiveness of this is greatly limited.

            The vertical take-off version turned out, to everyone’s surprise,
            even better than with a short take-off. The British urgently wanted
            it’s a vertical take-off on their aircraft carriers (they changed the order instead
            shortened)


            It sounds interesting, of course, but the fact is that the variant with "shortened" and "vertical" take-off / landing is one and the same machine, as it were wink : F-35B. It just takes off in an airplane, using the front compressor and deflecting the engine nozzle by 30-50 degrees - with an take-off run (just to take off with a maximum payload and full tanks), and sits down (when it was shot and eat fuel) in a helicopter - vertically. What shortened version that was replaced by the vertical?
        2. +3
          6 June 2014 15: 44
          Quote: Albert1988
          According to him, the F-35 was originally conceived as exclusively vertical, so it has a bunch of design decisions necessary for vertical take-off and from here a bunch of negative moments that seriously worsen the performance characteristics, but the implementation of a completely vertical take-off / landing failed, so in the end it turned out neither this ...


          You are wrong negative ! Initially, three different modifications were developed for different tasks. The F-35A is the main version of the aircraft for the U.S. Air Force without vertical capabilities (in my opinion, it is better than the other two modifications). The F-35B is a GDP aircraft for the United States Naval Forces, very limited in capabilities. F-35C - a deck aircraft for the US Navy, has folding wings and a brake hook.
          1. 0
            6 June 2014 18: 52
            Quote: supertiger21
            You are wrong

            I was voiced another version - just initially a clean vertical was planned, such as a new harrier, but already in the development process we realized that it might not come out clean, and in order not to fly out into the pipe, we made changes and made a couple of new modifications, this is the opinion of the person who graduated from the Moscow Aviation Institute, so I bought for that, for that I sell)))
            1. +1
              6 June 2014 18: 58
              In real life, the quarry does not open vertically, so the range and combat load drops.
              1. +1
                6 June 2014 19: 02
                Quote: iwind
                In real life, a hare does not open vertically

                As they say, as required to prove))))
            2. +1
              6 June 2014 21: 07
              Quote: Albert1988
              Another version was voiced to me - a clean vertical line was originally planned, such as a new harrier, but already in the development process we realized that it might not come out clean, and in order not to fly out into the pipe, we made changes and made a couple of new modifications, this is the opinion of the person who finished MAI, so for what I bought, for that I sell)))


              It means that those who voiced this to you are wrong. Perhaps these words will be right in the brake if referring to the demands of the military from the US ILC about the desire to acquire a new GDP aircraft, when the JSF program had not yet started. But with the wishes of the Air Force and the Navy, the monopoly on only the "vertical" project collapsed. There was a division of roles. Perhaps this is what the MAI was trying to tell you?
              1. +1
                6 June 2014 21: 40
                Quote: supertiger21
                And actually at first it was supposed to be just VTOL aircraft, but with the wishes of the Air Force and the Navy, the monopoly on only the "vertical" project collapsed. There was a division of roles. Perhaps this is what they were trying to tell you from MAI?

                Most likely, but also the one who told me this, emphasized that the F-35 has in its design many design decisions that are necessary specifically for the implementation of vertical take-off, which nevertheless negatively affect its performance characteristics, I repeat again - I'm not an expert , therefore, I refer to the opinion of a person with an appropriate education.
        3. 0
          10 June 2014 11: 16
          no, the F-35 was not meant to be exclusively vertical.
          This demand (vertical take-off) appeared later - when there was a debate about financing the project. Due to the considerations of unification and economy, the vertical housing has been made universal and this solution for the F35 will come back many times. But this is the price of support for lobbyists in the United States.
      4. +1
        7 June 2014 04: 32
        Quote: sscha
        Rotary turbine?

        There are no "rotary turbines" there, but rather a rotary nozzle.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. +1
      6 June 2014 10: 52
      In an air battle, the T-50 will be made American, this is even recognized in the article, but for the ground attack on which the United States hopes, the F-35 will not be able to fly unnoticed, although this invisibility is much better than the T-50, as they believe, simply because that Khibiny will see everything, and Russia’s ground radars are much better than American ones.
      1. +8
        6 June 2014 12: 11
        Quote: Max_Bauder
        just because the khibiny will see everything


        The Khibiny are "blind", they are not a means of detection, but electronic warfare.
      2. +8
        6 June 2014 13: 19
        this is the same story as with our "ka-52 alligator ... the Americans praise their Apache, but when they are asked a question about our alligator, they answer that the Russian car has one big problem - the overlap of the blades ... however, already in they enter the army, but something is not said about the overlap ...
    5. +6
      6 June 2014 11: 06
      Quote: Clever man
      Who would doubt that the amers have the same thing)

      But the fact of the matter is that these gentlemen, it seems, realizing that their penguin clearly does not correspond to their show-off, decided to go into another plane - "they say ours is already ready, but the Russians still have a lot of work to do", a very interesting move. As for the "invisibility", my good friend, who graduated from the Moscow Aviation Institute, once told me that the F-35's stealth is much lower than that of the F-22, so the magazines went wrong. In general, I wonder how they were going to compare heavy T-50 fighter and light F-35?
      1. 0
        9 June 2014 14: 09
        In general, I wonder how it was they going to compare the heavy T-50 fighter and the light F-35?


        They have closer tasks than with the same F-22 (which is based on the fighter gaining dominance in the air), since it was originally designed as multi-functional. Therefore, it is possible to compare in principle. As for invisibility, everything is debatable, but it is still worse for the F-35 than for the F-22, but still the EPR indicators will be very good.

        they decided to go into another plane - "they say ours is already ready, but the Russians still have a lot of work to do",


        This is said by some Experts, so do not take their words for the words of the designers of the F-35 and real analysts.

        the penguin clearly does not match its show


        For Americans, it is much worse that almost none of the versions matches the specifications in the TTX development task (but they are being pulled). However, the car was not as bad as many people think. The reason here is the role that she was assigned in future conflicts initially - a platform for smart weapons. At some point, the United States came to the conclusion that further improvement of the performance characteristics at the current level of development is more promising specifically for weapons, and not for the carrier (which should be massive).
    6. +2
      6 June 2014 11: 43
      They can wipe their conclusions
    7. +3
      6 June 2014 11: 48
      I remember there was a case similar to f117, let them think that they want the effect of this will be even more beautiful! And what is the point of comparing a light bobber-fighter with a heavy fighter, of course, I don’t understand what, please explain.
      1. +4
        6 June 2014 13: 57
        I have a question for specialists. That's all the last time (10-15 years) and only talk about stealth, all sorts of stealth. But after all, fighters fly with radars on (radar). What stealth can we talk about then? After all, they themselves give out themselves by their radiation for hundreds of kilometers .. Or do they turn on only when approaching a given area? Here I can’t understand something.
        1. +5
          6 June 2014 14: 24
          The radar can operate in the standby mode only for reception, for example, from an airplane a drill or ground radar
          1. +5
            6 June 2014 15: 44
            No, that's understandable! But what about a worthy enemy, for whom both the first and the second (radar and AWACS) are the number one targets? For example, there is a battle and you need to help the infantry. There is no enemy aircraft there, it is not clear, but there are no control systems, incl. space. And then such F-35s fly out (by the way, there are small internal bomb compartments and you will have to use outdoor equipment) and, including the radar, "shine" like .... Then, judging by the speed, the MiG-21 can remove it. I understand that under favorable conditions he (F-35) is just a carrier of bombs, missiles, etc. But the war does not wait for the weather.
            With a serious army, somehow these F-35 stealths are not particularly impressive. Neither speed nor maneuverability. PENGUIN. Or maybe it's good that a penguin !?
            1. +1
              6 June 2014 18: 11
              Quote: Kasym
              But what about a worthy adversary, for whom both the first and second (radar and early warning radar) are the number one targets?


              Are you so sure about this? That in a hypothetical battle, the F-35 radio emission will be so easily detected by Dry?

              Quote: Kasym
              (by the way, there are small internal bomb compartments and you will have to use outdoor advertising)


              When using 2-4 external suspensions, the EPR increases, but only by a small area.

              Quote: Kasym
              and the MiG-21 can take it off.


              I hope you were joking ?!

              Quote: Kasym
              With a serious army, somehow these F-35 stealths are not particularly impressive.


              Then what do you think should "impress" fellow ?

              Quote: Kasym
              Neither speed nor maneuverability.


              And speed and maneuverability is not the only indicator of the power of the aircraft. RBEO, radar, stealth technology, operation ...
            2. +1
              6 June 2014 18: 42
              Quote: Kasym
              Yes, no, this is understandable! But what about a worthy adversary, for whom both the first and second (radar and early warning radar) are the number one targets?

              Therefore, the F-35 has a large number of passive detection systems, including the LPI radar operating mode, there is also a MADL communication channel, which allows targeting other squadron aircraft from one F-35
              1. +1
                8 June 2014 20: 22
                How do you see data transmission without radiation (radio waves)? All the same, his main radar is AFAR. And these passive systems (sensors) work over short distances. He's the only radio station incl. and went on the air it can already be detected. This is what I had in mind that these huge investments in the stealth system can, for a serious adversary, become "zilch".
                For super tiger 21. Why Sushiok? The Russian Federation or the PRC has a developed air defense system, radar and electronic warfare. Spot them and direct your aircraft to intercept. And the same MiG-21 can-speed at least higher. For speed, read Yakovlev in his Purpose of Life. Without speed (this was shown by the war and he himself admitted his mistake) they will catch up and peck you until they bite, no maneuverability will help (imagine that you are already flying empty, after the task, "home" - what kind of avionics, nothing will help, here just tick.).
                1. +1
                  8 June 2014 20: 46
                  By and large, even turning on the avionics of the aircraft, it can already be detected by the electromagnetic field of the car, especially at a height. I really don't know if there are such detection tools. But the fact that you go on the air is 100% exposure. And even the nodes of the external suspension already create an "unfavorable" surface for stealth.
    8. predator.3
      +2
      6 June 2014 17: 29
      Quote: Clever man
      Who would doubt that the amers have the same thing)


      I wonder what is the price ratio between them? the American literally pulls the "golden weight" ie the weight of the plane is equal to the gold equivalent!
    9. +4
      6 June 2014 23: 33
      since we have a topic at the level of fantasies and some nonsense, forum users forgive me, I would like to offer to talk about the 6 generation fighter ... what gentlemen do you see it ...
    10. -1
      7 June 2014 04: 03
      The most - certainly with us!
    11. -1
      7 June 2014 04: 06
      All the most - with us!
    12. Dormidont
      +2
      7 June 2014 16: 23
      put on a blink21e8 radar from the t50 afar and x-range, the engine is from one from the su35, we get a cheap lightweight 4 +++ fighter with a supersonic sound on the cruiser
    13. 0
      1 November 2014 19: 29
      Why are they so cool, they abandoned the air battle with our fighters on the MAX.
  2. +11
    6 June 2014 08: 53
    let them comfort themselves) and continue to live in their fictional little world
    1. +4
      6 June 2014 09: 39
      Quote: Tuzik
      let them comfort themselves) and continue to live in their fictional little world

      hi
      And I like the saying: Whatever dityako indulges in, no matter how crying " laughing
    2. PMM
      +5
      6 June 2014 13: 04
      Well, Duc! The invented world is more convenient to manage)
  3. +4
    6 June 2014 08: 54
    There is nothing like leather.
  4. +5
    6 June 2014 09: 02
    Let's wait for the first clashes, then it will be seen.
  5. +10
    6 June 2014 09: 05
    And why did she not compare the cost?))))) F35 costs almost like two t50
    1. +4
      6 June 2014 10: 50
      Compare F-35 and T-50 in the forehead is somehow strange. F-35 firing pin, T-50 aircraft gaining superiority in the sky, for t-work on the T-50 ground you will need 101 KS-N (N - ground) - a hanging sighting container.
      Well, about the F-35s that are valuable, this is just an example of the work of propaganda, once they pulled out the maximum price of the prototype, and then how they got it repeated, 90% of people will be too lazy to figure it out themselves, it's easier to repeat the slogans.
      So now about the money. Now I will not compare the price in the future with large-scale serial production, let's talk about the present price of F-35 for 2013 is $ 112 million. Is it expensive or not?
      When compared with an iPhone, expensive, with a destroyer is cheap.
      So you need to compare with multi-functional aircraft that can work well on land and air.
      Let's start with the Europeans; Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche cost $ 120 million, Dassault Rafale has never been cheaper.
      F-16 of the last blocks is also worth a lot of F-16 Block 61 (here it is over AFAR, updated engine, etc.) for Arabs it costs about $ 140 million, the Japanese modification of F-16 (F-2) 110 $ million. 30 MKI for India costs the last contract costs $ 102 million. Proof in advance on sou. off-site of ave. india http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=64452
      conversion "for $ 4.3 billion (, Rs20,125 crore), that is $ 102 million (Rs480 crore) a piece."
      Even without the predicted price reduction for the F-35, it already has an average market price, and in technical terms it is ahead of all competitors
      1. +7
        6 June 2014 11: 45
        I am afraid that a certain confusion has arisen here. You are comparing the incomparable.
        Quote: iwind
        Now I will not compare the price in the future with large-scale serial production, let's talk about the current price of F-35 for 2013 year 112 million $.

        To be precise, this very price in 2013, depending on the modification and production batch, varies from 98 million to 120 million dollars. 112 million is approximately / average, but ... this is the cost of an airplane without an engine https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip-6-7-contract-agreements
        Further. All costs of military equipment can be divided into 3 parts - R&D on the topic and bringing to serial production, production cost of a serial aircraft, as well as its after-sales service. So 112 million (interesting, but how much with an engine?) Is the price ONLY of aircraft production. But how? The United States spent 56 billion to develop F-35. And if they release, for example, a thousand F-35, then R&D costs per unit will amount to 56 million dollars. If they release 2000 - respectively, 28 million dollars, etc.
        But this 56 billion US already spent - this money has already been paid to the developer. Therefore, now they only buy a plane - i.e. paying 112 million they buy ONLY an airplane - they have already paid for R&D earlier.
        At the same time, the cost of Su-30, Typhoon, etc.
        Quote: iwind
        Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche cost 120 million $, Dassault Rafale has never been cheaper.
        F-16 of the last blocks is also worth a lot of F-16 Block 61 (here it is over AFAR, updated engine, etc.) for Arabs it costs about 140 million $, the Japanese modification F-16 (F-2) 110 $ million Sou- 30 MKI for India costs the last contract costs 102 million $

        includes both the cost of the aircraft (and engine) and the compensation of the costs of R&D for this aircraft.
        And, frankly, there are big doubts that the same F-16 could cost 140 million dollars. Unless, if this cost includes the costs of servicing the machine, in addition to the cost of R&D and aircraft.
        And now let's compare the price of a typhoon and an F-35. The cost of a typhoon is $ 120 million, while a total of 518 such aircraft were to be produced (and the price of $ 120 million is intended to compensate for both the cost of building the aircraft and R&D for its development) If If Typhoons were produced in 2000, it is obvious that they would be cheaper - the cost of R&D would be "spread" for more machines.
        In equal conditions, F-35 would be worth
        112 million (cost without engine) + 56 billion / 518 aircraft = 112 + 108,1 = 220 million dollars plus an unfortunate engine.
        So sorry, but F-35 for the price ... ehhkm :)))
        1. +1
          6 June 2014 13: 55
          Not true
          112 is flyaway cost- the price of a glider is 98mln.
          see here for a more detailed report to Congress from 29.04.2014 5 p.
          http://news.usni.org/2014/05/01/document-congressional-report-joint-strike-fight
          er-program
          If we talk about prices for industrial production, then for the version F-35A it looks like this
          Airframe 66.0
          Engine 11.7
          Total 77.7
          Factories have just begun to reach the desired production level, mass production always significantly reduces the cost of production
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In equal conditions, F-35 would be worth
          112 million (cost without engine) + 56 billion / 518 aircraft = 112 + 108,1 = 220 million dollars plus an unfortunate engine.
          So sorry, but F-35 for the price ... ehhkm :)))

          If grandmother had eggs, she would be grandfather.
          These are different planes. What is it for? I wrote the price of the Eurofaiter without R&D with R&D 160-170 million there. The purely technical Eurofighter is noticeably simpler.
          And thanks to the huge series (at least 3000 pieces) of the F-35, the R&D costs per unit will not be high. And personally, my opinion is that R&D costs will ALWAYS pay for themselves.
          About the F-16
          http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uae-raises-possible-deal-for-quotblock
          -61quot-f-16-395235 /
          1. +1
            6 June 2014 14: 35
            Quote: iwind
            Not true
            112 is flyaway cost- the price of a glider is 98mln.
            see here for a more detailed report to Congress from 29.04.2014 5 p.

            So look in more detail. Especially for you - emphasized in red. Without an engine.
            Quote: iwind
            If grandmother had eggs, she would be grandfather.

            Quote: iwind
            These are different planes. What is it for? I wrote the price of the Eurofaiter without R&D with NIKOR there 160-170 million.

            Firstly, it was you who began to compare the price of the F-35 and the Eurofighters, so the question "What is it for?" ask the mirror.
            You wrote the Eurofighter’s price with R&D, since 120 greenery is its current price. If the eurofighter cost R&D 170 million of greenery, would Germany of Italy and other participants in the 170 million program buy it, or who, in your opinion, would produce a plane at a loss?
            Quote: iwind
            And thanks to the huge series (no less than 3000 pieces)

            Or maybe better 30 000 pieces? Just add one toe, business then ...
            If you want to compare the cost - do it correctly, i.e. in comparable terms. And to compare the F-35 without an engine and with the non-existent production in 3000 of cars with eurofighter, produced in quantities less than 600 and say something about price comparability is a little indecent.
            Quote: iwind
            About the F-16
            http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uae-raises-possible-deal-for-quotblock

            -61quot-f-16-395235 /

            Read your own link, please. Firstly, where is the figure 140 million? Secondly, it clearly indicates the cost of the aircraft along with after-sales service
            1. +3
              6 June 2014 14: 36

              I'll try to insert again
              1. +1
                6 June 2014 15: 11
                And where is the contradiction? F-35a
                98 valuable aircraft and + engine and get 112 $.
                I'm still loving about the typhoon. R&D is paid separately, during development and the future will still benefit. Therefore, I believe that including in the price of a particular aircraft is not true.
                "The UK National Audit Office estimated that one Eurofighter was worth £ 111 million (€ 134,8 million) of which £ 72 million (€ 87,4 million) was in production costs.
                http://www.nao.org.uk/report/management-of-the-typhoon-project/
                http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140
                430trib000827748 / l-allemagne-paiera-l-eurofighter-deux-fois-plus-cher-que-prevu.
                html
                A modern airplane is a VERY expensive pleasure, and already Eurofighter was not once cheap.
                What difference does it make to the buyer that they cannot be compared in such a way as the quantity is different, anyway, but pay $ 120 million. And for the F-35A, this price is only decreasing, and again I repeat the Eurofighter will be easier even at the same price it is not a weak competitor.
              2. 0
                6 June 2014 15: 28
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Or maybe 30 are better? Just add one toe, business then ..

                This is the general order of the F-35. It will be seen further, although it is only growing Finland and Belgium sent a request to participate in tenders.
                What will happen next. At the moment, 150 is being produced.
                1. PLO
                  +1
                  6 June 2014 16: 31
                  This is the general order of the F-35.

                  This is not an order, but the planned production volumes.
                  when all 3000 are contracted then it will still be possible to talk about such a thing.

                  there F-22 also promised to build about 750 aircraft. but what happened you yourself know.
                  1. 0
                    7 June 2014 00: 19
                    Quote: olp
                    This is not an order, but the planned production volumes.

                    Not a bit on those. It's just nice to be a predictor :)
                    I wrote that the whole statement of Kanda and Turkey about not buying F-35 regular show-offs.
                    So recently Canada is all of such a "declaring a moratorium on the purchase of F-35 for two years, etc." After a couple of days of lockhids, “Ok, just since you don’t buy planes, then we’ll close the factory,” a couple of days later the workers of the factories write an open letter and declare a strike, the military joins them. And then a day ago they announced that they would sign a contract for the purchase of 65 F-35s within a week.
  6. +7
    6 June 2014 09: 05
    aiay-urgently we begin to make friends with mattresses and buy a penguin ... and these guys even managed to fly on both times, they can compare so confidently, but they are reluctant to compare with a raptor, right?
  7. 0
    6 June 2014 09: 08
    I remember the same number of squeals of enthusiasm was about the F-15, F-16 so what?
    1. +15
      6 June 2014 09: 17
      Quote: kapitan281271
      I remember the same number of squeals of enthusiasm was about the F-15, F-16 so what?

      Well, strictly speaking, both the F-15 and F-16 were outstanding aircraft and formidable air fighters. The same F-16 before the appearance of the Mig-29 in the units of the USSR Air Force was riveted by several hundred, and in general with the appearance of the F-15 and F-16 and before the appearance of the Su-27 and Mig-29, the U.S. Air Force proved to be technically superior.
    2. +3
      6 June 2014 16: 00
      Quote: kapitan281271
      I remember the same number of squeals of enthusiasm was about the F-15, F-16 so what?


      And the fact that these aircraft perfectly (I say as it is not exaggerating) have shown themselves in a number of conflicts. The F-15 was even given the nickname "never shot down", although opponents have repeatedly stated about its losses, and one of the frames captures the defeat from the MiG -25. Nevertheless, the statistics of aerial victories of the F-15:
      All victories and defeats - 104: 9
      Official Confirmations Only - 87: 1
      Almost also successfully fought and his younger but more common brother F-16, which performed well during the war in Lebanon. Unlike the Eagle (F-15), he did not receive the title "never knocked down" and a number of his losses are still confirmed. It also has pretty good statistics on air battles:
      All victories and defeats - 74: 13
      Official Confirmations Only - 61: 2
      These are the facts, and the 15th and 16th have justified the hopes placed on them.
  8. +7
    6 June 2014 09: 10
    Such an obscure article (meaning the article Business Insider, and not the article of the respected Ryabov) I have not remembered for a long time.
    T-50 is considered a good platform for various weapons needed to perform different combat missions. The authors of the F-35 project abandoned the idea of ​​a universal aircraft and developed three fighter versions adapted to the conditions in which they will have to work in the future.

    It was just the same Americans who tried to create a universal F-35A aircraft, and to reduce costs, they decided at the same time to put it on the deck (F-35С) and issue an ILC (F-35В). We do not have a deck variation of the T-50 (yet?), And in its existing form the T-50 in terms of functionality approximately corresponds to the F-35, as the United States wants to see it.
    The authors of the publication, as is clear from its name, compared the T-50 with F-35. However, they did so with the appropriate reservation, noting that Russian aircraft manufacturers prefer to compare their new fighter with the older F-22, with which it must compete, although it is the F-35 that is the future of the US Air Force and its allies.

    Well, if F-22 is generally better than F-35, so now? :)
    The first parameter by which the planes of the two countries were compared was visibility for radar systems. E. Lee and R. Johnson point out that Russian designers, when developing the T-50, preferred low-profile maneuverability. In this regard, the American F-35 fighter has more chances to go unnoticed in the area of ​​the combat mission.

    Given the fact that no one really knows what the stealth of the "penguin" and the T-50 is (but it is a priori assumed that the United States is better), the value of such a statement is difficult to underestimate laughing Yes, but does religion prevent Americans from comparing the number of internal suspension points, or what? EMNIP 4 on the penguin and 8 on the T-50.
    At the same time, it is noted that an American aircraft carrying a payload in the internal compartments of the fuselage (the same compartments are on the Russian T-50) is capable of dropping missiles and bombs even when flying at supersonic speed.

    You might think the T-50 can't.
    The new Russian T-50 fighter still can not compete with the F-35

    No matter how much you say "halva", your mouth will not become sweeter
    1. +4
      6 June 2014 09: 50
      They also forgot to indicate about the sale of the T-50 to other countries that they would not sell it, it would go only to the Russian Air Force. And for other countries there will be a simplified version of FGFA, the short one is done jointly with India.
      1. +4
        6 June 2014 10: 14
        The 5-th generation can not have a simplified version.
        And actually the electronics for the Russian-Indian project
        India will do it. And the plane will go for the Air Force
        India in the most advanced way.
        (If it doesn’t break at all due to the rapprochement between Russia and China)
        1. +1
          6 June 2014 10: 54
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The 5-th generation can not have a simplified version.

          Why? The Americans have tried - F-22 / F-35
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And actually the electronics for the Russian-Indian project
          India will do it. And the plane will go for the Air Force
          India in the most advanced way.

          You don’t notice any contradiction? :)) If India will do electronics, then it’s hard to say whether the plane will take off or not. Indian cars now have really very advanced electronics, but not because the Indians make it themselves, but because they order the best manufacturers in the world.
          This is despite the fact that neither AFAR nor OLS for FGFA will be made by the Indians themselves, nor will they be ordered in the West - there is nothing similar to ours. So speaking of "Indian electronics", one should assume that it will be nothing more than a licensed production of our own equipment in India.
          1. +3
            6 June 2014 11: 14
            ". Indian cars now have very advanced electronics,
            but not because the Indians do it themselves, but because they order
            complete set of the world's best manufacturers "

            Where is the contradiction? And for the T-50 they will order from the best world manufacturers,
            Mount, write software. It can make a good plane.
            If only there were no problems with the glider: is there flutter on supersonic, or desa?
            1. +1
              6 June 2014 11: 54
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Where is the contradiction? And for the T-50 they will order from the best world manufacturers,
              Mount, write software. It can make a good plane.

              And what will they order? :) Excuse me, but who is now able to roll out something similar to the N036 and its associated radar system? Unless the Yankees, but they obviously will not do this. OLS is traditionally at our best, here the Russian Federation is unlikely to surpass. Yes, and with a helmet, I believe it will not be bad.
              In general, the basic designs are likely to be ours - simply because there are no other analogues, or they do not have fundamental advantages. Although something, of course, can stick to the import
      2. +1
        6 June 2014 10: 47
        Quote: sasha-bort
        We also forgot to indicate about the sale of the T-50 to other countries that they will not sell it, it will go only to the Russian Air Force

        That's right!:)
        1. +2
          6 June 2014 11: 25
          "The 5th generation cannot have a simplified version."
          "Why? The Americans have tried - F-22 / F-35"

          It seems to me that you are mistaken. F-22 really flies
          faster than F-35 and its "stealth" indicators are higher,
          but in the sense of electronics and software - F-35 is a cut above.
          It has an "open software architecture", that is, it integrates
          with any weapon system and any aircraft control system,
          ground forces, Navy ... Like a flying comp :)
          Israeli experts liked this terribly.
          1. +1
            6 June 2014 11: 55
            Quote: voyaka uh
            It seems to me that you are mistaken. F-22 really flies
            faster than F-35 and its "stealth" indicators are higher,
            but in the sense of electronics and software - F-35 is a cut above.

            And what prevents you from putting the F-35 electronics on the F-22? Religion?:))))
            1. +3
              6 June 2014 12: 24
              Worse than religion :)!
              Closed architecture of obsolete software Ф-22.
              They thought it was impossible.
              1. +3
                6 June 2014 12: 56
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Closed architecture of obsolete software Ф-22.
                They thought it was impossible.

                Shy:) That is. I can still understand that trying to plug new equipment into an existing F-22 is difficult. But if someone decided to continue the release of F-22, then adapt it to the latest electronics - I think it would be possible without special problems
                1. +1
                  6 June 2014 14: 26
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Shy:) That is. I can still understand that trying to plug new equipment into an existing F-22 is difficult. But if someone decided to continue the release of F-22, then adapt it to the latest electronics - I think it would be possible without special problems

                  There is a big problem. Now they are just thinking about it, but it is expensive and difficult.
                  By the way, F-35 and f-22 are ABSOLUTELY different planes. They have different tasks and different capabilities. Calling the F-35 a cheap copy of the F-22 is very strange. In addition to the radar, F-22 cannot search for targets on earth in any way.
                  1. +2
                    6 June 2014 14: 55
                    Quote: iwind
                    By the way, F-35 and f-22 are ABSOLUTELY different planes, they have different tasks and different capabilities. To call F-35 a cheap copy of F-22 is very strange.

                    So refer to the one who calls F-35 a cheap copy of F-22, but what have I to do with it? laughing And I, if anything, wrote
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    The 5-th generation can not have a simplified version.

                    Why? The Americans have tried - F-22 / F-35

                    In essence, the Americans first tried to make a multi-functional heavy fighter of the 5 generation, but, muck, they got an almost clean and not at all multi-functional fighter to gain superiority in the air at an unnatural price.
                    Then they decided to create a second generation 5 aircraft, which was supposed to replace the F-16, F-18 harrier and even the A-10 attack aircraft. It is only from a big hangover that combining a swan, a pike, a crayfish and a quivering doe in one car is not subject to even the Lord in whom the Americans seem to believe (at least it is written on their favorite green piece of paper)
                    But here a small nuance happened - the fact is that all these F-16 / 18 / harriers and so on were never considered self-sufficient. Those. Americans considered it necessary to have heavy fighters (F-14, F-15) and light attack (F-18, F-16). But in connection with the rejection of further production of the F-22, it turned out that in the future the F-35 would also have to take on the functionality of a heavy fighter, i.e. gaining dominance in the air !. So what to say about absolutely .. no, not even that, ABSOLUTELY different functionality here is not quite correct
                    1. 0
                      6 June 2014 18: 29
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      further production of the F-22, it turned out that in the future the F-35 will also have to take on the functionality of a heavy fighter, i.e. gaining dominance in the air!

                      Uh, let's go again.
                      Who will replace the F-35. F-16, F / a-18 (regular hornet) AV-8, A-10. Are these airplanes gaining air superiority? Definitely not.
                      Together with the F-35 until 2030, the F-15, F-15E, f-18e / f and F-22 will be operated. Apparently there is someone to share the burden of work with.
                      1. +1
                        6 June 2014 21: 01
                        Quote: iwind
                        Who will replace the F-35. F-16, F / a-18 (regular hornet) AV-8, A-10. Are these airplanes gaining air superiority? Definitely not.


                        I can argue with this statement! Since at the moment the F-16 is the most massive fighter-bomber of the US Air Force and is traditionally designed specifically for air combat with light enemy fighters. The very appearance of this aircraft is connected with the confrontation between American and Israeli pilots to the Soviet MiG-21 fighter .Well, the F / A-18C remains the main fleet aircraft for covering aircraft carrier strike groups. Pro A-8 and A-10 agree, their 35th will replace only as a drummer.

                        Quote: iwind
                        Together with the F-35 until 2030, the F-15, F-15E, f-18e / f and F-22 will be operated. Apparently there is someone to share the burden of work with.


                        But the point is not that they are better or worse than the F-35, but in a slightly different way. The F-15E "Strike Eagle" is still one of the best strike vehicles in the world at the moment, so the US Air Force leadership is sorry to write off this aircraft. which, with good modernization, can extend its life for another decades. Simple F-15s will survive their days and will be removed from service faster. Well, the F-22 and F / A-18E will not be removed primarily due to the fact that the aircraft cannot who lived only 15 years, immediately become obsolete from the appearance of the F-35 and is quite capable of solving similar problems.
                      2. +1
                        7 June 2014 00: 07
                        I do not quite understand what you mean (a hard day slave, so if you misunderstood you, I'm sorry.
                        maybe when it was created and it was so. But now its main purpose is to strike on the ground, all of its modern modifications are aimed at captivating the functions of air-to-ground, however, if necessary, it can easily perform air-to-air and it is multifunctional.
                        And in the role of an air-to-air aircraft, the F-35 is superior to the F-16. so this replacement is only a plus for the Air Force.
                        F-15E agree, so no one will change them. Well, the F-15 is also planning to carry out more than one modernization so that they will definitely last another 10-15 years.
                  2. 0
                    7 June 2014 21: 29
                    Quote: iwind
                    In addition to the radar, F-22 cannot search for targets on earth in any way.

                    Wrong. In the view at the end.
                    1. 0
                      7 June 2014 22: 27
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      Wrong. In the view at the end.

                      True, true. So that the pilot may have a night video device, I do not rule out. Also, I’m not so sure that this is a video on behalf of the F-22.
                      He reads about the F-22 he does not have OLS, of course it was planned, but to save it they hacked it at the prototype stage.
                2. 0
                  7 June 2014 20: 47
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But if someone decided to continue the release of the F-22, then adapt it to the latest electronics - I think it would be possible without special problems

                  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.
          2. karpag
            +5
            6 June 2014 13: 23
            I really liked the F-35 after the Americans refused to sell us the F-22. It was originally planned to buy F-22 and F-35 in the ratio of both F-15 and F-16 today.
            1. +2
              6 June 2014 14: 34
              I especially liked it after the Americans agreed to sell
              his Israel with a special modification F35I "Israel" with an open
              Source code. Israeli avionics and weapons will be mounted on
              him right at assembly plants in the USA.
              And all the bugs and defects found in combat operation can be
              will correct "on the spot" :)
        2. +1
          6 June 2014 21: 34
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          We also forgot to indicate about the sale of the T-50 to other countries that they will not sell it, it will go only to the Russian Air Force

          The T-50 was developed jointly with India. Therefore, it will probably be sold. Maybe in a stripped-down version. And in comparison with the F-35, it is undoubtedly better even at the present stage with not the newest engines, not to mention the new ones. Americans are experiencing significant problems with the withdrawal of their aircraft in series. At this point, he cannot fly above 7000 meters due to air problems for the pilot. In general, the deadline has been postponed until about 2019. So wait and see.
          1. +3
            7 June 2014 00: 17
            What plane are you talking about? If about F-22, then problems with air
            (pilots fainted)
            were due to a spacesuit defect, not an airplane. And so all 180 Raptors
            with the ranks, most in the Far East. Made difficult flights
            across the pacific.
            F-35 has not yet identified critical defects. Released around 150
            airplanes. They train pilots from many countries. There were cases
            when software is buggy as they say because of a computer memory overflow.
    2. +5
      6 June 2014 10: 31
      The article itself is initially different from the title, you read the article and the advantages of both are given, and in the end, bam, "you can't compete and that's it! Mom klyanus!"
  9. +6
    6 June 2014 09: 13
    In short, the logic of the authors of the study is approximately the following: the T-50 is a very good machine, surpassing the F-35 in almost all respects - an expensive city with a bunch of sores, but since the PAK FA is compared with an American fighter, it is certainly better.
    Well, the "autopsy will show" who will actually be the master of the sky.
    1. +2
      6 June 2014 09: 41
      Quote: Stiletto
      "an autopsy will show"

      Nachmed in our regiment said something like this feel : "Let's open it - we'll see" laughing
      1. 0
        6 June 2014 10: 50
        Quote: papik09
        The chief medical officer in our regiment said almost like this: "Let's open it - we'll see."


        Well these are the same um ... only in profile. In this case, such a phrase as "An autopsy showed that the patient died from an autopsy" hi
  10. +2
    6 June 2014 09: 16
    Well, what remains for our aircraft masters to prove the opposite ... And I really hope for them ...
  11. G8K
    G8K
    +3
    6 June 2014 09: 16
    Ourselves still do not know all the capabilities of the new aircraft, and these experts have already passed the verdict. They will make people laugh. Or the market for their wunderwaffles is in danger.
  12. Andrey Ulyanovsky
    +1
    6 June 2014 09: 19
    Have compared your "big moth" with a swallow!
    About bloody "bells" and tyrannical "cobras" Sushki did not write striped ones in vain, Psake would reckon for the Kremlin's aggression.
  13. Drfreeman
    +4
    6 June 2014 09: 26
    If I understand correctly, the F-35 is an economy version of the F-22. And only F-22 and T-50 can be compared. And about the F-35, the Americans themselves write that he is not very, and loses to the Russian 4 ++.
  14. 0
    6 June 2014 09: 27
    constantly the author is repeating the mantra "cannot, cannot" ..... but he did not give real arguments
  15. +1
    6 June 2014 09: 30
    Maybe some kind of publication about which no one knows the next fart and not an article
  16. +2
    6 June 2014 09: 35
    So, what is the essence of the profession of an arms expert and journalist, look at the manufacturer’s tag? And I can, again I made a mistake in choosing a profession.
  17. Drfreeman
    0
    6 June 2014 09: 36
    Air Power Australia, which evaluated the feasibility of purchasing F-35 fighters for the Australian Air Force, provides an interesting table - a comparison of the 5th generation fighter F-22, F-35, T-50, J-12, as well as the 4+ generation fighter + Su-35S.

    The comparison is carried out as follows. Each aircraft was evaluated for compliance with each requirement for the 5th generation of fighters. If the requirement is exceeded (i.e., this indicator exceeds the 5th generation requirement), the plane gets +1 points, if it is simply fulfilled - 0 points, if not, then -1 point.

    A summary table is available here http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109-1.html
    pc: we look at the table and the deduction conclusion authors from Business Insider are complete ignoramuses.
    1. +2
      6 June 2014 10: 01
      All criticism of the F-35 comes from Australia. They were once promised F-22 and were not given,
      but suggested the F-35. And the Australians were offended in earnest.
      And they "run over" the F-35 with all their might. But don't give up on it :)
      1. karpag
        +2
        6 June 2014 10: 09
        They didn’t give us F22 either :-(
        1. Praetorian
          +3
          6 June 2014 11: 21
          Not enough loyal =)
        2. SAG
          +4
          6 June 2014 12: 49
          I’ll tell you more ... pind0sy and your promising Lavi project have bent because it exceeded the F-16 and could take away their lion's share of the market!
      2. +3
        6 June 2014 11: 59
        Quote: voyaka uh
        They were once promised F-22 and were not given,

        Nah, no one promised. But there is such a Carlo Kopp, and Papa Carlo has an idefix - F-22 is everything for us, F-35 is fftopku. Love and hate are irrational emotions laughing
        In general, referring to the data of "Australian specialists" (which means Air Power Australia Carlo Koppa) has long been bad manners ... Kopp announced the F-35 holivar, he does not shy away from juggling or outright lies.
    2. +3
      6 June 2014 13: 01
      all these comparisons are conditional by definition ... technical specifications can be either better or worse, but the real state of things will be shown only by a direct collision of these machines in real battle ... and here, I very much doubt that f22 or f35 will win the fight even with our Su 35-m ... we add to this the class of pilots and weapons ... you can argue a lot and for a long time who is better, but the reality is that our drying in the series is recognized at the moment as the best in its class (price- quality-reliability) ... f22 still has problems that Americans are trying to solve nd a lot of money into it ... at all f35 generally vague and highly controversial ... Some experts believe that in the west f35 in the form he is now not up to 5-generation on any parameter to the requirements of such machines ...
      1. +4
        6 June 2014 19: 29
        http://klimoff-den.livejournal.com/164415.html ВОТ ИНТЕРЕСНАЯ СТАТЬЯ ПО ПОВОДУ СУ35 ПРОТИВ Ф35
        1. +6
          6 June 2014 19: 57
          Hefty panoramic display, measuring as much as half a meter by 20 centimeters, touch and with the ability to control voice. Didn't Apple design it? :) Well, if voice control is really implemented, it will still give rise to a bunch of jokes (by the way, what about export options? Japanese, Italian, Turkish, Hebrew? Or Yiddish? And Israeli pilots, by the way, use non-Russian obscenities in flight?), But the second, duplicate display, and even more so the third, is not there. The most important piece of equipment - no duplication. That is, the slightest fragment in the display - and not only all the devices disappear, but also the touch control, it remains only to catapult. Flying ipad ...
          1. +5
            6 June 2014 20: 03
            Radar with AFAR f-35 is capable of operating both on air and ground targets. The armament is the most diverse, but there are only four internal suspension points, plus six external. That is, his invisibility is very arbitrary. The engine is one, a modification of the same engine that is used on the F-22, but there are only two of them, and since the mass of the planes is close, goodbye is also the afterburner supersonic and super maneuverability, since the specific thrust is less than one.

            Yes, and afterburner maximum speed of only 1900 km / h. As much as the hefty, 45-ton Su-34 bomber ...

            That is, we see that its belonging to the fifth generation is very doubtful, and all the advantages of the super-duper-helmet that was designed for generation 5 fighters are crossed out by these shortcomings. No wonder the Australians said that the F-35 is a third generation aircraft with elements of the fifth and called it a technical error. That is why they demand the F-22 in return ... It was reported that "F-35 aircraft during a simulated air battle against Su fighters, were smashed to smithereens by Russian aircraft."

            In other words, it may be a good airplane, but it does not pull on the 5 generation.
            1. 0
              6 June 2014 20: 48
              Quote: NEXUS
              Yes, and afterburner maximum speed of only 1900 km / h.


              For half a century, speed has not been a priority for the power of a fighter.

              Quote: NEXUS
              No wonder the Australians said that the F-35 is a third-generation aircraft with elements of the fifth and called it a technical error.


              No, after all, the Australians called him that for nothing. Well, if the F-35 is closer to the 3rd generation, then give the parameters of the 4th which it allegedly does not correspond to. I understand you throw it over with caps, but this is already too much. negative

              Quote: NEXUS
              "The F-35 planes were smashed to smithereens by the Russian planes during a simulated air battle against the Su fighters."


              This is, firstly, the invention of an Australian politician - Koppa, who later also apologized to the Americans for this lie. In fact, there was a simulation of the battle of 12 American F-22s and 72 Chinese Su-27s in a hypothetical conflict in Taiwan. The Australian, in turn, turned everything upside down on the head.
              1. +4
                6 June 2014 21: 34
                it may be so, but ... the fighter of the 5 generation f35 is not, because many of the requirements for fighters of this generation in the F35 are not fulfilled ... add to this the wild cost of this aircraft and we will conclude that will there ever be this fighter any purebred 5 generation fighter?
          2. +2
            7 June 2014 00: 27
            This is what! Flowers!
            And berries are a helmet of virtual reality.
            The F-35 pilot, in principle, is not able to see with his eyes around.
            Only the animation that the helmet will show him!
            So leave it at the F-35 airfield with the engine running -
            not a single as-spy can drive him to the enemy. Comp will say:
            "boy, put on your helmet." He will put it on ... and go crazy.
            Without a special course this duck cannot be lifted into the air.
            1. +2
              7 June 2014 01: 10
              Quote: voyaka uh
              not a single as-spy can steal him to the enemy

              But on horseradish goat button accordion ... ass harmony ... Well this is not Veyron-Bugatti, and not even Lexus ... In which garage to put this dog, and how much it eats KarAsin ...
              Hijack ... never in life ... wassat
          3. 0
            7 June 2014 01: 02
            And the Israeli pilots, by chance, do not use Russian obscenities in flight?


            After this your phrase I can’t fall asleep. Indeed: if the machine correctly understands the commands given in the great and powerful obscene language - is it happy or is it possible to be afraid of such a machine?

            That is, the slightest fragment in the display - and not only all the devices disappear, but also the touch control, it remains only to catapult.


            You just need to consider the Bluetooth connection to the pilot’s smartphone ...
            1. +2
              7 June 2014 01: 06
              Quote: Assistant
              You just need to consider the Bluetooth connection to the pilot’s smartphone ...

              ... and connect to a "special" Internet server ... laughing
  18. ran nearby
    0
    6 June 2014 09: 39
    Oh well. With the SU-27 and F-15 there was already something similar. And who ended up being steeper ??? The main thing in this topic is not even a mafia, but the one who will sit in the cockpit. Our flyers need to cook properly. So that the average combat pilot could be at least half, or better, two-thirds of what aerobatics show.
  19. 0
    6 June 2014 09: 42
    Spring will show who is where us.al.
    1. -3
      6 June 2014 11: 31
      generally autumn!
  20. karpag
    +8
    6 June 2014 09: 54
    And I believe that the Americans are jealous. The T-50 will be a unique and unparalleled aircraft in the world, and the F-35 will nervously smoke aside
  21. +5
    6 June 2014 09: 56
    The author did not write that the F-35 is better in terms of performance characteristics. He wrote that mass production
    The F-35 is already starting, and the mass production of the T-50 will begin in 10 years not earlier,
    and export to other countries - even later. That is, the F-35 has a market advantage.
    1. karpag
      +5
      6 June 2014 10: 05
      There is no market advantage. Potential buyers of the T-50 will never sell the F-35 and vice versa
      1. 0
        7 June 2014 21: 41
        Quote: karpag
        There is no market advantage. Potential buyers of the T-50 will never sell the F-35 and vice versa

        US F-35 offered to the Indians.
    2. 0
      10 June 2014 11: 19
      the author bent somewhat with the terms for PAK FA
      After all, the completion of arms tests and new engines will be in a year or two. and active production will begin. This is not 10 years.
      In addition, the F-35 exists as a contract for an unfinished car, and not a stamped pile of aircraft. They, after all, have not yet been made massive.
  22. +6
    6 June 2014 09: 59
    Honestly, the comparison is useless. The F-35 is mass-produced and the T-50 is no further test samples. Under the F-35, there are already finished plants in the USA, Turkey and the UK, and under the T-50 only the plant in KnA is simultaneously engaged in the production of the Su-30 and Su-35 at which serial production is only in preparation. When the release of the T-50 reaches the scale allowing its export, the F-35 will already conquer all possible markets.
    In addition to the Russian Air Force, the fifth-generation Russian fighter T-50 will be delivered to countries that have good relations with Russia. In addition, states that are looking for alternatives to the American F-35 may become buyers of this aircraft.

    And here read out the entire list of pzhalst ... China needs our T-50, but in no more than three copies, so there is no one on this list except India, because in terms of cost it will be equivalent (if not more) to the F-35 , so our other "potential buyers" simply won't be able to pull it ...
    T-50 is considered a good platform for various weapons

    Yeah, there is a platform, but there’s practically nothing to hang up, here we F-35 are not competitors at all ...
    1. karpag
      0
      6 June 2014 10: 08
      You are my friend Russophobe and not a patriot. Everything Russian is unique and has no analogues in the world
      1. +1
        6 June 2014 14: 38
        Bravo!
        Israeli teaches Russian to love Russia.))))
        1. +1
          6 June 2014 16: 17
          Quote: JIaIIoTb
          Bravo!
          Israeli teaches Russian to love Russia.))))

          He wrote sarcastically wink
    2. +1
      6 June 2014 10: 21
      There are tons of problems with the production of T50, but people are working.
      Thank God, the love of composites passes, and new machines began to be made from the good old titanium)).
      And what Light2 is in operation, time will tell.
    3. +1
      6 June 2014 10: 24
      Quote: Nayhas
      And here announce the entire list of please ..

      Potentially, in addition to India, deliveries to Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Brazil, Kazakhstan are possible. Less likely but possible to Algeria, Iran and South Africa.
      Quote: Nayhas
      Under the F-35, ready-made factories in the USA, Turkey and the UK, and under the T-50, only the plant in KnA, is simultaneously engaged in the production of Su-30 and Su-35

      Yes, this is true. There are many problems, but the narrowness of the production base is certainly one of the most important.
      Blood from the nose needs to be prepared by a second plant under the T-50. Irkutsk is possible, and it is possible to upgrade the Falcon under it.
      Quote: Nayhas
      Yeah, there is a platform, but there’s practically nothing to hang up, here we F-35 are not competitors at all ...

      There are samples, there is little mass production.
      1. +3
        6 June 2014 11: 24
        Quote: Odyssey
        deliveries to Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Brazil, Kazakhstan are possible.

        As one horse used to say, "Don't tell my horseshoes." The countries you listed are not solvent. Indonesia bought the Su-30 in single copies and on credit, the 100 millionth T-50 was beyond their means. Vietnam is similar. Venezuela cannot provide the people with toilet paper, what are the additional costs? Brazil bought Gripenes with great difficulty at a fabulous discount on ideal conditions, because was limited in costs. Kazakhstan, too, cannot afford such expenses.
        In the world of countries capable of buying a 5th generation airplane whose cost is around $ 100 million for a car (and plus technical support, training, spare parts and engines, armament nomenclature, etc.), not much and almost all they are tuned to F-35, China does it itself, India seems to be with us, but there is a chance of moving to the F-35 camp. Algeria, Iran and South Africa are from the realm of fiction.
        Quote: Odyssey
        Blood from the nose needs to be prepared a second plant under the T-50. Irkutsk is possible

        And there is nothing more. Only Irkutsk and KnA has modern equipment and the production process. Under the conditions of sanctions, it is impossible to buy equipment for new plants.
        1. 0
          6 June 2014 15: 30
          Quote: Nayhas
          As one horse used to say, "Don't tell my horseshoes." The countries you listed are not solvent. Indonesia bought the Su-30 in single copies and on credit, the 100 millionth T-50 was beyond their means. Vietnam is similar. Venezuela cannot provide the people with toilet paper, what are the additional costs? Brazil bought Gripenes with great difficulty at a fabulous discount on ideal conditions, because was limited in costs. Kazakhstan, too, will not afford such expenses

          Perhaps wait and see.
          In fact, Vietnam has already purchased / contracted 60 Su-27 / Su-30; its economy is growing rapidly and I have no particular doubt that by 2020 (when the export version is ready) it will be able to purchase 20-30 T-50s. Indonesia, by its geographical location, needs fighters with a long range, so there is a choice only between Su-35 and T-50. As for Venezuela and Brazil, the question is about spending priorities and political orientation. If they want to be independent from the United States they will have to buy very expensive weapons. In Kazakhstan, sales on favorable terms are possible. For Iran, it all comes down to the political determination to sell him weapons .
          Quote: Nayhas
          And there is nothing more. Only Irkutsk and KnA has modern equipment and the production process. Under the conditions of sanctions, it is impossible to buy equipment for new plants.

          "The capitalists themselves will sell us a rope on which we will hang them," besides, talking about the sanctions regime when the PRC is the largest industrial power in the world is somehow frivolous. it would hurt to revive.
          Another thing is that the entire socio-economic policy of the past 25 years has been aimed at de-industrialization, and not at modernization of production. But this is a political issue ...
          1. +1
            6 June 2014 16: 31
            Quote: Odyssey
            Perhaps wait and see.

            Brazil is certainly a promising market, but its relations with the United States are not as bad as it seems. Perhaps he will dominate the region and the Brazilian economy will grow so much that they will allow themselves such an expensive purchase, but our chances are very vague ... I can recall that the United States, France and Sweden participated in the competition for a multi-purpose aircraft. Russia didn’t even smell there. Moreover, the contacts between Brazil and the USA are very tight, Brazilians make their passenger planes and sell them all over the world, only the engines for them are from the USA ... And Vietnam ... Russia jumped into the strong arms of China, and China is the enemy of Vietnam. It is unlikely that they will decide to get into complete dependence on a friend of their enemy. Vietnam is now rapidly expanding contacts with ... USA! American warships in the former USSR military base in Camran do not surprise anyone, and during the recent Russian-Chinese naval exercises, Vietnam’s submarines conducted reconnaissance in the interests of the US Navy, that's it ... Yes, and Vietnam’s economy is growing for trading account with the USA. The fact that the Vietnamese are still tied to the Russian military-industrial complex is by inertia, soon politicians and the military still remembering about the USSR will leave, and the new generation will be oriented in the other direction ...
            Quote: Odyssey
            to talk about the sanctions regime when the largest industrial power in the world to be China is somehow frivolous

            In terms of engineering, China is not a competitor to either Europe or the USA. All the machines in our military-industrial complex come from Europe or the USA. China itself is purchased from them ...
            Plus, its own engineering would not hurt to revive

            You can revive something that is still partially alive, but our machine tool industry has died, and the level of equipment is now such that it is useless to start from scratch, you need to start from licensed production by investing huge amounts of money in development and training. Now, no one will sell a license, and there is a problem with personnel, lawyers and financiers in machine tools do not understand anything ...
            1. +1
              7 June 2014 00: 20
              Quote: Nayhas
              And Vietnam’s economy is growing due to trade with the United States.

              True, socialist industrialization is taking place in Vietnam, with the support not only of its own forces (as in the USSR) but also of foreign investment. The largest investors are Asia-Pacific countries, the largest trading partner is China. The growth engine is manufacturing. Questions in relations with China, of course, There is, there is an expansion of cooperation with the United States, but our relations in the military-industrial complex have little effect so far. In any case, it’s hard to imagine that Vietnam will buy the F-35 ...
              Quote: Nayhas
              In terms of engineering, China is not a competitor to either Europe or the USA. All the machines in our military-industrial complex come from Europe or the USA. China itself is purchased from them ..

              I didn’t write that the PRC is a competitor, although in reality, if the ever increasing volume of mechanical engineering production is concentrated in the PRC, it is more logical to assume that this EU and the USA are not competitors of the PRC ...
              The main thing is that China has modern equipment and we can legally or illegally purchase it. If, in the days of the USSR, the US satellites managed to buy the necessary equipment, what can we say about the current time.
              Quote: Nayhas
              You can revive something that is still partially alive, but our machine tool industry has died, and the level of equipment today is such that it’s useless to start from scratch, you need to start from licensed production investing huge amounts of money in development and training

              I practically agree with the current deplorable state, but as for the question of the possibility of rebirth, it seems to me that the question is more about desire than about possibility ...
              In any case, one way or another, and new production lines for the T-50 need to be done.
        2. 0
          7 June 2014 22: 00
          Quote: Nayhas
          Only Irkutsk and KnA has modern equipment and the production process. Under the conditions of sanctions, it is impossible to buy equipment for new plants.

          You live in Russia but you don’t know enough about your country. Pay attention to the date of the video.
  23. +3
    6 June 2014 10: 06
    Long tired! If we constantly read such unproven articles and watch the Discovery channel, where the Sabers / MIG-15 losses as 1/10 and the huge superiority of the M-16 rifle over the AKM were seriously claimed, then we can fall into deep pessimism, which is what the authors seek. This is just advertising nonsense, sucked from the finger and cherishing their complexes of superiority over all, constant American fun. And nothing more.
  24. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 07
    It seems to me that you can only compare those machines that are already flying and there is experience in their combat use. There are still few American F-22s, there are no F-35s at all, the Russian T-150 is just being tested. These front-line fighters have incorporated all the latest achievements of science and industry, but have become "expensive whistles". Attacking ground targets is effective only at subsonic speeds, otherwise the pilot simply "misses the target." The presence of MANPADS and other air defense systems of the ground forces makes it almost impossible to attack targets from low altitudes, including re-entry. Dropping bombs "at supersonic" is a kind of exotic - perhaps. but is it necessary? Military aviation should be effective rather than spectacular. It is quite possible that in the next 5 years UAVs will be able to solve problems that are now available only to manned vehicles and will become a completely independent and promising type of aviation.
    1. +1
      6 June 2014 10: 15
      As for supersonic bombing, it was an interesting experience
      on MiG25. Reset 40 km to the target.
    2. +4
      6 June 2014 11: 00
      "There is no F-35 at all"
      You are behind the times. The hundredth F-35 was rolled out of the factory in
      December last year.

      http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2013/building-the-100th-f-35.html
      1. +1
        6 June 2014 11: 09
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "There is no F-35 at all"
        You are behind the times. The hundredth F-35 was rolled out of the factory in
        December last year.

        http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2013/building-the-100th-f-35.html

        They are now collected in 3-4 pieces per month. A couple of days ago, the Eglin air base was fully equipped. So your data is slightly outdated :)
  25. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 11
    I do not know how in the states, but on the Sukhoi simulator for the T50 in the manufacturing process.
    Yes, and compare the T50 with f35 incorrectly-different classes of cars.
  26. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 22
    Cheap American propaganda ...
  27. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 23
    Something I did not catch the logic between the source data in the article and their loud conclusion. It is far-fetched so that if you deploy these ears, you can tightly wrap this F-35 in them a couple of times.
  28. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 23
    Something I did not see the arguments or real characteristics of the advantages of the 35th on ours. Except as a zombie statement - "No, not a competitor!"
  29. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 31
    Deaf will not hear.
    You cannot tell a blind man.
    You can’t prove stupid!
  30. +3
    6 June 2014 10: 33
    He laughed at the article from the heart! Comparison of a series of dispute between two sellers in the market who has the best product. But seriously, one of the most important parameters of a 5th generation aircraft, along with radio visibility, is supersonic at cruising flight speed. And on this parameter, the F-35 to the T-50 as creeping as Beijing! Second, in terms of combat performance, the twin-engine version of the fighter is much more tenacious against the single-engine version, even amateurs cannot ignore this factor.
    But the most important thing is that our weapon will always be the best in the world - IT'S PRICE-EFFICIENCY!
    1. 0
      6 June 2014 10: 56
      By the way, Gripen Ng, has a cruising over sounds and reduced stealth and is cheap. Is he a 5th generation airplane?
      1. PLO
        +2
        6 June 2014 13: 10
        stealth reduced

        Swedes id.iota chtole stealth reduce?request
        all increase, but they reduce wink


        Is he a 5th generation airplane?

        why not)
        "fifth generation" is a marketing term and, by and large, does not say anything about the capabilities of the aircraft
        1. 0
          6 June 2014 13: 34
          Quote: olp
          "fifth generation" is a marketing term and, by and large, does not say anything about the capabilities of the aircraft

          Marketing? Hardly. I will give the basic requirements for a 5th generation aircraft:
          1) a dramatic decrease in aircraft visibility in the radar and infrared ranges in combination with the transition of on-board sensors to passive methods of obtaining information, as well as to high stealth modes;
          2) multifunctionality, that is, high combat effectiveness in the defeat of air, ground, surface and underwater targets;
          3) the presence of a circular information system;
          4) flight at supersonic speeds without using afterburner;
          5) over-maneuverability
          6) the ability to carry out all-angle firing of targets in close air combat, as well as to conduct multichannel missile firing while conducting combat at long range; 7) automation of control of on-board information systems and jamming systems; 8) increased combat autonomy due to the installation of a tactical situation indicator in the cockpit of a single-seat aircraft with the possibility of mixing information (that is, simultaneously outputting and superimposing “pictures” from different sensors on a single scale), as well as using telecode information exchange systems with external sources;
          9) aerodynamics and airborne systems should provide the ability to change the angular orientation and trajectory of the aircraft without any noticeable delays, without requiring strict coordination and coordination of the movements of the governing bodies; 10) the aircraft must “forgive” gross pilot errors in a wide range of flight conditions;
          11) the aircraft should be equipped with an automated control system at the level of solving tactical problems, having an expert mode "to help the pilot."
          1. PLO
            0
            6 June 2014 13: 54
            those. F-35 and F-22 in your opinion are not fifth-generation fighters?
            1. +1
              6 June 2014 22: 39
              F-22 yes, but F-35 ...? And this is not in my opinion. These requirements are not set forth by me. Yours faithfully...
              1. PLO
                0
                7 June 2014 00: 32
                F-22 yes, but F-35 ...? And this is not in my opinion. These requirements are not set forth by me. Yours faithfully...

                for example: F-22 does not have a full-range firing in close maneuverable combat, it also works with restrictions on the ground, because he has no optoelectronic containers.
                so according to this list F-22 is not the fifth generation, although it is considered such

                in fact, as I said: there are no strict criteria, continuous marketing
        2. +3
          6 June 2014 14: 14
          Quote: olp
          Swedes id.iota chtole stealth reduce?
          all increase, but they reduce

          Tolley, I’m grieved whether the Swedes are perverts ...
          hmm most likely the Swedes perverts + not chivalrous to increase stealth.
          Here you provide a monster with an EPR of 500-1000 meters flying at you, then any air defense will go into the binge.
      2. 0
        6 June 2014 13: 28
        Quote: iwind
        Gripen Ng, cruising over sounds

        Not all that is stated should be believed for sure. The problem is still that ... I haven’t read about this board, but I’ll catch up. I can only say that you need to look at the engine resource, combat load, flight range, etc.
      3. +1
        6 June 2014 13: 49
        I read about Grippen, well, and they installed the engine more powerful from F-18, now further:
        on the approval of representatives of the SAAB company, the Gripen NG with a new power plant will be able to cruise in supersonic sound during the off-duty engine operation mode (the so-called super cruise mode) [/ color
        To want does not mean to be able. Do you agree?
  31. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 40
    The only thing that loses is electronics and radars, and with that, yes, you have to wait until 2035, maybe. IMHO.
  32. +4
    6 June 2014 10: 43
    We have brilliant designers who have demonstrated their talent and ingenuity more than once.
    This comparison is not objective and meaningless.
    An elementary example: su 24+ Khibiny and dermocratic Donald Cook with the most perfect system of "incis"
  33. 0
    6 June 2014 10: 46
    The American strategic radar reconnaissance aircraft RC-135U, which was carrying out the planned mission, was intercepted by a Russian Su-27 fighter.
    He flew about 30 meters in front of the nose of an American plane, demonstrating the lower part of the fuselage and showing that he was armed with missiles. This maneuver was carried out in such close proximity to an American aircraft that it fell into the turbulence zone from a jet of jet engines of a Russian fighter. The incident was so dangerous that
    the crew decided to stop the mission
    . The official I spoke to stated that this close span endangered the lives of Americans. ”


    Let them tweet that they are getting better! good
    1. 0
      7 June 2014 05: 02
      SU-27 passed 30 meters higher than the scout in the same course, and not "in front of the nose"
  34. +6
    6 June 2014 10: 57
    The T-50 data used by journalists from publicly available sources ... Nobody has a real TTX except for a narrow circle of people, which is why it turns out like in ancient times - I didn’t read it, but I condemn it ... in general.
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. 0
    6 June 2014 11: 13
    And who compares? Not us .... But if they compare, it means that these aircraft are in opposition. Regardless of the performance characteristics. And who will benefit ... depends on the Spirit. And from Technique. In short - it does not shine for anyone. We are ahead - we have such a duty.
  37. Tolerast
    0
    6 June 2014 11: 52
    The comparison is incorrect. Absolutely different cars. F-35 in its tasks more and more resembles a half-attack aircraft.
    A good bird, but painfully ugly in visual terms. Even worse than the vile corsairs and intruders. And I love beautiful airplanes so much ... crying
  38. +2
    6 June 2014 11: 55
    The resource http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109-1.html assessed the compliance of aircraft with the requirements of the 5th digging:
    -1 - does not reach;
    0 - corresponds;
    +1 - superior.
  39. +2
    6 June 2014 12: 09
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    just because the khibiny will see everything


    The Khibiny are "blind", they are not a means of detection, but electronic warfare.
  40. +1
    6 June 2014 12: 10
    Well, I really want Johnson wishful thinking hi
  41. 120267
    0
    6 June 2014 12: 16
    Quote: Nayhas
    Quote: Odyssey
    deliveries to Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Brazil, Kazakhstan are possible.
    As one horse used to say, "Don't tell my horseshoes." The countries you listed are not solvent. Indonesia bought the Su-30 in single copies and on credit, the 100 millionth T-50 was beyond their means. Vietnam is similar. Venezuela cannot provide the people with toilet paper, what are the additional costs? Brazil bought Gripenes with great difficulty at a fabulous discount on ideal conditions, because was limited in costs. Kazakhstan, too, cannot afford such expenses.
    In the world of countries capable of buying a 5th generation airplane whose cost is around $ 100 million for a car (and plus technical support, training, spare parts and engines, armament nomenclature, etc.), not much and almost all they are tuned to F-35, China does it itself, India seems to be with us, but there is a chance of moving to the F-35 camp. Algeria, Iran and South Africa are from the realm of fiction.
    Quote: Odyssey
    Blood from the nose needs to be prepared a second plant under the T-50. Irkutsk is possible
    And there is nothing more. Only Irkutsk and KnA has modern equipment and the production process. Under the conditions of sanctions, it is impossible to buy equipment for new plants.


    Something the guy is generally unhappy with Russia. What suggestions - surrender to mercy? Better you personally.
  42. 0
    6 June 2014 12: 21
    Cool article: T-50 and Fu-35 are compared in terms of "shock capabilities". At the same time, the point is omitted that the Su-50 does not yet have such a purpose: there is no integrated weaponry, although this may take just as much time as is required to include the Kh-38 missiles in the armament. Of course, the Fu-35 is now programmed to simultaneously attack up to 16 ground targets with various types of weapons, including mini-missiles and small-caliber gliding bombs (up to 120 kg). In the presence of such weapons, the Su-50 can also be programmed to use it. But the main thing that perplexes the article is a hypothetical comparison of the lonely T-50 and Fu-35, although in reality such a situation cannot be due to situational awareness systems: the pilots will know about each other's presence long before reaching the borders of the use of weapons ... And here the advantage will be for the one who has a longer arm with the corresponding performance characteristics in the weapon compartment. The advantage will be for the Kh-58UShK, if it is taught to operate on the "air" radar.
  43. Go Russia
    +1
    6 June 2014 12: 24
    A few days ago, the American edition of Business Insider published an article with the high-profile title Russia's New T-50 Fighter Still Can't Compete With The F-35 ("The new Russian T-50 fighter still cannot compete with the F-35"). The authors of the material E. Lee and R. Johnson tried to compare the two newest fighters and made conclusions that were disappointing for the Russian aircraft.
    fool Time will tell laughing
  44. +3
    6 June 2014 13: 03
    at T-50
    1. not ready engines
    2. not ready weapons
    3. production is ready (and production is scheduled to begin in 2015)

    China will not ship the T-50. India will receive a plane, but with the replacement of electronics on its own + weapons.
    Malaysia - get a T50? Vryat whether. At best, they will offer the Su-35C.

    Strictly speaking, the tendency of the chosen rearmament is as follows:
    1) repair of the Su-27 with modernization
    2) production of Su-35S

    ))
    1. Dormidont
      0
      7 June 2014 18: 02
      supersonic at cruising mode is on the upgraded 41f engine, weapons are almost ready
  45. 0
    6 June 2014 13: 09
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    In an air battle, the T-50 will be made American, this is even recognized in the article, but for the ground attack on which the United States hopes, the F-35 will not be able to fly unnoticed, although this invisibility is much better than the T-50, as they believe, simply because that Khibiny will see everything, and Russia’s ground radars are much better than American ones.

    The F-35 has rather modest ground strike capabilities when using the internal compartment (2 × 910 kg). At the same time, the tanks are also quite modest, which limits the range. Will be forced to carry on the outside, and in this case, why is it better than the F-16? In contrast, the T-50 is capable of dragging up to 6 tons on its internal suspension at a very decent range using internal tanks. The only narrow niche where the F-35 could theoretically have superiority is oncoming missile combat at maximum range without using its own radar, due to its smaller dimensions, but this is a controversial thing, because F-35 is not yet able to effectively direct missiles without the use of radar.
    1. +3
      6 June 2014 14: 08
      About the T-50, it is not yet clear what and how it can be worn in the internal compartments.
      Regarding the maximum load, even the F-15E with real combat flights did not take more than 3-4 tons.
      http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations
      Now let's compare the standard load of the F-16 and F-35. In the photo, these two airplanes have the same number of weapons, containers and fuel.
    2. +2
      6 June 2014 15: 57
      Tactics could be this:
      If you need to fly far, take extra. tanks
      and KR on external pylons. Before entering the air defense zone
      throwing tanks, launching long-range missiles at
      targets and drop the pylons. After that you "stealth" in
      pure form. Quietly go through air defense and strike
      accurate bombs from the internal compartments.
  46. 0
    6 June 2014 13: 11
    In commercial terms, he may not be able to compete (albeit doubtful). But this is the essence of Russian weapons. It is created for military operations to protect the borders of the homeland, and not for commercial success !!! Glory to the Russian weapons!
  47. 0
    6 June 2014 13: 13
    well, it can't, okay. what to freak out !? here the Romanians (hellish warriors) on the exercises "abrams" "bison" (t-55) then ate mamalyga and laughed a lot, and then the planes. it's not the show-off that matters, but the one who arrived struck flew away and was not seen ...
  48. 0
    6 June 2014 13: 15
    The authors note that the use of two engines makes the Russian car somewhat similar to the American F-22.

    The Porsche 911 has 4 wheels and an engine at the rear, which makes it somewhat similar to Zaporozhets. Experts, damn it ... laughing
  49. Ser
    Ser
    +1
    6 June 2014 13: 17
    The competition began.
  50. +3
    6 June 2014 13: 19
    A real comparison of the complexes is not yet possible ... it's all commonplace propaganda and marketing in order to increase sales of American fighters ... capital needs to repay the invested funds ...

    Regarding stealth ... Americans are stealthy in certain ranges ... BUT ... Russian air defense systems have a different set of airspace controls ... our detection systems are able to well recognize targets such as F-22 and F-35.
  51. -1
    6 June 2014 13: 51
    I remember articles that the F35 cannot really fly at all, and they were also published here.
    And Amer’s notorious “Stealth”, as they say, sorry, we didn’t know that he was invisible) ))))
  52. groin
    -1
    6 June 2014 14: 33
    The Yankees are lying, that's why they're lying. I don't give a fuck. But what a handsome (T-50)!!!!
  53. 0
    6 June 2014 15: 06
    Of course, we can start a serious dispute, but the fact that Japan is already dissatisfied with them and their flying machine means something...
    As they say, we discussed the pros, but look for the cons yourself)
  54. 0
    6 June 2014 15: 19
    So far, there is not a single fighter that FULLY meets the requirements of the fifth generation. But! PAK FA will, at least in the future, answer them. The F-22 and F-35 didn’t even think about cruising super sound and super maneuverability.
    1. Okay
      0
      7 June 2014 20: 27
      The T50 will be accepted in the 4+ state, and, as we see, they have already begun testing “additional” weapons from pylons for 4+, since fifth-generation stealth still doesn’t work, and we can’t wait any longer. They are also still trying to make a missile with target designation after launch, and will do it no sooner than in a few years - we can’t wait, they started testing “additional” weapons from pylons - this is what the plane will be
      1. 0
        9 June 2014 15: 57
        you said something stupid without thinking.
        pylons are being tested not because it’s impossible without them)))
  55. 0
    6 June 2014 15: 58
    However, according to E. Lee and R. Johnson, the F-35 fighter has a higher potential for attacking ground targets


    This is with two bombs of 905 kg each, and for the F-35B 450 kg each? No, you can’t make it funny like that.
  56. 0
    6 June 2014 17: 22
    The funny thing is that the real characteristics of the T-50 are classified, and Americans (especially journalists) cannot compare aircraft unknown to them. And any Malaysians don’t need T-50s if they have cheaper and mass-produced SU-34s.
  57. 0
    6 June 2014 17: 33
    Well, yes, they are not competitors. Until the T-50 has passed the test, it cannot, and when it does, the F-35 will not be able to compete...
  58. 0
    6 June 2014 17: 34
    this is not even propaganda-) every sandpiper praises his swamp... their task is to bomb someone, and we have to protect our sky! And our plane is better, this is a fact, and this despite the fact that the engines have not yet been installed to the required standards!
  59. +4
    6 June 2014 18: 03
    Quote: Zymran
    Quote: NEXUS
    point by point: the fact that even the Americans recognized the 29 momentum f117 (I spoke about the priority of maneuverability over stealth) ... there was a Yugoslav pilot at the helm of the moment ... this


    There was no such thing. The F-117 shot down the S-125 air defense system, an upgraded version using a Philips thermal imager.

    impact force o instant 29 look there everything is clearly stated and given
  60. 0
    6 June 2014 18: 48
    Apparently the T-50 is better than the F-35. If it were the other way around, they would begin to criticize us, pointing out our shortcomings, which can, in principle, be eliminated with further work on the design. .
  61. 0
    6 June 2014 20: 22
    However, according to E. Lee and R. Johnson, the F-35 fighter has a higher potential for attacking ground targets. The T-50, in turn, has better capabilities to combat enemy aircraft.
    The fighter is created primarily to combat aviation. That's why he's a fighter. And for ground purposes we have the Su-34.
  62. mvv
    mvv
    0
    6 June 2014 21: 10
    Not. after such praise, even buyers may run away... This F-35 is a wunderwaffle
  63. 0
    6 June 2014 22: 36
    Even with the most advanced technology, mattress makers have not noticed progress and victories in their adventures around the world, this is provided that they are fighting with a kahal against an obviously weak enemy.
  64. -1
    6 June 2014 23: 22
    f35))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))
  65. 0
    7 June 2014 00: 01
    The author of the article does not seem to be very versed in the topic.
  66. -3
    7 June 2014 00: 17
    A new useless expensive toy for the Americans on which they want to make money, and in terms of its characteristics it is not much superior to the F-16 or MiG-29
    1. +1
      9 June 2014 16: 03
      This toy is not useless.
      in comparison with the old F-16 and Mig-29, the avionics are a cut above.
      The F-35, albeit with shortcomings, is a full-fledged multi-role aircraft.
      And there is no point in comparing it with both.
      The Mig-29 is more powerful in aerobatics and armament, but performs different tasks.
      The F16 is simply a relatively cheap aircraft.
  67. 0
    7 June 2014 04: 57
    Why doesn’t this surprise me? What else should you expect from the USA?
  68. SAG
    0
    7 June 2014 12: 32
    At least lie by falsifying the facts and not by lying.
    20: 23, 8 February 2012
    Australians call F-35 "wrong aircraft"

    F-35B Lightning II. Photo from jsf.mil website
    The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Arms and Trade (JSCFADT) of Australia held a meeting to assess the need for the purchase of American F-35 Lightning II fighters for the Australian Air Force. According to The Canberra Times, the meeting was attended by representatives of analytical agency Air Power Australia and RepSim, which produces simulators, saying that the United States and Australia are developing a "wrong aircraft" that should not be bought.

    According to the speakers, the F-35 fighter creation program is a failure, and the created aircraft does not meet the declared characteristics. In addition, the main mistake of American experts, the Australians considered the intention to develop three types of fighter - conventional take-off, short take-off and vertical landing and carrier-based - based on the F-35. In addition, representatives of Air Power Australia and RepSim said that the F-35 program is still far from complete, while the plane is already experiencing many difficulties.

    RepSim also presented the results of a simulated dogfight between 240 F-35 fighters and the same number of Su-35S, which "happened" off the coast of Taiwan in 2018. According to the company's calculations, only 30 F-35s survived in this aerial combat simulation. Combat simulations were also conducted between 240 F-22 Raptor and Su-35S and between F / A-18E / F Super Hornet and Su-35S. In the first, 139 F-22s survived, and in the second, all Super Hornets were destroyed.

    Speakers at the meeting demanded that the Australian government refuse to purchase the F-35 and begin to put pressure on the US government to allow the sale of F-22 fighter aircraft by the Australian Air Force. Currently, F-22 exports are legally prohibited due to copy protection considerations for key technologies.

    The Australian Government has been reviewing the F-2011 fighter procurement program since November 35. As part of the review, an analysis of the aircraft development program will be carried out on the basis of test data, design difficulties, as well as price parameters. Based on this review, it is planned to decide on a postponement of the purchase of aircraft. Australia announced its intention to acquire one hundred F-35 fighters, but so far it has decided to purchase only 14 of them - the contract is planned to be signed during 2012.
    Your comments from supertiger21 (like Andrey from Chelyabinsk) are from the category: I hear a ringing, I don’t know where it is!!! You are an ordinary boor.
  69. +1
    7 June 2014 13: 47
    Is it okay that I was created to fight Raptors and Lightnings, taking into account all the disadvantages and advantages of the F-22 and F-35? laughing
  70. fall
    -2
    7 June 2014 16: 25
    If Russian air defense systems are so good, where were they on May 28, 1987, when 20 Germans landed on ........................ Red Square, and the locals clapped their hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And how many aircraft have the Russians built that are invisible to air defense since 1982, when the first F-117s were put into service???????????????????????????? ????????????????
    1. Dormidont
      0
      7 June 2014 17: 57
      there was no order to destroy it...there are no and will not be invisible aircraft for ground-based air defense, they are reducing the ESR in order to reduce the detection range of the enemy aircraft
    2. 0
      13 June 2014 08: 27
      This plane was controlled by radar for 80% of the flight. Another thing is that no one gave the order to shoot down, the initiative was knocked out of our command very effectively - everyone was left behind.
  71. Vita_vko
    0
    7 June 2014 19: 33
    Still, the American was forced to admit that the T-50 is superior in speed, maneuverability and is better as a fighter. And that's not to mention the range and payload. But even such recognition can cost an American his reputation and his job.
  72. 0
    7 June 2014 20: 31
    Until the first real clashes ten years later in some local conflict in Asia, no one, no expert, will “weigh” on the scales which of the two aircraft is more effective.
  73. Vlad Gore
    0
    8 June 2014 09: 45
    Quote: sscha
    Rotary turbine? belay Experts will say (I am fuel oil) that this increases the weight of the aircraft and, as a result, its performance characteristics change for the worse! I'm talking about the deck modification. Either I'm a complete idiot, or Lee and Johnson are being disingenuous in drawing their conclusions. Moreover, most of the fighters are based on aircraft carriers, the main striking force of the shitcrats. Correct those who are in the know! hi

    At the moment, only F-18 Super Hornets are on deck. A deck modification of the F-35 is currently in the plans. Yes
  74. 0
    8 June 2014 21: 08
    The new T-50 NEEDS to appear OVER WASHINGTON! THIS WILL BE THE BEST ADVERTISING)))
  75. dastyst
    0
    9 June 2014 01: 30
    Of course, I always don’t take such articles too seriously (journalisms), but this particular article doesn’t contain any specifics.
  76. Rusich Alexander
    0
    10 June 2014 13: 30
    Amer's suckers will crap themselves in a real situation!!! as it has always been!!!!!
  77. 0
    11 June 2014 11: 51
    the Americans seem to have just assessed the commercial attractiveness of these projects
    They are more concerned about making money, and this is what they do best!
    1. 0
      13 June 2014 08: 31
      I agree, from this point of view, Amer’s flying machine has definitely outperformed ours: they haven’t really brought it to mind yet, but they managed to sell it to half the planet.
  78. 0
    8 July 2014 13: 12
    The T-50 is not ready for series (testing), and the F-35 is not ready for flight. (The US military has banned flights of F-35 fighters)
  79. 0
    4 October 2014 02: 17
    The Yankees always praised what they did, you can’t praise yourself, no one will! So they are trying to prove that they have the best, I read an article where they compared their Abrams with the T-34, and proved how good their tank was! As far as I remember, the F-22 is not intended for export; the F-35, a simpler and cheaper machine, was developed for this purpose. But on the F-22 itself, problems were identified, in the form of corrosion at the point where the wing was attached. So, everything is fine, and the identified defects must be eliminated. There are also some problems with vertical takeoff, for this reason, the Yankees decided to provide not a vertical, but a shortened takeoff, and the fan in flight also acts as ballast, which limits the weight of the suspended ammunition. At the aviation show, a French fighter was presented, a beautiful car, I can’t say anything, but there is one thing, it went out of sight during turns, then rushed past the stands and disappeared again. And our pilots performed cascades of aerobatic maneuvers in a box, without even having to move the camera, the plane always remained in the frame, and this was performed from “Pugachev’s Cobra” to aerobatic maneuvers, including the “Bell”. So, in terms of maneuverability, ours can give anyone a head start! As for the T-50, it was not put on static display due to the fact that it has a special coating applied to it, which reduces its visibility to radars, at least according to the announcer. So, who will kill whom in a real battle. is this still a question? Regarding the engines, at the last Aviation Salon it was officially announced that they are simply not ready yet, because the cars fly on engines from the Su-30, unless of course I’m mistaken. So before you argue. you need to wait for the serial configuration and the weapons placed on them, and after that, you can compare what came out of everything planned. According to one version, the T-50 will also be designed for aircraft carriers. At least, they plan to deploy them on Admiral Kuznetsov. And about the shortened takeoff run, that’s for sure. I myself saw how the T-50 took off, here any road is suitable for take-off, and for landing too, but along the road, it’s easier for a fuel tanker to drive up and to transport missiles. Not only in the USSR, pilots landed on airways, but now in Russia too, they have tried this method of landing, so being tied to an airfield is a tribute to tradition, and not a strict necessity.
  80. The comment was deleted.
  81. volga
    0
    31 January 2015 15: 18
    Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
    Well, yes! We have electronics on lamps and cable management! wassat

    And in the power plant there are migrant workers sitting on the pedals!!!! laughing laughing laughing
  82. volga
    0
    31 January 2015 15: 21
    Quote: silberwolf88
    A real comparison of the complexes is not yet possible ... it's all commonplace propaganda and marketing in order to increase sales of American fighters ... capital needs to repay the invested funds ...

    Regarding stealth ... Americans are stealthy in certain ranges ... BUT ... Russian air defense systems have a different set of airspace controls ... our detection systems are able to well recognize targets such as F-22 and F-35.


    I propose to remember Yugoslavia, when our air defense systems of the 1812 model were slammed by their invisible ones. And the Americans were terribly nervous. “How is it possible that such a cool stealth bomber is shot down with such rubbish?????”
  83. volga
    0
    31 January 2015 15: 27
    Quote: Velesovic
    However, according to E. Lee and R. Johnson, the F-35 fighter has a higher potential for attacking ground targets. The T-50, in turn, has better capabilities to combat enemy aircraft.
    The fighter is created primarily to combat aviation. That's why he's a fighter. And for ground purposes we have the Su-34.


    I still assume that the T-50 is a platform (PAK-FA is a promising aviation complex for front-line aviation), and it is not a fact that only fighters will be based on it. This aircraft has at least a lot of potential. stop
  84. 0
    April 18 2017 16: 33
    What the hell was wrong with writing this article?
    The F-35 is inferior in its capabilities even to the F-22 fighter, which for more than six years in a row has been consistently losing such a battle to the Russian “EXPORT” Su-30 MKI fighters during joint US-Indian exercises. Last time, the Indian Air Force won the match with a score of 19:1 in their favor.
  85. +4
    22 November 2017 15: 52
    Why does the Su-57 compete with a flying mega-expensive damp coffin?