Military Review

The current status of the program F-35

46
The current status of the program F-35


Internet resource DefenseNews. com published information on the progress of the F-35 Lightning II program, presented by Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President and part-time director of the F-35 program through lead executive Lorra Martin at the international Air Force Association Space and Space Conference . The presentation allows you to assess how fast the program is progressing and at what stage it is.

1. The network implementation schedule for the F-35 program (optimistic version) as of September 10 2014.



First flights: F-35B (2008), F-35A (2009), F-35C (2010)

Flight Test Program: F-35B (2008-2016), F-35A (2009-2016), F-35C (2010-2016), Export F-35 (2011-2016)

Readiness modifications: Block 2A (2013), Block 2B (2015), Block 3i (2016), Block 3F (2017)

The program of small-scale production:

Series (Lot) / Number of machines in the series / Customer (number and type of aircraft) / Years of construction

Lot I / 2 / USAF (2 F-35A) / 2006-2011

Lot II / 12 / USAF (6 F-35A), US MP (6 F-35B) / 2007-2012

Lot III / 17 / USAF (7 F-35A), US Navy (7 F-35C), British Air Force (2 F-35B), Netherlands Air Force (1 F-35A) / 2008-2013

Lot IV / 32 / USAF (10 F-35A), US Navy (4 F-35C), US MP (15 F-35B), Australian Air Force (2 F-35B), Netherlands Air Force (1 F-35A) / 2009-2013

Lot V / 32 / USAF (22 F-35A), US Navy (7 F-35C), US MP (3 F-35B) / 2010-2014

Lot VI / 36 / Italian Air Force (3 F-35A), British Navy (1 F-35B), Australian Air Force (12 F-35B), Israeli Air Force (20 F-35I) / 2011-2016

Lot VII / 35 / no data / 2012-2016

Lot VIII / 43 / no data / 2013-2017

Lot IX / no data / no data / 2014-2017

Lot X / no data / no data / 2015-2018

Lot XI / no data / no data / 2016-2019

From the second half of 2016, the transition to large-scale production.

Commencement of supplies for combat parts: F-35B for aviation US Marine Corps (2015), F-35A for the US Air Force (2016), F-35C for the US Navy (2018)

The program of re-equipment of the air bases (avb) of the Air Force, Navy and USMC:

2012 - Avg Air Force Eglin, pieces. Florida; Avb MP Yuma, pieces Arizona

2013 - Avb Air Force Edwards, pieces. California; Avb Air Force Nellis, pcs. Nevada; Avb MP Cherry Point, pcs. North Carolina; Avb Air Force Ogden, pcs. Utah

2014 - Avb Air Force Luke, pcs. Arizona; Avb MP Beaufort, pcs. South Carolina

2015 - Avb Hill, pieces Utah

2016 - Avb Navy Key West, pcs. Florida

2017 - Avb MP Iwakuni, Japan

The program of re-equipment of aviation units of foreign customers:

2016 - Italy, Israel

2017 - Netherlands, Japan

2018 - Italy, UK, Australia

2019 - Netherlands, Turkey, South Korea

In total, it is planned to purchase: 1763 F-35A for the USAF, 680 F-35B / F-35C for the US Navy and US MP, foreign customers - from 800 to 1500 F-35 of various modifications

There are two threats to the failure of this schedule - short-term and long-term. The short term refers to the delays associated with the flight ban imposed in July following a fire aboard one of the experienced F-35As. According to the head of the program for the US Department of Defense, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan (Christopher Bogdan), in order for the program not to shift, it is necessary to resume test flights by the end of this month. F-35 engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, as previously reported, has found a solution to the problem and is expected to present it soon.

The long-term risks are primarily associated with a possible sequestration of the budget and the associated reduction in the amount of funding for the program. So far, the program has not been affected by budget wars. However, according to General Bogdan, "there are no guarantees that this will continue." A significant reduction in the program budget, or even worse, a reduction in orders or a complete withdrawal from the program of partner countries will inevitably lead to a shift in the schedule to the right. However, while the leadership of the Pentagon, apparently, intends to continue to protect the program F-35 from budget cuts.

2. Data on the basing of the current production of the F-35 aircraft as of 11 September 2014.



Total delivered from the current production of different types of X-NUMX flight models F-125. All cars are in the United States.

Avb Air Force Nellis, pcs. Nevada - 5 (all F-35A) - front part

Avb Air Force Edwards, pieces. California - 14 (11 F-35A, 2 F-35B, 1 F-35C) - drill / test center

Avb MP Yuma, pcs. Arizona - 16 (all F-35B) - front part

Avb Air Force Luke, pcs. Arizona - 9 (all F-35A) - front part

Avb Air Force Eglin, pcs. Florida - 49 (10 F-35B, 28 F-35A, 8 F-35C, three English F-35B and two Dutch F-35A) - flight training and retraining center

Awb MP Beaufort, pieces. South Carolina - 2 (all F-35B) - the center of combat training and retraining of flight personnel

Avb Navy Patuxent River, pcs. Maryland - 9 (5 F-35B, 4 F-35C) - test center

Aviation plant in Fort Worth, pcs. Texas - 21 (4 F-35B, 10 F-35A, 5 F-35C, two Australian F-35B)

3. The main stages of the program are scheduled for 2014 year.



Delivery of the first cars on the Air Force Awb Luke, pcs. Arizona - done

Begin Flight Test Program Modified Block 3i - Done

Delivery of the first cars to the Beefort Avb MP, pcs. South Carolina - done

First Australian Air Force vehicles delivered - completed

Begin Flight Test Program Modification Block 3F - done

The beginning of the development of takeoff and landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier - to be completed before the end of the year

Continuation of the flight test program Block 2B modification for US MP - to be completed before the end of the year

Continuing efforts to reduce program costs - to be completed before the end of the year

***

Critics of the program point out that it is not easy to maintain the network schedule and the deadlines may move again at any time, because the program is seriously lagging behind the initial target dates, and the cost of it has increased significantly compared to the initial data. Also, there is a healthy skepticism regarding the number of aircraft planned for production: while the Pentagon is already thinking about the project of a promising next-generation fighter, declared by the US military to purchase the number of F-35 Lightning II fighters (over 2400) does not look very real.
Author:
Originator:
http://periscope2.ru/2014/09/26/8250/
46 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 4 October 2014 09: 25
    +14
    Extremely ambiguous aircraft, too many Americans wanted from one car.

    I honestly also think that it is unlikely that the program will be brought to 2400 aircraft.
    1. 0255
      0255 4 October 2014 12: 47
      +4
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      Extremely ambiguous aircraft, too many Americans wanted from one car.

      I honestly also think that it is unlikely that the program will be brought to 2400 aircraft.

      Their F-4 Phantom was also supposed to become the best tipper of the Soviet MiGs and a master-of-all-hands - so what? In which war did the Phantom succeed?
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 4 October 2014 13: 30
        +7
        Quote: 0255

        Their F-4 Phantom was also supposed to become the best tipper of the Soviet MiGs and a master-of-all-hands - so what? In which war did the Phantom succeed?

        In the War of Attrition 1968-1970gg and in the War of Doomsday 1973 of the year. AOI was withdrawn from service only at the beginning of 2000x.
      2. IAlex
        IAlex 4 October 2014 15: 47
        +5
        Of course, like everyone loves to go too far in pathos, but we must pay tribute to the Phantom F-4 was a good plane ...
        1. yehat
          yehat 6 October 2014 12: 22
          +1
          why was it? it is still being used
      3. Dry_T-50
        Dry_T-50 4 October 2014 21: 42
        +5
        Quote: 0255
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        Extremely ambiguous aircraft, too many Americans wanted from one car.

        I honestly also think that it is unlikely that the program will be brought to 2400 aircraft.

        Their F-4 Phantom was also supposed to become the best tipper of the Soviet MiGs and a master-of-all-hands - so what? In which war did the Phantom succeed?

        Arab-Israeli wars, but not because it was so cool, but because the Arabs, unlike the Jews, fought poorly
        1. 0255
          0255 4 October 2014 22: 34
          +5
          In the war of attrition and Judgment Day, the poor Phantom suffered from the Egyptian MiG-21. The Mirage III was a more dangerous foe for the Arabs.

          In Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq war, Phantom did not achieve great results. I hope the F-35 will repeat the "glorious" combat use of the Phantom am
          I'm not saying that the Phantom strayed well from the S-75 and S-125 air defense systems angry
  2. Iline
    Iline 4 October 2014 09: 33
    +4
    Too many modifications and improvements are planned. From this we can draw two conclusions - either the plane is "raw" and does not show the declared characteristics, or there is an elementary cut of money. Then why take into service an unprepared aircraft?
  3. Gambit
    Gambit 4 October 2014 10: 09
    +3
    I am also inclined that in this case we are talking about cutting money, the project started back in the 90s, when the United States had a firm belief that the main technological rival - Russia - was destroyed. 1 engine haunts me, as it’s quite certain that they will use it exclusively against banana republics.
    1. Analgin
      Analgin 4 October 2014 10: 44
      +1
      Quote: Gambit
      1 engine haunts me, as it’s quite certain that they will use it exclusively against banana republics.

      Well, on F-16 they were not afraid to install 1 dvigun, so there was confidence that he would not let us down if something happened. And they did not fail, he turned out to be quite reliable. But we did not have confidence in the reliability of one engine for the MiG-29, they installed a couple, which, of course, did not reduce the cost of the fighter.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 4 October 2014 10: 49
        +16
        Quote: Analgin
        Well, on F-16 they were not afraid to install 1 dvigun, so there was confidence that he would not let us down if something happened. And they did not fail, he turned out to be quite reliable. But we did not have confidence in the reliability of one engine for the MiG-29, they installed a couple, which, of course, did not reduce the cost of the fighter.

        If the engine is not installed at all, there will be no problems .. laughing
      2. FID
        FID 4 October 2014 12: 02
        +5
        F-16 is not VTOL, therefore 1 engine, and F-35 are positioned as VTOL. Our Yak with one engine consumed half the fuel for take-off and landing ...
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 4 October 2014 13: 37
          +7
          Quote: SSI
          F-16 is not VTOL, therefore 1 engine, and F-35 are positioned as VTOL. Our Yak with one engine consumed half the fuel for take-off and landing ...


          You are not clearly unfamiliar with the F-35. Firstly, the VTOL aircraft are only F-35B, the other 2000 F-35s (A and C) with normal take-off. Secondly, it is the F-35A that is a replacement for the F-16, not inferior to it (contrary to a very popular opinion) in maneuverability . Otherwise, the F-35A has only big advantages over the F-16.
          1. FID
            FID 4 October 2014 13: 40
            +7
            You see, I'm not going to get acquainted with the F-35. What for? Even if he surpasses the F-15 + F-16 together, I’m deeply into it ... I have enough worries with our aircraft.
          2. yehat
            yehat 6 October 2014 12: 25
            0
            it is very strange to hear that the F-35 is not inferior to the F16 in maneuverability. Firstly, name the model F16, and secondly, even a cursory glance shows that in a number of modes F16 is better.
    2. Denis fj
      Denis fj 4 October 2014 17: 42
      +1
      The fact that the F-35 program is already a little less than 20 years old, including 14 years of flight tests, Mr. Director modestly kept silent like that.
      Apparently, until 2006, there was nothing, nothing flew, nothing was designed.
      Indeed, arrogance is the second happiness
  4. iwind
    iwind 4 October 2014 10: 38
    +9
    Meanwhile, the Australians have already received two F-35A aircraft - board AU-1 and - board AU-2, now it is undergoing factory tests, in November-December they will fly to Lake airbase.
    It’s curious that orders are only growing now, there are two options, all of them are military and don’t understand anything (apparently they don’t read articles expertly in the press) or the plane is far from that bad ...
    If Israel was about to convict the order, and then they can’t relate to the Air Force after the arms of the enemies in the darkness.
    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 4 October 2014 11: 17
      +7
      Many countries simply did not have any special alternatives - either this unit, or nothing, well, or stay with old planes. Quite possibly, the USA exerted some pressure on buyers in order to "shove" this car into them. They have more pressure levers on their puppets, It's simple, the way to make money - the total cost of operating and purchasing this type of machine is now estimated at $ 1 trillion, and the figure could go up!
      1. iwind
        iwind 4 October 2014 12: 58
        +1
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        Many countries simply did not have any special alternatives - either this unit, or nothing, well, or stay with old planes. Quite possibly, the USA exerted some pressure on buyers in order to "shove" this car into them. They have more pressure levers on their puppets, It's simple, the way to make money - the total cost of operating and purchasing this type of machine is now estimated at $ 1 trillion, and the figure could go up!

        Mmm. But what about the F-15SE, F / A-18ASH and the Europeans?
        Another question is why the United States is pushing precisely the F-35 (orders already for 10-15 years at a minimum), while Boinga is in a difficult position. What it came to this year, the US Navy buys from BOING aircraft they do not particularly need, and for the Australians, the United States pays for the purchase and modernization of hornets for EW aircraft due to threats that Boinga will close production lines and fire people. If the US has such a lobby, why not push through the F-15SE or F-18ASH and the problem is resolved? In general, for the United States it would be more profitable.
        In South Korea, they really wanted to sell the F-15SE they were offered very good prices, but on the F-35 they were rather hung up on the contrary. But after Yu.Koretsi got acquainted with both planes, so the desire to buy F-15SE (4 ++) immediately went away.
        1. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 4 October 2014 13: 15
          +4
          No one has canceled the rivalry of corporations! We don’t know how these or those decisions were made, all the most interesting, as always happens behind the scenes! At the expense of decisions in favor of F-35, the fact is that you can get more money out of it than from the same F-15, as I have already said, the issue price is only 1 trillion $ at the moment, and most likely it will increase.
          1. iwind
            iwind 4 October 2014 14: 27
            +1
            Quote: Anton Gavrilov
            and the account of decisions in favor of the F-35, the fact is that you can get more money out of it than with the same F-15, as I said, the price of the issue is only $ 1 trillion at the moment, and most likely will increase.

            It is impossible to cut money from other planes? Just at the F-35, the prices are already fixed, and you can't cut them down especially here, they are already being sold cheaper by the European. On the F-35 projects, there is tremendous pressure, a bunch of supervising authorities, and boing constantly clucks that "everyone" is no.% 3, and he is D'artagnan. In such an environment, it’s not really going to roam.
        2. IAlex
          IAlex 4 October 2014 15: 51
          +4
          The F-35 has almost no competitors, its partial competitor F-22 is not for sale to anyone, ATD-X is not ready yet. Moreover, the F-35 is a successor to the Yak-141, so it has the ability to take off vertically, and there are no modern aircraft like the F-22, incl. 100% it will be popular ...
        3. yehat
          yehat 6 October 2014 12: 29
          0
          Quote: iwind
          But what about the F-15SE, F / A-18ASH and the Europeans?

          For a particular Australia theater of war
          the "front" parameters of the aircraft are not so important,
          therefore, the F35 can be objectively much better than the Europeans.
    2. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 4 October 2014 13: 28
      +3
      And does the West-oriented countries have a choice about what to buy: the F-22 is not for sale (not manufactured) although Australia, Japan and Israel wanted it, Gripen I do not think that it exceeds the F-16 block60 by anything, Taifun is happy with the mediocre car ( although they say in close combat it’s not bad), Rafal is not a bad car (but for some reason nobody buys it and the price is 120 mil. The price is more expensive than the F-35), the F-18 and F-15 are certainly not bad but time is running out (and In addition, the United States is lobbying for f-35 in Korea, leaning toward f-15SE but selling F-35)
    3. bigELDAK
      bigELDAK 4 October 2014 13: 34
      +2
      Beautiful photo.
      I looked at the news (on the website) and did not find any information about the sikorsky s-97 (they rolled it out yesterday), but this is exactly how the Americans see their "chariot of the future" and are not far behind and the "Euro-eaters" with their X-3 are already flying prototypes the future is being modeled only we are marking time (except for "models" we have nothing at all in this regard).



      1. gjv
        gjv 4 October 2014 15: 58
        0
        http://raider.sikorsky.com/raider_technology_demonstrator.asp
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-97_Raider
        1. Penzyac
          Penzyac 5 October 2014 18: 28
          +1
          Quote: gjv
          http://raider.sikorsky.com/raider_technology_demonstrator.asp
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-97_Raider

          Does Sikorsky have a license from Kamov for technical solutions based on a coaxial scheme, or are they (Americans) like the Chinese?
          1. bigELDAK
            bigELDAK 6 October 2014 10: 29
            0
            Well, in general, you yourself answered your own question. Personally for me it won’t be big if we win, even if they pay for each copy and it’s better not to fly over my head. Nobody will stop them from switching to the k-max sync , the more they have been using it for a long time (and in an unmanned version).
            But the Chinese are muddying something "unmanned".

            K-MAX
  5. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 4 October 2014 10: 47
    +6
    The plane can already be said to have been completely successful. The Americans, taking advantage of the lack of a race, were able to finalize a full-fledged replacement for the F-16.
    1. iwind
      iwind 4 October 2014 11: 11
      +5
      And don't say ...
      Спрятали голову в песок,да и что напрягаться самолет то говно. Зачем создовать свой аналог 5 поколение проще говном покидаться. А последствие этого уже видны, дальше ситуацие будет только ухудшатся. Полный провал концепции 4++ поколения , заказов почти нету(F-15SE,F/A-18ASH,Dassault Rafale) разве что внутри стран производителей есть хоть какой то интерес. Та же история и Су-35 уже почти 7 лет пытаются протолкнуть на рынок,но реального интереса нету, в целом уже почти 2 года у РФ нету крупных новых контрактов на МФИ.
      I hope at least someone starts to do something actively, otherwise the diversity in aviation will greatly decrease.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 4 October 2014 13: 45
        +4
        Iwind, but fighters are created primarily to protect their country and its interests, and already secondary to the market. And this rule is well implemented in Russia. The F-16 has 25 operators and Rafal has only 1, but this does not mean that this is an indication of any military advantage of the American fighter over the French.
        1. iwind
          iwind 4 October 2014 14: 12
          +2
          Quote: supertiger21
          Iwind, but fighters are created primarily to protect their country and its interests, and already secondary to the market. And this rule is well implemented in Russia. The F-16 has 25 operators and Rafal has only 1, but this does not mean that this is an indication of any military advantage of the American fighter over the French.

          Who sells arms to the country and dances it ...
          And the buyer is aware of this, therefore, he tries to choose the most advantageous offer for himself. If Rafal and F-16 appeared at the same time, then one of the indicators of price-quality / efficiency would be just their prevalence.
          Rafal is a good aircraft, but a different one, which is excusable, but its effectiveness against airplanes of the 5th generation with which it will fight in the air and on the ground is a question, and judging by the fact that the military does not really want it ...
          Also, airplanes are created to support their military-industrial complex, they could not create the 5th generation, they created 4 ++, but the plant needs constant orders, and even its own air force doesn’t order huge quantities.
  6. sv68
    sv68 4 October 2014 10: 47
    +3
    interestingly, women dance — four individuals in one shirenga — this product is even rawer than drowned logs and they are ready to sculpt a new one! and if seriously, at least seven thousand build — with the declared characteristics this plane is definitely a maximum of 4+ and certainly not the fifth generation .you test it in conditions close to combat and at full load, then you can draw conclusions
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 4 October 2014 13: 47
      +2
      There is no one on all the standards of the 5th generation. Each in his own opinion, in accordance with their interests. No.
  7. MarKon
    MarKon 4 October 2014 11: 27
    +2
    Americans know that there will be no war, and therefore take this plane. Kulik and Stalin they do not have))))
  8. rakiuzo
    rakiuzo 4 October 2014 12: 09
    +4
    Nedavno prochital stat'ju o kitajskom shpionazhe v Danii. Kitajtsy v techenii 4 goda "tehnichno" poluchili nuhznuju informatsiu o vazhnejshih softvejrah etogo "chudesnogo projekta" ot Danskoj firmy TERMA. Ob etom svoe sozhalenie vyjavil general'nyj direktor tsentra sibernoj bezopasnosti Lund Sörensen, skazav, - chto eto zaplanirovannyj shpionazh i kak okazalaos' idet uzhe davno! A predstaviteli Alienvault -chastnaja firma bezopasnosti - govorjat, chto Kitajskie hakery rabotali pod rukovodstvam general'nogo kommandovanija Kitajskih voruzhennyh sil. Kitajskoaja storona - MOLCHİT!
  9. lilian
    lilian 4 October 2014 12: 28
    +4
    The helmet on this plane is cool. Imagine being in a cabin where you can look through the sides and floor.

    As I understand it, the bet was on stealth, because this plane is inferior, for example, to the Su-35 in speed (about 600 km / h), rate of climb, ceiling, range. At the same time, the F-35 is not a full-fledged aircraft of GDP since it can take off vertically only at 50% fuel. Or with a limited bomb load. In armament superior to a ton.

    And imagine if you come up with a new generation of radars that can see a metal body in the sky, the size of a needle. What will they do with these invisibles?
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 4 October 2014 13: 53
      +3
      Quote: lilian
      As I understand it, the bet was on stealth, because this plane is inferior, for example, to the Su-35 in speed (about 600 km / h), rate of climb, ceiling, range. At the same time, the F-35 is not a full-fledged aircraft of GDP since it can take off vertically only at 50% fuel. Or with a limited bomb load. In armament superior to a ton.


      Well, already tired of explaining that the F-35 is not one plane, but three similar planes for different tasks. F-35A (with conventional take-off, replacement for F-16 and A-10), F-35B (with vertical airspace, replacement for A-8), F-35C (carrier-based fighter for replacing F / A-18C / D) .
      1. Tirpitz
        Tirpitz 5 October 2014 10: 26
        +2
        To you +. Most of the site has read about SSVP problems, and thinks that this is the only plane. And they forget about other modifications.
        1. yehat
          yehat 6 October 2014 17: 20
          0
          but 2 other modifications also have a redundancy problem in the case.
      2. lilian
        lilian 6 October 2014 01: 21
        +1
        And what does it give? That the tanks will be so full, but the speed will remain the same. Maneuverable than the Su-35 will not. And the bet on low-mindedness remains in question, as the radars continue to improve.

        In addition, if the F-35 fails to hit the Su-35 from a long distance, it has an optical-location station for which the F-35 is visible.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 5 October 2014 01: 50
      +2
      That's a good question. In Israel, they thought of him. Such radars will be -
      15 years later and then the "stealth" forms of the airplane's glider will not be enough
      for invisibility. Will have to install systems on the plane, personally
      working with the radar and deceiving it.
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 5 October 2014 18: 57
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        That's a good question. In Israel, they thought of him. Such radars will be -
        15 years later and then the "stealth" forms of the airplane's glider will not be enough
        for invisibility. Will have to install systems on the plane, personally
        working with the radar and deceiving it.

        You can fool a classic radar, but passive, and even wide-range? You cannot provide absolute radio silence in the atmosphere of the Earth, just as you cannot detect the passive radar itself ...
    3. Penzyac
      Penzyac 5 October 2014 18: 53
      0
      Quote: lilian
      ... And imagine if you come up with a new generation of radars that can see a metal body in the sky, the size of a needle. What will they do with these invisibles?

      The Chinese claim that they already have almost such radars, moreover passive and mobile, capable of detecting reflections by airborne objects, including STELS airplanes, radio waves from a wide range of sources, including public FM-radio and TV stations and repeaters.
  10. Argon
    Argon 4 October 2014 13: 24
    +4
    In general, it is quite possible to review the F-35 with the phrase - "The dogs bark, the caravan is coming." Well, the car promises to be a breakthrough.
  11. Bongo
    Bongo 4 October 2014 14: 59
    +5
    Google Earth satellite image - F-35B next to E-3D AWACS
  12. Russian_Bear
    Russian_Bear 4 October 2014 16: 31
    0
    A good example of how Americans are able to "cut" the budget. I hope this will never happen in a lice country!
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 4 October 2014 16: 51
      +3
      Quote: Russian_Bear
      A good example of how Americans are able to "cut" the budget. I hope this will never happen in a lice country!

      Maybe the Americans are simply much more open in their costs of developing a new car than the Russians or the French? Therefore, all their failures are much easier to criticize.
      1. Wellych
        Wellych 5 October 2014 11: 45
        +2
        Maybe just the Americans are much more open in their costs of developing a new car

        Yeah, they honestly and openly periodically declare that the Pentagon does not know and cannot report where the next trillion disappeared. They are honest, only accountants from them are not very :).
  13. waggish
    waggish 4 October 2014 16: 39
    -1
    And enough wars for him!
  14. PM9mm
    PM9mm 4 October 2014 18: 23
    +3
    Well done Americans! Having crushed your allies for yourself, including militarily, you can push in your goods to them, without even bothering about its competitiveness. Moreover, they are SELLING to their allies, and not GIFT, like the USSR in its time. Bravo!
  15. sharp-lad
    sharp-lad 5 October 2014 00: 06
    +2
    It is very similar to "winter + summer" tires, they do not stick on ice, but "melt" on hot asphalt!
  16. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 5 October 2014 04: 32
    +1
    Let's not forget that a lot depends on the pilots. The Soviet pilots bent over on the Seagulls, IL-2s and even Po-2 German aircraft. Of course, now the computer makes a considerable part, but the pilot still makes many decisions.
  17. Lame pirate
    Lame pirate 5 October 2014 14: 22
    +4
    Colleagues, from my (naval) bell tower, it seems that the expression is a good car = a beautiful car is not meaningless, and the 35th is completely ugly
  18. Dormidont2
    Dormidont2 5 October 2014 15: 08
    +5
    Quote: 0255
    In the war of attrition and Judgment Day, the poor Phantom suffered from the Egyptian MiG-21. The Mirage III was a more dangerous foe for the Arabs.

    In Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq war, Phantom did not achieve great results. I hope the F-35 will repeat the "glorious" combat use of the Phantom am
    I'm not saying that the Phantom strayed well from the S-75 and S-125 air defense systems angry

    I think the moment E8 (21) with the new BERO (afar) and now I would be useful
  19. Forest
    Forest 5 October 2014 19: 23
    +1
    If you make a plane as a substitute for an attack aircraft - will it not be too much for dense anti-aircraft fire? A-10 and Su-25 left on parole and one wing, and this taking into account their reservation. Can 35 survive in such conditions? If you conduct a remote battle - isn’t it easier to use drones or death machines such as the Strike Needle or Super Hornet?
    1. Leeder
      Leeder 6 October 2014 12: 30
      +1
      I completely agree! For attack aircraft, armor rather than stealth is more important, because they work at lower altitudes and low speeds.
      The only question is, can the same "Shell" take it at gunpoint? If so, then he won't work on the ground ... After all, the Pantsir and others like him are much cheaper ...
  20. Dry_T-50
    Dry_T-50 6 October 2014 12: 44
    0
    Someone wanted to get a fierce nabigator-nabigator, but they would get a flying coffin
  21. waggish
    waggish 11 October 2014 16: 53
    0
    We will see! enough wars!
  22. Prager
    Prager 3 November 2014 13: 35
    -1
    indeed, after reading it’s hard not to call this plane a flying coffin.