Military Review

The first ground tests of the gun mounted on the F-35

153
The US Air Force for the first time conducted tests of the 25-mm GAU-22 / A cannon mounted on the latest F-35A Lightning II fighter, reports RIA News with reference to the website of the Air Force.

The first ground tests of the gun mounted on the F-35


The tests began on June 9, and their completion is scheduled for August.

Judging by the video posted on the network, the fighter was on the ground with inoperative engines during test firing. Specialists had to use special software to "deceive" the onboard equipment and create the illusion of being in the air.

“Unlike the F-35 models developed for the Navy and Marine Corps, in the sample for the Air Force, the gun is built into the body of the aircraft and is located behind the anti-radar envelope. Ground tests are designed to identify the correctness of opening the valves hiding the gun, and the work of ventilation, ”explained the agency.

The agency recalls that the Pentagon intends to spend $ 35 billion on the development of the F-391 project. Now, one plane costs about $ 160 million. However, experts say that this is not the limit - its price increases as all new technical problems are detected, over time delays. Earlier it was reported that the project is already seven years behind schedule.

Photos used:
AFP 2015
153 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. The comment was deleted.
    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 26 July 2015 08: 44
      +7
      The price of F-35 is constantly growing, F-35 lost the training battle to its predecessor F-15, the project is seven years behind schedule. Such news is really encouraging. We look forward to the T-50 series.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 26 July 2015 09: 14
          +2
          Quote: oleg-gr
          We look forward to the T-50 series.
          f-twenty second ones have already been prepared for the t-50, and 35 is the development of the BSU theory + the development of technologies and the theory of battle swarm. So, the Americans still have to catch up and catch up with us in the manufacture and tactics of application. Is it not ..?
          1. meriem1
            meriem1 26 July 2015 09: 49
            +11
            They have one tactic. No direct battle. The point is painfully narrow.
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 26 July 2015 18: 43
              0
              Pay attention to the flagrant incompetence of American designers: the gun is nothing, 25mm, and it took as much to put the 4 of the barrel and the electric motor to turn them. We have single-barreled aircraft on all planes (4-5-6 has less weight, + no engines), and 30mm.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 27 July 2015 01: 55
                -1
                But the American stomps 4 times more often, and in Russia 2 times faster cartridges run out, in the interval between which in line the elephant flapping ears flies ... and then he will throw it behind. sad
                1. BABAY22
                  BABAY22 27 July 2015 03: 22
                  +4
                  We have single-barrel on all airplanes (4-5-6 times less weight, + no engines), and even 30mm.

                  Well, we don’t have single-barrel on all planes. GSh-30-2 double-barreled on the Su-25, GSh-6-23 six-barreled on the Su-24 and on the MiG-31.
                  So the elephant will not fly far.
                  Designers have a choice, and if they put single-barrel VPUs on new types, then this is not from the lack of multi-barrel, but based on the tactics of combat use of aircraft.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 27 July 2015 03: 48
                    -3
                    He does not need far (see above). Su-25, Su-24 and MiG-31 can not conduct a maneuverable battle. And on the MiG-29 and Su-27 it’s a single-barrel GMO, which fires only 1500 against 6600 rounds / min for the F-15 and F-22, and you need to shake on each shell.
                    If, in a duel situation, the Su-27 will fall down even if it goes right behind the tail, then in a group battle from a multi-barrel it will even be easily cut off from afar by an American slave.
                    And in the MiG-29, in general, from a shot from this gun, the avionics breakdown and it goes cracked. wassat
                    1. BABAY22
                      BABAY22 27 July 2015 04: 14
                      +2
                      In fact, the time of cannon duels is long over. For close maneuverable combat there is R-73, r-60.
                      A gun is needed to work on balls where rockets are powerless.
                      Probably, based on this, the designers do not put gsh-6-23 with a firing rate of 10 shots for drying and twinkling.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 04: 39
                        -1
                        New views through old crevices? URO is removed by interference, blinded, and quickly ends. Every second battle goes into close combat (sometimes opponents firing long-range missiles just disperse), every second downed plane in it - gets off with a cannon.
                        Thus, at least a quarter of the cannon is knocked down and the pilot will not be caught by the fact that he will not be unarmed.
                        The rate of fire is multi-barreled, the upper number is indicated.
                        No, it was just that "perestroika" had already begun. The designer's cannon is set as they will be told ...
                      2. Großer feldherr
                        Großer feldherr 27 July 2015 16: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Every second battle goes into close combat (sometimes opponents firing long-range missiles just diverge)

                        Right .
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        every second downed plane in it is shot down by a cannon.

                        And here is more detailed, a link or at least a story to the stage where cannon weapons were used in fighter aircraft in the last 40 years (preferably still military use).
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        URO is removed by interference, blinded, and quickly ends.

                        Any weapon is improved faster than defense against it. Yes, and they will obviously end later than enemy aircraft.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Thus, at least a quarter of the cannon is knocked down and the pilot will not be caught by the fact that he will not be unarmed.

                        So how much do they still shoot down with guns in your imagination !? decide already ...
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The constructor’s gun is set as they say ...

                        And they are told to set one that can ensure the fulfillment of the task (now this is the last hope of the pilot of the aircraft with the remaining BC spent) of the task with the minimum possible losses in the flight characteristics.
                        Quote: crazyrom
                        Pay attention to the flagrant incompetence of American designers: the gun is nothing, 25mm, and it took as much to put the 4 of the barrel and the electric motor to turn them. We have single-barreled aircraft on all planes (4-5-6 has less weight, + no engines), and 30mm.

                        So far I have paid attention only to your incompetence. 25 guns in modern supersonic aviation is quite enough, the aircraft have no real armor, and against armored vehicles there is much more effective weaponry. 4 barrels have a good balance of accuracy and rate of fire, multi-barrel machine guns need extraneous dispersal, in the United States they use an electric motor that puts the gun into combat position and supports it before firing, we use a squib for this purpose (the first 10 shells are single, only after firing which begins shooting combat).
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 22: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Großer Feldherr
                        last 40 years

                        Is it somewhere since 1975? in all the wars that took place. There is less in Serbia because it was shot through with long-range missiles from all sides, almost never entering its airspace, but there was one.

                        Not any and not always. From MANPADS terrorists on Israeli passenger airliners as never once hit. Even in Africa, where tunnels do not need to beat.

                        I don’t know how much is in yours, but in reality at least a quarter.

                        Those who "make the decision" tell them. And for the restructuring they were accepted, it is known what ...

                        The gun on the MiGs and Su is clearly not even 25mm and especially not 20, like on the F-15 and F-22.
                        F-35 and AV-8B need 25mm to work on the ground, when from above it is enough sub-caliber from it on the tank. They even fired from a Bradley into the side of a tank are dangerous.
                        The Americans are not pulled by aerobatics, which means that the Russians should not give a shit like in Korea with weapons. Therefore, not a single American / Western pilot-contractor will sit on the MiG-29 (although they are happy with its aerobatics). South African men on the MiG-23 transplanted.
                        And no one asks Russian pilots and designers ... on the contrary, they are taught the wrong thing at schools. From the category of "cannonlochshepulemetaf", "aircraft carriers is a weapon of aggression", "nashsilanasushe" and the like cranberries in sugar ... wassat
                    2. bif
                      bif 27 July 2015 10: 27
                      0
                      How many of you have spent 20 years on developing some kind of super-stuff, spent more than 50 of other people's billion dollars on this, promised to spend another 400 billion dollars, in the end got full crap, but I was able to give the client as many 150 pieces of this crap price over 160 million dollars? And so that the client is also satisfied? If someone's actions seem idiotic to you, this does not mean that this is someone else. So stop considering Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force idiots. If a stealth plane needed a gun, then that’s wise. If it was installed near the air intake - it means, and this is reasonable. If it was tested only on the earth, that means, and this is reasonable.
                      In the end, the F-35 still can't fly. And 150 units have already been transferred to the US Air Force airfields. It is quite logical to use these products at least for the protection of the airfield. Ride the runway back and forth, scare off terrorists. Therefore, the cannon was installed only in the "land" versions of the aircraft - there is no need to protect the runway of an aircraft carrier from terrorists.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 10: 48
                        0
                        Not quite so - everything was bought in Russia for 500 thousand dollars (Yak-141). Then, in addition, they used ready-made technologies from other machines (for example, stealth with the F-22. Fan from the XV-5 of 1964). One and a half trillion - in your pocket.
                        He can fly though hellishly. All the same, frolic than subsonic F / A-117.
                        Everything else is reasonable.
          2. cucujamba
            cucujamba 26 July 2015 11: 12
            +2
            And what follows from this video? What is F22 flying? Very scary belay
            1. Logical
              Logical 26 July 2015 11: 29
              +7
              Quote: cucujamba
              And what follows from this video? What is F22 flying?

              Yes, it is F-22 flies a T-50 does not fly, you understood correctly good
              Quote: cucujamba
              Very scary

              Well, scary, not scary, this is another conversation, but it would be worth thinking, and you should use the caps for their intended purpose!
              1. RUSIVAN
                RUSIVAN 26 July 2015 12: 28
                -2
                The S-400s also know how to fly ... and your 22 where did he show himself?
                1. Logical
                  Logical 26 July 2015 12: 48
                  0
                  Quote: RUSIVAN
                  The S-400s also know how to fly ... and your 22 where did he show himself?

                  First of all, what is your brother’s habit of doing this, to blame for a healthy one ??
                  Secondly, where the S-400 showed itself laughing and by the way, he is ours (F-22) as well as yours!
                  And thirdly, if you behave as before then Talkov will not be returned to us wink
                  1. RUSIVAN
                    RUSIVAN 26 July 2015 14: 20
                    0
                    The S-400 is a direct descendant of the S-75, which was more than reliably used in Vietnam and the United States about it no one else knows, and who is YOUR 22 and how it was tested or remind you how Americans were proud of their IJIS and that then it became with her, and to declare that HE ALREADY FLYES is the answer of the fifth grader at the blackboard ... does the kite fly too?
                  2. RUSIVAN
                    RUSIVAN 26 July 2015 18: 55
                    -1
                    Lost in their logic, choked in their arguments)))
              2. Monter
                Monter 26 July 2015 16: 03
                +4
                Forgive me, my dear, what do you mean by the statement "and the T-50 does not fly?"
              3. Roman Skomorokhov
                Roman Skomorokhov 26 July 2015 16: 53
                +3
                Quote: Logical
                T-50 does not fly


                Strange, what did I see then?
          3. Vohman
            Vohman 26 July 2015 14: 30
            +6
            So, the Americans in the manufacture and tactics of reconciliation still have to catch up with us and catch up. Is not it ..?


            Not so !! and this "uraaaa" even somehow podtotalo! What is the actual catch-up? In production? :)
            No, of course you can and should worry and root for your own, so to speak, hard-earned money. But it’s not thoughtless to sing hymns. Find photos of some Lockheed Martin workshops and other manufacturers .. Just take an interest before writing something like this.
            1. Logical
              Logical 26 July 2015 14: 39
              0
              Quote: Vohman
              Just take an interest before writing something like this.

              Don’t worry so much, something tells me smile that it was just sarcasm!
              1. Vohman
                Vohman 26 July 2015 14: 49
                -1
                lol re-read .. quite possibly good
          4. Nick
            Nick 26 July 2015 18: 25
            0
            Quote: Thunderbolt
            So, the Americans in the manufacture and tactics of reconciliation still have to catch up with us and catch up. Is not it ..?

            Despite all your sarcasm, you are right. Russia does not follow the path of a mirror answer. Russia needs to protect its territories and it is developing the means of aerospace defense, in which the Americans still have to catch up and catch up with us, and just in case, for the theorists of the battle swarm, there is also an increase in the combat capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces.
            1. Logical
              Logical 26 July 2015 18: 34
              -3
              Quote: Nick
              East Kazakhstan funds, in which the Americans still have to catch up and catch up with us

              I wonder what we have there a why do Americans really need to catch up so much? We'll check the watch for every fireman: EKR-Space Defense Forces.
              1. Nick
                Nick 26 July 2015 19: 28
                +2
                Quote: Logical
                Quote: Nick
                East Kazakhstan funds, in which the Americans still have to catch up and catch up with us

                I wonder what we have there a why do Americans really need to catch up so much? We'll check the watch for every fireman: EKR-Space Defense Forces.

                The aerospace defense is not quite true - this is aerospace defense. It combines air defense, missile defense, and air defense systems, exercises control of air and outer space, and parries threats from outer and air space.
                And as to what the Americans are to catch up with us, I’ll answer: First, the United States does not have air defense forces in principle, they are still being created, and secondly, our air defense / missile defense systems, S-300, S-400, A-135, Today is the most advanced.
                1. Logical
                  Logical 26 July 2015 19: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: Nick
                  The aerospace defense is not quite true - this is aerospace defense.

                  You confuse East Kazakhstan and East Kazakhstan smile
                  Quote: Nick
                  Firstly, the United States does not, in principle, have EKO troops, they are still being created

                  How! But what about "North American Aerospace Defense Command"?
                  Quote: Nick
                  Secondly, our air defense / missile defense systems, S-300, S-400, A-135, are by far the most advanced.

                  Well, the S-300 is already outdated, the S-400, according to official sources, is the best system at the moment in its "class", but I don't see anything unattainable here; The A-135 is already a fairly old system and its missiles also had (or is) an analogue in the United States, namely, interception due to a nuclear explosion, smile but we have no analogs of SM-3 yet!
                  1. Logical
                    Logical 26 July 2015 20: 32
                    0
                    Oh yeah, I almost forgot about X-37 smile here to us like this, not to China of course laughing but still far away!
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 27 July 2015 02: 39
                      0
                      You "messed it up" - in the X-37 there is a Soviet automatics bought cheaply by the Americans from "Buran", 25 years ago ... laughing
                    2. Nick
                      Nick 27 July 2015 21: 48
                      0
                      Quote: Logical
                      Oh yeah, I almost forgot about X-37 smile here to us like this, not to China of course laughing but still far away!

                      Left behind from life, you are our logical. About Sarmat and winged hypersonic warheads, have you heard anything? Take an interest in leisure. Americans before us, in these matters, it’s really like Beijing was on all fours backwards ... hi
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 27 July 2015 02: 37
                    -2
                    SM-3 is an increased floating and not transportable S-300, it appeared in the USA after the transfer of Soviet technology there in the 90s.
                    1. Bayonet
                      Bayonet 27 July 2015 04: 45
                      +2
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      , it appeared in the United States after the transfer of Soviet technology there in the 90s.

                      Some argue that "Mykola Armstrongchuk is the first lyudyna on the misyatse", others that everything in the world was developed by us! Not tired of clowning?
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 05: 04
                        0
                        It really is.
                        You won’t get bored ... you have such a nature fellow
                  3. Nick
                    Nick 27 July 2015 21: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Logical
                    You confuse East Kazakhstan and East Kazakhstan

                    And this is that on the forehead, that on the forehead. Identically.
                    Quote: Logical
                    How! But what about "North American Aerospace Defense Command"?

                    But no way. About the same thing happened with us before the 11 year.
                    For some, the task is to detect and prevent, for others to select targets, for others to destroy. Narrow specialization, and who made a suit? there are no extreme ones. Amorphous structure, based on the interaction of various commands.
                    The troops of the East Kazakhstan region are responsible for the final result, the reflection of threats from space and from the air.
                    Quote: Logical
                    Well, the S-300 is already outdated, the S-400, according to official sources, is the best system at the moment in its "class", but I don't see anything unattainable here; The A-135 is already a rather old system and its missiles also had (or are) an analogue in the United States, namely interception due to a nuclear explosion, but we have no analogues of the SM-3 yet!

                    Of course, there are analogs, but the parameters are worse, and in the SM-3 system, I also don’t see anything inaccessible to us.
        3. sv68
          sv68 26 July 2015 09: 25
          0
          scribe, why are you better than us ??? himself on this site nazodishya, imitating "opposition" to admins and moderators.
          1. bulvas
            bulvas 26 July 2015 10: 18
            -1
            I liked it

            Specialists had to use special software to “trick” on-board equipment and create the illusion of being in the air.



            For electronic warfare useful


            1. Logical
              Logical 26 July 2015 11: 15
              -2
              Quote: bulvas
              For electronic warfare useful

              laughing "seven troubles-one answer" urapatriots raised such a wave (with these electronic warfare and KHIBINs) that everyone jumped on it, from those in power to swindlers (with tokens laughingfor suckers) well, what remains besides this and counting other people's money, there’s no plane of its own and is not expected in the next five years laughing
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Logical
                  Logical 26 July 2015 11: 56
                  -8
                  Quote: bulvas
                  Yes?

                  Russia does not have its own aircraft?

                  No one?

                  Oh well, the hare is fooling around, you all perfectly understood what I meant, but if not, then this is your problem!
                  Quote: bulvas
                  Why then did NATO and the Americans make a fuss?

                  I don’t know, I can only express my version !, Do you know?
                  Quote: bulvas
                  Where did the chase stink taken, Logical?

                  Pulls an insult, to snitch at you or something! laughing
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 26 July 2015 12: 44
                    +6
                    Quote: Logical
                    to insist on you or something!

                    About how!
                    What, brother, part-time sexotome moonlighting in the old days? lol
                  2. bulvas
                    bulvas 26 July 2015 13: 32
                    +2
                    Quote: Logical


                    Whence drove smelly took, logical?
                    Pulls an insult, to snitch at you or something!



                    And you me gimp stink


                    Quote: BoA KAA
                    Quote: Logical
                    to insist on you or something!

                    About how!
                    What, brother, part-time sexotome moonlighting in the old days? lol


                    Yes, he is still young, he did not have past years
                    Such since birth


                  3. bulvas
                    bulvas 26 July 2015 18: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: Logical
                    Pulls an insult, to snitch at you or something!



                    Still complained, Logical, just scared,

                    Congratulations, showed himself ........

                2. Berxen
                  Berxen 26 July 2015 13: 50
                  +6
                  Quote: bulvas
                  Russia does not have its own aircraft?


                  5th generation - no. No one.

                  Quote: bulvas
                  Why then did NATO and the Americans make a fuss?


                  For what reason? Diplomats generally like to make noise.

                  Quote: bulvas
                  Where did the chase stink taken, Logical?


                  The man did not insult anyone. He expressed his opinion. With which, for example, I agree - how EW relates to the fact that the technicians there have tricked the OS out there at all unclear. At our workouts, they regularly imitate being in the air.
                  1. sabakina
                    sabakina 26 July 2015 20: 11
                    +3
                    Quote: BerXen
                    Quote: bulvas
                    Russia does not have its own aircraft?


                    5th generation - no. No one.

                    Quote: bulvas
                    Why then did NATO and the Americans make a fuss?


                    For what reason? Diplomats generally like to make noise.

                    Quote: bulvas
                    Where did the chase stink taken, Logical?


                    The man did not insult anyone. He expressed his opinion. With which, for example, I agree - how EW relates to the fact that the technicians there have tricked the OS out there at all unclear. At our workouts, they regularly imitate being in the air.

                    Do you think you’ll go with a trailer? Netushki, you will answer in full!
                    And for you, Thomas an unbeliever, I propose to do the same on F-35 ...
                    1. Berxen
                      Berxen 27 July 2015 05: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: sabakina
                      Do you think you’ll go with a trailer? Netushki, you will answer in full!



                      Responsible for what? Which trailer? Let's get down to business.

                      Quote: sabakina
                      And for you, Thomas an unbeliever, I propose to do the same on F-35 ...


                      How do the air pirouettes of the 901st car (which by the way is not the Su-35S) relate to the fifth generation, ground-based testing of the gun, and generally to the topic of conversation?
                    2. Zerstorer
                      Zerstorer 27 July 2015 12: 45
                      +2
                      Quote: sabakina
                      And for you, Thomas an unbeliever, I propose to do the same on F-35 ...

                      This is not a matter of faith (this is please not religious sites: the sect of believers in the Su-27 against a similar sect F-22 / F-35).
                      I don't think you saw the forest behind the trees. The F-35 is an excellent aviation complex. He took his place in the US weapons system. Therefore, the "head-on" comparison with the Su-35 is not correct.
                      Uvlo created 3 aircraft of a high degree of unification (for the Air Force, for the Navy, for the ILC). The capabilities of the F-35 as a fighter are mediocre enough, but they are sufficient not to carry escort. But the possibilities of working on the ground and breaking through air defense are quite large. Can the Su-35 play the role of an air defense breakout / suppression machine? I think that with his EPR (front-to-bottom angle) 25m - unlikely.
                3. Vohman
                  Vohman 26 July 2015 14: 36
                  -1
                  Did they raise a loud noise? Where? wassat
                  I didn’t hear .. everything is calm around
              2. Bayonet
                Bayonet 27 July 2015 04: 48
                0
                The most interesting thing is that they won’t understand that they are FUNNY!
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 27 July 2015 05: 08
                  0
                  Hto? Those who do not understand that denying Khibiny they deny electronic warfare in principle? More likely not funny and practical ... wassat
                  http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/1587382/post35854507/comments
            2. region58
              region58 26 July 2015 15: 04
              +3
              Quote: bulvas
              For electronic warfare useful

              This is what side ???
      2. dauria
        dauria 26 July 2015 10: 47
        +3
        F-35 lost training battle to its predecessor F-15


        And the I-16 is even more maneuverable. Yes, Christmas trees, sticks. How much can one and the same thing. This is a common screw machine. Have you seen a flock of crows chasing a hefty kite? For a simple reason, kites cannot interact in a pack.
        See how cleverly the Jews shot down our "invincible stratospheric" MiG-2P with the help of a simple rocket and 25 simple planes. And not unexpectedly, but in battle
        1. 0255
          0255 26 July 2015 11: 04
          +6
          Quote: dauria
          F-35 lost training battle to its predecessor F-15


          And the I-16 is even more maneuverable. Yes, Christmas trees, sticks. How much can one and the same thing. This is a common screw machine. Have you seen a flock of crows chasing a hefty kite? For a simple reason, kites cannot interact in a pack.
          See how cleverly the Jews shot down our "invincible stratospheric" MiG-2P with the help of a simple rocket and 25 simple planes. And not unexpectedly, but in battle

          Was the F-15 "unpretentious"?
          1. Iline
            Iline 26 July 2015 11: 59
            +5
            I don’t understand something in this world. Then the Yankees dodge the problems for this plane in close combat with the old types of statements that this plane is not intended for close combat and, due to its invisibility, will inflict damage from long distances. Then on the video I see on board a gun designed specifically for close combat.
            So they would directly say that it turned out what happened, and we will come up with tactics of application during operation.
            1. Logical
              Logical 26 July 2015 12: 02
              -2
              Quote: Iline
              Then on the video I see on board a gun designed specifically for close combat.

              And why is it not clear "du.raki learn from their mistakes" once they have already burned themselves by removing the guns from the fighters!
              1. Iline
                Iline 26 July 2015 12: 29
                +1
                Quote: Logical
                And why is it not clear "du.raki learn from their mistakes" once they have already burned themselves by removing the guns from the fighters!

                That's how it is. But why would the American people have to powder their brains after tests in close air combat like this plane is so good that, judging by the publications, it will hit the enemy without taking off at all. wassat
                1. Logical
                  Logical 26 July 2015 12: 53
                  -1
                  Quote: Iline
                  But why would the American people have to powder their brains after tests in close air combat like this plane is so good that, judging by the publications, it will hit the enemy without taking off at all.

                  It’s purely a tractor who powder whom and what, I know only one thing, no one canceled the theory of probability!
                  1. Nick
                    Nick 26 July 2015 18: 41
                    -1
                    Quote: Logical
                    It’s purely a tractor who powder whom and what, I know only one thing, no one canceled the theory of probability!

                    You are right, theoretically, the F-22 can defeat the Su-35 in close maneuver combat, but the probability of such an outcome tends to zero lol
                2. bulvas
                  bulvas 26 July 2015 13: 39
                  +2
                  Quote: Iline
                  Quote: Logical
                  And why is it not clear "du.raki learn from their mistakes" once they have already burned themselves by removing the guns from the fighters!

                  That's how it is. But why would the American people have to powder their brains after tests in close air combat like this plane is so good that, judging by the publications, will hit the enemy without taking off at all. wassat


                  So the cannon was tested on the ground without taking off

                  laughing
                  1. Nick
                    Nick 26 July 2015 18: 44
                    0
                    Quote: bulvas
                    So the cannon was tested on the ground without taking off

                    In the sense of how BMP will be used? Funny however, they guys are working in the Pentagon .... laughing
            2. NordUral
              NordUral 26 July 2015 13: 34
              0
              There will be no close battles - a sudden attack by packs of everything that flies, bullets with missiles, or missiles of all types themselves. Moreover, thousands, if not tens of thousands. And electronic software. The Great Patriotic War will not happen again, everything can be decided in a few hours. It's time to open your eyes.
              1. Nick
                Nick 26 July 2015 18: 49
                +2
                Quote: NordUral
                There will be no close battles - a sudden attack by packs of everything that flies, bullets with missiles, or missiles of all types themselves. Moreover, thousands, if not tens of thousands. And electronic software. The Great Patriotic War will not happen again, everything can be decided in a few hours. It's time to open your eyes.

                Therefore, in Russia there are aerospace defense and strategic nuclear forces troops, which are in constant combat readiness and are standing around the clock on alert duty. So, the suddenness, the degree of which will still be a dozen or two minutes, will not save the aggressor from the response.
                1. Bayonet
                  Bayonet 27 July 2015 04: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Nick

                  That is why in Russia there are aerospace defense and strategic nuclear forces, which are in constant combat readiness and standing around the clock on alert duty.

                  Hello from Rust!
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 27 July 2015 05: 11
                    0
                    This is down the corridor ... do you think it was not even detected by DON-2 which sees balls from the bearing when they take off and land over California?
            3. Berxen
              Berxen 26 July 2015 13: 56
              0
              Quote: Iline
              I don’t understand something in this world. Then the Yankees dodge the problems for this plane in close combat with the old types of statements that this plane is not intended for close combat and, due to its invisibility, will inflict damage from long distances. Then on the video I see on board a gun designed specifically for close combat.
              So they would directly say that it turned out what happened, and we will come up with tactics of application during operation.



              After Vietnam, the removal of a gun from a fighter in the US Air Force will not be understood. So you need to experience. This is the first. And secondly, a cannon on an airplane can come in handy for a lot of things. Shoot at the rate - force landing. Supporting infantry by shooting at buildings / lightly armored vehicles is cheaper than spending missiles. For small ships for example. Dogfight with guns is not seriously considered even in our Air Force.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 26 July 2015 17: 11
                0
                Quote: BerXen
                Dogfight with guns is not seriously considered even in our Air Force.

                because they put on the MiG-29 and Su-27 rarely shooting compared to the American (1500 vs 6600) 30mm misunderstandings?
                on the Su-25 and then fluff makes 2000 rds / min.
                1. Berxen
                  Berxen 26 July 2015 17: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  because they put on the MiG-29 and Su-27 rarely shooting compared to the American (1500 vs 6600) 30mm misunderstandings?
                  on the Su-25 and then fluff makes 2000 rds / min.



                  Su-25 laid - it is an attack aircraft.
                  4th generation nozzles as well as 5th aerodynamics affect the dogfight much more than the rate of fire and caliber of guns. Despite their gatling, Americans constantly emphasize that the BVB does not interest them.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 27 July 2015 01: 16
                    0
                    ... and even he has a more elaborate gun.
                    They are much less affected if it is not a statically unstable aircraft (but in a group battle it is still less because it is easily cut off from a slave).
                    These are they on purpose.
                    1. Berxen
                      Berxen 27 July 2015 05: 45
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      ..and even he has a faster gun.


                      An ideological attack aircraft is laid. He needs him.

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      They are much less affected if it is not a statically unstable aircraft (but in a group battle it is still less because it is easily cut off from a slave).


                      You and I have already debated on this topic - since then little has changed. I still can not imagine the close group battle with guns on the Su-27, T-50 / F-15,22. I fully admit that it’s not right, and in a mass mess after the AWACS shot down, that’s how it will be.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 06: 04
                        0
                        The attack aircraft has a less rapid-fire and a larger caliber. With what fighter is the same caliber and less rapid-fire?

                        Every second battle goes into a close one in which guns are used, the shells of which you can’t put in interference.
                      2. Berxen
                        Berxen 27 July 2015 07: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The attack aircraft has a less rapid-fire and a larger caliber. With what fighter is the same caliber and less rapid-fire?


                        After some thought and looking at Thunderbolt, I agree.
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 07: 19
                        0
                        Better after watching F-22 and F-15 with 20mm quick-firing guns and a large ammunition.
                2. Nick
                  Nick 26 July 2015 19: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Quote: BerXen
                  Dogfight with guns is not seriously considered even in our Air Force.

                  because they put on the MiG-29 and Su-27 rarely shooting compared to the American (1500 vs 6600) 30mm misunderstandings?
                  on the Su-25 and then fluff makes 2000 rds / min.

                  For Kalash and 600 rounds per minute is enough. In addition, the caliber in 30 mm. On our GSH-30-1 gives a greater destructive effect than the 20 millimeter amersky Volcano.
                  1. Berxen
                    Berxen 26 July 2015 19: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Nick
                    In addition, a caliber of 30 mm. On our GSh-30-1, gives a greater destructive effect than the 20 millimeter Amersky Volcano.


                    Critical is the fact and place of impact and not the caliber. Here, admittedly, gatling is really preferable. The modern fighter is wonderfully sewn that 20 that 30 mm.
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 27 July 2015 01: 18
                    0
                    You first hit the target with this "muzzleloader 30mm"! laughing
                    For anti-aircraft guns on aircraft, the rate of Kalash is clearly insufficient.
                  3. Bayonet
                    Bayonet 27 July 2015 05: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: Nick
                    For Kalash and 600 rounds per minute is enough.

                    Kalash is not an example here. Highly maneuverable planes are not so easy to hit - you need to get more! And for a confident defeat, you need a high rate of fire. The developers of aircraft machine guns in the last century knew this!
              2. Nick
                Nick 26 July 2015 18: 54
                -1
                Quote: BerXen
                For small ships for example. Dogfight with guns is not seriously considered even in our Air Force.

                Why are you applying the English term here? Are you getting ready for the change? Or demonstrate erudition? negative
                1. Berxen
                  Berxen 26 July 2015 19: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: Nick
                  Why are you applying the English term here? Are you getting ready for the change? Or demonstrate erudition?


                  I do not like the abbreviation BVB. She, in my opinion, reflects worse the essence of what is happening.
            4. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 26 July 2015 14: 12
              +1
              Quote: Iline
              This aircraft is not intended for close combat and, due to its invisibility, will inflict damage from long distances. Then on the video I see on board a gun designed specifically for close combat.

              In fact, the Penguin is made in 3 guises: for the Air Force, for the Navy and for the MP Corps. So, a 25mm aircraft cannon will be just right for attacking lightly armored targets. Well, in close maneuvering combat - to "shoot himself", with such and such maneuverability as in the F-35.bully
            5. Vohman
              Vohman 26 July 2015 14: 40
              -1
              Do you think that the Yankees will tell everyone how they are going to use their planes, what they stuffed there?
              As in 12 chairs: "Maybe still the key to the apartment, where is the money?"
              No one will really say anything, it’s a no brainer.
          2. Aqela
            Aqela 26 July 2015 13: 44
            +1
            Yes! Especially considering that the F-15 was made on the basis of information on the testing and operation of the E-166, E-266, MiG-25, there is no doubt that the Eagle was such a simple, simple aircraft ... And you what did you think?
            By the way, wasn’t the MiG-25R flying over Israel?
          3. dauria
            dauria 26 July 2015 17: 19
            -1
            Was the F-15 "unpretentious"?


            The fact is that with impunity the ancient "AIM-7" was launched on a collision course from a distance of 25 km. Instead of the F-15, there could be any aeroplane with an airborne radar, even an F-4. And the MiG at that moment turned from a hunter into a stupid blind and deaf game.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 26 July 2015 23: 34
              0
              If about Lebanon, it is only because the pilot has dropped. In Iran, these AIM started up ... even the AIM-54
          4. Zerstorer
            Zerstorer 27 July 2015 16: 52
            0
            And when the Jews shot down the MiG-25 with the interceptor (P)?
        2. Papakiko
          Papakiko 26 July 2015 12: 03
          +9
          Quote: dauria
          We saw a flock of raven chasing a hefty kite

          Quote: dauria
          with the help of a simple rocket and 2 simple planes, the Jews shot down our "invincible stratospheric" MiG-25P. And not unexpectedly, but in battle

          Comrad, why pass off "white as black and black as white"?
          Quote: 0255
          Was the F-15 "unpretentious"?

          And this is without all kinds of AWACS and AWACS. Which were, but about which they are silent.
          Quote: dauria
          common screw machine

          No one denies this fact and everyone understands perfectly.
          Regarding the article itself:
          Author correct the title!
          And then salutary dick comes out.
          The plane in the series and the fluff is nominally standing, but here the "broads" are tested for the first time !!!
          And in the very "note" the "quirk" is even more trenchant:
          Judging by the video posted on the network, the fighter was on the ground with inoperative engines during test firing. Specialists had to use special software to "deceive" the onboard equipment and create the illusion of being in the air.
          The author from the video watched suggested that the specialists downloaded the programs and tricked the on-board equipment to simulate a flight and the line below that sent the text to full abstraction:
          Ground tests are designed to reveal the correctness of the opening of the flaps that hide the gun, and the ventilation ”
          !!!!
          Now the conclusion.
          What programs did the ground personnel use to "cheat" the aircraft system, especially such a factor as the incoming air flow ?!
          In short, nonsense and nonsense zadoliz! pah, pah and repeatedly pah!
          1. Berxen
            Berxen 26 July 2015 13: 59
            +1
            Quote: Papakiko
            Now the conclusion.
            What programs did the ground personnel use to "cheat" the aircraft system, especially such a factor as the incoming air flow ?!
            In short, nonsense and nonsense zadoliz! pah, pah and repeatedly pah!


            Technological workstation replaced the values ​​from the sensor - business then. Absolutely normal thing when practicing any aircraft.
            1. Papakiko
              Papakiko 26 July 2015 15: 30
              -3
              Quote: BerXen
              Technological workstation replaced the values ​​from the sensor - business then. Absolutely normal thing when practicing any aircraft.

              Come on Komrad, give me a quick job application form in LOCKHID!
              And most likely all tests on digital "ARMO-oh"!
              We will later, with all the resources for the prize, throw ourselves off da.i.i. and the whole country and half the world will send you money for money! drinks
              On a simple video about "sighting the fluff" they fan all kinds of anti-scientific nonsense.
              "Gentlemen" should be ashamed.
              soldier
              1. Berxen
                Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 06
                +4
                Quote: Papakiko
                Come on Komrad, give me a quick job application form in LOCKHID!
                And most likely all tests on digital "ARMO-oh"!
                We will later, with all the resources for the prize, throw ourselves off da.i.i. and the whole country and half the world will send you money for money!
                On a simple video about "sighting the fluff" they fan all kinds of anti-scientific nonsense.
                "Gentlemen" should be ashamed.



                Understood nothing. Let's say they have a lock on cannon fire while on the ground. They simulate being in the air and check the cyclogram. What does the prize, Lockheed and sarcasm - xs.
                1. Papakiko
                  Papakiko 26 July 2015 16: 17
                  -2
                  Quote: BerXen
                  Let's say they have a lock on cannon fire while on the ground.

                  You can put ON / OFF ON and not fence the garden.
                  Quote: BerXen
                  They simulate being in the air and check the cyclogram.

                  Maybe a coaulogram or a calogram ?!
                  Dreamers, how do you replace the real vibrations arising from the incoming air flow? As well as loads on the mechanisms (for example, the trunk hatch).
                  I repeat:
                  Quote: Papakiko
                  On a simple video about "sighting the fluff" they fan all kinds of anti-scientific nonsense.
                  "Gentlemen" should be ashamed.
                  1. Berxen
                    Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 43
                    +1
                    Quote: Papakiko
                    You can put ON / OFF ON and not fence the garden.


                    I strongly doubt that it is possible to disable the on-board weapon lock with one switch. If you did not hang a dozen instructions on it, which most likely was done, the switch itself was a button in the computer monitor.


                    Quote: Papakiko
                    Maybe a coaulogram or a calogram ?!


                    A cyclogram is a common word. Widely used in the aerospace industry.

                    Quote: Papakiko
                    Dreamers, how do you replace the real vibrations arising from the incoming air flow? As well as loads on the mechanisms (for example, the trunk hatch).


                    Do you suggest that you do not work out the trivialities such as opening the shutters and the temperature regime to drive the plane immediately into flight?
                  2. Logical
                    Logical 26 July 2015 16: 52
                    +6
                    Quote: Papakiko
                    Maybe a coaulogram or a calogram ?!
                    Dreamers, how do you replace the real vibrations arising from the incoming air flow? As well as loads on the mechanisms (for example, the trunk hatch).

                    This is called ground testing !!, just one of test cycles!

                    at 4:20 a similar action.
                    1. Papakiko
                      Papakiko 26 July 2015 20: 39
                      -1
                      Quote: Logical
                      This is called ground testing !!, just one of the test cycles!

                      I’m telling you about this!
                      Quote: Papakiko
                      On a simple video about "sighting the fluff" they fan all kinds of anti-scientific nonsense.
                      "Gentlemen" should be ashamed.

                      Quote: BerXen
                      I strongly doubt that it is possible to disable the on-board weapon lock with one switch. If you do not hang a dozen instructions on it, which most likely was done, the switch itself was a button in the computer monitor

                      Another masterpiece. love in the studio.
                      1. Berxen
                        Berxen 27 July 2015 05: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Papakiko
                        Another masterpiece. to the studio.


                        You are very constructive.
            2. K-50
              K-50 26 July 2015 16: 34
              +1
              Quote: BerXen
              Technological workstation replaced the values ​​from the sensor - business

              Just connect the compressed air hose to the bar, which measures the speed and probably nothing else is needed.
              1. Berxen
                Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 45
                -1
                Quote: K-50
                Just connect the compressed air hose to the bar, which measures the speed and probably nothing else is needed.


                Maybe so, but it's the Americans :).
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 July 2015 18: 25
          0
          Not Jews but Iranians, and not ours but Iraqi, and not in battle, but when landing lol
        4. Nick
          Nick 26 July 2015 18: 37
          0
          Quote: dauria
          And the I-16 is even more maneuverable. Yes, Christmas trees, sticks. How much can one and the same thing. This is a common screw machine. Have you seen a flock of crows chasing a hefty kite?

          For a good pack, there is a good shotgun, in one fell swoop to seven killers. So every good pack has its own tunguska.
      3. Kosta
        Kosta 26 July 2015 10: 50
        +9
        The price is not rising. Where did they find those 160 million?. The annual replacement f-16. What a fight? Middle and even AF-2 without half the features. Why not for 77 years?
        I never understood why you can’t just translate the news from English and leave everything as it is, you must definitely add something to the article, and even rubbish
      4. kot11180
        kot11180 26 July 2015 17: 26
        0
        Judging by the f-35 advertisement, it should destroy everyone at long distances, no melee, where does the gun?
      5. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 52
        0
        For more. They should have stopped doing (doing everything) originally in 2008. fellow
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. andrei332809
    andrei332809 26 July 2015 08: 43
    0
    the project is already seven years behind schedule.

    Really a boomerang to our Yankees 90?
    1. VseDoFeNi
      VseDoFeNi 26 July 2015 08: 49
      +3
      Whether there will still be oh-oh-oh. (from)
      It turns out to work on bare enthusiasm, but on grandmothers it does not work.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 09: 36
        +2
        Is something going wrong again? Maybe this is because it was printed on a 3-D printer, or because it was painted in the wrong color? laughing
    2. Penzyac
      Penzyac 26 July 2015 09: 40
      +1
      Quote: andrei332809
      the project is already seven years behind schedule.

      Really a boomerang to our Yankees 90?

      I would like to...
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 26 July 2015 19: 01
        +1
        I did not like the design decision to place the gun. The reclining flap is visible on the video - and it won’t vomit at high speeds !? It seems to me that he should somehow go inside the plane, and he sticks out leaning back. During overloads (for example, when turning left), it feels like it will not open at all - probably the gun will not work when the shield is closed. hi
        1. Logical
          Logical 26 July 2015 19: 06
          0
          Quote: Kasym
          and he won’t vomit at high speeds !?

          "On big" is what do you think ??
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 27 July 2015 05: 16
          +2
          Quote: Kasym
          I did not like the design for placing the gun

          Are you serious? Do you think there suckers sit with diplomas bought ???
  3. Trailer
    Trailer 26 July 2015 08: 44
    +4
    391 billion bucks and this ... Serdyukov, you are nothing compared to these managers
    1. VseDoFeNi
      VseDoFeNi 26 July 2015 08: 53
      +7
      Quote: Karavan
      391 billion bucks and this ... Serdyukov, you are nothing compared to these managers

      But this does not stop the United States from accusing other countries of corruption.
      Whose cow would mumble, but they would be silent. We need to adopt the experience of propaganda and remember that The BEST country in the world is Russia!

      I must tell the truth. Yes, Genghis Khan seemed to kill and do everything right, because such a law is right, good, wonderful life. But you saw him from the side that you don’t notice at that time in the civilized West: there were flogging, absolutely terrible executions, hundreds of thousands of people were burned there. Genghis Khan - terrible, Western culture - exemplary of the same period. She was about the same. And then it is necessary to rehabilitate in general everything that civilization, notice, in the modern era, threw modernity from the ship.

      It is necessary to protect Asia, it is necessary to protect yellow.
      Need to protect
      - Latin America with its unique experience.
      - Islamic world, Islamic caliphate. The Islamic caliphate is wonderful.
      - Black African societies are beautiful.
      - Chinese civilization - you can’t imagine a better way.
      - The Indian world is a model.
      - Samurai Japan is an example to follow.
      - Russian tsars - there is no one more humane and more beautiful.

      And all the argument must be rebuilt. Because we must discard the civilizational racism of the West and Eurocentrism. We are the people of Asia, we are the people of Eurasia, the people of India. And we must stop striving for some goal that does not follow from our culture. Why should we be Europeans? What the hell are they for? Let them look at themselves already. They have completely degenerated and still offer us to follow ourselves.
    2. Tanais
      Tanais 26 July 2015 09: 04
      +9
      Judging by the video posted on the network, the fighter was on the ground with inoperative engines during test firing. Specialists had to use special software to "deceive" the onboard equipment and create the illusion of being in the air.

      “Unlike the F-35 models developed for the Navy and the Marine Corps, in the sample for the Air Force the gun is integrated into the aircraft body and is located behind the radar shield. Ground tests are designed to reveal the correctness of the opening of the flaps hiding the gun, and the ventilation ”


      It's only the beginning...

      Flight tests (?) Will begin, during which "surprises" are possible in the form of surging of the engine (s) from the powder gases of the gun and shaking of the airframe from the recoil energy and oversaturation of this with sensors of "smart electronics" with "open architecture".

      I sincerely wish to overcome the whole complex of complex technical problems, YEARS AFTER 30 - 50 ...
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 09: 46
        -2
        At the expense of "the whole complex" - do not even think ... Only the F-35A will remain to fly
        although now F-22 is cheaper.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 July 2015 10: 28
        +9
        for Tanais:
        "I wish to overcome the whole range of complex technical problems, YEARS IN 30 - 50 ..." ///

        I think that the problems will be eliminated in 2-3 years.
        In December 2016, the first two F-35s will land in Israel.
        We have masters to eliminate the primary problems of American manufacturers.
        So it was with the F-16 (which was criticized even more than the F-35), with the Apache helicopter. To the credit of the Americans, they accept recommendations for rework-improvements instantly. Therefore, Lockheed Martin representatives so enthusiastically moved Israel forward on the list of recipients.
        They are waiting for fast combat "fitbacks" from Israel, as we have a long tradition from the first days of sending the latest technology to combat missions.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 26 July 2015 11: 02
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          . Therefore, Lockheed Martin representatives so enthusiastically moved Israel forward on the list of recipients.
          They are waiting for fast combat "fitbacks" from Israel, as we have a long tradition from the first days of sending the latest technology to combat missions.

          It’s they who are selling Israel a crude plane for 110 million, Israel is finalizing it for their own and the Americans are getting a plane ready for battle for 80 million, the Americans will not forget you.
          2-3 years ago they promised to eliminate all problems, the main thing is not to lose hope.
          The sash of the gun opens beautifully.

          And what are Israel’s combat missions, are they going to fight with Iran?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 26 July 2015 12: 36
            +2
            for saturn.mmm:

            Any aircraft is raw until a decent experience is gained
            in missions. F-35 is no exception.

            "And what are Israel's combat missions now, are they going to fight with Iran?" ////

            The range of the Air Force is from Morocco to Pakistan.
            Not so long ago, for example. F-15s flew to Sudan (this is very far from Israel):
            destroyed a large missile plant that worked for the Islamists (as it was air defense, by the way) and missile convoys bound for Sinai.
            1. Papakiko
              Papakiko 26 July 2015 15: 42
              -1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              destroyed a large missile plant that worked for the Islamists (as it was air defense, by the way) and missile convoys bound for Sinai.

              Fairy trill, my respect, I can’t do this.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Any aircraft is raw until a decent experience is gained
              in missions

              So it turns out that the MIG-29. The SU-27 is finally "wet chickens", they don't take part in "combat vyser".
              I-Comrades and I believed that operating experience eliminates the "phlegm" of construction. And then they put us in the asphalt with snot ..... "it's a shame-oh-oh-oh-oh" good
              Quote: voyaka uh
              We have masters to eliminate the primary problems of American manufacturers. It was with the F-16

              Fairytale spill ......
              Also tell us that "carrots" are made at Israeli factories and exclusively from local components. And for BBBBBarrrraban that little factory And then for a mattress in the N states. love
            2. Scraptor
              Scraptor 26 July 2015 20: 36
              0
              in this quality may come in handy
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 26 July 2015 20: 34
            -2
            Why then doesn’t it close? wink With its opening at speed, there will also be problems.
            But they will write to us about it ...
        2. Tanais
          Tanais 26 July 2015 11: 25
          -3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          . To the credit of the Americans, they accept recommendations for rework-improvements instantly.


          Still ... Since the "hands-on" themselves, then at least WHO, if only brought to mind ...

          On the "Sukhoi" or "MiG", they are, but they will not ask for refinement, but you are just a godsend.

          And at the same time I do not share your optimism about the TIME, as well as about the RESULTS of the "upgrade".

          I believe that the attempt to combine contradictory concepts in "Light" made it hardly suitable for the realities of exploitation.

          "It may not be worth the candle" ... Of course, you can make a fence fly ... But low, low ...
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 26 July 2015 12: 38
            +4
            "I believe that the attempt to combine contradictory concepts in" Light "made him
            not suitable for the realities of operation "///

            Israeli experts have concluded that it will be able to significantly expand
            operational capabilities of the air force.
            1. Tanais
              Tanais 26 July 2015 13: 20
              -1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Israeli experts have concluded that it will be able to significantly expand
              operational capabilities of the air force.

              YOUR Air Force, which is all over the "tracing" from the US Air Force.

              You imitate them, and Russia has its own concept for the development and use of the air force, based on its own richest experience ...

              And God forbid anyone try to "check" whose "cooler" ... yes
        3. kil 31
          kil 31 26 July 2015 17: 02
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          for Tanais:
          "I wish to overcome the whole range of complex technical problems, YEARS IN 30 - 50 ..." ///

          I think that the problems will be eliminated in 2-3 years.
          In December 2016, the first two F-35s will land in Israel.
          We have masters to eliminate the primary problems of American manufacturers.
          So it was with the F-16 (which was criticized even more than the F-35), with the Apache helicopter. To the credit of the Americans, they accept recommendations for rework-improvements instantly. Therefore, Lockheed Martin representatives so enthusiastically moved Israel forward on the list of recipients.
          They are waiting for fast combat "fitbacks" from Israel, as we have a long tradition from the first days of sending the latest technology to combat missions.

          I agree. laughing Israel actively tried to acquire Longbow, but political motives prevented it from replenishing the AN-64 D. fleet. It is believed that if the United States continues to refuse to sell Longbow. Israel will have to independently upgrade the AN-64 A. Continue to buy raw equipment and spend money and time bringing it to mind. The United States simply adores you without deflection.
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 09: 39
      -3
      And 1,5 trillion, for these dances with a tambourine - you do not want! drinks
      What else do you want from the director of a furniture factory?
  4. Denis
    Denis 26 July 2015 08: 46
    +2
    the price rises as more and more technical problems are discovered, and also due to time delays. It was previously reported that the project is already seven years behind schedule
    And how many times have they stated that they are ready for use
    The bikes were similar with the F-117, they like to trick
    1. VseDoFeNi
      VseDoFeNi 26 July 2015 08: 55
      +2
      In countries of victorious Satanism, god and idol are the father of lies of Satan.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 26 July 2015 09: 22
        +2
        It is wildly surprising that many countries are in the queue behind these planes. What is the trick, because you can’t call the leaders of these countries fools, judging by their GDP and pace of development.
        1. rotmistr60
          rotmistr60 26 July 2015 09: 44
          +2
          He made an offer that is difficult to refuse. The United States does not take away the ability to make such proposals.
        2. Penzyac
          Penzyac 26 July 2015 09: 55
          +1
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          It is wildly surprising that many countries are in the queue behind these planes. What is the trick, because you can’t call the leaders of these countries fools, judging by their GDP and pace of development.

          Nothing strange. For refusal to buy the American Mr. refuseniks face a "flogging", this line (for the F-35) - the line of slaves for the lordly "favors" ... Try to refuse here ...
          Well, and for not quite lackeys there is a powerful advertisement, related loans and other lures ...
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 26 July 2015 11: 19
          +2
          ". What is the trick, because the leaders of these countries cannot be called fools" ///

          The stupid leaders of these countries sent their experts,
          including combat pilots, inspect the F-35 closely and fly on it.

          Israel also had doubts: to take the F-35 or the latest modifications of the F-15,
          which the IDF successfully uses for 30 years.
          Or even go to the F-18 Super Hornet - the most reliable aircraft of naval aviation,
          Proven in dozens of missions with AUG.
          But after practical flights with 360-degree informatics with complete radio silence and demonstrations, how the 4+ models look compared to the "penguin" on the "enemy" radars ... all doubts have disappeared.
          From one angle and one distance, the fat penguin looks like a small hindrance on the radar screen, and the slender handsome F-15 looks like a shining Christmas tree.

          Testers from Norway came to the same conclusions: it is better to survive in an inconspicuous freak than to die heroically in a slender handsome man.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 26 July 2015 11: 24
            0
            From one angle and one distance, the fat penguin looks like a small hindrance on the radar screen, and the slender handsome F-15 looks like a shining Christmas tree.

            Testers from Norway came to the same conclusions: it is better to survive in an inconspicuous freak than to die heroically in a slender handsome man.

            Interesting idea. They were not even scared by the small F-35 ammunition load in an inconspicuous load? It may survive and survive, but how to fight?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 26 July 2015 12: 48
              +3
              One accurate bomb from the inner compartment, dropped from unnoticed
              sneaking up on the plane, can do more damage to the enemy,
              less than a dozen during the air defense breakthrough, dodging missiles.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 26 July 2015 14: 30
                +1
                This one bomb still needs to be delivered and dropped. But the most important thing is to ensure the guidance of this smart bomb. Which is carried out either by exact coordinates, or by laser illumination from the ground or air. As you know, these are also considerable resources that must be used.
                However, for an adversary who does not have good air defense, this is really the case.
                less than a dozen during the air defense breakthrough, dodging missiles.

                Where did you see this and when? Upon detection of an object protected by good air defense, they first knock out air defense missiles, and then they destroy the object itself. And not bombs are used, but cruise and tactical missiles. Moreover, all radars in the district are knocked out with anti-radar missiles.
                And only then .. in the clear sky, at night there is some sort of F-117A, in radio silence mode, so that without interference, just put one bomb in the desired object. Doesn’t resemble anything?
                1. Logical
                  Logical 26 July 2015 14: 46
                  -4
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  This one bomb still needs to be delivered and dropped. But the most important thing is to ensure the guidance of this smart bomb. Which

                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Where did you see this and when? Upon detection of an object protected by good air defense, they first knock out air defense with missiles, and then they destroy the object itself

                  http://topwar.ru/6792-sovremennye-korrektiruemye-aviabomby-kab-ssha-i-rossii.htm
                  l
            2. Berxen
              Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 52
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              Interesting idea. They were not even scared by the small F-35 ammunition load in an inconspicuous load? It may survive and survive, but how to fight?


              All 5th-generation aircraft have small ammunition for internal compartments. But continuing the proposed analogy (which, of course, is only remotely close to a real battle) - is it much easier for the pilot that there were still 4 missiles in his downed 8th generation?
          2. tomket
            tomket 26 July 2015 12: 23
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Or even go to the F-18 Super Hornet - the most reliable aircraft of naval aviation,

            In general, the tendency in the US Navy is an imperceptible transition to the "Growlers" whose share will soon approach half of those on an aircraft carrier. Does the tendency for the fleet to switch to powerful electronic warfare aircraft worry you? If such an electronic warfare and an inconspicuous penguin come together, will there be any sense from your penguin? By the way, oddly enough, in terms of electronic warfare systems, Russia is now out of competition and America recognizes this.
            1. Berxen
              Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 14
              +1
              Quote: tomket
              If such an EW and an inconspicuous penguin converge, will your penguin be of any use?


              EW does not affect stealth.
          3. Denis
            Denis 26 July 2015 12: 30
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Or even go to the F-18 Super Hornet - the most reliable aircraft of naval aviation,
            Proven in dozens of missions with AUG.

            With this, it’s not entirely clear, are there really aircraft carriers? And it’s unprofitable to use a deck fighter on the ground, it’s not designed for that
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 26 July 2015 17: 56
              0
              The Phantom F-4 was a carrier-based aircraft, the F-18 simply Hornet Switzerland and Finland uses short-haul. Spain yet (because F-15 is not allowed).
          4. fzr1000
            fzr1000 26 July 2015 18: 44
            -1
            Whose radar? It is necessary to look at ours in order to make objective conclusions. And so the Americans have not yet shown on television.
        4. VseDoFeNi
          VseDoFeNi 26 July 2015 13: 48
          0
          Naglo-Saxons do not scold their country and their former presidents. We have very, very many scolding their country in all manifestations - from the automobile industry and roads to the president and government.
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          judging by their GDP and pace of development.

          This is an illusion. There is no development in the countries of victorious Satanism; there is stagnation and a deepening crisis.


          Image caption: Real GDP growth net of debt, 2005-2013

          As the graph shows, the total growth of the Russian economy for the period amounted to 147 percentwhile accumulated Western losses range from 16,5 percent in Germany to 58 percent in the USA. Note that in the case of Russia, the computational error of Rosstat using the wrong GDP deflator is corrected, due to which there is a constant underestimation of the growth rate of Russian GDP (more about this in the Awara Group study on the impact of Putin's tax reforms in 2000-2012 on state tax revenues and GDP
          1. Logical
            Logical 26 July 2015 13: 52
            -1
            Quote: VseDoFeNi
            Naglo-Saxons do not scold their country and their former presidents.

            I see !!, what is it like life in the USA, what are your impressions ??
            1. VseDoFeNi
              VseDoFeNi 26 July 2015 16: 43
              0
              You ask them. I have not been there and are not going to.
              1. Logical
                Logical 26 July 2015 17: 00
                +2
                Quote: VseDoFeNi
                You ask them. I have not been there and are not going to.

                I see !!, you just don’t often have complete representations scold the authorities in the next house or not, and you so categorically stated that "there" they do not scold that I thought that you were just from a year-long tour of the "west" smile
                1. VseDoFeNi
                  VseDoFeNi 26 July 2015 19: 31
                  -1
                  Quote: Logical
                  "there" do not scold that I thought you were just from a year-long tour of the "west"

                  This is actually obvious. All or a very large part of the world media belongs to the countries of victorious Satanism. In Russia too. Remember the same Gusinsky. Or go to the site http://vedomosti.ru. Drag to the very bottom and find a WONDERFUL inscription:
                  Published jointly with the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and Independent Media
                  That is, our sworn friends. And they are doing everything in their power to cause dissatisfaction of our people with their country.
                  For themselves, they naturally do not allow this.
                  In 1883, John Swinton, editor-in-chief of the New York Times, in response to a request to propose a toast to the independent press, said: “There is no such thing as an independent press in the history of the world today. You know this, and I I know that. There is no one among us who would dare to express his personal opinion in print, and if he dared, knowing that it would never be published. I get paid every week to keep my personal opinion at You are also paid money for similar things, and if any of you is stupid enough to print your personal opinion, he will immediately find himself on the street in search of a new job. If I allowed myself to publish my opinion in the newspaper, then in less than a day, he would have been out of work, or, which is quite likely, would have been simply killed.

                  The job of a journalist is to hide the truth, to outright lie, to distort the facts, to slander, to suck up to a monster in order to sell this country in order to feed him. You know this, and I know it. What the hell is a toast to the independent press? We are the tools and vassals of the rich behind the scenes. We are puppets: they pull the strings, and we dance. Our talents, our opportunities and our lives are the property of others. We are intellectual prostitutes, whores. Nobody else!"
            2. fzr1000
              fzr1000 26 July 2015 18: 41
              -1
              Do you see yourself there as a millionaire or something? Or maybe an ordinary junkie. Himself in the US regularly? Or secretly dream of staying at a hostel in Brooklyn at least once?

              With money, everywhere is good, even in the USA.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 27 July 2015 01: 49
                -1
                Actually, it’s the Americans who go to Europe (with the exception of Albania) like a fairy tale ...

                review Brother-2, and even more so make the amendment to the fact that America is not the same.
        5. K-50
          K-50 26 July 2015 16: 42
          +1
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          It is wildly amazing that many countries are in the queue behind these planes. What is the trick, because the leaders of these countries cannot be called fools

          But it can be called venal and will be "to the point". laughing
    2. Tanais
      Tanais 26 July 2015 09: 40
      +2
      Quote: Denis
      And how many times have they stated that they are ready for use
      The bikes were similar with the F-117, they like to trick

      That's it, they are that "miracle stealth", "quietly", "cleaned up" out of sight ...
      1. Denis
        Denis 26 July 2015 12: 50
        -1
        Quote: Tanais
        "miracle stealth", "quietly", "cleaned up" out of sight ...

        For a long time it was necessary, they were screwed up pretty much in their first use in Panama. They sent a couple of cars, Panama’s air defense was the most powerful or micro-rifles like Zoltan Dani didn’t, they went in complete radio silence. The first one was bombed by the barracks, but the second one already saw nothing . He bombed himself on a pile of garbage and terrible dust rose, here he is a saving mess. And the second visually did not see anything
  5. APASUS
    APASUS 26 July 2015 08: 54
    +1
    The rate of fire of this gun is such that it allows you to shoot the entire ammunition in 4 seconds.
    So here the question may immediately arise, why the hell is such a gun?
    According to the portal BGR, the rate of fire of the gun GEEU-22 / A, hidden in the wing of the fifth generation fighter, is 55 rounds per second. Given that the stock of shells on board the F-35 is only 220 units, the entire ammunition can be used up in four seconds
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 26 July 2015 09: 23
      +2
      Do you know a word like CUT OFF?
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 26 July 2015 09: 57
        +1
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        Do you know a word like CUT OFF?

        We also know the word "misfire" ...
        1. Tanais
          Tanais 26 July 2015 10: 00
          0
          Quote: PENZYAC
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          Do you know a word like CUT OFF?

          We also know the word "misfire" ...

          yes yes yes good, regarding the WHOLE "Lihgting II" program ...
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 54
          +1
          is "variable rate of fire" familiar?
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 July 2015 10: 31
      +3
      "And here the question may immediately arise, what the hell is such a gun to them?" ///

      All aircraft guns fire cutoffs of 10 shells.
      So there are 22 series-shots.
      Russian combat aircraft have approximately the same ammunition.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 26 July 2015 10: 44
        +1
        Russian combat aircraft have approximately the same ammunition.

        On Russian combat aircraft is a single-barrel gun. The question was raised precisely for this reason, and not by the amount of ammunition on board. Why make a six-barrel, when there is a single-barrel with similar characteristics, and even with less weight.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 26 July 2015 10: 50
          +1
          The answer is quite trivial. You put an adversary on a plane
          10 shells in 1/6 of the time from the usual single-barrel
          guns. 10 shells will go into almost one place,
          causing great destruction. A xnumx single-barreled shells
          guns will enter the queue (the plane is moving).
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 26 July 2015 11: 01
            +1
            The answer is quite trivial.

            Not so trivial.
            10 shells will go into almost one place,
            causing great destruction. A xnumx single-barreled shells
            guns will enter the queue (the plane is moving).

            10 shells in one place? 25 mm ?? What armor do you want to penetrate? On planes in most of their armor NO! The most vulnerable areas of the aircraft are the wing and plumage planes. Well, there will come 10 shells, well, make a neat hole, so what? On the contrary, it is necessary that the damage be the most extensive and preferably in different places.
            Do I understand correctly that in the USA there is not even an analogue of GSH-30-1? It is clear that 1500 high / min and 3000 are two times the difference, and the calibers are different, but still?
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 July 2015 11: 05
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "And here the question may immediately arise, what the hell is such a gun to them?" ///

        Maybe explain to me the dense why they started testing the gun only after 200 planes were riveted, this is a question without any sarcasm.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 26 July 2015 12: 43
          +1
          The F-35 is all built around a central computer, so to speak.
          As I understand it, there were problems with the software - combine the scope
          guns with a video helmet pilot. Something like that.
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 26 July 2015 15: 59
            -1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            As I understand it, there were problems with the software - combine the scope
            guns with a video helmet pilot.

            I cry ... stocked up with a bag of seeds and wait for the pearl to continue.
            Type of fluff moves vertically and horizontally at 720% ... epic .. love
            Quote: voyaka uh
            F-35 is all built around a central computer

            Explains a lot ........................ good
            Quote: voyaka uh
            10 shells will go into almost one place,
            causing great destruction. A xnumx single-barreled shells
            guns will enter the queue (the plane is moving).

            Seven third of the bag is gone ........... good
            Come on, come on, come on, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
            Burn the rubber to the rims!
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 26 July 2015 16: 53
              0
              And they always had good humor. wink
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 July 2015 20: 26
          +1
          Because this is a "market", not a planned economy ... laughing
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 26 July 2015 21: 58
            0
            I think if the Yankees could establish grew up. gun GSh, then Amer. the designers would be happy. Since the General Staff is much lighter than their guns, and they are fighting for the "weight" of the aircraft.
            After one hit 30 mm. guns the enemy does not seem enough. hi
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 27 July 2015 03: 12
              0
              Whoever did this with them would immediately be put on an electric chair, because the pilots are against it.

              Why not 100mm? It is even bigger! And better ... bully
  6. Wedmak
    Wedmak 26 July 2015 08: 55
    +7
    That’s what I don’t understand, why put a quick-fire six-barrel with ammunition in 240 shells? A couple of lines and all? There are few missiles, few shells, one electronics. Some kind of trimmed plane. Are Americans really betting on stealth and surprise?
    1. Altona
      Altona 26 July 2015 09: 42
      -1
      Quote: Wedmak
      That’s what I don’t understand, why put a quick-fire six-barrel with ammunition in 240 shells? A couple of lines and all? There are few missiles, few shells, one electronics. Some kind of trimmed plane. Are Americans really betting on stealth and surprise?

      -------------
      To this six-barrel we need sashes, we need an exit mechanism, we need to write a program for this ... In general, there are so many problems and not the fact that it does not glitch in real conditions ...
      1. tomket
        tomket 26 July 2015 10: 37
        0
        Quote: Altona
        To this six-barrel you need sashes, you need an exit mechanism, that's all you need to write a program ...

        On the MiG-31, the cannon is closed by a wing in flight, so as not to spoil the aerodynamics and nothing flies.
    2. Penzyac
      Penzyac 26 July 2015 10: 06
      0
      Quote: Wedmak
      That’s what I don’t understand, why put a quick-fire six-barrel with ammunition in 240 shells? A couple of lines and all? There are few missiles, few shells, one electronics. Some kind of trimmed plane. Are Americans really betting on stealth and surprise?

      And where should they go now? So much money and time has been invested in this project. In vain or what? We must try to somehow bring Mr. to the minimum acceptable level and "sell" to the "allies." And for themselves, the amers have nothing better (the "gold" and hygroscopic F-22 is also not an option). They drove themselves and their "allies" into this trap, because of hypertrophied arrogance. The "allies" at least have their own "Eurofighters" and "Rafali", but what about the Amers, one old thing and these new "golden flying toilets"? ...
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 26 July 2015 10: 16
        0
        So much money and time was thrown into this project. Is it in vain?

        Well, that is a given. Nobody will allow them to drop this plane and start a new one again. I just wonder what they thought when they put this six-barreled monster on a light aircraft. Experience with A-10 is not enough?
    3. tomket
      tomket 26 July 2015 10: 41
      0
      Quote: Wedmak
      so why put a quick-fire six-barrel with an ammunition of 240 shells

      On versions of the MiG-29, after evaluating the accuracy of firing from a cannon, the ammunition was reduced to 100 shells. To hit an air target, 2-3 shells were enough. The initial ammunition of 120 pieces was redundant.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 26 July 2015 10: 50
        +1
        On the MIG-29 single-barrel gun. Actually, I asked why shove the six-barrel, when the single-barrel copes well. Moreover, with almost the same rate of fire. Or does the USA not have such a gun? Gryazev and Shipunov together made all of American industry?
        2-3 shells were enough to hit an air target.

        They still need to get. In general, the Gatling scheme was designed to conduct massive fire over a small area. Accuracy was in the background.
        Therefore, the question arose: F-35 with this gun what, plan to replace the A-10?
        1. tomket
          tomket 26 July 2015 11: 27
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          why shove a six-barrel,

          When at the beginning of the century they asked, it seems to Fisher, why on British cruisers medium-caliber artillery is placed on the sides, because with excitement it fills and it is impossible to shoot from it. Fisher shrugged and said such a tradition.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 26 July 2015 11: 33
            0
            Fisher shrugged and said such a tradition.

            You can’t argue with that.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 July 2015 21: 07
          +1
          A maneuvering aerial target is struck by a "shot sheaf offhand", cutting off on the aisle, and not single when shooting at a shooting range from a prone position, so covering it with a slightly smeared frequent burst of gatling is much better.

          20mm (F-15 and F-22 gun) is enough for any tactical air target. 25mm on the F-35 indicates that it is larger on the ground.

          That 30mm quick-fire (1500 rounds / min) GMO with scanty ammunition that was shoved on the MiG-29 and Su-27 is only for tanks, or for Boeing (as on the Su-25).
          In the MiG-29, from its recoil, not only avionics are strewed, but in general it itself is cracked.
          At least MiG-23 was at least 23mm with 3000—3400 rds / min.
    4. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 16: 43
      0
      Because, ceteris paribus, a rapid-fire gun is better, and its rate of fire is regulated.
  7. little girl15
    little girl15 26 July 2015 08: 56
    0
    Americans can present guano in a beautiful wrapper.
  8. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 July 2015 08: 56
    0
    Quote: Karavan
    391 billion bucks and this ... Serdyukov, you are nothing compared to these managers

    Money doesn't matter to them. They can print, run through their economy, and then "drain" all of us as much of this paper. The whole world is giving them real things for this paper: resources and technologies. It's not about the F-35 plane, but about the technologies that they work on on it, and I personally have no doubt that they will get a positive exhaust.
    1. LvKiller
      LvKiller 26 July 2015 09: 17
      +2
      This is the first time I hear that "brazen sawing the dough" ™ gives someone a "positive exhaust", except for the sawflies themselves. And yes, don't consider the US a state. This is your first mistake.
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 26 July 2015 10: 12
        0
        Quote: LvKiller
        ... And yes, do not consider the United States as a state ...

        But why? Simply, this is not a democratic, but a corporatocratic state. Until...
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Old26
    Old26 26 July 2015 09: 01
    +3
    Quote: Wedmak
    That’s what I don’t understand, why put a quick-fire six-barrel with ammunition in 240 shells? A couple of lines and all? There are few missiles, few shells, one electronics. Some kind of trimmed plane. Are Americans really betting on stealth and surprise?

    As with any aircraft cannon (including ours), fixed bursts are probably used, for example, 25 rounds each. It's just that with such a rate of fire, the line will not be 25 separate shells, but like a line, "Epee", with a minimum spread
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 July 2015 09: 13
      +2
      It’s just that at such a rate of fire there will be no 25 individual shells

      Clear. But again, the cost of the 6-barrel gun is much greater than our one or double-barreled gun. Somehow does not fit. A plane is always a compromise. And then they put a heavy gun, with a high rate of fire and small ammunition.
      but as if a line, "Epee", with a minimum spread

      Doubtful. This is not a tank, the speeds are decent. It will be rather "cut scrap", several meters long. How effective is it against aircraft? Or like that, on the sly of an F-35, they make a stealth attack aircraft?
  11. Old26
    Old26 26 July 2015 09: 12
    +2
    Quote: APASUS
    The rate of fire of this gun is such that it allows you to shoot the entire ammunition in 4 seconds. Here, too, the question may immediately arise, why the hell is such a gun?

    And why the hell are we such guns?
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 26 July 2015 09: 23
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: APASUS
      The rate of fire of this gun is such that it allows you to shoot the entire ammunition in 4 seconds. Here, too, the question may immediately arise, why the hell is such a gun?

      And why the hell are we such guns?

      Maybe I missed something?
      Are we buying their GEEU-22 / A guns?
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. Ironax
    Ironax 26 July 2015 09: 14
    +2
    Our overseas partners in the manufacture of frank hack were not seen, rather the opposite. It is always necessary to prepare for the most unfavorable forecast, in this case, treat the declared characteristics as available and already from this dance in perfecting your technique.
  14. kil 31
    kil 31 26 July 2015 09: 17
    +1
    Something on board he has a lot of flags. Who knows? Are these the flags of the countries that will be bought or are specialists working from these countries?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 July 2015 09: 30
      +1
      These are the flags of the countries that will be buying.

      Like a joint project. True, for the most part, compatibility consists in the allocation of money on the one hand and promises on the other.
  15. screw cutter
    screw cutter 26 July 2015 09: 20
    0
    After watching the video, there was doubt whether he / f-35 could even open the protective flap in front of the gun at speed?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 July 2015 10: 41
      +1
      GAU-22 / A - five-barreled gun with electric drive.

      She has been successfully tested and works at Harrier 2.
      Also installed there on the left wing close to
      the fuselage.
  16. sv68
    sv68 26 July 2015 09: 21
    0
    they "taught" how to shoot the cannon. It remained for a little, so that the shells flew at the target. Only now I'm afraid that the plane in the air when firing from the cannon may fall apart from the vibration of the glider.
  17. tuts
    tuts 26 July 2015 09: 24
    +4
    in my opinion it was already
    watch from 1:25:45
  18. Izotovp
    Izotovp 26 July 2015 09: 25
    -1
    We do not have a 5th generation aircraft yet. Planned work is underway without unnecessary PR and a completely ready-made complex will be released into the troops, and not semi-finished products like the Americans have recently. Do they have microsofta specialists in defense? Lovers of imperfections !!!
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 July 2015 09: 33
      +3
      Lovers of imperfections !!!

      Be careful, our Israeli friends will wake up and run in and prove to you that this is not a deficiency, but a serial, very good plane. And that there are almost 200 pieces of it, and that it is secretive, and that it has cool radar and electronics, etc.
      1. Tanais
        Tanais 26 July 2015 09: 44
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Lovers of imperfections !!!

        Be careful, our Israeli friends will wake up and run in and prove to you that this is not a deficiency, but a serial, very good plane. And that there are almost 200 pieces of it, and that it is secretive, and that it has cool radar and electronics, etc.

        Do not wake DARK while it is quiet ???
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 26 July 2015 09: 46
          +3
          Do not wake DARK while it is quiet ???

          Silent, silent ...))))
      2. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 26 July 2015 09: 51
        +1
        For Wedmak

        At the same time, they will once again emphasize that they speak three languages, have many friends and are much smarter than us "bastards". Therefore, what they write is the ultimate truth.
      3. 0255
        0255 26 July 2015 11: 10
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Lovers of imperfections !!!

        Be careful, our Israeli friends will wake up and run in and prove to you that this is not a deficiency, but a serial, very good plane. And that there are almost 200 pieces of it, and that it is secretive, and that it has cool radar and electronics, etc.

        Let prove health
      4. Berxen
        Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 27
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Be careful, our Israeli friends will wake up and run in and prove to you that this is not a deficiency, but a serial, very good plane. And that there are almost 200 pieces of it, and that it is secretive, and that it has cool radar and electronics, etc.


        I am not from Israel, but I want to note that the F-35 is a very good aircraft, and if you do not take into account the VTOL version, it is even very good. With cool radar and electronics. We have to adopt a number of decisions on LFI if it will be at all. So it was with the F-22, which everyone branded as sucks, until the T-50 rolled out with the same concept. Then the F-22 began to scold only for the price.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 July 2015 16: 48
          -1
          Quote: BerXen
          F-35 is a very good aircraft, and if you do not take into account the VTOL version it is even very good.

          Why did you make such a conclusion?

          Very mediocre aircraft, and the F-35C can also not be taken into account.
          1. Berxen
            Berxen 26 July 2015 17: 36
            +3
            Quote: Scraptor
            Why did you make such a conclusion?


            The first light fighter of the 5th generation. Already flies, already shoots, is already integrated into all modern systems of the US Air Force.

            Finally, the fleet, army and marine corps of the same type. * Although the marinos still showed off what they sucked the whole program.

            Finished dviglo from the 22nd, which is already ahead of the rest. Our product is still 30 at least 5 years to be developed and tested. * The truth is only one. This is still a jamb.

            Fantastic electronics. The future is near. On a combat aircraft touchscreen widescreen display and voice control. After 20 years in all planes of the world. You can ironize as much as you like, but the Americans introduced the existing cabin with two main displays and auxiliary ones, and we repeated it. And she, too, was mercilessly criticized.

            In addition to the previous paragraph - a complex of radar and target designation. AFAR, a transparent plane, the detection of all that is possible and guidance on this by turning the head in a radius of 360 degrees. In our patriotic circles, it is generally accepted that AFAR is not such a necessary thing, but it will not be finished for the T-50 yet. A helmet is considered expensive, too fancy and redundant. Apparently, until we begin to do our own.

            I am very interested in aviation, so much so that I work in it. The F-35 is a very ambitious, expensive and by no means perfect airplane. I could continue to list these virtues, but is this useless truth? After all, you have already decided everything for yourself -
            Quote: Scraptor
            Very mediocre aircraft, and the F-35C can also not be taken into account.

            Moreover, which is characteristic in spite of the fact that the F-35C is really shit but the Yakovlevsky nozzle steers.

            Time will tell.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 27 July 2015 00: 19
              0
              You forgot about the helmet ... lol (although no have not forgotten). His was better on the MiG-23.

              Quote: BerXen
              I am very interested in aviation, so much so that I work in it.

              Not at the airport in duty free or somewhere else nearby, I hope ...? laughing

              There is no Yakovlev nozzle in F-35C / A; it was removed from it. As with the F-35B, its PD before putting in a fan from the ancient XV-5, and painted with radar absorbing coating (from P.Ya. Ufimtsev).

              Not time will tell, but Zadornov was right ...

              The Brtansky AV-8B was almost completely unlicensely produced in the United States almost without changes (but there was at least a license or a purchased engine there).
              1. Berxen
                Berxen 27 July 2015 05: 59
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                You forgot about the helmet ... (although no, you didn’t forget). His was better on the MiG-23.


                Honestly, I don’t know anything about the helmet features at the Mig of the 1970s. But I doubt that he was better if only because he saw domestic ShKAI on the Su-35 of the 2010s.


                Quote: Scraptor
                Not at the airport in duty free or somewhere else nearby, I hope ...?


                Hope.

                Quote: Scraptor
                There is no Yakovlev nozzle in F-35C / A; it was removed from it. As with the F-35B, its PD before putting in a fan from the ancient XV-5, and painted with radar absorbing coating (from P.Ya. Ufimtsev).


                It's to blame, I read it inattentively - I'm used to the fact that the VTOL version is usually allocated.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 27 July 2015 06: 08
                  0
                  Ask the Israelis ...

                  It’s a pity, but I need my own man there.

                  All versions were obtained by simplifying the Soviet SKVVP and changing the square fuselage with a round nozzle (watch your hands) to a rhombic one. yes You can’t convert an ordinary plane into a good SKVVP; on the contrary, you can.
                  For some reason, they themselves did not change the nozzle from round to square as in F-22 ... Probably, they could not. crying
                  At the expense of F-35C did not understand - it will not be either.
                  1. Berxen
                    Berxen 27 July 2015 07: 01
                    0
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    You can’t convert an ordinary plane into a good SKVVP; on the contrary, you can.


                    I am a supporter of the theory that a good SKVVP is an oxymoron. Let the Americans suffer.
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 27 July 2015 07: 17
                      0
                      Harrier too? Say it to the Argentines. And the Americans who buy them themselves around the world.
                      The combat radius of the Yak-141 is greater than that of the MiG-29.
                      1. Berxen
                        Berxen 27 July 2015 16: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Harrier too? Say it to the Argentines. And the Americans who buy them themselves around the world.


                        Harrier too. If it were not for the special status of the ILC, then the Americans would not have bought anything.

                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The combat radius of the Yak-141 is greater than that of the MiG-29.


                        What is more likely a drawback of the Mig-29.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 22: 12
                        0
                        What is the special status of the ILC, besides the fact that these are clonial troops and there recruits-infantrymen are hired from the garbage dumps and then the black corporals yell at these scum to "educate" them (in general, this does not apply to the ILC pilots, the flyers are always the elite, especially the deck ), and how does it relate to events in which the RAF, RN, Spanish Navy, and the Italian Navy and Air Force have been hijacked in many wars?

                        Rather, the dignity of Yak ... Strange, right?
                2. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 27 July 2015 07: 13
                  0
                  As if without arms, the legs of the F-35A and F-35C are still growing from the same F-35B (it appeared earlier than others), and it is just a crooked copy of the Yak-141, "bought" in Russia at a price of 2 x BMW ...

                  The F-35C will soon be abandoned (even faster than the F-35B) because this penguin's shell cracks from hard landings with a hook on the deck. It is single-engine (USN always requires two after Skyhawk), and the attachment point for the short landing hook is located very close to the main landing gear.

                  Only the F-35A will remain flying, although it has a maximum speed of only 1,6 Mach, But it’s better than the subsonic F / A-117 that flew like an iron.
    2. Berxen
      Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 25
      +1
      Quote: Izotovp
      Planned work is underway without unnecessary PR and a completely ready-made complex will be released into the troops, and not semi-finished products like the Americans have recently. Do they have microsofta specialists in defense? Lovers of imperfections !!!


      Come on! More recently, the military was going to accept the T-50 with "first stage engines" in order to take them from the "second". If it were not for the crisis and the reduction of wants and needs it would have been.
      Or last year’s story with the Su-35, which they already adopted, and then they were drafted according to the ballots in the GLITs and Dzemgah to condition.
      All the difference in scale. If the Yankees can afford to produce a hundred experimental vehicles, then our industry can produce only 5 T-50s without a sane spare part.
  19. Penzyac
    Penzyac 26 July 2015 09: 36
    0
    For the last paragraph plus ...
    1. Tanais
      Tanais 26 July 2015 10: 07
      0
      Quote: PENZYAC
      For the last paragraph plus ...

      "Paragraph" ... laughing , synonym - "you yourself know which word"?
  20. Old26
    Old26 26 July 2015 09: 44
    +4
    Quote: APASUS
    Maybe I missed something? Are we buying their GEEU-22 / A guns?

    No, of course. This replica is the answer to why such a gun is fucked on an airplane, given its rate of fire and stock of shells. I asked a question, and why the heck are such guns, not American, of course, but domestic?

    The rate of fire of our gun GSh-6-23M is 9000 rounds per minute or 150 per second. Ammunition - 260 rounds. She shoots all this stuff in 1,7 seconds

    The rate of fire of our gun GSh-6-30 is 6000 rounds per minute, respectively 100 rounds per second. BK - 300 rounds. All this fires in 3 seconds.

    At the same time, we believe that all this is normal, our guns are cool, our planes are equipped with them.
    But when the rate of fire is 55 rounds / sec and the BC shoots in 4 seconds, we ask the question - FUCK is she needed

    So I would like to get an answer from comrades, but do we need similar guns? Or is an American gun not needed on an airplane just because it is American?

    Quote: sv68
    they "taught" how to shoot the cannon. It remained for a little, so that the shells flew at the target. Only now I'm afraid that the plane in the air when firing from the cannon may fall apart from the vibration of the glider.

    Well, after all, other planes do not fall apart
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 26 July 2015 10: 03
      +1
      At the same time, we believe that all this is normal, our guns are cool, our planes are equipped with them.
      But when the rate of fire is 55 rounds / sec and the BC shoots in 4 seconds, we ask the question - FUCK do you need it ?,
      It has already been written above, there is such a cut-off device. That is, the queue length is fixed, before I know there were 50 shots in the queue.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 July 2015 10: 05
      0
      The rate of fire of our gun

      You somehow forget where these guns were installed - to interceptors and bombers: MIG-31, Su-24, MIG-21 / 23 / 27, Su-7 / 17. We recall what year of production these aircraft are, we conclude. Moreover, installing it more than once led to problems after application. The chassis wings stuck, the on-board equipment was disconnected, etc. The long line was generally contraindicated, as threatened with overheating and explosion. Airplanes during landing crashed due to deformation and breakdown of the units, which in turn were deformed and broken due to the large vibration from the gun.
      And now we look at what guns they put on modern Russian fighters. Oppaa .. for some reason, single-barrel.

      And then ... a brand new plane. Built almost half out of composites. And they stick this fool again with a second volley in half a ton. They don’t have single barrels?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 42
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        And now we look at what guns they put on modern Russian fighters. Oppaa .. for some reason, single-barrel.

        Because, as in Korea, they didn’t give a shit about weapons ... the rate of fire is even less than that of the MiG-15!
        The rate of fire of a rapid-fire gun is easily adjustable in the direction of its decrease, but not vice versa.
  21. Zomanus
    Zomanus 26 July 2015 09: 50
    0
    Even a plane is born hard, right after all ... And then they correctly noticed that a lot of interesting things are expected in the air.
  22. gla172
    gla172 26 July 2015 09: 54
    0
    Well, 25 mm is not very impressive, on the MIGs in the 50s it was 37 mm. Now we have 30 mm everywhere,
    and after WWII even tried to put 76 mm ....
    1. gans_sp
      gans_sp 26 July 2015 10: 04
      +1
      25mm is enough for any airplane and helicopter
      1. Tanais
        Tanais 26 July 2015 11: 33
        0
        Quote: gans_sp
        25mm is enough for any airplane and helicopter

        And to "From the Heart"? lol
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 July 2015 18: 34
          0
          When "odorants" the gun shoots 3-4 times less often, and 7 times less ammunition fits into the ammunition. There is nothing to do with such a gun mount in close maneuvering combat.
          1. Tanais
            Tanais 26 July 2015 19: 30
            0
            Quote: Scraptor
            When "odorants" the gun shoots 3-4 times less often, and 7 times less ammunition fits into the ammunition. There is nothing to do with such a gun mount in close maneuvering combat.



            But it is amazing, including armored vehicles ...
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 50
              0
              The fighter is hit 20mm, on the F-15 and F-22 this one is worth it. Armored vehicles 25mm subcaliber.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 18: 32
        0
        Tactical - 20mm (F-15, F-22 are just such). A strategist will not allow his KOU to approach the range of use of the gun.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 59
      0
      The MiGs had two more 23mm, and then this caliber remained until the pre-perestroika times, when "it became worse than always" ...

      On American fighters to gain superiority in the air, nothing more than 20mm was never used. From 12,7 they were already reluctant to leave, and only with the transition to supersonic.
  23. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 26 July 2015 09: 58
    +1
    the project is already seven years behind schedule.

    At this rate, it is possible that it will take another five years to put it into service. And during this time, the price will rise in proportion to the commissioning time. And they will pump out a lot of money from their "friends" on the project.
  24. Old26
    Old26 26 July 2015 10: 00
    +3
    Quote: Zomanus
    Even a plane is born hard, right after all ... And then they correctly noticed that a lot of interesting things are expected in the air.

    Well what to do. Heavy. Our T-50 is not lighter either. But nevertheless, they already have 4 cars using the "stealth" technology (although of course their first plane did not seem to be called anything other than "iron") - we have the first one.
    Better jambs get out during creation, but not during operation
  25. fa2998
    fa2998 26 July 2015 10: 10
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    That’s what I don’t understand, why put a quick-fire six-barrel with ammunition in 240 shells? A couple of lines and all? There are few missiles, few shells, one electronics. Some kind of trimmed plane. Are Americans really betting on stealth and surprise?

    Well, this is not an attack aircraft to pour shells on enemy columns. In a maneuvering battle, the target (more specifically, the place with a lead, where the shells and the enemy will meet) lasts a split second. And a half-second burst sends 27-28 shells to "meet". 1-3 rounds are enough. In most fighters, the ammunition is limited to 200-300 rounds. Maybe more or less, but depends on the caliber of the gun. hi
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 38
      +1
      In almost ordinary F-15 - almost 1000, in F-22 - almost 500
      the time of continuous firing is much longer than that of MiGs and U Sushki, 20mm "saws" often and heap, cartridges can not be saved, it is much easier to hit, each shell of an unarmored target causes almost the same damage as 30mm.

      F-35 costs 25mm, since in particular it is possible to use subcliber uranium shields that sew armored vehicles well.

      The rate of fire is variable: on the ground or on the transporter / AWACS / PLO / bomber 4000, on a maneuvering fighter 6600.
  26. shinobi
    shinobi 26 July 2015 10: 47
    -1
    In general, this device was not originally intended to war with a technically equal opponent. Series 4 ++ production aircraft surpass this device in combat characteristics even in perspective. The entire program is F22-F35, an attempt to unify the US and Russian air forces in this context is simply very convenient horror story. Direct conflict with Russia for strategists the Yankees are a nightmare from which they begin to lay bricks. In any LANs, their instructors dumped amicably as soon as they knew that they were opposed by our specialists.
    1. Kosta
      Kosta 26 July 2015 10: 57
      +1
      Quote: shinobi
      In general, this device was not originally intended to war with a technically equal opponent. Serial 4 ++ category aircraft outperform this device in combat performance even in the long term.

      What is superior in the possibility of conducting BVB? Dubious superiority


      The entire F22-F35 program, an attempt to unify the US Air Force and the Russian Federation in this context is just a very convenient horror story. A direct conflict with Russia for Yankee strategists is a nightmare from which they begin to lay bricks with bricks.

      For any war, a nightmare
      In any LAN, their instructors were dumped together as soon as they found out that our specialists were opposing them.

      Of course, do you have evidence or had a dream?
  27. Baleskin1
    Baleskin1 26 July 2015 10: 55
    0
    Regarding F-35: If the equipment can be fooled by creating the illusion of being in the air, then you can create the illusion of being on the ground when the plane is in the air. So this equipment is not worth a penny.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 July 2015 11: 03
      0
      So this equipment is not worth a penny.

      Don't be so happy. Surely there they simply put some kind of "plugs" and turned off a couple of dozen sensors. You can't do that in flight.
  28. Old26
    Old26 26 July 2015 11: 14
    +1
    Quote: Wedmak
    And then ... a brand new plane. Built almost half out of composites

    And if a similar multi-barreled gun is put on the T-50, then what will be the arguments? He is a fighter and in Africa a fighter. And no matter what: MIG-21/23/31 or SU-7/17. This additional weapon and high rate of fire allows us to solve the problem not by hitting 40-50 shells, but 5-10.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 July 2015 11: 20
      +1
      And if a similar multi-barrel cannon is put on the T-50, what will be the arguments?

      On the T-50 is a single-barrel GSh-30-1. More precisely, its modernized version.
      And no matter what: MIG-21 / 23 / 31 or SU-7 / 17.

      Oh .. there is still a difference. MIG-31 normal weight in 40 tons or F-35 in 25 tons. As you know, the return from the gun will be felt in different ways.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 18: 52
        0
        The MiG-29 is still weighing 15 tons, in which from its 30mm recoil it’s not that the avionics are falling apart, but it is cracking.

        The MiG-15 was 37mm, but there the muzzle velocity was small, the ammunition was not even called a projectile, but a "grenade" ... and then aimed shots from it at a bomber could be made only 1 or 2.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 19: 01
      0
      Do not drive nonsense ... Enough 2-4 hits and above 20mm caliber hits on a tactical aircraft is not important.
      Or from 37mm but shrapnel, with a radio fuse - instead they shoved either.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 27 July 2015 05: 54
      0
      Quote: Old26
      And if on the T-50 put a similar multi-barrel gun,
      . The T-50 gun is a modification of the well-known 30-mm GSh-30-1 aviation gun (designated as 9A-4071K), adopted for service in the early 1980s. These guns are equipped with Su-27 (Su-30, Su-33, Su-35) and MiG-29 (MiG-35) family fighters, as well as Su-34 front-line bombers created on the basis of the Su-27.
  29. VP
    VP 26 July 2015 11: 48
    +2
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    35 is the development of the BSU theory + the development of technologies and the theory of battle swarm

    It is interesting to look at a swarm of aircraft from aircraft, each of which stands as the budget of a city of thousands in 200 population.
    As a retarded person, it is not clear to me how they are supposed to be applied.
    Against stationary air defense of the last generations, it is even visible. So it won’t enter the anti-aircraft defense zone - these are not Efki who could be stamped and who are not particularly sorry.
    And the zone of such air defense is several hundred kilometers.
    Unless against different Afrikosov apply. But why are there such expensive toys?
    1. Berxen
      Berxen 26 July 2015 16: 58
      0
      Quote: VP
      Against stationary air defense of the last generations, it is even visible.


      As I understand it, we mean our air defense as perhaps the most advanced in the world. Then the question is who and when drove the F-35 into their coverage area to verify this statement?
  30. NDR-791
    NDR-791 26 July 2015 12: 03
    -1
    I support in particular the article and the beginnings of amerskie weapons in general !!! Test, guys, test ... And more expensive WOO-GO !!! how much does old Browning now cost !!! Nixon is tossing and turning with envy in his grave !!! Yes, and Roosevelt was left "in short pants." It's interesting to me, what kind of clever head came up with an ancient cannon in the F-35 ??? From standing on the new plane, she will shoot at hypersonic speed? WILL NOT BE !!! Everything else "from the evil one" First, the maneuverability for close combat, then the gun for that maneuverability. Congratulations, we "made" them again - since the time of the Korean one we have a complex compatible with a specific vehicle and a larger caliber. And until our maneuverability they grow and grow. And in general, the F-35, especially in the vertical takeoff version, has a dead-end branch of evolution. So come on, test ... And we, fools, giggle ... last.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 18: 23
      0
      Since the time of the Korean War, the rate of fire of American aircraft has strictly surpassed ours by 4-4,5 times, so the question is who should giggle here ...
      Pokryshkin, too, from poorly piloted and unreliable Aerial Cobra to Yak or La did not move 2,5 times a second because of her cannon and because of a malfunction of only 30 shells, but because of her pack of 4 12,7 mm quick-fire. Cal Browning M2.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 26 July 2015 18: 49
        0
        And yet, dear, are you not aware of the "destructive ability of an artillery shell"? Study the materiel !!! Caliber 12,7 is not only Browning, but also (if you are so dear) DShK !!! I'm not going to "kick with my bootlegs with the boots, but you can smack me in, I won't be offended at all."
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 27 July 2015 02: 14
          0
          With camouflage explosions during the assault on fortresses? Or when it is necessary to hunt with them for a fighter flying a fly in 3 dimensions?
          Aviation Browning has a much higher rate of fire, and no one even put 4 pieces of DShK on Soviet fighters in the Second World War. You can also see what stock of cartridges for them was in the Aero Cobra.
          And what escho?
      2. fzr1000
        fzr1000 26 July 2015 18: 55
        0
        4 times he intended in the Korean War?
        Are you aware that the Aero Cobra in the United States was considered an unsuccessful aircraft and was doped during the whole war, but wasn’t it?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 27 July 2015 02: 03
          -1
          Even at 4,5 ... you can measure on Wikipedia, easy!

          The course is over, it's generally a stormtrooper bully he drank more in the USSR.
  31. VP
    VP 26 July 2015 12: 27
    0
    Quote: NDR-791
    In general, the F-35, especially in the vertical take-off variant, has a dead end branch of evolution.

    I also can’t understand why, instead of the rather successful 22, they torment 35.
    Although perhaps the 22nd, due to some peculiarities, has no resource for further development
    1. evge-malyshev
      evge-malyshev 26 July 2015 16: 15
      0
      "22nd" is too expensive.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 26 July 2015 18: 26
        -1
        I also can’t understand why, instead of the rather successful 22, they torment 35.
        It doesn’t matter to us - let them torture F-35 FOR YOURSELF !!! Gone are the days of the first condom, and EBN times are long gone too. And once again I will say: bawdy, guys, bobble ... And today is our holiday, and again I congratulate my friends.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 July 2015 18: 37
      +1
      for VP:

      You guessed. The deadlock for the development of the F-22 was the software of the former
      generation - "closed architecture". It is rigidly tied to electronics.
      It is impossible to integrate new weapon systems and avionics with it.

      This drawback lacks the F-35. N F-35 can mount weapons systems
      and instruments of various manufacturers from different NATO countries and others.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 27 July 2015 01: 45
        0
        Wow ... and the Israelis put their missiles in Latin America on old French jets as they put them?
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. Terner38
    Terner38 26 July 2015 15: 44
    0
    Looked - beautiful - clearly hatches all work - lepotaaa! We've brought Italian lasers for half a year or a year - flying saucers are straightforward in appearance (and in terms of capabilities), but they break constantly and the Italians are stable with us once every two months, otherwise these "Chippolins", as the men called them, do not work.
    1. atalef
      atalef 26 July 2015 15: 55
      0
      Quote: Terner38
      We have Italian lasers, like half a year or a year, they brought them - flying saucers are straightforward in appearance (and in terms of capabilities), but they break constantly and the Italians are stable with us once every two months, otherwise these "Chippolins", as the men called them, do not work

      Here we have it, the Italian equipment is constantly breaking down, and the German and American ones were first opened for inspection (after 18 years of work) - and it’s like new.
  34. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 26 July 2015 16: 11
    0
    Well ... And everyone was interpreting that "35" was not intended for close combat.
  35. afrikanez
    afrikanez 26 July 2015 17: 21
    -1
    More than sure. if not for a specific approach to business, our T50s would have been a whole "bunch" in the army. Planing plywood planes. like F22 and F35, it's just work for speed, well, not for quality. Aircraft production is not the easiest thing to do, think before criticizing our military-industrial complex
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 July 2015 23: 38
      +1
      F-22 is now quite high quality.
  36. Kukish
    Kukish 26 July 2015 20: 01
    0
    Now one plane costs about $ 160 million.


    The author apparently does not know that, literally in February, Israel entered into an agreement to purchase 14 aircraft of 110 million each.

    You need to check a little what you write about hi


    In February (2015), Israel signed the contract for the procurement of another 14 F-35As in a $ 2.82 billion deal, with a unit cost of about $ 110 million. An option for another 17 aircraft is included in the contract


    I must say right away that you should not divide 2,82 billion into 14 since the contract also includes simulators and more.