F-35 has reached alert


If we are so good and they are so bad

why is it so good and so bad?


F-35 issues and shortcomings articles are no longer perceived as they were before. Instead of gloating, only dry irritation with the course of work on the creation of fifth-generation Russian fighters.

The Russian reader is smart. He perfectly sees the contradiction between the stories about the “badly flying” F-35, built dozens a year, and the invincible PAK FA, which exist only in the form of six prototypes without avionics and the declared engines of the second stage. In fact, any comparison of the F-35 and T-50 comes down to a comparison of the performance characteristics of the serial fighters and the requirements set forth in those. task to the PAK FA. And may we still give way to reality, but surpass everyone in our dreams.

Every year it becomes more and more obvious a simple fact: so far no one has managed to create a prototype of a plane that is close in its “stuffing” and capabilities to the American “fifth generation”. Not to mention its launch into mass production (at least in the number of a couple dozen units). And, I am afraid that with the existing approach to the creation of the PAK FA, this gap will only continue to grow. It is necessary to stop "fooling around", releasing one plane per year, or even play ahead of the curve, creating even more advanced machines with a non-standard aerodynamic scheme (the real example is Bird of Prey). At least for the sake of prestige and demonstration of one’s own ambitions (hmm, but for the sake of which is PAK FA being created?).

As for the ridicule of the American "Penguin", then it's a bad thing. Objective facts and nothing else.

1. The most powerful and efficient engine in stories fighter aviation

“Pratt Whitney” F-135 has a formless thrust of 13 tons. Afterburner - 19 tons!

He alone burns harder than two MiG-29 engines. With a dry mass in 1700 kg.

The empty mass of the F-35A is 13,3 tons. The actual take-off weight depends on the specific configuration. It is customary to engage in air combat with relatively light SD air-to-air class with a reduced fuel supply (50% or less). In other words, the F-35A thrust ratio in the fighter version should reach unity.

As for the absurd accusations of “unreliability” of a single-engine aircraft, let us turn to the MiG-21, Mirage III and F-16. The masterpieces of world aviation industry, past all regions of the planet.

2. Radar with AFAR

It is equally effective in detecting targets on the ground and in the air. With the possibility of mapping, simultaneous operation in the air-to-air and air-to-surface modes, with the presence of a low interception probability mode (low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range) and all that a modern radar should be able to do.

And even a little more.

According to common images (of course, made not without the help of Photoshop), the AN / APG-81 radar is capable of inspecting selected areas of the terrain with abnormally high resolution (30 x 30 cm). So clearly that the outlines of people and various techniques become visible.

F-35 has reached alert


The creators of the radar explain the effect achieved by the AFAR technology in the presence of unique signal processing algorithms, for example, extracting useful information from the noise reflected from the side lobes of the AFAR.

Unlike other radars with active phased arrays, the APG-81 station is a separate development, not an improvisation based on outdated radars with passive phased arrays. With a modern signal processor and data transmission bus optimized for AFAR high capabilities. There are only two such radars in the world. This is the mentioned APG-81 and its predecessor - APG-77 from the Raptor fighter.

3. Technology “stealth”

Its elements fully define the look of the F-35. At the same time, unlike the outdated F-117, the techniques for reducing the visibility have little effect on the aerodynamics of the new “stealth”.

Parallel lines and edges oriented in three selected directions. S-shaped air intake ducts. Internal suspension weapons. Saw-like joints of panels and covers of technological openings. Vertical keels divorced 20 ° away from the normal. Cabin-free lantern. Multi-layer radio absorbing coating on the entire surface of the wing and fuselage.

About how these measures are able to reduce the visibility of the aircraft, described in detail in previous articles.

4. Maneuverability

According to the video materials of Lockheed Martin, the F-35 fully maintains controllability at an angle of attack of 50 °.

He is able to fly “tail forward”, while maintaining controllability even at supercritical angles of attack (110 °) and, if the pilot so desires, to confidently return to horizontal flight.


In the first minute of the video (1: 03 — 1: 07). Call it what you want, but it seems that in close combat caps do not throw it


It would be strange if he could not do all this, having such a powerful and perfect engine as the “Pratt Whitney” with the 19 ton burden.

Otherwise, the F-35 meets modern standards:

Overload limitation - 9g. The design has an integral layout, in which a significant part of the lifting force is formed by the fuselage itself.

5. Technological glamor

All-view IR detection system. Futuristic helmet with the ability to observe “through” the plane. Modification of the F-35B with the possibility of a shortened take-off and vertical landing. F-35C ship-based fighter with titanium elements of the fuselage, tail hook and wing of increased area. In-flight refueling system of the “boom” type (F-35A) and “hose-cone” (for F-35B and 35C).

6. Weapon

Up to four medium / long-range air-to-air missiles (AIM-120 AMRAAM), or two to four guided bombs (for example, 113 kg planning SDB with max. Launch range 100 km) in combination with an Air-to-Air UR ”, Either two heavy air bombs or cruise missiles (as an option, 907-kg bomb Mk.84 with a GPS kit (JDAM), planning high-precision JSW ammunition with 681 kg or anti-ship missiles JSM).



The ammunition of the built-in four-barreled 25-mm cannon - 180 shells. In the suspended version - 220 shells.

If necessary, there are six external suspension assemblies. Full combat load - 8 tons.

A few words about things not related to the technical appearance of the aircraft.

31 July 2015, the United States Marine Corps First Squadron, equipped with F-35B, announced it had reached combat readiness.

At the same time, various speculations in the style of “flying for nine years, but not adopted for service” can be stopped. Just as the serial Su-27 de facto entered the troops from the mid-80-s and even participated in “battles” (the collision of the Su-27 and the Norwegian “Orion” during training interception over the Barents Sea, 1987 year), but weapons “Drying” officially adopted only in 1990.

As of the beginning of summer, the 120 “Lightning” had three modifications in the US armed forces, excluding the 20 test and experimental aircraft owned by Lockheed Martin. Fighters were deployed on 10 air bases in the United States.

19 March 2015, at the Luke airbase, the F-35 pilot training center opened. By the summer of admission to piloting Lightning, we already had over 200 pilots with a total 30 000 X flight. Not a single broken and lost aircraft for all 9 years of operation in the harshest conditions (swinging ship decks, night refueling in flight, group maneuvering).



On September 23, the first squadron equipped with F-35 fighters was formed at Hill airbase.

September 8 - F-35 debut at the Italian Cameri airbase (Italian Air Force aircraft assembled at an Italian factory). The first flight of the F-35 outside the United States.

October 6 - the first flight of the F-35, built for the Norwegian Air Force. The flight from the factory in Fort Worth to the airbase Luke.

October 19 - Canadian Prime Minister announced a possible withdrawal from the F-35 program. A number of media outlets hurried to announce the collapse of the F-35 project, without paying attention to a couple of circumstances. First, no one from the participating countries has left the project (Canadians can be the first). Secondly, what does the 65 fighter mean for the Canadian Air Force against the background of the entire JSF program (the 3109 fighter, of which only one fifth is exported).

Cost

Sadly, Lightning is the cheapest of the 4 + and 5 generation fighters.

First, the engine. The most complex and time-consuming to maintain element of the structure, on which everything depends. In “Lightning” he is alone. Domestic fighters traditionally have two of them.

Secondly, the volume of production, calculated in thousands of aircraft. Everyone knows that mass production is ALWAYS cheaper.

The cost of research and development work on the JSF project amounted to 59 billion. Obviously, part of this cost is incorporated in each of the built fighters. What should be the cost of development of the PAK FA, so that the final cost of the fighter equals the American F-35? Based on 60 serial T-50 (optimistic scenario).

Answer: R & D costs should be 3000 / 60 = 50 times less!

The 1 trillion, which scares the man in the street, concerns the entire life cycle of the F-35 program - R & D, production of thousands of aircraft, their maintenance, spare parts and fuel. Weapons, pilot training, airbase retrofit costs.

Considering the fact that F-35 replaces most types of aircraft, the indicated trillion is the cost of existence of the US Air Force for the next 30 years. Expensive? So they now eat no less. After all, the world's first consumer of aviation fuel.

The estimated cost of producing one unit of F-35A per 2018 year is 85 million dollars (taking into account inflation). Cheaper only Chinese plastic crafts.

As for the notorious "electronics" and the possible disruption of computers, the failures from which the planes go crazy, are only in Hollywood films. In reality, electronics is the most reliable element of any system, completely insensitive to overloads, mechanical shocks and vibrations.

A computer can be reprogrammed in the hangar of an air base, as opposed to a thrust vector-controlled engine (translational movement of parts under conditions of a thousand-degree temperatures). Here, even a block repair can not do. Whenever necessary, the domestic Su-35 shines sending to the manufacturer. It is easy to understand how all this affects the cost of manufacture and operation.

All those who were not convinced by these simple and obvious things can continue to retell the tale of a terribly expensive plane at the price of a piece of gold.




New marine test cycle. F-35C flying from the deck of the aircraft carrier Dwight Eisenhower, October 2015
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

262 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PlotnikoffDD 2 November 2015 06: 21 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    Anyone who was not convinced by these simple and obvious things can continue to retell the tale of a terribly expensive plane, at the cost of a solid piece of gold.

    Can I go give up?
    1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 06: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      Can I go give up?

      You can give up, no options

      and who read the article - hopes for the best
      You need to stop "fooling around" by releasing one aircraft a year, or even play ahead of the curve, creating even more advanced cars with a non-standard aerodynamic design (a real example is Bird of Prey). At least for the sake of prestige and demonstration of their own ambitions

      Interesting cars with unconventional schemes. Huge potential. Sixth generation
      HiMATT or a more recent project - Bird o Prey (bird of prey)


      The prototype of an inconspicuous fighter-bomber constructed according to the “duck” scheme, however, without the use of PGO, the role of which is played by the supporting fuselage, made using the “stealth” technology and having a negative installation angle with respect to the air flow. To consolidate the effect, the lower fuselage in the bow has a shape similar to the spacecraft descent vehicles. At the same time, the “Bird of Prey” is a wave-carrier that relies directly in the supersonic flight on the shock wave with the help of its V-shaped wing (such as a “gull”).

      Possessing the main advantage of the aerodynamic “duck” scheme (no balancing loss, since the direction of the lifting force of the main beam coincides in direction with the lifting force of the wing), the “bird of prey” is deprived of all its drawbacks (limiting the view from the cabin and the tendency to self-destructive "peck "). Strictly speaking, in the “Birds” layout scheme it is generally impossible to discern flaws. Some advantages. New era in aviation.

      Bird of Prey ”made 38 test flights. According to the testers, she, Being statically stable along all three axes, it was controlled manually without the help of the ESDS. And in its design were used the nodes of conventional serial aircraft. For example, the Pratt & Whitney JT15D turbojet engine installed on the TCB and business jets was used as a power plant.

      Work on the “Bird” was not in vain. The features of “Bird of Prey” can now be seen in the X-47B reconnaissance drone.


      You can try to create some of this, it is strange that our designers do not like experiments. as for the "fifth generation" - it will remain American, Penguin and Raptor. purely objective, we do not catch them
      1. sa-ag 2 November 2015 07: 09 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You can try to create some of this, it is strange that our designers do not like experiments.

        According to the “duck” scheme, the Su-47 was built, but there problems began with the wing composite, degraded at speeds
        1. Susul 2 November 2015 08: 34 New
          • 18
          • 0
          +18
          Is SU-35 not a Duck?
          Let me remind you that the "Duck" is not the wing of the reverse sweep, but the front horizontal plumage. It is also used on Gripen and Rafal, on SU-27 and MiG-29 fighters it is replaced by slats and whirlwinds, and in the T-50 the deflected slat is built into a separate element
          1. Falcon 2 November 2015 09: 36 New
            • 19
            • 0
            +19
            Quote: SUSUL
            Is SU-35 not a Duck?


            Not! he is not that not a duck, he does not even have a PGO!



            Quote: SUSUL
            Let me remind you that the "Duck" is not the wing of the reverse sweep, but the front horizontal plumage.


            This is not just PGO, it is when the longitudinal controls are moved forward.

            For example, the Su-30 has a PGO, but also has longitudinal controls at the back - and it is not a duck.



            Here is the instant 1.44 is more clearly a duck. (nothing back)

            1. Susul 2 November 2015 10: 12 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              About SU-35 I turned down, mixed up with the Indian SU-30K =)
              But you're right, as I forgot about the "tail" =)
              ... about Gripen and Rafal, I didn’t seem to lie =)
              1. crazyrom 2 November 2015 22: 03 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                13 tons of thrustless traction. Afterburner - 19 tons!
                He alone burns harder than two MiG-29 engines

                Wow, what a cool thing! But.
                Dry Mig-29 weighs 10900kg, engines give 10080kg
                Dry F-35 weighs 13300, engines give 13000.

                Parity (without even comparing the afterburners, there is 16600 versus 19000, also parity).

                BUT!!!!!!!!

                1 bullet in the 1 engine, and this is a miracle of the American aircraft industry in the cake. And ours on the second engine will fly home and sit down.
                1. Pimply 2 November 2015 23: 07 New
                  • -3
                  • 0
                  -3
                  Quote: crazyrom
                  1 bullet in the 1 engine, and this is a miracle of the American aircraft industry in the cake. And ours on the second engine will fly home and sit down.

                  Seriously? 8)
                  1. Dormidont2 2 November 2015 23: 27 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    2 engines are better than one)
          2. Aljavad 2 November 2015 22: 30 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            Is SU-35 not a Duck?


            NO!

            Simple: a duck is a back-to-back airplane.
      2. Falcon 2 November 2015 09: 15 New
        • 54
        • 0
        +54
        The article is fair, no doubt. +! I have long wanted to write something like this.

        But here only:

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        “Pratt Whitney” F-135 has a formless thrust of 13 tons. Afterburner - 19 tons!
        He alone burns harder than two MiG-29 engines. With a dry mass in 1700 kg.


        Oleg, how much can you already about this engine? Where do you get these numbers?



        Pratt & Whitney F135 has a dry weight of 5400 pounds, which is equal to 2449kg. With a draft of 19 tons, the specific power is 7,96 kgf / kg.



        RD-93 (from Mig-29) has a dry weight of 1055 kg, which, with a draft of 8300 kgf, gives a specific power of 7,86 kgf / kg.

        Not such a great invention of the F-135 based on specific thrust ?!



        Al-31a has a dry weight of 1520 kg, with a draft of 12500 kgf it gives a specific power of 8,22 kgf / kg !!!

        That is, your vaunted F-135 loses in terms of the effectiveness of Al-31, not to mention the Pub-117s from su-35
        1. Sweles 2 November 2015 10: 02 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          Quote: Falcon
          .е your vaunted F-135 loses in Al-31 efficiency, not to mention the Iz-117s from the su-35


          Well, the F135 engine is just big, so it’s so high-torque, but the engines for passenger planes are even more high-torque, and the F35 needs to be carried along with it, so the penguin turned out to be so thick, so the penguin, and with up to 50 degrees of angle of attack, , as it is not convincing, the maneuver is only indicated.
          1. leon1204id 5 November 2015 23: 10 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            On the F-35B, the vertical thrust is provided by the fan, and torque is transmitted through the rod on bearings from the main engine.
            1. mcsimcsim 7 November 2015 16: 15 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              but you don’t think about losses in the gearbox and transmission, as well as in the fan itself (in the channel, on the blades, etc.)?
              or is there a vertical thrust fan rotates at the speed of the gas turbine engine fan, and the losses are so miserable that they cannot be taken into account?
        2. Bayonet 2 November 2015 10: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Falcon
          Your vaunted F-135 loses in efficiency Al-31

          Well then, you need to put it on the PAK FA, and let the Americans scratch their turnips and envy them - right? smile
          True, the American has a thrust of 19 tons, and ours has 12.5, but this is a trifle ...
          1. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 12: 08 New
            • 43
            • 0
            +43
            Quote: Bayonet
            True, the American has a thrust of 19 tons, and ours has 12.5, but this is a trifle ...

            So on the Su-35 14,5 and two of them stand and weigh both 2,76 tons, and one American 2,5.
            But this is insignificant, the main figure is 19 and the expression is the most powerful.
            1. Bayonet 2 November 2015 13: 09 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              the main figure is 19 and the expression is the most powerful.


              Engine designation F135-PW-100
              Type of engine double-circuit, with forced draft
              Type of aircraft F-35
              Engine thrust:, kgf
              afterburner 19500
              on cruise mode 13000
              Beats afterburner fuel consumption 1.74
              Beats fuel consumption on cr. 0.82 mode
              Air Consumption kg / s 139
              Overall dimensions of the engine, m
              1.29 diameter
              5.59 length
              Dry weight of the engine, kg 1720
              Bypass ratio 0.57
              Gas temperature in front of the turbine, ╟C 1654
              1. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 14: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Bayonet
                Dry weight of the engine, kg 1720

                Options: F135-PW-100 for F-35A
                F135-PW-600 for F-35B
                F135-PW-400 for F-35C
                Oversized
                Features
                Weight: 5400 lbs / 2450 kg
                Length: 5590 mm
                Diameter: 1170 mm
                Performance Characteristics
                Thrust: 12700 kgf
                Afterburner thrust: 19500 kg

                Well, it's probably a wet mass, minus not mine.
                1. Bayonet 2 November 2015 18: 42 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Well, it's probably a wet mass, minus not mine.

                  ENGINE WEIGHT DRY
                  the weight of the aircraft engine with units installed on it, ensuring its operation and start-up, without coolant (for liquid-cooled engines) and oil or with the specified in the technical specifications part of the oil in the engine during its operation. Units whose weight is not included in the dry weight for this type of engine are specifically negotiated.
              2. zulusuluz 2 November 2015 16: 38 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: Bayonet
                Weight 2450kg (F135-PW-100/400)
                - Where is 1720 ??? Where do you get these numbers? Maybe this figure is the result of subtracting the masses of version 600 with vertical take-off and 100?
                1. Bayonet 2 November 2015 18: 41 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: zulusuluz
                  Where do you get these numbers?

                  TURBOCART.COM
                  The F135-PW B-100 weighs 3,750 pounds. = 1698.75 kg.
                2. Bayonet 2 November 2015 21: 18 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  Quote: zulusuluz
                  - Where is 1720 ??? Where do you get these numbers?

                  General characteristics
                  Type: afterburning turbofan
                  Length: 220 in (559 cm)
                  Diameter: 46 in (120 cm) max., 43 in (110 cm) fan inlet
                  Dry weight: 3,750 lb (1,700 kg)
                  The last line is "dry weight"
          2. silver_roman 2 November 2015 13: 29 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            AL-41Ф1 - product 117.
            On the afterburner, one engine thrust 15 000t.
            Without afterburner under 9 000т.
            And there are already two of them!
            1. mav1971 2 November 2015 18: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: silver_roman
              AL-41Ф1 - product 117.
              On the afterburner, one engine thrust 15 000t.
              Without afterburner under 9 000т.
              And there are already two of them!


              And where are they?
              Are they released for PAKFA anyhow?
              And they will also eat fuel together?
              1. SIvan 2 November 2015 19: 50 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: mav1971
                And where are they?
                Are they released for PAKFA anyhow?

                You don’t have to go far - at least read Wikipedia.
                On August 9 of 2010, UMPO OJSC began supplying AL-41Ф1С engines for Su-35С multipurpose fighters. Already in the 2010 year!

                Do not confuse this engine (117 product, first stage engine) with the second stage engine. Here it is just not yet finished.
                1. mav1971 2 November 2015 20: 00 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: SIvan
                  Quote: mav1971
                  And where are they?
                  Are they released for PAKFA anyhow?

                  You don’t have to go far - at least read Wikipedia.
                  On August 9 of 2010, UMPO OJSC began supplying AL-41Ф1С engines for Su-35С multipurpose fighters. Already in the 2010 year!

                  Do not confuse this engine (117 product, first stage engine) with the second stage engine. Here it is just not yet finished.


                  AL-41Ф1С - the first variant worsened by characteristics. it should not be considered.
                  You yourself wrote about AL-41F? why did you write about him at all?
                  Maybe because it should be put on the T-50?
                  So we look and find out that the engine is not at all the same, and even not a cake.
                  What will happen when the "30 engine".
                  Once upon a time, it's about 18-19 years.
                  Why didn’t you immediately write about him?
                  41F again - you yourself were the first to mention, no one pressed you on the keyboard :)
                  1. silver_roman 3 November 2015 12: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    stripped down is AL-41F1S, it has less traction.
                    On the Su-35s they put 41F1 - a product 117 seems to be like.
                    Great engine.
                    will eat, of course. But I won’t tell you about the expense. But the combat radius says a lot.
          3. python2a 3 November 2015 16: 39 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            two AL 31 weigh 500 kg more than one F135, and in terms of thrust-weight ratio they exceed 6000 kg
          4. dzeredzavkomimu 8 November 2015 02: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            in Serbia, it was enough to shoot down one f-117 and covered the shop with stealth, do you think these will last longer after the first shot down?
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Mera joota 2 November 2015 10: 24 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Quote: Falcon
          Where do you get these numbers?

          Quote: Falcon
          Pratt & Whitney F135 has a dry weight of 5400 pounds, which is equal to 2449kg

          So tell me where do you get them?
          According to the reference data, the F-135 aircraft engine has the following characteristics
          Dry weight: 3,750 lb (1,700 kg)
          Dry weight 1700 kg.

          and thrust-to-weight ratio:
          Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.47: 1 (dry), 11.467: 1 (wet / afterburning)

          Those. afterburner 11,467 kgf / kg.

          Or do you invent tsifiri yourself in the hope that no one will check?
          1. Falcon 2 November 2015 11: 11 New
            • 28
            • 0
            +28
            Quote: Mera Joota
            According to the reference data, the F-135 aircraft engine has the following characteristics


            Directory - is it Wikipedia?

            Quote: Mera Joota
            Dry weight: 3,750 lb (1,700 kg)
            Dry weight 1700 kg.


            Products webpage:
            http://www.pratt-whitney.com/

            They do not give specific weight, but through long walks it is on the manufacturer’s website that you can find:
            "The F135 produces 20% more thrust and weighs 1,500 pounds more than the F119"

            Which translates as: "The F-135 has 20% more traction and 1500 pounds more weight than the F-119"

            But the weight of the F-119 manufacturer already gives - 3900 pounds.

            Those. The F-135 weighs 5400 pounds or 2449 kg.

            Quote: Mera Joota
            Or do you invent tsifiri yourself in the hope that no one will check?


            But this is some rudeness negative rude and not European sad
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Mera joota 2 November 2015 13: 40 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Falcon
              rude and not European

              I apologize.
              Quote: Falcon
              Directory - is it Wikipedia?

              The "Corner of the Sky" also has the same information.
              Quote: Falcon
              They do not give a specific weight

              Rummaging through the network, I discovered that no one really knows what mass the engine is. Most cite Warren Boley, president of Pratt & Whitney's, who is around 2011. stated that the company will be able to reduce the cost of the F-135 by $ 10 million, if they order 250 units, then it will cost as much as the F-119, with 20% more traction and 680 kg more weight. (1700 pounds he said).
              From this stove and dance.
              Mentioning a dry weight of 1700 kg. (3750 pounds) refer to http://www.f135engine.com, but I personally could not find it, for not a damn thing is clear where to look.
              It should be understood that Warren Boley did not indicate which version of the F-135 is heavier than the F-119. I think he was referring to the most expensive F135-PW-600 which has more weight due to the presence of a fan and a rotary nozzle.
              1. Falcon 2 November 2015 14: 17 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Mera Joota
                I apologize.


                How unusual for VO belay drinks

                Quote: Mera Joota
                Most cite Warren Boley, president of Pratt & Whitney's, who is around 2011. declared


                There is of infa:
                http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/me_f135_pCard.pdf


                Quote: Mera Joota
                It should be understood that Warren Boley did not indicate which version of the F-135 is heavier than the F-119. I think he was referring to the most expensive F135-PW-600 which has more weight due to the presence of a fan and a rotary nozzle.


                Not indicated - but there are a couple of arguments:
                1. Why compare the engine from the vertical with the engine of a conventional aircraft? Like a booty with a pen. And besides - the same thing that the lifting fan does not do pratt witney at all.
                Yes, and the price they do not equal, the vertical is almost two times more expensive.

                2. F-135 anyway more! Since it has a greater bypass ratio (more fan)
                And most importantly, the F-135 2's low-pressure turbine is stepped, and the F-119 has one step. And this will seriously add weight. See lineup

                F-135



                F-119

          2. dzeredzavkomimu 8 November 2015 02: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            and .. Donald Cook .. more than the Su-24, so what? don’t write to the compote, panic-mongers fire))) do not bore the numbers from the Internet, hereAnd all the buttons can push
        5. remy 2 November 2015 11: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          here it is visible: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/f135.html
        6. Sweles 2 November 2015 11: 42 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          or all the same, f135-2.4t is the total weight of the entire propulsion system, the engine itself + fan + side nozzles?
          1. Sweles 2 November 2015 12: 53 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            in addition to the above, if f35 has an engine thrust of 19t, then naturally in a vertical mode it will not be able to lift more than 19t.
            14t airplane itself
            -Useful balance of 5 tons !!! something is not enough, it’s both fuel and weapons, in order to complete the task and bomb the target it is necessary to get to it and have at least one bomb to complete the task, in short, the vertical mode greatly limits the capabilities of the aircraft, in my opinion there’s one way to throw out the fan and expand the bomb bombs then this fifth generation nonsense can somehow integrate into military operations.
            1. Susul 2 November 2015 14: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And no one said that the F-35 has a vertical take-off. Thanks to the fan, it has a shortened run-up, and a vertical landing.
              He can take off on a fan unless empty with half-empty fuel tanks.
              So the second Harier did not work out. A competitor from the Boeing who was put up for the competition could not even raise himself without removing some elements of the hull, without which he would lose his supersonic ability. Boeing called it "revolutionary design" =)
              1. Sweles 2 November 2015 17: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: SUSUL
                And no one said that the F-35 has a vertical take-off. Thanks to the fan, it has a shortened run-up, and a vertical landing.


                The plane is declared and built just like a plane with a vertical take-off, you do not know do not say nonsense of the gophers.
                1. patsantre 2 November 2015 18: 38 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  The aircraft is even called A short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL aircraft).
                  So stop talking nonsense and learn the materiel.
                  1. Sweles 2 November 2015 18: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: patsantre
                    The aircraft is even called A short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL aircraft).
                    So stop talking nonsense and learn the materiel.


                    from you arctic fox, "called", a short run-up means that the plane needs the TAKEOFF, and these are completely different requirements, and the LANDING is also for a short period? it doesn’t happen, but to take off and land, this means that the runway is not needed, this was the FIRST REQUIREMENT for this aircraft. Why didn’t you understand it with your plane.
                    1. SIvan 2 November 2015 20: 46 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      It's about basing on an aircraft carrier. There is not required a fully vertical take-off, it is enough to reduce the mileage, for which catapults are usually used.
                      And on a vertical landing (suddenly?) You need much less thrust than on a vertical take-off, because on landing, the resultant force will be directed down, and on take-off, up, gravity will remain unchanged. So it turns out that the fan power is enough for a vertical landing, but not enough for takeoff.
                      School physics.
                    2. Susul 2 November 2015 22: 08 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      But doesn’t it bother you that landing requires less effort on the engine, and as a rule in tanks and pylons is already empty?
                2. Susul 2 November 2015 22: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yah? And who claimed that?
                  On trials, he climbed only with half-empty tanks, watch a movie on the F-35 Discovery, look at the engine traction and the take-off mass of this pepilats. It was never officially declared as a vertical take-off aircraft, because miracles do not happen; an engine with a thrust of 12 tons will not take off a take-off load of more than 12 tons, and it has an empty weight of 14 tons. So he can only take off from the ground on fast and furious and in pairs of fuel in tanks, and in cool weather
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. tegezen 3 November 2015 11: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              It must also be taken into account that the efficiency of the fan and nozzles in the vertical mode is still lower than 100%, i.e. thrust in vertical takeoff will be less than 19 tons.
        7. The comment was deleted.
        8. seos 2 November 2015 13: 18 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          And the cost of the engine depends on its power - the engine from the Mig-29 costs 1.5 times cheaper than from the Su-27. So 1 engine aircraft is not cheaper than 2 engine.
      3. Bayonet 2 November 2015 14: 45 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        it is strange that our designers do not like experiments.

        Our designers would be happy to experiment, they just do not have the means to do this. hi
      4. Jack-b 2 November 2015 16: 41 New
        • 16
        • 0
        +16
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        “Pratt Whitney” F-135 has a formless thrust of 13 tons. Afterburner - 19 tons!
        He alone burns harder than two MiG-29 engines. With a dry mass in 1700 kg.

        You can wonder: why the comparison with the MiG-29 and not with the Yak-130? There you could say it alone burns three times stronger than two engines from the Yak-130!
        Maybe it would be more correct to compare the ratio of thrust to mass?
        Depending on the model, the attitude to empty mass without afterburner ranges from 35 to 0,82 for F-0,98. MiG 0,92. With the afterburner at F-35 from 1,2 to 1,46, at MiG 1,52. With normal take-off weight, the same ratios are 0,5-0,53 versus 0,66 and 0,75-0,8 versus 1,09, respectively. As it is not too much he zhzhot he alone. Of course, throwing his hats does not make sense, but there is no need to distort it either.
      5. Couch General 2 November 2015 20: 29 New
        • -4
        • 0
        -4
        Maybe the F-35 is very good, maybe it's inexpensive, but the anti-aircraft missile is even cheaper, and Russia's air defense is definitely the best in the world and the airborne forces only complement it.
        1. Catafract 2 November 2015 20: 38 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: Sofa General
          Maybe the F-35 is very good, maybe it's inexpensive, but the anti-aircraft missile is even cheaper, and Russia's air defense is definitely the best in the world and the airborne forces only complement it.

          Air defense and air force is a single complex, without air force air defense is easily destroyed in particular by cruise missiles and a massive raid of drones, without a strong air force the benefits of air defense are minimal.
          1. complete zero 2 November 2015 23: 05 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            I don’t doubt that someone’s air defense of any tank column will be fired by cruise missiles (not cheap, what do you think?) and drones (massive) are not cheap
            1. Catafract 3 November 2015 13: 20 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Do you think the C400 / 300 anti-aircraft missile is cheaper (only they can pose a threat to high-altitude targets)?
              in the U.S. drones just do not experience a shortage, but to shoot them down without fighters is a problem.
        2. complete zero 2 November 2015 23: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I wanted to put a plus (I pressed the wrong button))) everything is correct for which you are minus and didn’t understand
      6. tomket 2 November 2015 22: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Work on the “Bird” was not in vain.

        After this phrase everything became clear. About really breakthrough is not written.
    2. Junior, I 2 November 2015 06: 43 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Can I go give up?

      We don’t give up to us))))
      Let them bring the car to the end first, while they see hi
      1. Lapkonium 2 November 2015 07: 11 New
        • 18
        • 0
        +18
        If 120 cars in the army were cut, then 6 prototypes without nichrome is what?
        1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 07: 24 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: Lapkonium
          then 6 prototypes without nichrome is what?


          took the T-50 (PAK-FA) under personal control
          http://sfw.so/1148931087-putin-vzyal-t-50-pak-fa-pod-lichnyj-kontrol.html
          news from 2010 of the year
          1. BMW
            BMW 2 November 2015 07: 53 New
            • 26
            • 0
            +26
            Enough from empty to empty.
            Fact:
            1. The backlog of a heavy machine is reinforced concrete for 20 years, but I think that there will be more.
            2. F-35 in five years will bring to mind, at least model A, do not go to a fortuneteller.
            3. In a light car, even scabies didn’t start, and the lag would only increase.
            4. Enough to compare the T-50 and F-35, these are cars of different classes.
            5. Putin Vostochny also took control, and what, and nothing. His control is that dead poultice.
            hi
            1. fa2998 2 November 2015 08: 25 New
              • 11
              • 0
              +11
              I completely agree! The F-35 is already the second generation 5 aircraft at the adversaries. If the F-22 is somewhere mowing, this is the first stone, they will make a new modification. We are 15-20 years behind. One talking head on TV. hi
              1. NEXUS 2 November 2015 10: 10 New
                • 16
                • 0
                +16
                Quote: fa2998
                ! F-35 is the second generation 5 aircraft at adversaries

                Sorry, but you can ask why the F-35 fighter is a 5th generation fighter? Have you seen its high-speed characteristics? Without the afterburner, it does not fly at supersonic sound, and this is one of the necessary conditions.
                Second, there’s a lot of talk about 120 Lightings that have already been sent to the troops. You can also rivet 1200 RAW cars and say that this fighter went into series at every corner. But there were NO state tests! All the sores that the F-22 suffers successfully took over and F-35. And we still need to see if the Americans can solve all these problems, this is a big question.
                With regards to the PAK FA, the work goes on without fuss. There hasn’t been any progress in terms and yet, it’s said that the T-50 will go into production in the year 16. And as far as I understand, the output will not be a 5th generation fighter, and a 5+ generation fighter.
                Regarding the 5th generation LFI, we bring to the attention that the MIG Design Bureau, on its own initiative, has reanimated the work on MIG-1.44 and is working on the basis of this to create a lightweight 5th generation fighter. hi
                1. BMW
                  BMW 2 November 2015 11: 03 New
                  • 8
                  • 0
                  +8
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  5+ generation fighter.

                  Could you comment as a specialist what bonuses the plus sign gives. hi
                  1. NEXUS 2 November 2015 13: 12 New
                    • 6
                    • 0
                    +6
                    Quote: bmw
                    Could you comment as a specialist what bonuses the plus sign gives.

                    To date, there is only one serial generation 5 fighter, the F-22 Raptor.
                    Compare the performance of PAK FA with F-22, those that are published (it’s clear that a lot of things are classified and distorted, but the main characteristics, I think, are close to those stated).
                    Speed ​​characteristics: F-22, maximum speed with afterburner-2420 (say 2570), the T-50 has a maximum speed with afterburner (with the engine of the first stage!) 2995 km. Without afterburner, respectively 1870 km against 2230 km.
                    Range: 2300 km at the Raptor, versus 4300 at the PAK FA. Moreover, even with two additional tanks, the Raptor flies at 3300 km.
                    Well, further along the combat radius, practical ceiling, the PAK FA also has better indicators.
                    I won’t talk about the radars of these aircraft, because everything is dark and foggy there like on the seabed (you know the state secret). But the Raptor is a 5th generation fighter, given the superiority in many TX T-50s over the F-22, which then PAK FA ?
                    You can disagree with this opinion or agree, but even in the 90s it’s badly poor, albeit on our own initiative and often with bare enthusiasm, but our design bureaus worked on the next generation fighters. And to say that we are 20 years behind is at least ridiculous .MIG-1.44, if my memory serves me, rose in 2000. They also worked on the SU-47 "Golden Eagle" for carrier-based aviation.
                    In addition, what Americans and we are putting into the concept of a fighter of the 5th generation, while demanding the characteristics corresponding to the machines are very different. And it is not at all a fact that in a REAL air battle, for example, our SU-35 will not stick F-22 , although our fighter generation 4 ++.
                    1. patsantre 2 November 2015 18: 41 New
                      • -2
                      • 0
                      -2
                      You absolutely do not understand the figures given by you. Firstly, these are speeds for an airplane with a second stage engine, and secondly, even with it it will not develop 3000 km / h, the glider will not stand.
                      With the engine of the first stage, it is inferior to the Raptor in out-of-speed speed.
                      1. NEXUS 2 November 2015 19: 00 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        Quote: patsantre
                        With the engine of the first stage, it is inferior to the Raptor in out-of-speed speed.

                        A source in the studio, a connoisseur. The engine of the second stage, differs from the engine that is now installed on the T-50, is only economical. In any case, the developers say so. Or did you, dear merge the real characteristics of the product 30? wassat
                  2. silver_roman 2 November 2015 13: 44 New
                    • 7
                    • 0
                    +7
                    I don’t want to offend anyone, but there are plenty of “experts” here, but specialists ...

                    Quote: bmw
                    what bonuses gives a plus sign.

                    unfortunately, the plus sign gives only karma and a sense of invincibility to the "experts." but in fact there is no 5+ concept yet. And logically, this is an aircraft that has in its design characteristics close to the 6th generation. requirements that are not yet clearly defined. So all the talk about 5+ .... negative Again I do not want to run around anyone, my IMHO
                    1. NEXUS 2 November 2015 14: 37 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: silver_roman
                      unfortunately, the plus sign gives only karma and a sense of invincibility to the "experts." but in fact there is no 5+ concept yet.

                      There is no 6th generation concept, you are right. But the elements preceding this are already there, for example AI (artificial intelligence, or its similarity, call it what you prefer), which the next generation aircraft will most likely have. hi
                      1. silver_roman 2 November 2015 15: 40 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        it's not AI even close !!!! just a certain algorithm, which, depending on the incoming variables, will act according to the scheme. If it’s simple, it’s like a logical circuit: if YES, then so, if NO, then so.
                        If once someone creates an AI, then the world will surely turn upside down. Just, again, ours clumsily used this extremely unattainable concept today.
                        Imagine that automation decides for you when it’s better for the pilot to eject. I understand that it can be ridiculous, but speed is important. The pilot may try to save the car, although the situation is irreversible and, as a result, the pilot may die. And vice versa, an aircraft may fall into a residential area. All this is taken into account, processed, and depending on this there is a choice: either bailout, or a hint to the pilot, etc. This is already a long time ago, it is just constantly being improved. What exactly our people put into this concept of “AI”, we will find out soon
                  3. tomket 2 November 2015 22: 20 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: bmw
                    what bonuses gives a plus sign.

                    Long-range battle and work on the ground. what the "Raptor" can not do.
                2. silver_roman 2 November 2015 13: 41 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  And as far as I understand, the output will be not a 5th generation fighter, but a 5+ generation fighter.

                  belay
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  All the sores with which the F-22 suffers safely took over and the F-35

                  as far as I know, the sores are different: the Raptor had problems with air supply, hence the height limit seems to be like.
                  In lightning - the design does not withstand either vibration or overload. not clear to the end. All other conversations about what does not fly, not maneuverable, small radius, etc. - in TOPKU! They have a different approach to use.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  T-50 will go into series in 16

                  tirelessly you repeat it ... no
                  But given the PLANS for the modified GPV-2020, in the best case, 20-12 pieces will reach the series until 15. BETTER ... just as raw. So you need to face the truth!
                  1. NEXUS 2 November 2015 13: 51 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    In lightning - the design does not withstand either vibration or overload. not clear to the end.

                    There’s a whole bunch of problems there, starting with a helmet, thanks to which, when you bail out pilots, they fold their necks and end with an arsenal.
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    All other conversations about what does not fly, not maneuverable, small radius, etc. - in TOPKU!

                    Oh well! So all the problems have been fixed? laughing And you can find out why the series was postponed until 19?
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    tirelessly you repeat it ...

                    Because there haven’t been any applications for a postponement of the deadlines yet.
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    But given the PLAN for the modified GPV-2020, in the best case, about 20-12 pieces will reach the series and 15 years.

                    Oh li. This is your purely personal opinion. But let's turn on the logic and think about it ... The adversary is not sleeping either, and the competitors too, and therefore, if we do not honor ourselves, it is these comrades who will force us to build the PAK FA and build them in sufficient quantities . Add to this the elementary benefit of trade, which is also very important.
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    BETTER ... just as raw.

                    This is why it’s raw? That is, you think that an unfinished car will be passed through the ICG and put into production? Hmm, a bold statement.
                    1. silver_roman 2 November 2015 15: 31 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      There is a whole bunch of problems.

                      I agree - the helmet is really heavy. But it does not affect acceptance into the series. Rather, they will refuse it or bring it to mind. All the same auxiliary system.
                      And what is wrong with weapons? sort of shot back and fine?
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Oh well! So all the problems have been fixed?

                      I have listed the disadvantages of lightning - these are not gaps, but simply disadvantages. and I doubt that the states laid in the requirement of the aircraft the radius of our dryers. The same goes for maneuverability. On the other hand, over-maneuverability should be inherent in the 5th generation, but the conversation is not about that. The race for generations is all nonsense. The main thing is that the aircraft performs what it was created for and so far we cannot deny that it cannot cope with it.
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Because there haven’t been any applications for a postponement of the deadlines yet.

                      acceptance in a series will not give anything really. she will only say that the tests are completed, but it is likely that childhood diseases will crawl out further. more precisely, this is for sure, given the complexity of the project. That and it is important not to enter the series, but the number in the series, and they are extremely small. they already have 120 +20 "experimental" + 170 with a penny "foot and mouth disease" ...
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Oh li. This is your purely personal opinion.

                      Yes, my opinion, but based on the facts that it is extremely rare in such matters to go ahead of schedule, and if this happens, rarely leads to good. I’m all about the fact that ours are going perfectly on schedule, but the announced timelines are not real. 20-25 years for such a project from R&D to a series is the norm. That is why I, like Rogozin, ceased to respect what they shout more than they do. Always been a supporter of the Soviet approach, where everything was secret. And at us at all exhibition venues they fly on practically empty boxes.
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      This is why raw then?

                      Take the same Su-34s. If my memory serves me right, then they were put into service, but they finished them a couple more years for sure. Raw - does not mean that his keel will fall off. Even today there is infa that the same AFARs on the T-50 do not work 100% of the time, etc. And the deadlines are 2016. It's over and I would like, but the deadline has almost come, but what do we see? that really. on Max somehow flew everything.
                      I'm not pessimistic, I just try to really look at things. And EVEN if for some reason it is introduced into the series in the year 16, I do not believe that this is a completely ready-made and reliable aircraft. in general, time will show. not much left.
                    2. Oh no no no 4 November 2015 03: 55 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      There’s a whole bunch of problems there, starting with a helmet, thanks to which, when you bail out pilots, they fold their necks and end with an arsenal.



                      Who told you this? Or do you feel like it? To which pilots and when did they curl their necks? The fact that the F-35 was adopted by the U.S. Air Force this year, there are more than two hundred of them and in the tens of thousands of hours of operation, no penguin crashed and not one pilot was hurt, is that so, little things? And can it remind you how many and with what periodicity fall, it would seem, already mastered Su 27 and its versions? Just the same Penguin on reliability has already surpassed everyone.

                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Oh well! So all the problems have been fixed? And you can find out why the series was postponed until 19?


                      As was said above, there are already more than 200 penguins and they have already been adopted! But to see the Yankees forgot to notify the Nexus ..,!

                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Oh li. This is your purely personal opinion. But let's turn on the logic and think about it ... The adversary is not sleeping either, and the competitors too, and therefore, if we do not honor ourselves, it is these comrades who will force us to build the PAK FA and build them in sufficient quantities . Add to this the elementary benefit of trade, which is also very important.


                      Personal opinion? In fact, even on the site there was infa, how many MOs ordered the T-50, 12 units .., and even that, purely pass, for urapatriots. And what is still not a single one in the ranks .. And you seriously believe that the defense industry of the Russian Federation can, if it can be done, make as many of these PAXFs as needed for the database, if suddenly, God forbid, war? :) and for sale! :)

                      Quote: NEXUS
                      This is why it’s raw? That is, you think that an unfinished car will be passed through the ICG and put into production? Hmm, a bold statement.


                      PAK FA is not only raw, it hasn’t been finished yet! These 6 prototypes that are, these are not combat aircraft, but test benches. Above, you describe there the advantages of PAK FA over the F-35 and the Raptor ... This is called-fantasize!
                      1. silver_roman 4 November 2015 10: 13 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        Sober glances, welcome drinks
                        The only thing I wanted to answer in your comment was the reliability of the Su-27.
                        You most likely had in mind the incidents that occurred with the Indian su-30MKI.
                        So it seems that the commission recognized that the pilots were to blame, not the technician.
                        Although this is most often. I remember even at the university I was amazed at the concept of the human factor: almost all situations can be adapted to it request
                        And about the penguin, you are absolutely right. Yes, the car is not hassle-free, yes, it does not meet all the criteria of the 5th generation, but it all does not make sense if it performs the task assigned to it perfectly.
                        The main questions there are on the body, more precisely on its power unit, on vibrations and loads, because precisely because of this, the operation of the aircraft was stopped several times. Microcracks appeared. The rest of the aircraft shows itself perfectly.
                        And by the way, our PAK FA also has problems with the stiffness of the airframe (maybe I’m not completely correct using the concepts), but it’s not just that he cut the maximum speed and, as it were, infa skipped to this point.
                3. NIKNN 2 November 2015 21: 03 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  5+ generation fighter.

                  The company attributed fundamentally new engines to sixth generation combat aircraft (meaning that they will be “multi-mode” capable of operating as a once-through type), materials, energy supply systems, and weapons. Fighters should be faster than existing fifth-generation aircraft, have a greater range and a number of new technologies, such as "self-healing structures" and "multi-spectral stealth"

                  Somehow you can’t put anything to the “+”. Although the existing 5th generation is somewhat different from the concept, but thinking towards the end of “life” will be finalized.
                4. g1v2 2 November 2015 22: 09 New
                  • 7
                  • 0
                  +7
                  This f35 was given to you. request The advantage of American aviation over ours is not at all in it, but in a large number of f15 and f16. As well as our advantage on earth in a large number of t72. In my opinion, the f35, despite attempts to make it universal, turned out to be an extremely narrow-minded aircraft. It is completely imprisoned for ranged combat. That is, he must see the enemy before, go unnoticed and launch missiles from a long distance. If he cannot do this, then at medium and close range he does not shine anything good. So if we can find him before he does us, then all his advantage as a fifth-generation aircraft will fly into the pipe. So we need an asymmetric answer - to saturate the VKS with detection tools in the area of ​​which f35 cannot remain hidden. After which I personally do not see any particular advantages over our 4+ aircraft.
            2. Cherdak 2 November 2015 15: 17 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: bmw
              His control is that dead poultice.


              “We are not building a holiday facility”
              Construction of the Vostochny Cosmodrome will end in 2015

              “This is not a question of the decision of the big boss — the president, prime minister or supervising deputy prime minister,” said Dmitry Rogozin, speaking about the timing of the first launch of the rocket from the new cosmodrome. “This is a question that will be decided by a special state commission that will take over the whole responsibility for system availability. ”
            3. Pilat2009 2 November 2015 17: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: bmw
              Fact:

              The fact is that nowadays you can’t fly far with one glider (even without special coverage). On the other hand, how catastrophic is the lag? Maybe it’s better to compare weapons and not speed? Write down specifically the detection range of the drying and the amer, can it be captured by the missile’s missile and at what distance? Detection range of a stationary radar? And so on ....
          2. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 09: 47 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            What are you doing? if not forgotten, he also personally appointed Serdyukov
          3. srelock 2 November 2015 14: 02 New
            • -10
            • 0
            -10
            Here's a fresh run from LM: https: //www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35fast_facts4q2015_.pdf
            Price tags - chic: $ 94-115.k. $, well, and what cake without a cherry - (not including engine) laughingI won’t be surprised if in the export version there will also be a bill acceptor near the ore. wassat
            Well and so, for comparison:
            _______________ F-35C; Su-27SK; Su-34
            length _________ 15.7m; 22m; 23.3m
            wingspan ___ 13.1m; 14.7m; 14.7m
            height _________ 4.48m; 6m; 6m
            wing area__62.1 sq.m; 62 sq.m; 62sq.m
            engine thrust
            afterburner _____ 18150kg; sum. 25000kg
            b / f ____________ 11300 kgs; Sum. 15200kg
            empty weight ______ 15800 kg; 16000 kg; 22000kg
            ratio
            thrust to mass _____ 1.149; 1.56; 1.136
            maximum
            take-off weight ____ 32000kg; 33000 kg; 45000kg
            ratio
            thrust to mass _____ 0.57; 0.75; 0.55
            engine weight_1750kg; sum. 3100 kg


            In aerial combat, the Su-34 and F-35C will compete with equal rivals, but I don’t understand one moment ... Where do these mediocrity from LM look? What did they spend everything is displaced ... ugh, the whole mass of the plane? Where is the armor ?! Any horseradish in slippers from rusty Bulgarian AKM will crash him !!! wassat
            1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 15: 06 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              how can one compare the F-35C - a single-seat, inconspicuous fifth-generation fighter for the US Navy, with a single engine based on aircraft carriers and the su-34 - a two-generation twin-engine front-line bomber with two engines, which is almost 4 times larger than the F-2? what armor? maybe he also put a machine gunner on the tail?
              1. srelock 2 November 2015 15: 13 New
                • -3
                • 0
                -3
                Quote: kamil_tt
                how can one compare the F-35C - a low-visibility fifth-generation fighter for the US Navy, with a single engine, based on aircraft carriers and the su-34 - a front bomber with two engines, which is almost 2 times larger than the F-35?

                I compared them in terms of air combat.
                what armor? maybe he also put a machine gunner on the tail?
                How do you live without a sense of humor? smile
          4. Cherdak 2 November 2015 15: 14 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            There is such an "insider (???)" infa:

            The long-term plan for the T-50 until 2020:
            2016 - T-50-9, T-50-10, T-50-11.
            2017 - T-50-12 (repeated statics), T-50S-1,2.
            2018 - T-50S-3,4
            2019 - T-50S-5,6,7,8, PMI-1,2.
            2020 - T-50S-9,10,11,12, PMI-3,4.
            The design documentation for the plant has not yet arrived at T-50S and PMI products.

            See http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/4618-t-50-a-6/
            1. srelock 2 November 2015 15: 19 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Cherdak
              There is such an "insider (???)" infa:
              See http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/4618-t-50-a-6/
              It is very likely that Aeshen Wei has an official drain tank.
        2. Susul 2 November 2015 08: 35 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          These are factory samples.
          T-50 is still in pilot testing
    3. Sweles 2 November 2015 09: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The estimated cost of producing one unit of F-35A per 2018 year is 85 million dollars (taking into account inflation). Cheaper only Chinese plastic crafts.


      there is other data, more than 100mil. apiece, which is probably why that's why Canada refused penguins.
      Canada will withdraw from the program for the creation of a fifth-generation fighter-bomber F-35 and will not purchase these aircraft from the United States: this is the position of the country's new prime minister Justin Trudeau.

      Read more: http://newsrbk.ru/news/2412733-otkaz-kanadyi-ot-F-35-oboydetsya-ssha-v-desyatki-
      millionov-dollarov.html
      1. Pilat2009 2 November 2015 20: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Sveles
        Canada will withdraw from the fifth-generation F-35 fighter-bomber program and will not purchase these vehicles from the United States:

        And who is asking her? In the first, NATO members were let down an obligatory order, in the second, F-16s are not eternal and will soon be scrapped. So Wishlist, Wishlist, but the park needs to be updated, that’s exactly in 2020 and will be updated
    4. Bayonet 2 November 2015 10: 04 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      Can I go give up?

      What for? Sew hats urgently (and more fellow ), it may still turn out to throw an adversary! smile
      Finally, a normal article, without stupid groaning and ridicule.hi
      1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 11: 23 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        and therefore immediately gone to the minuses)
        1. Bayonet 2 November 2015 14: 54 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: kamil_tt
          and therefore immediately gone to the minuses)

          Because not about the "Svidomo" or "Obamka monkey", but technical. smile
          1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 15: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            lovers of a serious analytical program "Military Secret with Igor Prokopenko" did not appreciate ..
    5. vladimir_krm 2 November 2015 10: 56 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Yeah ... another article from Kaptsov or Majumdar, and I unsubscribe from VO ... these militant amateurs were bullied ...
      1. IS-80 2 November 2015 11: 08 New
        • 18
        • 0
        +18
        Quote: vladimir_krm
        Yeah ... another article from Kaptsov or Majumdar, and I unsubscribe from VO ... these militant amateurs were bullied ...

        Do not take it to heart. In addition, you wrote about the benefits of Rezun in the sense that his books gave the opposite effect. Do not be angry at Comrade Kaptsov's attitude to him, let’s say, as to a techno-dictionary. smile
        1. vladimir_krm 2 November 2015 18: 02 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Duc, Rezun, at least interestingly wrote: in which anthill to sit down to improve health, or how to trade watermelons :) And what is the use of these? :)))
      2. Belousov 2 November 2015 16: 37 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        So what did you expect from the Professor? He is a famous specialist with us, and immediately in all sectors laughing . Well, his conclusions are simply the ultimate truth. It’s just that he used to hide Russophobia somehow better in articles, and as soon as he got bored publicly decided to recoup. Do not pay serious attention to the attempts of these God-chosen goods. The myth about the “invisibility” of these devices has long been debunked, AFARs are certainly good at them, but the armaments are of a fairly average level, maneuverability was sacrificed to “pseudo-invisibility”, so if the enemy is not shot down at distant approaches, then in a “dog dump” they diplomatically expressed "teach courtesy." soldier
      3. Belousov 2 November 2015 16: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So what did you expect from the Professor? He is a famous specialist with us, and immediately in all sectors laughing . Well, his conclusions are simply the ultimate truth. It’s just that he used to hide Russophobia somehow better in articles, and as soon as he got bored publicly decided to recoup. Do not pay serious attention to the attempts of these God-chosen goods. The myth about the “invisibility” of these devices has long been debunked, AFARs are certainly good at them, but the armaments are of a fairly average level, maneuverability was sacrificed to “pseudo-invisibility”, so if the enemy is not shot down at distant approaches, then in a “dog dump” they diplomatically expressed "teach courtesy." soldier
    6. avdkrd 2 November 2015 13: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      Anyone who was not convinced by these simple and obvious things can continue to retell the tale of a terribly expensive plane, at the cost of a solid piece of gold.

      Can I go give up?

      I do not understand the purpose of this article. To convince the reader that we are hopelessly behind? It is believed that the T-50 is not forced because it is needed as a flying laboratory, and not as the main aircraft of the VKS. Stealth technologies do not give an obvious advantage - detection technologies have stepped forward, in addition, while the plane is invisible, he himself is blind, and the price for STELS must be paid for both aerodynamics and a huge rise in price. A 5th generation airplane has (should be) other nannies. On the t-50, this is an all-round AFAR and cruising supersonic (according to the project). All this can be realized on the Su-30-35 for completely different money and on old production facilities.
    7. Juborg 2 November 2015 14: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      This is the author of the article in pursuit. Let them rejoice or think. There is a separate discussion about performance characteristics and engines. http://afirsov.livejournal.com/110338.html
      1. El-bog 2 November 2015 16: 59 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Great link. I liked the comment on her. And I think the man is right


        1. A glider optimized for small EPR loses in aerodynamic performance to the glider of a normal airplane.

        2. Physics and again physics: a small EPR is achieved by reflection and absorption of EM waves of the centimeter and to a lesser extent decimeter range. In meter dimensions of heterogeneity in the medium (the plane in the air) and the characteristics of the so-called. the skin layer during absorption becomes such that scattering cannot be avoided in principle, despite all the tricks with the geometry and properties of the glider coating. That is, against the very old and most modern radars, the F-35 is not "invisible" with all the consequences. Scientists in the United States are highly qualified and they could not warn the military about this.

        3. Cut? It pulls as an explanation, but only partially - for it is possible to “saw” on endless upgrades of F-16 and F-18, and it would be even more useful.

        There is only one conclusion: in terms of financing, an order of magnitude, if not two, better than that of competitors from countries of geopolitical opponents, try to ruin them on the development of an analogue of the F-35 and remove competitors from client countries, striking them with a national air force such a miracle as F-35.
    8. Pilat2009 2 November 2015 17: 26 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      Can I go give up?

      Russians do not give up?
    9. Civil 2 November 2015 18: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are lying! We have such caps ...
    10. Nick 2 November 2015 20: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      Anyone who was not convinced by these simple and obvious things can continue to retell the tale of a terribly expensive plane, at the cost of a solid piece of gold.

      Can I go give up?

      Yes to you! Kaptsov shouts kapets, and lists the characteristics and estimated cost of production. I won’t discuss the characteristics, but at a pro-va cost and a selling price, the distance is huge. Every economist and even accountant knows this. Definitely the cost is added to the cost of development and development of the project. Of course, if the order is a couple of thousand, then this will not affect the final cost too much, just some 3 million of Baku. Only this amount is unlikely to reach. Now many countries have already left the project, and the United States has been reducing the military budget for more than a year. There will be other expenses that are not taken into account when calculating the cheats cost of production. Less than 130-140 million $ in the most ascetic version A, F-35 will not cost IMHO. For comparison, our SU-35 of the 5-generation for export costs 80-85 $ For the Russian aerospace forces, it is naturally half the price.
    11. tomket 2 November 2015 22: 04 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      Can I go give up?

      As before, he wrote ......... "Oleg Kaptsov came, brought order to the forum, told everyone and everyone that the f-35 plane is no problem, the plane with a cool radar, and practically for nothing! Every air force wants it, 10 years in line. "
      In general, Oleg will rest and sing laudatory odes to a pregnant penguin, even when the Air Force refuses him, by analogy with f-111A. Will tell how they ruined an outstanding aircraft.
      1. Your friend 3 November 2015 01: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: tomket
        Quote: PlotnikoffDD
        Can I go give up?

        As before, he wrote ......... "Oleg Kaptsov came, brought order to the forum, told everyone and everyone that the f-35 plane is no problem, the plane with a cool radar, and practically for nothing! Every air force wants it, 10 years in line. "
        In general, Oleg will rest and sing laudatory odes to a pregnant penguin, even when the Air Force refuses him, by analogy with f-111A. Will tell how they ruined an outstanding aircraft.

        Is it a professor? He was kind of going to dump the forum?
    12. 11 black 3 November 2015 06: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The article is just awful nonsense - I can reasonably explain why one T50 will tear to pieces the whole link of these penguins and will not even choke ... in general, I already made this argument once, if I need to explain it again. But Oleg still will not calm down in any way - he is the only and unique specialist on ships and aircraft and on the latest cold plasma system - he takes pride in the Soviet education system)))
      1. 11 black 3 November 2015 07: 06 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Too lazy to write again - so I will insert the last comment - do not judge strictly))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Gomel
        he lags behind on xnumx years.

        Right to the point!
        Only not at ten, but at 20, with a dash

        Well, yes, of course, if you think that T50 will be EQUAL in its characteristics, then F22 then lags behind, but we remember that the raptor is an extremely highly specialized machine adapted exclusively for warfare in the air, unable to work on the ground (the engineers themselves created it were guided by this principle "not a pound on the ground" - T 50 is created as a MULTI-PURPOSE machine
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        1. Radiation pattern.
        The radar emits signals in a certain, rather narrow, sector of space - as a rule, + -60 degrees straight ahead. Which does not affect the ability to detect

        2. It is possible to detect the work of radar, but this will not help to direct a missile at it. A low-power air-to-air guidance target cannot detect and capture a target whose EPR is much smaller than 1 sq. meters (F-35 score 0,01-0,001 sq. m)

        Well, the avionics T50 surpasses the raptor, from, admire:

        H036-01-1 - frontal (main) AFAR, 900 mm wide and 700 mm high, 1522 transmit-receive module. At present, the first frontal AFAR is installed on the third flying prototype of the PAK FA (w / n 053), in terms of performance characteristics it is at least as good as the reptile ...
        Н036Б - two side-view AFARs. H036B and H036-01 transmit-receive modules are similar.
        N036L - two L-band AFARs in wing socks. For a long time, there was a debate about the purpose of these antennas. It has been suggested that this is a long-wavelength anti-stealth detector (although calculations showed a short range of such a system) or antennas are used to synthesize the aperture. The point in the discussions was the official information that these stations are supposed to be used only as a system of state recognition of targets.
        + t 50 also has a range of optical weapon detection / guidance systems
        1. 11 black 3 November 2015 07: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          01 КС-0 (О - defensive) - counteraction system of the ICG seeker

          101 KS-V (V - air) - quantum optical location system, there are rumors that a torch of an engine over a hundred km can be detected ... it's me about stealth ...

          101 KS-U (U - ultraviolet) - optical system for the issuance of DU for KS-O

          101 KS-N (N - ground) - hanging sighting container

          As you can see, the avionics of our aircraft are very, very, and the side-view radars completely leave the penguin and lizard “with a nose” giving our significant advantage in the airspace control area
          + there are 12 suspension points (6 in the internal compartments)

          all-perspective controlled thrust vector and ultra-long-range KS172 ... something far away he somehow left the raptor ...
          1. 11 black 3 November 2015 07: 17 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            What’s it for me - the T50 radar is much more perfect than any other detection system of any other fighter - is it a joke with 3, THREE RADARS WITH AFAR, which simultaneously scan space in three directions from the aircraft, giving the stealth like ФNNUMX no chance to go unnoticed.
            In addition, the T50 is much faster than the F35, that is, it will be able to keep the enemy at a convenient distance for itself, maneuver between the superior enemy forces and not allow itself to be surrounded, and the T50 rockets fly at 300 kilometers at the moment - nothing like the T35, T50 will simply shoot penguins with 300 km preventing them from approaching the distance of the return shot, and F35, besides its stealth (absolutely worthless against three, THREE radars with AFAR N036 and the quantum optical torch detection system KS-V at T50) On the technical level, nothing can ...
            1. retardu 3 November 2015 10: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              what nonsense?
              In any case, stealth gives an advantage over the non-stealth circuit board, even if it has at least 10 afar.
              cool tales about 300 km, at such a distance a rocket can be some kind of transport carrier, miraculously
              1. 11 black 3 November 2015 13: 40 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: retardu
                what nonsense?
                In any case, stealth gives an advantage over the non-stealth circuit board, even if it has at least 10 afar.
                cool tales about 300 km, at such a distance a rocket can be some kind of transport carrier, miraculously

                Compare the speeds of the transporter and the F35 in without afterburner mode)) I remember he cannot even give out the 1 max without the afterburner)) And what are the advantages of stealth if you are already found for the 100-150 km (I'm talking about the combined potential of a quantum optical system and the most advanced radar system at the moment), tell us exactly what advantages does the F35 have here?
                1. retardu 3 November 2015 15: 04 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  Such that the rocket can hardly go aboard the stealth scheme without correction from the plane. How many current missiles are there? range of target capture with an EPR area of ​​5 m2 of active radar seeker - 40 km, what are the prospects for capturing a target with an EPR of 0.01?
                  At the moment, no radar will detect the target with its EPR (according to open sources) at such a distance as you say.
      2. Pimply 3 November 2015 10: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: 11 black
        The article is just awful nonsense - I can reasonably explain why one T50 will tear to pieces the whole link of these penguins and will not even choke ... in general, I already made this argument once, if I need to explain it again. But Oleg still will not calm down in any way - he is the only and unique specialist on ships and aircraft and on the latest cold plasma system - he takes pride in the Soviet education system)))

        Forward. Especially considering that the real performance characteristics of the T-50 are not yet known, since development is still underway
  2. shans2 2 November 2015 06: 41 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The author likes to throw on the fan and go against the logic and facts))), it has been known for several weeks that until the 19 of the year his acceptance for service was postponed ... this is an exhaustive feature of the craft, for the PAK FA will be adopted sooner ....
    1. mav1971 2 November 2015 18: 52 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: shans2
      The author likes to throw on the fan and go against the logic and facts))), it has been known for several weeks that until the 19 of the year his acceptance for service was postponed ... this is an exhaustive feature of the craft, for the PAK FA will be adopted sooner ....


      How many PAKFA will be built before 19, wise guy?
      2 or 3?

      Even if you have a laser sword, you are a Jedi - but if you are alone, you are nobody and nothing! And there is no you! from the word "no way"!

      Will get into service - it makes sense when all the flight units will receive and master it.
      Everything else is the lot of boobs!
  3. Do not care 2 November 2015 06: 41 New
    • 22
    • 0
    +22
    I would also add this:
    You can pull hundreds of articles criticizing F 35 from the Internet in a second, but behind all of them is just one person - Pierre Spray. This is his finest hour (well, not counting F16, of course, in which he really participated) - a pensioner cuts grandmas
    And if objectively, the biggest problem for F 35 today is software. A more complex system operating in hard real-time mode has never been created. The developers are planning to bring it to full functionality by 2019. Then, large-scale production will begin.
    1. voyaka uh 2 November 2015 11: 19 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Yes. Software was first written in C ++ (most) and C, not in
      traditional for the American military ADA.
      And the software may be buggy. But the flexibility of additions, additives, any
      new devices, systems, weapons - incredible.
      You can hang a rocket made in France or Brazil there, conjure
      half an hour with a laptop top, and the rocket is already in the OMS of the aircraft.
      1. IS-80 2 November 2015 11: 30 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        conjure
        half an hour with a laptop top, and the rocket is already in the OMS of the aircraft.

        The main thing is not to confuse data types or not to organize a memory leak there so that the rocket does not fly in its own. laughing
    2. barbiturate 2 November 2015 15: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Do not care
      You can pull hundreds of articles criticizing F 35 from the Internet in a second, but behind all of them is just one person - Pierre Spray. This is his finest hour (well, not counting F16, of course, in which he really participated) - a pensioner cuts grandmas


      Are you serious? laughing how omnipresent fellow
  4. BMP-2 2 November 2015 06: 46 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    Fuck you! Thought again Majumdar! But no, the local fakirs haven’t yet transferred! laughing
    1. Lapkonium 2 November 2015 07: 14 New
      • -16
      • 0
      -16
      Verily, the local patriots cheer it with a torch! laughing
      1. shans2 2 November 2015 07: 21 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        yes the horror is simple, probably bombing from the elaboration of a contract with India for 154 aircraft based on the T-50 with an amount of several tens of billions)
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Mera joota 2 November 2015 09: 53 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: shans2
          yes the horror is simple, probably bombing from the elaboration of a contract with India for 154 aircraft based on the T-50 with an amount of several tens of billions)

          Is he already imprisoned? Well, the price does not surprise you? 220 million dollars for one plane! that’s where there is reason to ask why it’s so expensive ...
          Do not rush to rejoice, the Indians do not go to sign the contract, and once again see what happened, whether the car lights up again or not.
          1. vladimir_krm 2 November 2015 10: 50 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            This is not for one plane, it is for planes, plus ground equipment, plus maintenance, etc., etc. You are not surprised that once Israel bought a used F-15 at a price of over 100 million apiece?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Mera joota 2 November 2015 13: 44 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: vladimir_krm
              This is not for one plane, it is for planes, plus ground equipment, plus service

              Hindus do not buy cars, but assembly kits, which are cheaper than a finished car. As with the Su-10MKI.
              More precisely, they are not going to, but it will be so if they agree.
          2. mav1971 2 November 2015 18: 56 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Mera Joota

            Do not rush to rejoice, the Indians do not go to sign the contract, and once again see what happened, whether the car lights up again or not.


            Exactly.
            Quietly and inconspicuously, Vaud heard news of Brazil’s refusal to purchase Shell-S.
            And how many screams from the goofs that were already bought, but the best in the world. Yes, which has no analogues, but the whole world will stand in line for happiness.
            Not bought !!!
        3. Oh no no no 4 November 2015 04: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: shans2
          concluding a contract with India on 154 T-50 aircraft with a sum of several tens of billions)


          What kind of nonsense is that? :)) Hindus have long been purchased in other places ..
      2. Swag 2 November 2015 08: 37 New
        • -22
        • 0
        -22
        Better a daughter is a prostitute than a corporal’s son.
        1. Ruslan 2 November 2015 09: 07 New
          • 25
          • 0
          +25
          if your daughter becomes a prostitute, you write to us about your joy, okay. Corporal at least has a future :)
          ps what kind of down came up with this stupid saying?
          1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 09: 56 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            do not laugh, the person decided to share personal problems ..
          2. Bayonet 2 November 2015 10: 27 New
            • -13
            • 0
            -13
            Quote: ruslan
            ps what kind of down came up with this stupid saying?
            1. Ruslan 2 November 2015 10: 38 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              sin to laugh at them. I meant one of them
              1. Bayonet 2 November 2015 10: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ruslan
                I meant one of them

                I, too! hi
                1. Ruslan 2 November 2015 11: 25 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I didn’t understand it, but apparently two people didn’t understand you because of the picture.
                  I apologize for the double answer, to insert two pictures in one post, I still have not learned :)
            2. Ruslan 2 November 2015 10: 40 New
              • -17
              • 0
              -17
              or these types :)
              1. Kalmar 2 November 2015 11: 25 New
                • 23
                • 0
                +23
                Quote: ruslan
                or these types :)

                By the way, why is everything over the guy (who is highlighted in red) extorted? Chel looked at the trunk at the incompletely disassembled machine.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. podpolkovnik 2 November 2015 11: 52 New
                • 11
                • 0
                +11
                Quote: ruslan
                or these types :)

                Baby, have you ever cleaned a machine?
                If yes, then tell me about another way to optically verify barrel cleanliness.
                Put a minus to you from the heart.
                In karma, too.
                1. Ruslan 2 November 2015 13: 17 New
                  • -11
                  • 0
                  -11
                  not hami, a miracle in feathers. and without an army it’s clear what the fighter does, but in any case it looks ridiculous. Yes, the picture is not the topic of conversation, and others normally commented without too much show off, therefore, without complaints, they correctly noted its inappropriateness. and you, type left, are also minus.
                  and yes, I'm not an Indian, no karma :)
              4. Susul 2 November 2015 12: 09 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                You won’t believe it, but something like this with the shutter open can make sure the bore is clean =)
                There’s no store ...
              5. Oh no no no 4 November 2015 04: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Have you ever cleaned your weapons? :)
          3. Captain nemo 2 November 2015 15: 30 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: ruslan
            what kind of down came up with this stupid saying?

            Yes, the same one that came up with "Dembel is inevitable, as well as the world collapse of capitalism", "The army is torn sheets from the book of life", "all sergeants are ... s ...".
            And here she is the prose of life - all demobilized in the USSR did not wait for the world “collapse” of capitalism, for which they easily “crumbled” in the spring of 1991 in the referendum for the “renewed union” that state system to which they swore, and pretended to serve in the Soviet army that they won’t change her. “Torn sheets” weren’t torn out, but according to the sergeant’s staff, I have nothing to say in my case, at least from among the sergeants of my call, this turned out to be true, there’s not one I would like to meet without massacre with them. But this is probably still the exception, because of some sergeants I have a good opinion, but not from my call from my unit.
  5. Aaron Zawi 2 November 2015 06: 52 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Apparently, the PAK FA is in a hurry to rush.
    The long-term plan for the T-50 until 2020:
    2016 - T-50-9, T-50-10, T-50-11.
    2017 - T-50-12 (repeated statics), T-50S-1,2.
    2018 - T-50S-3,4
    2019 - T-50S-5,6,7,8, PMI-1,2.
    2020 - T-50S-9,10,11,12, PMI-3,4.
    The design documentation for the plant has not yet arrived at T-50S and PMI products.

    T / e is already clear that in 2020 he will not go into the series. Curious.
    1. GRAY 2 November 2015 07: 02 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      T / e is already clear that in 2020 he will not go into the series. Curious.

      2018-2019, this is the installation party already.
      Of course, the documentation was not received, now they drive the “P” - life tests, when everything is ready then the documentation will be.
    2. shans2 2 November 2015 07: 10 New
      • -8
      • 0
      -8
      Did the govnets throw up? in 17, serial production was already in 16, adoption.
      1. silver_roman 2 November 2015 13: 47 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Yeah, and Santa Claus exists !!!
    3. Odysseus 2 November 2015 17: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      T / e is already clear that in 2020 he will not go into the series. Curious.

      C-this is serial)) Well, the pace is really low. True, given the devastation after market reforms in production, personnel, and science, it is surprising that this can be done.
  6. Alex_59 2 November 2015 06: 57 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Articles about F-35 issues and weaknesses are no longer accepted as before. Instead of gloating, there is only dry irritation in the course of work on the creation of fifth-generation domestic fighters.
    Who is not perceived as before? Who had the gloating? Who has dry irritation with the progress of work on our fighters?
    A householder writes for housewives so that some nonsense in the brains of housewives is replaced with other nonsense, equally remote from aviation and technology.
    1. Lapkonium 2 November 2015 07: 14 New
      • -9
      • 0
      -9
      And on the topic have something to say?
    2. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 07: 16 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      Who is not perceived as before? Who had the gloating? Who has dry irritation with the progress of work on our fighters?

      compare tone of comments

      2012 year
      http://topwar.ru/11048-amerikanskiy-istrebitel-f-35a-nepravilnyy-samolet.html

      and opa - 2015
      http://topwar.ru/84971-f-35-okazalsya-slishkom-dorog-dazhe-dlya-ssha.html#commen


      t

      every second writes -
      Objectively, f-35 has no more and no less problems than any other aircraft in the development process. Just for political reasons, he came under the scrutiny of the press, and any failure or delay by the press swells to truly epic proportions
      and are interested - where are our analogues ??
      Quote: Alex_59
      A householder writes for housewives so that some nonsense in the brains of housewives is replaced with other nonsense, equally remote from aviation and technology.

      who on VO still tells children about technology))
      otherwise they’re reading more about the “Obama-monkey”
      1. Alex_59 2 November 2015 08: 13 New
        • 26
        • 0
        +26
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        who on VO still tells children about technology))
        otherwise they’re reading more about the “Obama-monkey”

        I see that irritation and gloating are first of all with you. You are annoyed by the fact that Russia (albeit with difficulty) is able to build the 5 generation fighter. And the gloating in you is undisguised regarding the fact that we in this matter act as catch-up. This is of course your own business, I don’t even know if you live in Russia. Rejoicing in the problems of your people is not my thing, you know better. In your articles, you joyfully savor all the achievements of the American aviation industry, and you do just that in a tone that obviously does not come from joy for the fate of world aviation, but from the desire to trample on the problems of your own aviation industry. And this is precisely the element of information warfare. You are not making any proposals; you yourself are not working in this industry; you do not want to raise our aircraft or shipbuilding. Just mock and that's it.
        Although to any adequate person, the fact that in the world there are only three powers is able to develop such a technique is sufficient. And even if we are in third place - it's still cool.
        1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 08: 44 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Quote: Alex_59
          there are only three powers in the world able to develop such a technique

          The second is France?
          Quote: Alex_59
          You are not making any proposals; you yourself are not working in this industry; you do not want to raise our aircraft or shipbuilding. Just mock and that's it.

          mock in disputes about the "obama-monkey" (if it can be called a dispute)

          and then a cool debate about technology, I think all the peasants who are even a little interested in aviation like to discuss such things
          1. Alex_59 2 November 2015 08: 54 New
            • 24
            • 0
            +24
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I think all peasants who are even a little interested in aviation like to discuss such things

            Yeah, they are fighting some nonsense by generating other nonsense. Fun, cho! The debaters would go to MAI to study or to Baumanka. Nah, there’s a cool argument, and there’s boring stuff. Reality - it’s like that, sit and draw drawings for days, argue with technologists, draw up documents and technical processes. Routine. Cool argument is more fun.
            1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 09: 30 New
              • -7
              • 0
              -7
              and then what are you doing here? expelled from Bauman?
              1. Alex_59 2 November 2015 10: 22 New
                • 7
                • 0
                +7
                Quote: kamil_tt
                and then what are you doing here? expelled from Bauman?
                I'm not perfect either. But at least I work in my engineering specialty. The nature of the work allows you to manage to write comments here.
                1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 10: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I didn’t want to offend you personally, just comments reflect the mood and general level of people visiting the resource, sometimes this is the best indicator of the mental and mental health of society
                  1. Alex_59 2 November 2015 10: 44 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: kamil_tt
                    I didn’t want to hurt

                    Yes, I didn’t seem to hurt, everything is ok :-) I am fully aware that I am not an exception to our society, far from perfect. Could work more, spend less time here.
              2. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 16: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                minus Baumanka graduates who accidentally went to the resource?)))
          2. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 09: 12 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            The fact is that unfortunately, any dispute that does not recognize the unconditional superiority of Russian weapons over the whole world is now considered a mockery of the saint. Most are not interested in facts and the actual state of affairs, truthful statistics are not interesting, thanks to propaganda and brainwashing. But the fact that such articles, albeit nullified, appear on the radical (and sometimes openly extremist) VO site, is already encouraging. I hope the 37th year does not return, people eventually cease to search everywhere for enemies and traitors, and military equipment from different countries will again become interesting as a technical product, without the red veil of false patriotism ..
            1. Alex_59 2 November 2015 09: 32 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: kamil_tt
              the fact is that any dispute that does not recognize the unconditional superiority of Russian weapons is now considered a mockery of the saint
              Who counts? Our TV will always scream that we are ahead of the rest - this is their job. Do you want to argue with them? Duck is easier to argue the concrete wall.

              Quote: kamil_tt
              most are not interested in facts and are not interested in true statistics
              Unfortunately yes. It’s better to watch "dancing with the stars" than to start thinking with your head.

              Quote: kamil_tt
              but the fact that such articles appear on the radical VO is already pleasing

              Similar articles remind me of how in 90 they fought with a scoop. And to prove the depravity of the Soviet system, they clogged up even more awkward myths than the Soviet agitprop. About losses in WWII and about millions of political shots. Such "anti-propaganda" does not raise the level of thinking of people, and also considers them a herd to which you can feed such nonsense, only now with a minus sign. In his articles, Oleg does not try to get to the bottom, but tries to fill the propaganda "patriotic" nonsense with his "anti-propaganda, anti-patriotic" nonsense. Delirium fights delirium. Enlightenment in the head does not contribute.
            2. Bayonet 2 November 2015 10: 37 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: kamil_tt
              The fact is that unfortunately, any dispute that does not recognize the unconditional superiority of Russian weapons over the whole world is now considered a mockery of the saint.
              1. dzeredzavkomimu 8 November 2015 02: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, and you apparently like a Jew from the movie? - no matter what happens, you need to look, they will suddenly give you a hat. We don’t need weapons, our partisans and the German fought well, I repeat once again - don’t poop your pants in advance
          3. rubin6286 2 November 2015 13: 04 New
            • 19
            • 0
            +19
            Guys, stop quarreling - let's fight!
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Bayonet 2 November 2015 15: 03 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Quote: Alex_59
          Just mock and that's it.

          Feels Vyshinsky's school! smile
          1. Alex_59 2 November 2015 21: 26 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Bayonet
            Feels Vyshinsky's school!

            I don’t need to sew a “policy”. Isn't that a mockery of techies' brains? The author from article to article, for example, calls the gas turbine engine - "turbine". But trying to judge things like a pro. Even in this article, he mentioned the word “powerful” several times in relation to a gas turbine engine, but he never wrote about power, but only about traction. That is, people do not distinguish power from traction and the fan from the high-pressure turbine. There is no end to work without politics.
        4. mav1971 2 November 2015 19: 22 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          who on VO still tells children about technology))
          otherwise they’re reading more about the “Obama-monkey”

          I see that irritation and gloating are first of all with you. You are annoyed by the fact that Russia (albeit with difficulty) is able to build the 5 generation fighter. And the gloating in you is undisguised regarding the fact that we in this matter act as catch-up. This is of course your own business, I don’t even know if you live in Russia. Rejoicing in the problems of your people is not my thing, you know better. In your articles, you joyfully savor all the achievements of the American aviation industry, and you do just that in a tone that obviously does not come from joy for the fate of world aviation, but from the desire to trample on the problems of your own aviation industry. And this is precisely the element of information warfare. You are not making any proposals; you yourself are not working in this industry; you do not want to raise our aircraft or shipbuilding. Just mock and that's it.
          Although to any adequate person, the fact that in the world there are only three powers is able to develop such a technique is sufficient. And even if we are in third place - it's still cool.


          You are not right.
          The premise of an article like that of a Lefthander in that cartoon "The British do not clean their guns with a brick!"
          We lost time, school, staff - due to the collapse of the country.
          To repeat is always late.
          You need to step over the relatively easy path of copying, and try to jump immediately to the second step.
          But it is very difficult.
          For the design brain is difficult.
          It is very difficult for leading cadres of the OKB - they developed their brain - as far back as 30-40 years ago, on those promises and moods.
          they need evolution, and the troops need a revolution (i.e. a different approach).
          That is the message of the article.

          And on the topic of joy.
          I was not in vain reminded of a southpaw.
          Left-handed soul hurts. when he sees lagging, weakness.
          The soul really hurts for the country when you realize it.
          Yes, there are many new products coming.
          Good ones. cool.
          But.
          They are units.
          Here are really units.
          How many really modern aircraft we have that are less than 10 years old are less than 100.
          How many Kyrgyz Caliber we have is less than 100.
          How many modern SSBNs we have - 1pcs.
          How many modern submarines do we have - 1pcs.
          How many new EW, Mercury or Kraukha complexes do we have? - less than 10.

          And so in everything. To the whole huge country.
          From this soul really hurts.
          And when you hear the flickering endless - it involuntarily becomes scary.
          how a country’s patriot gets scared.
          Who are these people?
          Why do they throw bonnets into the air when you need a bite to work and work?
          And no one mocks and tramples.
          On the contrary, those who settle down - mock and trample their country.
          There is nothing else to rejoice about.
          the experience of our ancestors says: “Don’t say a gop until you jump over” - we really if you look, we didn’t even start the run. And we still have to run away, jump, fly over an obstacle, land successfully, stop smoothly.
          Only then can we say “gop”.
          That's when we build at least 50 aircraft, train all the pilots, debug all the jambs.
          Only then can we say - we have a PAKFA plane.


          The 5 generation is even being developed by Japan - and I'm afraid I will do it on 2-3 years earlier than us.
          and note - they will have no wiring at all. They went for fiber optics. And you know that very cool. The entire element base is "on the side."
          1. Xsanchez 3 November 2015 04: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            On photonics, it’s: boldly! Only benefits are, except for a rise in price, miserable.
            Well, not a supercomputer.
      2. avt
        avt 2 November 2015 08: 52 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        otherwise they’re reading more about the “Obama-monkey”

        Persuaded! All convinced! From this moment
        Anyone who was not convinced by these simple and obvious things can continue to retell the tale of a terribly expensive plane at the cost of a whole piece of gold
        Convinced - not from a piece of gold, from a piece of shit. laughing And ,, Zumvolt "the most beautiful of all ships and the least powerful of all that the pests did. Did I correctly quote the description of the creators of Zumvolt from the last article about him? wassat
      3. Bayonet 2 November 2015 10: 47 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        who on VO still tells children about technology))
        otherwise they’re reading more about the “Obama-monkey”

        Well Oleg, hit the red millstone of the cheers! I'm on your side! That's right! And about the "Obama Monkey", it is somehow simpler and more accessible for understanding - just within the framework of intelligence. smile hi
  7. Good cat 2 November 2015 07: 02 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The opinion of the amateur: I will not touch on the question of what is better and what is worse, I’ll say only about the article, just a comparison of the maintenance of a computer and an engine with a variable vector - what is it about?
    1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 07: 27 New
      • -8
      • 0
      -8
      Quote: Good cat
      maintenance of a computer and an engine with a variable vector - what is it about?

      about the cost of service
      1. nekot 2 November 2015 09: 00 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        That is, instead of the engine, the F35 has a computer on which it flies? Then of course you can achieve any characteristics)))
  8. Rurikovich 2 November 2015 07: 03 New
    • 28
    • 0
    +28
    As soon as I saw the words “masterpiece” and “most,” I realized who the author was. request
    Is it really necessary to complicate things to big words? Or are we already considered to be an analogue of the American herd, who believes everything they say?
    And do we have to believe that this plane is the cheapest? And in Canada, which decided to abandon this project are fools? And two bombs is super for such an aircraft?
    Too many questions
    negative hi
    PS. There would be no pathetics, one could still read, and in almost all articles there is praise ... Either the armor, or the "Zamvoltov", or already the F-35!
    Our analogue of Dave Mamjumdar lol
    Nothing personal, simple statement of facts, personal opinion
  9. Cruorvult 2 November 2015 07: 08 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    In terms of manufacturability - the coolest, in terms of consistency - a lot of questions.
    Replacing A-10A with F-35.
    Was it worth it to do the 35B in the integrated case?
    The price, we write that it will be 86, and the amount of the contract for the supply of 52 pieces to the Netherlands is over 10 billion (with the condition that this is the 35A option - the cheapest, if you divide it stupidly, a little less than 200 lemons apiece).
    A magic helmet that is custom-made for a head size worth more than a hundred thousand dollars.

    IMHO, they are commercial businesses, here with telephones, a telephone, and then there is an insurance belt, a small case, laces - otherwise it will not fly.

    I think the bunch of F22 / F35 as F15 / F16 in my opinion failed.

    PS About Bird of Prey is interesting.
    1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 07: 32 New
      • -11
      • 0
      -11
      Quote: CruorVult
      A magic helmet that is custom-made for a head size worth more than a hundred thousand dollars.

      less than the cost of one guided bomb
      Quote: CruorVult
      Replacing A-10A with F-35.

      the concept of the attack aircraft with a gun has outlived itself
      instead of 30 mm shells - Mavrik missiles from unreachable heights, etc.
      Quote: CruorVult
      and the amount of the contract for the supply of 52 pieces to the Netherlands is over 10 billion

      you need to look at the contract, the plane is not a balloon - by itself it does not hang in the air

      As a rule, weapons, simulators, auxiliary power plants, ext. engines, training costs for hundreds of pilots, maintenance and repairs, spare parts, service support throughout the life cycle
      1. Cruorvult 2 November 2015 07: 48 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        Excuse me, but who decided that the concept of an attack aircraft with a gun has outlived itself ?? Part of the American generals does not agree with the cancellation of the A10.
        Of course, if you take American tactics, bomb from drones, then the attack aircraft is not needed, another thing is full support for the ground operation without an attack aircraft is not possible. Why did the attack aircraft exhaust itself, for example, the attack helicopter - no?
        Incidentally, the A10 has 7 tons of weapons, and not one gun.
        1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 08: 04 New
          • -6
          • 0
          -6
          Quote: CruorVult
          Sorry, but who decided that the concept of a ground attack aircraft with a gun has become obsolete?

          when was the last time they fired from a cannon at tanks?

          with A-10 a lot of trouble, after each salvo the gun must be sorted out
          easier to call drone with Hellfire and Mauritius
          Quote: CruorVult
          but for example an attack helicopter - no?

          this one can hide in folds of relief
          Quote: CruorVult
          support for ground operations without a ground attack aircraft is not possible.

          in the age of shilok / tungusok - death in a moment

          Dushmanov storm - easier to call a drone
          1. alexej123 2 November 2015 11: 07 New
            • 10
            • 0
            +10
            Somehow, everything just works out for you, if you were an analyst at the General Staff then. They told you for the American generals, do you think they are "stupid and do not understand the depth of the moment" ?. For attack aircraft, in the 08.08.08, the su-25, equipped with an electronic warfare system, was able to fly almost all of Georgia. Do you think the scrap?
            1. Dad Uassia 2 November 2015 16: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Duck we are talking about the A-10, and not about the Su-25.
          2. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 11: 43 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            when was the last time they fired from a cannon at tanks?

            Not long ago somewhere in the steppes of Ukraine.
            A-10 in Afghanistan less than a year ago.
        2. avt
          avt 2 November 2015 10: 13 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: CruorVult
          Excuse me, but who decided that the concept of an attack aircraft with a gun has outlived itself ?? Part of the American generals does not agree with the cancellation of the A10.

          Like who !?? Yes, before the Vietnam War, the American generals generally believed that jet guns were not needed, then the truth, "Volcano" was requested for "Phantoms."
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          with A-10 a lot of trouble, after each salvo the gun must be sorted out
          easier to call drone with Hellfire and Mauritius
          laughing But then again, the stupid Americans don’t read Oleg and the Warthog they don’t remove their weapons and even in the Baltic States they frighten us, although they have buried him more than once. Well stupid! laughing
          1. IS-80 2 November 2015 11: 12 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: avt
            Like who !?? Yes, before the Vietnam War, the American generals generally believed that jet guns were not needed, then the truth, "Volcano" was requested for "Phantoms."

            Well, here I agree with the admiral from aviation Kaptsov. The attack aircraft is no longer needed. High-precision weapons reduced its value on the battlefield to zero.
            1. avt
              avt 2 November 2015 11: 19 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Quote: IS-80
              . The attack aircraft is no longer needed. High-precision weapons reduced its value on the battlefield to zero.

              laughing From the forbidden - ,, You can walk like a neglected garden, but you can see everything baldly, and I have seen more than once. Who did you want to surprise? "Maybe you look at the fact that they put the modernized Su-25s on the subject of high-precision weapons? Or did all the attack aircraft go to waste? wassatThey are written off right after the Second World War, and they, parasites, are not written off, the flying dogs are reincarnated directly, that's all - they cut everyone, and they are parasites through alterations from training airplanes to support the ground troops and climb into the series in the form of a completely specialized projects. request Yes, and the old ones are not written off - they are being modernized. One word - parasites, well, parasites and that’s it! laughing
              1. IS-80 2 November 2015 11: 38 New
                • -3
                • 0
                -3
                Quote: avt
                and they are parasites through alterations from training aircraft to support the ground forces all climb and climb into the series in the form of quite specialized projects.

                Drive zusuls without any air defense at a cheap price. It is unlikely that such an aircraft can be called an attack aircraft. Our AN-2 then is also a ground attack aircraft. Bonbs are to him, and to hang the gun and the stormtrooper even where.
  10. Vladimir. 2 November 2015 07: 08 New
    • -18
    • 0
    -18
    F-35 is a very good aircraft. And unlike the PAK FA, it is already in service. And almost ready.
    Those people who naively believe that “stupid Americans” made garbage and “saw the budget.” Our officials saw the budget openly. But the propagandists will not tell you that. And these “stupid Americans” are building the most modern weapons in the world, and “smart patriots” think that the old T-72 and RPG-7 will bend everything they see. However, it’s bent on them.
    SWEET_SIXTEEN, I support you. But, we will not develop in this direction, because it costs a lot of money, and our officials will not sell a new yacht or a mansion. They don’t have old ones. Why spend the loot on Ivanov, you can row it!

    "The author likes to throw on the fan and go against the logic and facts))),"
    You go against logic and facts, simultaneously throwing your brains on the fan)))
    1. shans2 2 November 2015 07: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      http://vz.ru/news/2015/1/3/723195.html для тупых тыкаю
      The failure was not a surprise, postponing until 2019 the release of guns, which should have been now. Software that allows guns to work, even in plans, should not appear before 2019. But there is a more serious problem: the fact is that this software is a big headache. It is very complex and includes 8 million lines of code. A significant lag behind the schedule has been observed from the very beginning of the program development. Every year, the developers lagged behind the schedule by six months, ”said the engineer.
      1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 07: 38 New
        • -5
        • 0
        -5
        Quote: shans2
        for stupid poke
        The failure was not a surprise, delaying the release of guns, which should have been right now, until 2019. Software that allows guns to work, even in plans, should not appear before 2019 year

        For the most


        shooting full ammunition from the built-in gun, 21 August 2015 year
        video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usgBtXs16A8
        1. shans2 2 November 2015 07: 43 New
          • 12
          • 0
          +12
          the most write moronic articles about battleships and booking), then they run to open sources and write the same crap about planes and ground shooting guns, and programming from brave Americans who write about how it should work in dreams, and not how it works on business)
        2. avt
          avt 2 November 2015 10: 45 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          firing full ammunition from the built-in cannon, August 21, 2015

          wassat AS! Again the pests on Fu-35 tried! They spoiled how Zumvolt "perfection with a cannon ?? But how could they even put a cannon on the latest, prettiest plane ... E! ?? ?? They ,, dumb Americans" really don’t read Oleg and don’t put a penny at all!? ?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          with A-10 a lot of trouble, after each salvo the gun must be sorted out
          easier to call drone with Hellfire and Mauritius

          Although someone I'm stupid wassat Well, a clean fighter and
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          when was the last time they fired from a cannon at tanks?

          he will not have to work on the ground ..... Uff! Lightly. laughing
        3. EvilLion 2 November 2015 12: 05 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And what is shown in this video? Another gun test on the ground? When I do the program, I also launch it regularly and test it.

          And in general, why would he need a gun, he was "going into the air defense zone" was going to fight ...
        4. Susul 2 November 2015 12: 19 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          But what for, they bother with the gatling scheme?
          What prevented them from making a normal gun of the GSh-23-2 type, with less mass, size and greater accuracy?
          1. mav1971 2 November 2015 19: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: SUSUL
            But what for, they bother with the gatling scheme?
            What prevented them from making a normal gun of the GSh-23-2 type, with less mass, size and greater accuracy?


            They believe that it is so economically feasible and more reliable ...
            1. Susul 2 November 2015 22: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Right! They have a commercial army, the more expensive and more beautiful, the better ...
              1. samoletil18 3 November 2015 10: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: SUSUL
                Right! They have a commercial army, the more expensive and more beautiful, the better ...

                This is not only with them. How would we start this capital with tenders? Only, now, they judge us by the cheapness of the product in such a way, we take the scribbled city from you, and pay as good for the lowest price. The difference is in the asset (personal). Our embezzlers, nevertheless advance all.
              2. mav1971 3 November 2015 15: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: SUSUL
                Right! They have a commercial army, the more expensive and more beautiful, the better ...


                They simply believe that the rate of fire and reliability of their 4's trunks is higher than that of other options comparable in weight and ammunition.
                And reliability is economic feasibility.

                Have you ever bought anything in your practice on the basis of economic feasibility?
                Like TV for example.
                You can buy Mystery for 10 sput and we get a faded picture, a stupid menu and a complete lack of viewing angles. With the term of real life in 2-3 of the year. And you can buy for 15 thousands of Samsung with excellent color reproduction, watch at least from the end, and it will work for 10 years until you throw it away.
                What do you choose?
                The army has long been commercialized.
    2. Alex_59 2 November 2015 07: 21 New
      • 18
      • 0
      +18
      Quote: Vladimir.
      F-35 is a very good aircraft.
      None of the sane people questioned this. Insane to write articles is useless. And it’s not necessary to write sane articles like Oleg’s - they know what and how, without epithets, “chic”, “best”, etc.
      Quote: Vladimir.
      Those people who naively believe that "stupid Americans" made garbage and "sawing the budget." Our officials saw the budget, and, openly

      And it’s also not necessary to push sane people. Those in the subject know that the caravan is on and PAK-FA will be. We will do it without shedding tears over the fact that he will not be the first and not the best, but he will be. The Americans are not stupid, we are not. Something like this.
      Quote: Vladimir.
      But, we will not develop in this direction, because it costs a lot of money, and our officials will not sell a new yacht or a mansion.

      Why will not we develop? Here is a photo fact for you:
      http://russianplanes.net/id175655
      The PD-14 engine in iron for testing. Already. Of course, it has nothing to do with PAK-FA, but here you have a product created from scratch in post-Soviet Russia. Now, of course, they will throw me poop - it is the only one, it is not known to the mind, where are hundreds of these engines? Well, duck, go to the factory and speed up the process, if so worried.
    3. Cruorvult 2 November 2015 07: 24 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      The same can be said about the old Abrams and Bradley, by the way, the Americans said this year that they would produce shots for the RPG-7, by the way in secret, they use different charges there, only terrorists use the oldest 7V grenade, and there are modern ones with overcoming DZ and beating up to 800mm, as well as thermobaric grenades.
    4. Lapkonium 2 November 2015 07: 40 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      I completely agree. I don’t really understand people who think that the states have all the weapons, and we have the best. Who is the world's first arms dealer? Who are we in aviation for 5-10 (and now 15) years behind generations of aircraft? Where did our domestic specialists go and go for normal salaries? The answer is pretty obvious. And only China will be able to surpass the staff in the near future - it has money, there is almost no ideology. We don’t have that much money, and so far it’s not foreseen - there’s nothing to talk about ideology, a complete mess - despite a temporary patriotic upsurge. There is a Soviet reserve in the defense industry, and on its basis the industry is developing, at least somehow by inertia.

      As a patriot of my country, I will not at all exchange our merits, but soberly looking at things is the most important thing - and we must compete ahead of the curve - not by trace, but by cutting corners. Most likely it would be impossible to do without PAK-FA - you cannot just jump over a generation. But the basis of their new Air Force should be a smarter decision than just a belated raptor with domestic nishtyaks. In this light, even the fact that they want to build 60 looks logical - there is hope that at the end of this batch of 60 production can immediately be occupied with something more perfect - which is already in the plans.
      1. Susul 2 November 2015 08: 45 New
        • -6
        • 0
        -6
        And really, who is the first in the world in sales of military aircraft?
        There is information that the number of units of the SU-35 greatly outstripped the American F-16.
    5. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 11: 46 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir.
      F-35 is a very good aircraft. And unlike the PAK FA, it is already in service. And almost ready.

      Almost ready but already in service?
    6. EvilLion 2 November 2015 12: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For stupid people it will be a shock, but, for example, Abrashka, which M1 has long been discontinued and the United States take cars from storage bases. And the F-22 has been discontinued, it may not be easy to restore it.
    7. Susul 2 November 2015 12: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      To your logic, you can safely say that the T-50 is already in service =) Of course, not 120 samples, but already five flies.
      And what did RPG-7 and T-72 not please you. these are eternal things! That the first one can develop and develop grants, that the second one can improve and improve for a long time
    8. moskovitt 8 November 2015 11: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Belolentochnik! Ardent liberalist! Oaths shit and a worshiper! All-creeper! How can you write about the F-35?
  11. Mera joota 2 November 2015 07: 31 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I would add LM statistics for the third quarter of this year.
    For the third quarter, it delivered 12 F-35s to customers, and in just three quarters of this year, 31 cars.
    That they have such a small-scale production. And factories in Italy, Turkey, Japan have already earned.
    So do not be surprised that India will finally spit on the FGFA and will join the purchase of the F-35 ...
  12. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 07: 33 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    The expected production cost of one F-35A unit for 2018 is $ 85 million (including inflation). Only Chinese plastic crafts are cheaper.

    This is for the Americans and for the allies a block of 450 pieces will be 2018 million each by 110, which is why Canadians are leaving the project.
    31 July 2015, the United States Marine Corps First Squadron, equipped with F-35B, announced it had reached combat readiness.

    And where should they go, the Harriers have already exhausted their resources.
    It would be strange if he could not do all this, having such a powerful and perfect engine as the “Pratt Whitney” with the 19 ton burden.

    How perfect he is is difficult to judge if he is quite voracious. NK-32 eats less kerosene, so the Americans did not make a revolution in engine building, and their engine is still junk.
    Call it what you want, but it seems like
    in melee caps do not throw him

    US pilots are not so optimistic, in addition, the plane still flies with some restrictions.
    Here, even a block repair is indispensable. Each time, when necessary, the domestic Su-35 shines shipment to the manufacturer.

    What for? The engine will simply be replaced in the hangar, like the Americans on their F-35 (engine failures of the F-35 were on fire as on the PAK FA), they will not repair their own in the hangar either.
    As for the notorious “electronics” and possible computer crashes

    And who tried but failed?
    The only combat use of a 5th generation aircraft with avionics similar to the F-35 (upgraded F-22) was against ISIS in Iraq, which did not even have MANPADS.
    The Americans are working on a project, it will not work, we’ll see, but they’ve significantly advanced certain technologies, this is unique.
  13. Avenich 2 November 2015 07: 36 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    You can reprogram the computer in the hangar of the air base, unlike the engine with a controlled thrust vector

    Are F-35 engine malfunctions resolved by reprogramming the computer?
    Does the F-35 engine have no rotary nozzle?
    And one more question is why "reprogram the computer" if
    In reality, electronics is the most reliable element of any system, completely insensitive to overloads, mechanical shocks and vibrations.

    What software is not suitable for a light drizzle or tropical rain, and if, God forbid, snow? We fly to the base, "reprogram the computer"?
    1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 07: 45 New
      • -6
      • 0
      -6
      Quote: Avenich
      Are F-35 engine malfunctions resolved by reprogramming the computer?

      He does not have this node (UVT / OVT), in principle, absent
      Quote: Avenich
      Does the F-35 engine have no rotary nozzle?

      85% "Lightning" does not have a rotary nozzle
      Quote: Avenich
      and if, God forbid, snow?

      29 March 2015 city
      The F-35B test cycle in the climate chamber (–40 to + 50 degree C) has been completed at the Eglin airport.
      1. Avenich 2 November 2015 08: 01 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        And then what does the comparison of “computer reprogramming” and aircraft engine repair have to do with it? I would understand the advantage of Yankov engines in repair, if they could be repaired 100% at the airbase or they would not break "never", a "posthumous guarantee" type.
      2. Susul 2 November 2015 08: 49 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Tests in the climate chamber ?!
        You are joking?
        Yes, at an altitude of 15000, the temperature will be below 50, and at a speed of 1200 it will warm up to 400.
        1. Santa Fe 2 November 2015 08: 59 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: SUSUL
          Tests in the climate chamber ?!

          parked on the ground

          the car also goes at -50, but try to leave it for a minute, then start it
      3. dzeredzavkomimu 8 November 2015 03: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        in the climate chamber?))) recently returned home to that 154, so the temperature overboard announced -60, but here as much as -40))) I have Opel wind up calmly at this temperature
        1. BV330 11 November 2015 00: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          At -60 Opel starts ?? Or at -40, but rather at -35-37, because without heating and webast, it would be almost impossible for any machine to start at lower than 40.
  14. Wedmak 2 November 2015 07: 57 New
    • 20
    • 0
    +20
    That is, the author is not embarrassed by the combat load in TWO bombs and two explosive missiles? It also does not bother that during the time of MIG-21 and Mirage there were no precise anti-aircraft missiles and short-range explosives capable of 80-90% probability of flying into the engine or exploding nearby, thereby damaging the only engine.
    It is written that the most important thing in this plane is electronics.
    In reality, electronics is the most reliable element of any system, completely insensitive to overloads, mechanical shocks and vibrations.

    I don’t argue, smart enough chips were crammed there. But was this aircraft tested under interference?
    The plane is not armored, as it will replace the A-10 I can not imagine.
    What is shown in the video, like he’s somehow somehow getting on his tail for 1 a second - well, don’t tell Su-27. After all, it is precisely drying that will be used to intercept this slow-moving penguin.
    Comparison of the new engine with the old MIG-29 engine is certainly not in favor of the latter. If you do not go into its complexity and resource - where are these parameters?
    You can reprogram the computer in the hangar of the air base, in contrast to the engine with a controlled thrust vector (translational movement of parts under conditions of thousand-degree temperatures). Here, even a block repair is indispensable. Each time, when necessary, the domestic Su-35 shines shipment to the manufacturer. It is easy to understand how all this affects the cost of manufacture and operation.

    Masterpiece. In general, the MIG engine is removed, repaired and inserted back in a few hours. For this, you just need a hangar equipped with a crane. But it's not that. I don’t understand something about the logic of comparing the computer and the engine. Does the F-35 have that when the computer is reprogrammed, the damaged blade of the engine will automatically change? Or will the pipelines themselves eliminate the leak?

    Oleg, your articles are interesting, but in any of them you can find so many inconsistencies and deliberate substitution of facts, incorrect comparisons, deliberate suppression of characteristics, etc., that sometimes it becomes a burden to read. And not because it is not interesting, but because for each paragraph you could write your own. With a refutation or clarification of what is given in yours.
    1. Susul 2 November 2015 08: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Well F-35, in full load takes more than 2 bombs.
      The truth about any "stealth" and high speed of speech is no longer
      http://topwar.ru/68573-f-35-vybor-oruzhiya.htm
      And at full load, this cow drags a little smaller SU-34
      1. kamil_tt 2 November 2015 09: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        well, so the SU-34, a front-line bomber, is almost 2 times larger than the F-35
    2. aleks 62 next 2 November 2015 10: 49 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      ..... Oleg, your articles are interesting, ....

      .... For the pioneers !!!!! ... lol .... A person who is theoretically savvy in the slightest degree at the level of Baumanovka or MAI, so unloved by Kaptsov, doesn’t .... hi
      1. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 13: 25 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        Quote: aleks 62 next
        To a person who is theoretically savvy in the slightest degree at the level of Baumanovka or MAI so unloved by Kaptsov, no ..

        These higher education institutions in the world ranking of universities in the third hundred, the opinion of graduates is not in authority.
        1. aleks 62 next 2 November 2015 15: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          .... These higher education institutions in the world ranking of universities in the third hundred, the opinion of graduates is not in authority ....


          .... But graduates in authority .... Not everything is true .... laughing
          1. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 17: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: aleks 62 next
            But graduates in authority ...

            So it turns out a paradox, universities in the ranking are not in authority but students in authority.
  15. Terminolol 2 November 2015 08: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The most important thing of this article is not the TTX F-35, but the fact that while the Americans are bringing (already finishing) their plane to Russia, there is NO such ... not at the manufacturing stage, but actually not !!! What has been shown to us so far is only a concept and nothing more. And talking about any comparisons is simply stupid ... because no one has an analogue of the F-35.
    1. Per se. 2 November 2015 08: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Terminol
      The most important thing in this article is not the TTX F-35, but the fact that while the Americans are bringing (already finishing) their aircraft in Russia, there is NO such ..
      What the Americans are only approaching was somehow achieved on the Yak-141, and with its further development, the Yak-141M and the Yak-43, the results would be even higher. Many people compare the T-50 with the F-35, this is ridiculous, especially since the machines are at different production stages. VTOL aircraft is a fait accompli, like a tiltrotor, of course, it’s easier to continue to use the familiar and used ones, but the technique does not stand still. Why it’s impossible to return to the Yak-141 theme, while we are not behind here forever, it’s not clear, in principle, and the Yak could do both in the VTOL variant and as a classic light fighter, although VTOL can always choose which take-off to use, vertical, shortened, or traditional take-off.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Petrix 2 November 2015 13: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Terminol
      The most important thing in this article is not the TTX F-35, but the fact that while the Americans bring (already finish) their plane in Russia, there is NO

      The most important thing is to compare the aircraft that can actually collide in the sky today and now. F-35 vs Su-30, for example. What is now the most modern Russia can oppose him? That's what to compare.
    4. NEXUS 2 November 2015 13: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Terminol
      And talking about any comparisons is simply stupid ... for no one has an analogue of the F-35.

      But why do we need such an analogue? Expensive, crude, and not meeting expectations. And if Canada still leaves the project, I think Australia will also follow it, respectively, and the price of a fighter will increase even more. Already now, customers of this miracle are cutting applications to buy this child prodigy. And every year there are new "sores" that they then try to eliminate with the next infusion of green candy wrappers.
  16. rubin6286 2 November 2015 08: 07 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I, too, as a patriot of my country, I think that we need to look soberly at things. Competition and advertising are one thing, the country's economic opportunities and the level of R&D in the defense complex as a whole are different. Good or Plozh F-35, will show the time and results of combat use. Theory without practice is dead. An empty listing of the latest technology applied in this machine impresses only amateurs.
  17. Zaurbek 2 November 2015 08: 11 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    And the commercial move is excellent, the United States killed traditional competitors in the form of Eurofighter and Rafal. The following models of these fighters are unlikely to appear. And, in fact, the F-35 is almost a monopolist.
    I always welcome unification, but the rejection of the A-10 means the abandonment of full-scale operations? How can I replace the A-10 with the F-35 or Su-25-T50?
  18. Shiva83483 2 November 2015 08: 24 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: PlotnikoffDD
    Anyone who was not convinced by these simple and obvious things can continue to retell the tale of a terribly expensive plane, at the cost of a solid piece of gold.

    Can I go give up?

    Where are the 100500 pieces of these Wunderwaffes I ask?
  19. sevtrash 2 November 2015 08: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    With f35, something unexpected can happen. Expected, however. He will be the first aircraft of the 6th generation! There is one caveat, however, the characteristics of the 6th generation are not yet completely known or completely unknown. But one was already spoken about - performing combat missions without a pilot on board. But how many drones are already flying! And who just does not let them out! Can the US create software that provides unmanned flight at all stages of a fighter-bomber flight? Rhetorical question. But when, maybe in time for 2019? And then he will appear - a 6th generation airplane! But not without flaws - with an orphaned cabin.
  20. mosquit 2 November 2015 08: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author, speaking politically correct - is "disingenuous" laughing
    F-35 has reached alert


    PS. Apparently bad with activity on the resource ...
  21. X Y Z 2 November 2015 08: 26 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    We are engaged in old Russian fun. At first they ridiculed and spat, now we intimidate and warn. Why are we all rushing to extremes! I know perfectly well what refinement and my personal ironic attitude consisted only in the fact that Western analysts put the first number and as the main dish the notorious "invisibility", giving other features only secondary importance. It looked quite comical and unprofessional.
    1. Lekov L 2 November 2015 09: 46 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And the incentive to speed up the delivery of our cars ochchen sharpened. And we are accustomed to catch up, especially in aviation. Aircraft engines, for example, almost always caught up with them.
      And sprinkle ashes on the head from the fact that once again lagged behind, does it make sense?
      We need to work, especially for those in the industry. Yes, and I have to go.
      Sincerely ...
  22. Yun Klob 2 November 2015 08: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, now is a time when little depends on one patriotic blacksmith. The tough struggle of systems according to Darwin.
  23. mosquit 2 November 2015 08: 53 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    We have no problems, we are in full combat readiness laughing

    The F-35 is a complex program made more challenging by the fact that it's still in development, even as we are flying it in the field. Recent tests on the safe-escape system revealed a problem that would result in lighter-weight pilots possibly suffering major neck injury upon ejection.

    “The program is working with our industry partners on three specific improvements that will provide lightweight pilots that same level of protection and safety as all other F-35 pilots,” Bogdan said in his written testimony. “These three improvements are: one, a reduced weight helmet that weighs 6 ounces less than the current helmet ... two, a pilot 'weight switch' on the ejection seat that reduces the opening shock of the parachute by slightly delaying the parachute's opening for lightweight pilots; and three, a head support that will be sewn into the parachute risers that will reduce the rearward head movement of the pilot when the main chute of the ejection seat opens, reducing the pilot's neck loads. ”


    Super Fighter

    Comparing the F-35 with the F-16 Fighting Falcon's maneuverability was another concern; however, both generals were confident in the F-35 program and its capabilities.

    “The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations,” Harrigian said in his testimony. “There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios, and the F-35s had a clear operational advantage because of the sensors, weapons and stealth technology. The F-35 has been optimized for the current trends of warfare, where the enemy is engaged and defeated from long distances, but it will still be able to maneuver aggressively when required to defeat and kill threats. ”


    Everything will be OK! soldier

    Overall, the F-35 program is on track to be delivered on time and on cost, and Bogdan and Harrigian agree it's a capability needed for the joint force to be successful.

    “As with any big, complex program new discoveries, challenges and obstacles will occur; however, we believe the combined government / industry team has the ability to overcome current issues and future discoveries in order to successfully deliver the full F-35 capability to the warfighter, ”Bogdan said. “The Joint Program Office will continue executing with integrity, discipline, transparency and accountability, holding ourselves accountable for the outcomes on this program.


    Well and pathos for plebs at last angry

    “We recognize the responsibility the program has been given to provide the backbone of the US and allied fighter capability with the F-35 for generations to come, and that your sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters may someday take this aircraft into harm's way to defend our freedom and way of life. It is a responsibility we never forget. "


    http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/626221/af-leaders-testif
    y-on-f-35-progress.aspx
    1. sevtrash 2 November 2015 16: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: mosquit
      lighter-weight pilots possibly suffering major neck injury upon ejection

      But it’s interesting, but have our pilots with different weights studied the possibility of such problems? Or was it decided at the pilot level?
      1. mosquit 2 November 2015 17: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I can’t say, but I have not heard about the problems associated with the weight of the pilot during bailout ...
        1. sevtrash 2 November 2015 20: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: mosquit
          I can’t say, but I have not heard about the problems associated with the weight of the pilot during bailout ...

          Actually, the question is on a different plane - have such / similar problems been studied?
  24. barbiturate 2 November 2015 09: 03 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Wedmak
    Oleg, your articles are interesting, but in any of them you can find so many inconsistencies and deliberate substitution of facts, incorrect comparisons, deliberate suppression of characteristics, etc., that sometimes it becomes a burden to read. And not because it is not interesting, but because for each paragraph you could write your own. With a refutation or clarification of what is given in yours.


    Golden words, totally agree
  25. EvilLion 2 November 2015 09: 31 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    Kaptsov, can you ask simple natural questions? Thank.

    What do we care about how technologically advanced the engine is at F-35, if the final thrust-weight ratio of the machine is at the level of F / A-18E before. generation? And when comparing thrust to max. The claimed take-off weight reveals a total advantage for the Su-35, and the PAK FA should become even somewhat easier. It is not stages and generations that are measured, but specific physical quantities like mass, traction, speed, etc. 28 Tons against 19 is not even an advantage, it is a total domination. For the same reason, Chinese crafts like J-31, which instead of one large 2 motor are small with a large total weight, it makes no sense to seriously consider.
    By the way, it is possible to calculate the thrust-weight ratio for normal take-off weight. Well, or look at the same wiki, at F-35A with 50% remaining fuel 1.07, at Su-35 for norms. vzl. weight, there’s just about half the 1.1 fueling. The wing load of the Su-35 is also lower, although max. the speed is much higher.

    In principle, most of all I don’t understand in the story with F-35, what for they started to do it when there was a normal F-22 on the basis of which something else could be washed down, as the bombers were built on the basis of the F-15 and Su-27.

    Futuristic helmet with the ability to observe “through” the plane.


    Is there a normal tactical situation map in order not to twist the head at 360 degrees, so there is no owl there?

    And, I'm afraid that with the existing approach to creating a PAK FA, this gap will only continue to grow.


    Expert Kaptsov knows better than aircraft manufacturers how to develop aircraft.

    hmm, but for what else is PAK FA created?


    Uh ... Destroy all sorts of super-advanced penguins and non-advanced typhoons, rafals and other flying husks? To bomb peaceful NATO forces? Good enough for me, but Kaptsov may think that he wants to understand the mutually exclusive paragraphs "aaaa, the Americans built the most advanced aircraft" and "what for are we building our own?" somehow reluctance, this is part of psychiatry.

    You need to stop "fooling around", releasing one aircraft per year


    If, as you said, there are no engines or electronics for an airplane, then why the hell should I release it in dozens?

    Stealth Technology


    Not Comrade Did Kaptsov say that air defense systems with their radars on any stealth deeply and sincerely give a damn? Stupidly at the expense of sensitivity.

    He is able to fly “tail forward”, while maintaining controllability even at supercritical angles of attack (110 °) and, if the pilot so desires, to confidently return to horizontal flight.


    Su-27 did this at 120 degrees at the end of the 80's. But as we all know, this is all crap and window dress is not related to real combat maneuvering. And to evaluate maneuverability by vidyushka is the highest Tao, you look for real graphics. No? Secret yet? Well, then what to talk about.
  26. EvilLion 2 November 2015 09: 31 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The design has an integral layout, in which a significant part of the lifting force is formed by the fuselage itself.


    Kaptsov, write directly, licked at us. The ancient MiG-29 with the Su-27 have an integrated layout, you declare as if this is some great innovation.

    Whenever there is a need for domestic Su-35 shines shipment to the manufacturer.


    I wonder how the Yankees themselves with F-22 solve this problem, or the Indians with hundreds of Su-30MKI?

    Based on the 60 serial T-50 (optimistic scenario).


    Olezhka, are you? Apparently the same as the one who blurted out about these 60 planes. In general, we have a lot of such talkers. In Russia, even now, hundreds of fighter jets are needed to cover the territory. MiG-29 in fact there is 24 (or more? The 34 contract was with 6 sparks) of Algerian SMT, the release of 16 will not fundamentally change anything, after the 2020 year the “Algerians” will be over 10 years, and most likely they will be written off quickly since there will be no point in modernizing such a small party. The old 9-12 and 9-13 are almost all decommissioned. MiG-35 no longer has a chance for a large series. Su-27 maximum can be upgraded to Su-27СМ, but in fact they are already being deducted en masse, in the coming years they will go to needles and museums, do you yourself evaluate Su-30СМ as an adequate competitor for F-35? Not? Well, and how much will this temporary plug be in production? Su-35 is rightly called Last Flanker. After fine-tuning the PAK FA, he will also leave, the PAK FA itself, as well as the F-35 project for decades.

    Well, the most important question. What alertness did the F-35 achieve?
    1. Odysseus 2 November 2015 17: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      . MiG-29 in fact there are 24 (or more? The 34 contract was with 6 sparks)

      34-SMT, plus a squadron of old (9-13) in Erebuni and in Millerovo. The old will change to Su-30SM.
      Quote: EvilLion
      Well, the most important question. What alertness did the F-35 achieve?

      Original smile With restrictions on the use of UAB and B-B missiles. The so-called version of Block 2B.
  27. Susul 2 November 2015 09: 34 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The author painted the advantages of the aircraft is not very bad, but which he missed.
    1. The thrust of the aircraft. Sorry, but a plane that is not able to gain 2000 km / h in afterburner cannot be a fighter. Even his engine, which is wonderful in many respects, will not correct the picture, he would have gotten the second one and the MiG-31 would have gone to smoke ... And let him be given rockets with a range of 400 km, but it can only get into such a range under the airship, in the conditions of action jamming range of its seeker is good if up to 50km breaks through.
    2. If the Penguin went into close combat ... then he can only cope with the MiG-17 under the control of a Vietnamese pilot, again there will not be enough engine thrust (less than one).
    3. Again, due to the low thrust of one F-35 engine, one does not have to choose whether he enters an air battle or not, in an air battle he is the object of attack, and not the attacker.
    4. That is, the F-35 is a typical 3rd generation front-line bomber with a very good electronic filling.
    As a result, there can be no talk of any universality of the aircraft. The Americans are cunning, to win air superiority, they fought off the F-22, which has two 13-ton engines and a controlled thrust vector, albeit in two planes fully and in the third, partially by braking air brakes. But they don’t sell this plane to anyone =)
    So far, the only advantage of 5th generation American technology is their electronic filling.
    In recent years, Russia has also not been sickly investing in this matter. And besides, it is one of the most dynamically developing components of aircraft construction. I believe that it is precisely by this parameter that airplanes should be divided into 4th and 5th generation in current years. Until something really superior to the good old MiG-29 appears. Here is an unmanned hypersound - this is already interesting, but this is still very far away.
    When installing equipment from the 4th generation of equipment from the T-50, which is designed with an eye to American achievements, it will not yield to the A-22, and will tear the F-35 to shreds, because the "stealth" only due to its coating and form is the solution to some years. In 5-10 years, new radars will appear, or well-forgotten old ones, which will see this aircraft as if on the palm of your hand, because it does not absorb the signal, but reflects it. It was this that limited the development of this technology in the USSR with the concept of a single air defense space, which is closer than ever to implementation. But the new electronic warfare systems will be able to destroy the external signal
    A good example is the war in Georgia. When the Russian army was faced with a modern air defense system, working to adjust the radar stations located in Turkey. And there, for the first time, the SU-34 with the new electronic warfare complex was lit up, in two days without any stealth they crushed UkroGruzia's Buki
    1. EvilLion 2 November 2015 11: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      With 4-6 rockets, the penguin will have a satisfactory traction. But not more. You can write 8 tons of combat load, maybe you can even actually raise it, the question is how it will fly at such a load and due to what it is achieved, the plane should not fall apart in the sky from the weight of its own bombs.

      F / A-18 flies no faster than 1900 km / h, however, in terms of maneuverability, it surpasses the F-16.
  28. NMDzAM 2 November 2015 09: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    However, he does not take a lot of weapons on board:
    Up to four medium / long range air-to-air missiles (AIM-120 AMRAAM), or two to four guided air bombs (for example, 113 kg SDBs with a maximum launch range of 100 km) in combination with a pair of air-to-air missiles ”, ...
    In a real battle, he shot four times and that's it?
    Here you have a rifle with four rounds to fight ...
    If Judah Gorby didn’t ruin the Union and EBN had not leaked all the secrets to the Americans, where would they be?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota 2 November 2015 09: 49 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: NMDzAM
      In a real battle, he shot four times and that's it?

      Do you suppose there will be a situation of one F-35 versus five Su-35? Maybe the opposite?
      Quote: NMDzAM
      Here you have a rifle with four rounds to fight ...

      If each cartridge itself finds an enemy and hits his forehead, then it is.
      Quote: NMDzAM
      If Judah Gorby didn’t ruin the Union and EBN had not leaked all the secrets to the Americans, where would they be?

      Exactly where it is now.
    3. Falcon 2 November 2015 10: 03 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: NMDzAM
      in combination with a pair of air-to-air safety devices, ...
      In a real battle, he shot four times and that's it?
      Here you have a rifle with four rounds to fight ...


      The normal take-off weight of the Su-35 25300kg includes 2 x PBB-AE + 2 x P-73.

      All that is more is already a limitation on maneuverability and problems with close combat.

      No matter how much! But at the same time with F-35 the same amount can be placed in the internal compartments ...
      1. EvilLion 2 November 2015 12: 01 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        What are you! And here I am still in the RLE from Su-27SK remember the mention of the permissibility of maneuvering in any possible weapon configurations. Su-30СМ in Syria, judging by the video, carry 6 missiles. Probably stupid people, that the number of pendants is brought to 10-12.
        1. Falcon 2 November 2015 12: 21 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Quote: EvilLion
          What are you! And here I am still in the RLE from Su-27SK remember the mention of the permissibility of maneuvering in any possible weapon configurations. Su-30СМ in Syria, judging by the video, carry 6 missiles. Probably stupid people, that the number of pendants is brought to 10-12.


          Maneuverability and over maneuverability are two different things. Tu-204 also maneuvers during flight.

          In Syria, they probably had so many air battles ...

          First, study the concepts of normal take-off mass, and maximum take-off mass - what are the differences between them and what are the operational limitations.

          And then
          Quote: EvilLion
          What are you!

          You will poke.
          1. EvilLion 2 November 2015 17: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, go read the RLE and the aerobatic restrictions prescribed there.
            1. Falcon 2 November 2015 18: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: EvilLion
              Well, go read the RLE and the aerobatic restrictions prescribed there.


              It certainly smiled! Did you read it yourself?

              Arms lineup:


              Coup

              Loop nesterov


              Etc. for each aerobatics wink
  29. bmv04636 2 November 2015 09: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I wish the “light elves” as many of these “miracle planes” as the F-35 penguins. I think not far off is the doubling of the public debt of the "light elves" from the current 18 trillion of already decayed greens. Thanks to these miracles for penguins and not only.
    1. Dad Uassia 2 November 2015 22: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The United States will FSUs on state debt while the dollar will dominate the world.
  30. Hammer 2 November 2015 10: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The estimated cost of producing one unit of F-35A per 2018 year is 85 million dollars (taking into account inflation). Cheaper only Chinese plastic crafts.

    After that, one could not read further, because the author does not understand how industry works at all, and archaic ideas about Chinese technology also do not color him. But I continued.
    As for the notorious "electronics" and the possible disruption of computers, the failures from which the planes go crazy, are only in Hollywood films. In reality, electronics is the most reliable element of any system, completely insensitive to overloads, mechanical shocks and vibrations.

    Say this to the Iranian Airbus, who was shot down by Aegis and took him for a bomber.
  31. kugelblitz 2 November 2015 10: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I am confused by the lack of information about motor resources, this magnificent engine, which is so swaying everyone and everything. It is also not specifically indicated in which modes and to what extent.
    And I remember arguing with one fan of the American engineering genius about nine Falcon engines, and then all of a sudden ... wassat
  32. Tigr 2 November 2015 11: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    A few words about the alleged achievement of combat readiness F-35:

    “As you know” (c) in July 2015, the US Marine Corps announced the availability of its new F-35B fighters (more precisely, IOC - “initial operational / operational readiness”), which followed the “successful” end of the “operational tests No. 1 ", carried out on board the Uosp" Uosp "two months earlier.

    But the tests immediately started having fun: although the KMP specially selected better planes so as not to have unnecessary problems with servicing a poorly functioning fuel system on fighter jets, “some piece of iron” immediately flew off from one of the fighters (locking pin from the nozzle) engine). “And then there were five of them.” Soon, another plane after performing the first scheduled flight gave a bunch of failures, after which it turned into the simulator for training technical personnel for the entire duration of the test (s). “And there were four of them ...” The countdown ended in two — in fact, only two out of six fighters flew off the entire test program. The average operational readiness of half-squadron aircraft was 50%, instead of 80%, which was required by the Chief Metrologist.

    The flight plan was only 70% complete.

    http://afirsov.livejournal.com/110338.html
    1. Susul 2 November 2015 13: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Most of all, their hardware dampness is surprising!
      This is in the age of computer simulation, where all the effects can be calculated on a physical processor ...
      I’m silent about 8 million lines of code ...
      1. saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 14: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: SUSUL
        Most of all, their hardware dampness is surprising!
        This is in the age of computer simulation, where all the effects can be calculated on a physical processor ...

        There is no dampness, it seems to you
        specialists who graduated from the Massachusetts University of Technology, who occupies first place in the world ranking, cannot breed moisture.
        1. mosquit 2 November 2015 17: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Subtle, Offset! good
  33. abc_alex 2 November 2015 13: 16 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    I read about the price of F-35. And I will say that either the author is a complete layman in economic matters, or carefully pulls a condom on the refrigerator.

    Firstly, I was surprised by the calculation of the price of R&D PAK FA. I’ve seen all kinds of crap on the topic of calculations on "liberal" sites, but I didn’t expect such rubbish here.
    Secondly. If we talk about reducing the unit price in mass production, then this applies to any product and our machines, but with a starting price of 5-6 times higher, no mass lightning will be cheaper than the Su-30, since the Su-30 is also mass-produced.

    Given that F-35 replaces most types of aircraft, the trillion indicated is US Air Force cost of existence for the next 30 years. Expensive? So they are now eating no less. After all, the world's first consumer of aviation fuel.


    Did the author decide to hold the audience for suckers or reported in ecstasy of admiration? He did not forget that in addition to Latting, there are Raptors in the US Air Force? Spirit? The B-52s are flying quite well. B-2B in commercial quantities and a bunch of other machines including helicopters? And the Marine Corps is Osprey ...
    What a stupid juggle? No dear, a trillion - this is not all the US Air Force, it is Lightning that will devour him exclusively in one throat and not sharing it with anyone.

    The estimated cost of producing one unit of F-35A per 2018 year is 85 million dollars (taking into account inflation). Cheaper only Chinese plastic crafts.


    And here is a distortion of facts. According to the report of the US Accounting Chamber, the F-35 procurement program for the country's air force will require at least $ 459 billion for 83,4 aircraft. This means that for this and the coming years the price will be equal to producing one copy of $ 180 million. Not 85 but one hundred eighty million . And the Accounts Chamber is confident that the allocated money will not be enough.

    And the price desired by the author at 85 is just the stated Lockheed Martin POSSIBLE price subject to an increase in the series. And the series will not increase, since now expenses have begun to deter foreign customers.

    A computer can be reprogrammed in the hangar of an air base, as opposed to a thrust vector-controlled engine (translational movement of parts under conditions of a thousand-degree temperatures). Here, even a block repair can not do. Whenever necessary, the domestic Su-35 shines sending to the manufacturer. It is easy to understand how all this affects the cost of manufacture and operation.

    This phrase is generally utter crap. Firstly, simply “reprogramming” such systems in the hangar will not work. Too complicated, it's not for you to rivet a “hamster” in the constructor. Moreover, in this "computer" not all modules have access "from the hangar". And reflash the AFAR control system from a flash drive does not work. The author needs to be less interested in Hollywood films about "hackers".
    Secondly, in all modern aircraft there are blocks that shine by sending to the manufacturer. And if Lightning has an engine jammed, then he will go to the factory in exactly the same way as the Su-35.

    In a word, if in the "iron" part of the article you need to deal with reference books, then the "economic" ending is not worth reading - it is utter and utter nonsense, composed, apparently in order to extol Lating.
    1. Dam
      Dam 3 November 2015 01: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Everything is much simpler: whoever pays and the young lady dances. Big greetings to businessman Kaptsov. Good luck, jam and more cookies.
  34. HMR333 2 November 2015 13: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I wonder where the author read in the newspaper that dozens of f35 are being built a year, or who the smart one suggested! F35 is calla f22 much more perfect it is said by everyone including the American people and their price is almost the same so what for to build f35 if it is worse and at a price almost the same if it was possible to produce and upgrade f22!
    1. EvilLion 2 November 2015 16: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      1) F-22 does not know how to bomb.
      2) You can learn more.
      1. Pimply 3 November 2015 11: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        1) F-22 does not know how to bomb.
        2) You can learn more.

        In fact, for several years now, yes, he knows how
    2. voyaka uh 3 November 2015 16: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      "where in the newspaper I read that dozens of f35 are being built per year" ////

      Made 36 pieces in 2014.

      The 36 F-35 deliveries include:
      (Who are the recipients :)

      23 F-35A - US Air Force
      2 F-35A - Royal Australian Air Force (first two)
      4 F-35B - US Marine Corps
      7 F-35C - US Navy and US Marine Corps (first carrier variant)
  35. HMR333 2 November 2015 13: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    the author just does not adequately compare the still old Soviet moment of 29 and f35 in engine power, even if it compares with su30)))) and then it turns out he’s crazy like all the old American descavors compare his new example with bmp1)))) and then they beat themselves in the chest and shout that they have all the best))) how, in general, the author was smart enough to compare how he claims the plane of the (5th) generation is the latest development with aircraft produced in 1982! Why does the administration publish such worthless articles in general?
    1. Sweles 2 November 2015 14: 56 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Quote: HMR333
      Why does the administration publish such worthless articles in general?


      Admins are not interested in publishing the truth, and publish only the "point of view".
      1. Ruslan 2 November 2015 16: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        where is she really? :)
    2. Belousov 2 November 2015 17: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, as it turned out, Comrade Professor is a figure untouchable on this resource, a lot is allowed to him, moreover, according to the statements of the moderators themselves, in a recent article.
    3. Belousov 2 November 2015 17: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Well, as it turned out, Comrade Professor is a figure untouchable on this resource, a lot is allowed to him, moreover, according to the statements of the moderators themselves, in a recent article.
  36. Zaurbek 2 November 2015 14: 33 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    And you compare the thrust of the F-35 engine even with the planned thrust of one T-50 engine. And so as not to touch the F-35, read about the F-16 engine, in addition to traction, read about the resource. Their technical level has always been advanced, that of the R-51 or AeroCobra, that of the jet. This does not detract from our merits.
  37. science fiction writer 2 November 2015 14: 43 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    That F-22, that F-35, that the article itself is JARK.
    And before talking about these aircraft, you need to test them in battle, at least in training
    with their potential opponents, to know how many sorties per day they can do, how much time and man-hours are needed to prepare the plane for a flight, etc., etc. And unfoundedly declare that our BANJO is mass-produced, albeit without strings,
    and your BALALAYKA tokmo is still playing in the studio, this is stupid.
  38. cergey51046 2 November 2015 15: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    If you write, then write on your own. No need to pull us to our side. We are patriots and do not scatter our homeland for the sake of the United States, for dollars.
  39. Forest 2 November 2015 15: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Another foolish review of Lightning. I wonder when the normal data analysis will appear? First, Comrade Kaptsov claims the worthlessness of Russian propaganda and therefore rewrites Western propaganda.
  40. Denis Skiff 2 November 2015 16: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The Russian reader is smart. He perfectly sees the contradiction between the stories of the “poorly flying” F-35
    Let it fly and complete its tasks. Our planes are ready to fulfill their tasks. And there will be a cloud of aircraft carriers, airplanes and the runway will appear. And they will fly to fight better than this stuff.
  41. stone 2 November 2015 16: 43 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    There is a huge plus for the article. I’m tired of reading articles for “amateurs” which F-35 is airy. Particularly impressive are the generals of couch economists that he (F-35) will almost ruin the United States. And this is taking into account the fact that the line has already lined up for him from very solvent countries.
    The most interesting thing is that they do not hide their budgets, but will we ever find out the full cost of development, production, etc. PAK FA?
  42. marinier 2 November 2015 16: 58 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Dobroe vremia sutok gospoda. Pozvolte s Vashego mol4alivo glasie pisat mneni.Namoi vzgliad, f-35 ttx preuveli4en, ia s4itat russishe avia delati takoi elektron na4inka kak f-35, russishe avia ne budet ustupat usa.
  43. EvilLion 2 November 2015 16: 59 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Regrettably, Lightning is the cheapest of the 4 + generation fighters


    Su-Xnumx is cheaper. Kaptsov is simply brazenly lying. The cost of Su-35 is also low, about 34 lard rubles, this at a rate of 1 = 1 gave less than 30 million dollars apiece. Export Su-40MK EMNIP on 30kk went.
  44. Prisoner 2 November 2015 17: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Recently, there have been a lot of similar analytics. Cookies reached the rank and file of the cloak and kin ... sorry, pen and paper or something else? recourse
    1. Dam
      Dam 3 November 2015 01: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Sorry, but feather and shit on the fan
  45. lazy 2 November 2015 17: 10 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    “And I will recognize my dear by gait,” or rather, by the first sentences. I read the first paragraph, scrolled through the article, well, it’s like our Russian nightingale of the American military-industrial complex Oleg Kaptsov. But in essence, how justified, given the cost of the aircraft, even for peacetime, rely on only one engine?
  46. Catafract 2 November 2015 17: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Russian reader is smart. He perfectly sees the contradiction between the stories of the “poorly flying” F-35s, which are being built dozens a year, and the invincible PAK FA

    you bombarded us with facts, and we will bury you under the caps !!! laughing
  47. sinoptic 2 November 2015 17: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We need to think already start thinking about a new attack aircraft / light fighter with Vert. Takeoff Landing.
    1. Dam
      Dam 3 November 2015 01: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And on x, excuse me, why?
  48. Belousov 2 November 2015 17: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, in general, an article about anything. Here, in the comments on the facts, everything was already dismantled, shoveled, and the Professor, of course, never appeared in order to protect his brainchild. I am more interested in another fact - how much is opium today for the people? How much does such a custom reprint of the US propaganda with the sauce "all gone!" Maybe I can rivet similar crazy articles at a reasonable price? Additional earnings will never hurt me laughing
  49. mosquit 2 November 2015 18: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2012148318A1?cl=ru
    A supersonic adjustable flat (two-dimensional) air intake is known, in which the flow is decelerated on an adjustable multistage direct wedge in a series of oblique shock waves. To improve the characteristics of the air intake on the wedge, perforation can be performed, and in the throat area, a transverse slit of the boundary layer drain. (Remeev N.Kh. Aerodynamics of air intakes of supersonic aircraft. TsAGI ed., Zhukovsky, 2002, 178 pp.)

    Analogs include the supersonic air intake of an F-22 aircraft, which implements a spatial compression scheme for supersonic flow Ί (Aerodynamics, stability, and controllability of supersonic aircraft, edited by G.S.Bushgenz. - M .: Nauka. Fizmatlit, 1998). To reduce the radar signature of the F-22 aircraft, the air intake is made with sweeping all the edges of the entrance. In the front view, the entrance to the air intake is in the form of a parallelogram. The air intake has one braking step on perforated vertical and horizontal wedges, air bypass flaps in the channel. The air intake duct is S-shaped. The ability to control the minimum passage area (throat) is absent. The disadvantages include the lack of regulation of the throat of the air intake of the F-22 aircraft. For this reason, its characteristics at supersonic flight modes are lower than the level characteristic of adjustable air intakes (System analysis of the technical appearance of the F / A-22 “Reptor” aircraft, report of FSUE “GosNIIAS” Ka68 (15396) 2005). Apparently, the air intake is not designed to fly with a Mach number greater than M = 2.0 (Aerodynamics, stability and controllability of supersonic airplanes, under the editorship of G. S. Byushgens. - M.: Science. Fizmatlit, 1998).


    It has already been said here that for the sake of "technology" invisibility "sacrifice aerodynamics ...
    "5th generation" for "zusuls" apparently ... bully
  50. Sealek 2 November 2015 19: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    laughing I read and pissed off ... sorry for the intimate details, but when again (on the pot) - I laughed much harder (after all, the toilet - you know the sound insulation ...). It's probably hard to come up with the best phosphate ads!
    What we have in fact is the premature idea of ​​the original platform.
    A bunch of scrap metal produced and sold to Aboriginal people, which is "ABOUT ANYTHING."
    Surely IT is a financial defeat for the UAC! (by the way, which brings the PAK FA - without lodging a pocket to potential buyers).
    F - 35 ... well, just cool aboriginal wiring for babosiks - to bring related programs.
    Some problems with the "printing press in ***** tane" are already visible, unlike our worthless Central Bank of the Russian Federation bully