Military Review

Experts on the American F-35: very expensive and inefficient

227
The American concern Lockheed Martin does not doubt the success and even received a contract to upgrade its offspring - the F-35 fighter. However, this aircraft was in the rating of the most unsuccessful fighters, compiled by the publication The National Interest, the channel said in a report RT.




“It turns out that the F-35 fighter, which is causing many complaints, is cost-effective and, quote, leading aviation complex. So, at least, says its manufacturer - the company Lockheed Martin. The company even won a contract of the United States Missile Defense Agency for a total of over $ 500 million for the modification of the fighter, ”the television report said.

Nevertheless, the pilots "are already complaining about numerous problems and claim the need for improvements, and this despite the fact that billions of dollars have already been spent on the production of the fighter."

“The Government of Norway on its official Instagram page at the end of 2015 published a photo of cookies in the form of F-35. However, many did not like it, they called it offensive and even vulgar. Norway is one of the many countries that purchased the scandalous fighter, as well as, for example, Israel, Japan, Australia and Turkey, ”says the journalist RT.

Now the complete set of the fighter is planned to be supplemented with a special helmet for the pilot - "the most expensive and perfect." Also positioned and the machine itself.

“The high accuracy and instantaneous image transfer of the helmet display of the F-35 pilot allows it to serve as an augmented reality system,” according to the presentation video.

However, the tests revealed another problem: the helmet was too heavy, and pilots could get neck injuries when ejecting.

The channel asked to comment on the situation of the aeronautical engineer Pierre Spray, who participated in the development of the F-16 fighter.

“The F-35 fighter was conceived and developed based on fundamental misconceptions. It is impossible to create a multi-purpose aircraft that would be truly effective in a combat situation. If you make compromises so that the plane can perform three, four or five different tasks, then you have to lose certain characteristics. All multi-purpose aircraft were very expensive, but in combat they were completely untenable. To justify this, we were told that we could not afford three different aircraft designed to perform specific tasks. For example, one for close air combat, one for strikes against targets deep in enemy territory and one for direct support of troops. However, the truth is just the opposite. ”
said an engineer who is a defense expert.

In his opinion, America "cannot afford a multi-purpose aircraft, since it costs much more than three specialized aircraft that do well with their tasks."

Photos used:
forumdaily.com
227 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SSR
    SSR 8 January 2016 11: 06 New
    15
    It seems to me that ours were close to taking such a path, creating a multi-purpose one, but as the events of the last “days” show, they refused such an idea and the MiG has already announced what a new interceptor will do and the attack aircraft are going to create a new one, only at the expense of the front-line I didn’t hear the bomber. Looks clapped his ears))))
    1. Sura
      Sura 8 January 2016 11: 24 New
      26
      The front-line was recently adopted by the SU-34.
      1. SSR
        SSR 9 January 2016 22: 31 New
        -1
        Quote: Sura
        The front-line was recently adopted by the SU-34.

        comrades ... well, like the F-35 of the fifth generation ... the T-50 of the fifth .... about the multipurpose in the article - about the F-35 ... Su-34 4 ++ and as if hinting ... yes? !
        Quote: Wedmak
        I heard about the interceptor, but it will be based on the MIG-31, if I'm not mistaken. About the attack aircraft ... MIG and the attack aircraft? They never made them!

        Yes, I had in mind our entire combat aviation in the 5th generation format (it is clearly written in the article)
        The channel asked to comment on the situation of the aeronautical engineer Pierre Spray, who participated in the development of the F-16 fighter.

        “The F-35 fighter was conceived and developed on the basis of fundamental misconceptions. It is impossible to create a multi-purpose aircraft that would be truly effective in a combat situation. If you make compromises so that the plane can perform three, four or five different tasks, then you are forced to lose individual characteristics. All multi-purpose aircraft were very expensive, but in battle were completely untenable.


        for sofa Kamradov separately singled out)) can doput and digest the essence)))
        Special thanks to comrade.
        Quote: Kasym
        About the stealth. Few people noticed, but on October 7 (or November), the Americans reported that they were extremely surprised by the "interceptions" by the Russians of their UAVs in Syria. And they, as you know, are made of composite materials and are much smaller in size than the F-35 (22).

        Thank you!
        Quote: vladimir_krm
        Unification is needed to reduce the cost of production and reduce the range of spare parts, especially in hostilities. And it is highly desirable not to the detriment of other requirements. The Americans with the F-35 failed to get through this knife blade.

        So what is it about .. (above from the article) and ours wanted to create a station wagon ... but they “changed their minds”, you can’t push everything into one whole and even “Armata” is only a quarter, the rest will be on other platforms (briefly if).
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 8 January 2016 11: 27 New
      16
      and MiG has already announced what a new interceptor will do and the attack aircraft are going to create a new one

      I heard about the interceptor, but it will be based on the MIG-31, if I'm not mistaken. About the attack aircraft ... MIG and the attack aircraft? They never made them! Although there really was information about the new attack aircraft, but it seems to be a joint development.
      only at the expense of the front bomber did not hear. Looks clapped his ears))))

      Uh ... as if Su-34 is already bombing terrorists with might and main. 2020 is expected to completely replace Su-24 with 34. Modified electronic warfare aircraft and possibly a scout are also being sawed. The platform came out successful, there will be many more options.
      1. dmi.pris
        dmi.pris 8 January 2016 11: 40 New
        -12
        MIG-27 is a multi-purpose aircraft. First of all, it is a ground attack aircraft, but it can conduct close combat (it does not have a radar). In the Russian army it was used (or is used, I don’t know for sure) as a reconnaissance. Kazakhstan has a lot of such vehicles.
        Quote: Wedmak
        and MiG has already announced what a new interceptor will do and the attack aircraft are going to create a new one

        I heard about the interceptor, but it will be based on the MIG-31, if I'm not mistaken. About the attack aircraft ... MIG and the attack aircraft? They never made them! Although there really was information about the new attack aircraft, but it seems to be a joint development.
        only at the expense of the front bomber did not hear. Looks clapped his ears))))

        Uh ... as if Su-34 is already bombing terrorists with might and main. 2020 is expected to completely replace Su-24 with 34. Modified electronic warfare aircraft and possibly a scout are also being sawed. The platform came out successful, there will be many more options.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 8 January 2016 11: 54 New
          16
          MIG-27 is a multi-purpose aircraft. First of all, it is an attack aircraft, but it can conduct close combat

          Something I hear for the first time that the MIG-27 is called an attack aircraft. This is actually a fighter-bomber. It was redone from MIG-23 by installing the appropriate equipment to perform shock tasks. The aerodynamics are slightly changed, the engine and armament are replaced. However, the reservation was never received. However, the efficiency of the aircraft was very high, and even the issue of its reanimation from storage bases during the Chechen company was even worked out. Unfortunately, the park was already not suitable for flying.
          The Su-25 has achieved more, having received an armored cabin and booking of especially important nodes. This is really an attack aircraft.
          1. BIGLESHIY
            BIGLESHIY 8 January 2016 15: 45 New
            +4
            Quote: Wedmak
            However, the reservation was never received.

            Partially, the cabin was covered with armored sheets.

            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 8 January 2016 18: 28 New
              0
              In the words of the chief designer of electronic equipment for aircraft - Vladimir Fedosov, “Mig 23 was a fairly ugly machine”
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 9 January 2016 08: 26 New
                0
                Nevertheless, there was nothing better than he in the West until the F-15 mod of the late eighties (did not start).
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 9 January 2016 10: 24 New
                  0
                  What are you - were F 16, F 14, F 15A.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 10 January 2016 01: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    What are you - were F 16, F 14, F 15A.

                    And all this was much worse than the MiG-23 - you can just compare the performance characteristics.
                    From a much slower and without variable wing F-16 in close combat, the MiG-23 left and hit it on the verticals (like the MiG-21 beat the Mirage from which radars were removed even for super-lightness), the F-14 compared to the MiG-23 in terms of thrust-weight ratio by the mid-90s, only the F-23C was able to surpass the MiG-15ML in the eighties and not in the very first modification.
                    Just until 1983, almost all planes except half the MiG-25 were delivered to the Arabs without a radar laughing and badly worsened to be whipping boys from 1973 to 1983. Prior to this, from 1965 to 1970 until they themselves were burned.
                    Then, also with export radars on the MiG-29 (and with a low-speed horseradish cannon) they made Iraqi and Serb whipping boys. There where there were even export Su-27 America with its satellites never popped.
              2. VIT101
                VIT101 9 January 2016 19: 53 New
                +1
                And you can’t say what specifically V. Fedosov meant when talking about the Mig-23 Curvature? Maybe he meant the radar Sapphire, and not the plane?
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 9 January 2016 23: 09 New
                  0
                  He meant the plane.
                  1. VIT101
                    VIT101 10 January 2016 16: 49 New
                    +1
                    His statement is taken out of context. I suppose that he talked about the problems associated with the placement of avionics in pre-production vehicles. Otherwise, he was not special. Read the Scraptor post from 01:33.
          2. edeligor
            edeligor 8 January 2016 19: 52 New
            -1
            Quote: Wedmak
            However, the efficiency of the aircraft was very high.

            Hello. Where does this infa come from? For pilots, not always; and then in the absence of a choice. For techies, the third grade is not a marriage. For the effectiveness of the application, so-so. Export, complete failure. So what is the efficiency, dear? Confess to yourself that for MIG, the entire MIG23 line was, unfortunately, a failure ...
            1. VIT101
              VIT101 10 January 2016 08: 40 New
              +1
              Who are you? Military expert? Carried combat use on the Mig-23 or 27? To make such conclusions, it is necessary to seriously know the essence of the issue, and not to use rumors.
          3. sivuch
            sivuch 8 January 2016 20: 40 New
            -1
            You are mistaken. All options, except guillemot, had a reservation
        2. Altona
          Altona 8 January 2016 13: 05 New
          +5
          Quote: dmi.pris
          MIG-27 is a multi-purpose aircraft.

          ---------------------
          TOP GUN was apparently watched again during the winter holidays, with Tom Cruise. Only there MIG-28. So there the role of the MIG-28 was played by the Northrop F-5E Tiger II, a light MANY-PURPOSE fighter.
        3. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 January 2016 13: 14 New
          +7
          Quote: dmi.pris
          MIG-27 is a multi-purpose aircraft. First of all, it is an attack aircraft, but it can conduct close combat (it does not have a radar). In the Russian army it was used (or is used, I don’t know for sure) as a scout.

          The "ancient" would kill you ... hi
          1. PHANTOM-AS
            PHANTOM-AS 8 January 2016 13: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrew Y.
            The "ancient" would kill you ..

            that's for sure


      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 January 2016 11: 44 New
        +4
        Quote: Wedmak
        I heard about the interceptor, but it will be based on the MIG-31, if I'm not mistaken.

        Most likely you are mistaken. I think the MIG-41 (PAK DP-promising long-range interception aircraft complex) will be a completely new machine. It is enough to look at the speed characteristics of the new interceptor (which voiced mattresses 4,5-5 max) and it becomes clear that there is no modernization MIG-31 just will not "pull" this.
        Quote: Wedmak
        Although there really was information about the new attack aircraft, but it seems to be a joint development.

        Apparently yes. Although they are trying to adapt the Yak-130 and the same aircraft in an unmanned version, like an attack UAV, for this matter.
        Best regards hi
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 8 January 2016 12: 01 New
          +2
          Most likely you are mistaken. I think the MIG-41 (PAK DP-promising long-range interception aircraft complex) will be a completely new machine.

          Well, all the better. The speed in the 4-5 swings is generally impressive. It will be interesting to look at his appearance.
          Although they are trying to adapt the YAK-130 to this matter

          Something is doubtful. Like a light attack aircraft, chasing bandits, in the absence of air defense and MANPADS, is super (there is even a photo with a mounted rangefinder scope), like a UAV, it will also work, but like a real attack aircraft ... You won’t especially armor it, huge cockpit glazing, shot through right through. Although if it is increased one and a half times, they will replace the actually open cabin with an armored capsule, hang sighting equipment - it can work.
          1. soaring
            soaring 8 January 2016 12: 36 New
            +3
            About the Yak-130 ... If you hang on it the above ( Although if it is increased one and a half times, they will replace the actually open cabin with an armored capsule, hang sighting equipment - it can work.) It seems to me that this will not be the Yak-130, but a completely new plane.
          2. gjv
            gjv 8 January 2016 15: 14 New
            +3
            Quote: Wedmak
            You won’t hang much armor, huge cockpit glazing, shot through right through. Although if it is increased one and a half times, they will replace the actually open cabin with an armored capsule, hang sighting equipment - it can work.

            Quote: soaring
            It seems to me that this will not be the Yak-130, but a completely new plane.

            The Yakovlev Design Bureau believes that the necessary and sufficient amount of modernization to the attack aircraft version will cover 15% of the structure.

            The cabin is painted single with reinforced light and protection at the rear, the shape of the nose fairing is different (similar to the Su-25), the air intakes and the influx of the wing are reduced. Overall sizes are the same.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 8 January 2016 15: 23 New
              +3
              Thanks for the info. Nevertheless, the OKB is more visible than to us from the sofa. ))) But let's see what happens in the hardware. Su-27 also changed quite a lot from prototype to serial. And successful alterations of aircraft of one class to another can be counted on the fingers.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Vadim237
            Vadim237 8 January 2016 18: 26 New
            0
            Unless the cabin glazing will be made of superpolycarbonate.
          5. VIT101
            VIT101 9 January 2016 20: 10 New
            +1
            Completely incompetent people write about a speed of 4-5 mach for a serial fighter. To achieve such speeds, engine thrust comparable to LRE is needed, I am silent about materials. The cost of the aircraft will be prohibitive. And there is no need for such speed for an interceptor when there are missiles on board.
    3. Atrix
      Atrix 8 January 2016 13: 04 New
      +6
      Oh my God, how many of these experts divorced. He correctly said that if you couldn’t get a normal job in your specialty, you immediately become an expert.
      If even one expert were responsible for their expert assessments, then immediately there would be much less experts.
    4. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 8 January 2016 13: 12 New
      +1
      Experts on the American F-35: very expensive and inefficient
      dear, yes, but about effectiveness, you can judge only after combat use. Ours is not in vain "run" 34th, there will certainly be a modernization, in problem areas.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 8 January 2016 19: 59 New
        +2
        About the stealth. Few people noticed, but on October 7 (or November), the Americans reported that they were extremely surprised by the "interceptions" by the Russians of their UAVs in Syria. And they, as you know, are made of composite materials and are much smaller in size than the F-35 (22). That is also a stealth technology. During the day, Dryings intercepted Amer three times. UAV. In the beginning, they thought it was an accident after the first interception (the growing source was simply “drawn” in front of the UAV's video cameras), but then the intercepts of other UAVs were repeated. and they "realized" that the Russians saw them.
        I have a question. If UAVs are visible on Russian radars, will they really not notice the F-22 (35)? hi
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 11 January 2016 11: 58 New
          +1
          Mistake - did you decide that the UAV is invisible to radar?
          Subtle - a more accurate definition.
          I believe that the obsolete UAVs MQ-1 Predator are the basis of intelligence operations in the region. It is difficult to call Predator type UAVs hardly noticeable - structurally screw UAVs are very noticeable, despite the use of composite materials in the design.
          Special measures are needed in the design of UAVs, to scatter reflected radiation and expensive materials, to replace traditional structural alloys, and this is many times - an order of magnitude, makes UAVs more expensive.
          The battlefield UAV should be cheap: ideally, it’s cheaper than the means intended for its destruction.
          Of the inconspicuous UAVs for special operations, the Sentinel (RQ-170 Sentinel) "lit up" and then after a "forced" landing in Iran, it is unlikely to be used in Syria.
    5. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 9 January 2016 11: 57 New
      0
      Quote: SSR
      It seems to me that ours were close to taking that path, creating a multi-purpose


      Unification is needed to reduce the cost of production and reduce the range of spare parts, especially in hostilities. And it is highly desirable not to the detriment of other requirements. The Americans with the F-35 failed to get through this knife blade.

      You can make an excellent Su-27 FB, Su-34 commander, Su-30 naval, advanced Su-33 based on the Su-35, but the attack aircraft is better from scratch - the Su-25 and clones. So they do.
  2. avvg
    avvg 8 January 2016 11: 07 New
    +7
    Anyway, the Americans will find someone to "gag" them.
    1. vladfill
      vladfill 8 January 2016 11: 19 New
      +9
      The Japam states imposed rearmament from 2014 to 2019 in the amount of 24,7 trillion yen.
      $ 240 billion, so there is someone to get them involved, and then last year there was a NATO pointer
      gang member countries to increase defense spending by 2%, and where 2% there may be more
      how much appetite will allow.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 8 January 2016 12: 07 New
        +2
        And with zeroes all a bunch?
      2. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 9 January 2016 01: 42 New
        0
        Dear, not two percent, but up to two percent of GDP! In the case of Latvia, this is almost double!
    2. Altona
      Altona 8 January 2016 13: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      Anyway, the Americans will find someone to "gag" them.

      -------------------
      They shed off the souring. Israel will find how to apply them, Hale Avir will come up with tactics for them, Japan and Italy will finalize their assemblies with a file.
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 8 January 2016 13: 34 New
        0
        They shed off the souring. Israel will find how to apply them, Hale Avir will come up with tactics for them
        I don’t understand, but why does Israel need a fighter? In a six day war, perhaps. With whom, is the country really going to fight with the use of bombers, attack aircraft? With Hezbollah?
        1. IS-80
          IS-80 8 January 2016 16: 48 New
          0
          Quote: avva2012
          I don’t understand, but why does Israel need a fighter? In a six day war, perhaps. With whom, is the country really going to fight with the use of bombers, attack aircraft? With Hezbollah?

          Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 8 January 2016 17: 02 New
            0
            Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.
            Iran, perhaps yes, but that it has no problems of its own?
            The remaining countries are US satellites, as is Israel. Unfortunately (in the sense of Israel). Them, what to share?
            1. IS-80
              IS-80 8 January 2016 17: 14 New
              +3
              Quote: avva2012
              The remaining countries are US satellites, as is Israel. Unfortunately (in the sense of Israel). Them, what to share?

              There is always something to share. Natural resources, territories, spheres of influence, trade routes. US control is not forever. And these satellites at the first opportunity will run to the side of the stronger or try to become this strong themselves.
              1. avva2012
                avva2012 8 January 2016 17: 26 New
                0
                Well, if not us, then who? The United States, if everything is as it is now, they themselves will not leave from there. It seems to me that the very same Israel, buying aircraft, just pays for the support. The CA, and all other Arab Emirates, do not suffer from Alzheimer's, they know their place in geopolitics. If barking, then click.
        2. Alf
          Alf 8 January 2016 17: 57 New
          0
          Quote: avva2012
          I don’t understand, but why does Israel need a fighter?

          Why does Australia need such a plane? Kangaroo intercept?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 8 January 2016 18: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            Why does Australia need such a plane? Kangaroo intercept?

            Israel needs it, maybe Iran is nearby ... and Australia as a result of the strengthening of the Chinese Navy and Air Force. Another question is whether Lightning will be able to cope well with the tasks for which it is being created. The concept of using the F-35 has already been changed.
            1. Alf
              Alf 8 January 2016 19: 15 New
              -2
              Quote: NEXUS
              Israel needs it, maybe Iran is nearby ... and Australia as a result of the strengthening of the Chinese Navy and Air Force. Another question is whether Lightning will be able to cope well with the tasks for which it is being created. The concept of using the F-35 has already been changed.

              And how many kilometers are from Australia to China? And will China climb to beat Australia? Why the hell does China need it? Here, rather, the question is political and economic. And as Pindocs are able to push through the purchase of unnecessary goods, so we learn and learn.
          2. avva2012
            avva2012 8 January 2016 18: 43 New
            0
            Well, Australia pays for something. Until let’s go, they were let into the market for selling uranium. Why not.
  3. Vadim237
    Vadim237 8 January 2016 11: 08 New
    +6
    But the F 35 is beautiful and high-tech, and all other problems will be solved over time - there are no problems with the F 35A, but with other modifications, troubles in bulk, in view of their richness.
    1. seti
      seti 8 January 2016 11: 13 New
      28
      He already has an incorrigible problem - so much money has been thrown into development that it is simply impossible to recognize the project as a failure. You need to bring it to the end and spend and spend billions.
      1. Tersky
        Tersky 8 January 2016 11: 33 New
        +7
        Quote: seti
        He already has an incorrigible problem - so much money has been thrown into development that it is simply impossible to recognize the project as a failure.

        With one, but essential condition - until the developers recognize that among the pathologies inherent in the F-35 today, the most destructive is the peculiar obsession to get three aircraft in one. In general, from our Russian, at the expense of chasing two hares ....
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 8 January 2016 18: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Tersky
          With one, but essential condition - until the developers recognize that among the pathologies inherent in the F-35 today, the most destructive is the peculiar obsession to get three aircraft in one. In general, from our Russian, at the expense of chasing two hares ....

          What is interesting about the US Navy, they never planned to replace the F / A-18 Super Hornet with the F-35C over time, they want to replace the Super Hornet with a new 6th generation fighter, and they have the F-35C as a Super addition -hornet.
      2. would
        would 8 January 2016 11: 41 New
        +4
        What are the exact words and how they reminded me of the film "Pentagon Wars" where the whole plot revolves precisely around this, but there is an M2 Bradley BMP.
      3. dmi.pris
        dmi.pris 8 January 2016 11: 46 New
        -1
        The basis of the project is our Yak-vertical, the documentation was handed over in the early 90's. Whatever the staff members said, they made a high-tech aircraft, I think I will probably use our best practices ...
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 January 2016 13: 16 New
          0
          Quote: dmi.pris
          The basis of the project is our Yak-vertical, the documentation was handed over in the early 90's. Whatever the staff members said, they made a high-tech aircraft, I think I will probably use our best practices ...

          Well, traditionally, China ...
        2. GAF
          GAF 8 January 2016 15: 36 New
          0
          Quote: dmi.pris
          The basis of the project is our Yak-vertical, the documentation was handed over in the early 90's. Whatever the staff members said, they made a high-tech aircraft, I think I will probably use our best practices ...

          You are absolutely right. They leaked everything except a trifle - technology a la "Rasp & Sledgehammer". So the poor fellow are tormented.
      4. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 January 2016 11: 54 New
        +1
        This is due to the fact that 35 large US companies worked on the creation of F 20 - everyone wanted to grab their piece, and even with a big profit.
        1. Tersky
          Tersky 8 January 2016 12: 08 New
          +4
          Quote: Vadim237
          This is due to the fact that 35 of large US companies worked on the creation of F 20 - everyone wanted to snatch their piece

          I’ll add my own five kopecks, F-35 was built by about 6000 engineers under the supervision of state inspectors who had not been sitting in their place for long, with at least 2000 employees from state authorities providing supervision.
        2. evge-malyshev
          evge-malyshev 8 January 2016 13: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          35 large US companies worked on the creation of F 20


          The fact is that such a product as the AVIATION COMPLEX is really created in cooperation with many fairly specialized scientific, manufacturing and technological enterprises: aerodynamics, aviation materials, engines, electronics, weapons, civil and military research and testing institutes, strategy and application tactics ... etc. One software is worth it.

          However, I agree with those who believe that THREE IN ONE, FIVE IN ONE, etc. In ONE - money down the drain.
        3. evge-malyshev
          evge-malyshev 8 January 2016 13: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          35 large US companies worked on the creation of F 20


          The fact is that such a product as the AVIATION COMPLEX is really created in cooperation with many fairly specialized scientific, manufacturing and technological enterprises: aerodynamics, aviation materials, engines, electronics, weapons, civil and military research and testing institutes, strategy and application tactics ... etc. One software is worth it.

          However, I agree with those who believe that THREE IN ONE, FIVE IN ONE, etc. In ONE - money down the drain.
      5. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 8 January 2016 12: 10 New
        +1
        And it pleases. So, as the guarantor says, we will give an asymmetric answer. Cheap and efficient.
    2. Wheel
      Wheel 8 January 2016 11: 40 New
      +2
      Quote: Vadim237
      But F 35 is beautiful and high-tech,

      Yeah, a pregnant duck (or a well-fed penguin) - terribly beautiful. laughing
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 01 New
        +1
        You shouldn’t be so in vain, it’s beautiful, and our engineers on the design of the cockpit - the dashboard should learn.
        1. Vlad74 Q
          Vlad74 Q 8 January 2016 12: 31 New
          +9
          Beautiful ? Cab design? Learn ???
          This is a "flying iPhone" !!! What will happen to this multi-function display after its lumbago? Yes, even after it was damaged by a tiny splinter? I am more than sure that it will fail. And where is the pilot to receive information after this? Will there be a further flight on the navigator in the pilot’s personal iPhone?
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 8 January 2016 12: 42 New
            +3
            But what will happen to him after the nuclear explosions happen and electromagnetic radiation covers him?
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 51 New
              +1
              Both in our country and in the USA, military equipment has protection against electromagnetic radiation.
              1. Iline
                Iline 8 January 2016 19: 55 New
                +1
                Quote: Vadim237
                Both in our country and in the USA, military equipment has protection against electromagnetic radiation.

                How could a specialist in REA tell me how this protection is implemented? Given that all electronics are now semiconductor and not tube. Dischargers do not roll - they serve completely different purposes and are not able to protect against a nuclear explosion.
                1. glasha3032
                  glasha3032 9 January 2016 03: 29 New
                  0
                  And then why did we leave the devices, "alarms" at the IFI?
              2. Kasym
                Kasym 8 January 2016 20: 20 New
                -1
                The ergonomics of the cockpit are recognized as the best among 4th generation fighters precisely on Soviet (Russian) aircraft. Even in the F-15, a heavy fighter, the cockpit is "cramped, more uncomfortable" than on the MiG-29 (light). hi
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 49 New
            0
            This is a modification of the cockpit with a targeting helmet in which all the parameters of the aircraft will be displayed if the dashboard fails, but as you said - with a shot through the cockpit, if it remains alive, it will eject.
            1. BIGLESHIY
              BIGLESHIY 8 January 2016 16: 00 New
              -1
              Quote: Vadim237
              This is a modification of the cockpit with a targeting helmet in which all the parameters of the aircraft will be displayed if the dashboard fails, but as you said - with a shot through the cockpit, if it remains alive, it will eject.

              You carefully read the article. You can remain catapulted with such a “globe” on your head. So, in any case, let’s fly a kayuk-kamikaze.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 8 January 2016 17: 58 New
                0
                With what "globe" is a normal helmet, what are you fantasizing about.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 8 January 2016 18: 07 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  With what "globe" is a normal helmet, what are you fantasizing about.

                  Not really. Israel is developing it. There are only a few questions about this helmet. First: the identity of the helmet. The pilot fell ill, or just died and the helmet is already needed for another new pilot.
                  Second: Getting used to this helmet. Pilots experience inconvenience and discomfort in it as a result of functions such as the "look of God."
                  Third: The mass of the helmet. And this is not the invention of our critics, but the conclusion of American experts.
                  But in fairness it should be noted that the idea is not bad. (I AM ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES OF THIS HELMET)
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 8 January 2016 18: 56 New
                    +4
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    First: helmet personality

                    Brad.
                    Individually, only a transparent shield, the refinement reception is already held on the basis of the Air Force.
                    Here is the first fitting for a Norwegian Air Force pilot

                    A brand new person puts on a helmet at the show.

                    Journalist

                    Refinement needed for better projection on the faceplate.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Second: Getting used to this helmet. Pilots experience inconvenience and discomfort in it as a result of functions such as the "look of God."

                    There were problems in the first generation now fixed. Everything needs a habit.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Third: The mass of the helmet. And this is not the invention of our critics, but the conclusion of American experts.

                    Similarly, only in the first generation.
                    and yes how much does it weigh?
                    The jhmcs helmet (which is used in the Air Force) weighs 2kg without NVD (4.4 lbs).
                    The F-35 helmet is somewhere around 2,2 (less than 5 lb.) in Gen2. The difference is minimal, and Gen 3 is even smaller.
                    jhmcs they even visually look like

                    hmds gen3
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 8 January 2016 22: 28 New
                      0
                      Quote: iwind
                      hmds gen3

                      But they wanted this, but it turned out different?
                      1. iwind
                        iwind 8 January 2016 23: 32 New
                        +2
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        But they wanted this, but it turned out different?

                        This is a concept. It is always different from the final version. What is the point of covering the whole face with a visor or why should NVD be covered? The main thing is that they wanted to get a helmet with certain functions — appearance is trifles.
                      2. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 9 January 2016 08: 19 New
                        0
                        Quote: iwind
                        This is a concept. It is always different from the final version. What is the point of covering the whole face with a visor or why should NVD be covered? The main thing is that they wanted to get a helmet with certain functions — appearance is trifles.

                        They didn’t succeed in this concept and had to sniff with the Bae System and then Elbit, then they did something, but they say it is somewhat simpler in functionality, but in general they are great, they move forward, although from F-35 to concepts, they were somewhat mistaken in my opinion, and are repetitive with this in the fifth generation.
                2. mav1971
                  mav1971 10 January 2016 20: 10 New
                  0
                  Quote: NEXUS

                  Third: The mass of the helmet. And this is not the invention of our critics, but the conclusion of American experts.
                  But in fairness it should be noted that the idea is not bad. (I AM ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES OF THIS HELMET)


                  Apparently the problem of the mass of the helmet for years 20 as decided in auto racing.
                  Will finalize.
                  With a temporary fastener to the chair (as an example) at the time of bailout. With subsequent release. implemented easily.
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 January 2016 13: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: Vlad74 Q
          What will happen to this multi-function display after its lumbago?

          Quote: avva2012
          But what will happen to him after the nuclear explosions happen and electromagnetic radiation covers him?

          guys, any aircraft after "lumbago" will sing: "but what is it ... what? I'm in a deep" peak "! and I can’t get out of it at all ..." V.S. Vysotsky.
        3. Bayonet
          Bayonet 8 January 2016 14: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: Vlad74 Q
          I am more than sure that it will fail.

          Oh, it’s good that there aren’t such smart people! smile It’s profitable for us, isn't it?
        4. McCain2
          McCain2 8 January 2016 16: 48 New
          -10
          Quote: Vlad74 Q
          This is a "flying iPhone" !!!

          Yes, you Russians just admit that your science is 100 years behind our years!
          Do not worry! In a hundred years, the cockpits of your aircraft will look the same!
          And then when you see something high-tech, you will lament right away: it will break, it will not fly, your head with a helmet will fall off!
          Do you think that before putting the helmet on the pilot, he was not tested 10 times on a mannequin?
          Listen to you, so you have to fight with sticks and stones in general. Onion is too advanced a weapon for you - And suddenly it breaks - the bowstring will break !!!!
          Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!
          laughing laughing laughing
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 8 January 2016 17: 03 New
            +4
            Oh ... not really very thick of course. Russian technologies differ from Western technologies in that it is done simply, reliably and with a large margin for improvement. This is not easy, of course, but the result justifies itself. A vivid example: the use of free-falling bombs as a precision weapon. The Americans hang a tens of thousands of dollars worth of JDAM on them and lose it with every bomb dropped. Cheaper of course than natural correctable, but still. In Russia, they made SVP-24, which is installed on an airplane and allows you to calculate the point of bomb drop for an accurate hit. And there at least hang up ordinary cast irons.
            So who did the more technologically?
          2. alexej123
            alexej123 9 January 2016 01: 40 New
            0
            Mr. shot down pilot - look at the Syrian events - our “old men” Su 24 and 25 do as much work as your Needles, Hornets and companies do not. And about technology - "Armata" to help you. Facts about mattress technology of this level pliz?
            1. looker-on
              looker-on 12 January 2016 00: 41 New
              0
              Very controversial saying. Needles and hornets are also developed for 10 years. As for technology: tell me about the technology of the Armata project. So far, from the really new, I only know the uninhabited tower. Americans, for example, have drones hanging in the air for 20+ hours. In the amount of hundreds of pcs. For all my dislike for the nation of the “chosen”, do we have such a solution? Please inform the model and the number of manufactured devices. Or, in your war, we will win Armata? How many pieces by the way did the army enter? (Answer: 0)
        5. sandrmur76
          sandrmur76 8 January 2016 21: 14 New
          0
          Yes, a laptop on your knees and in flight without getting up from the couch laughing Not a single duplicate (mechanical) device.
        6. Falcon
          Falcon 9 January 2016 13: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Vlad74 Q
          what will happen to this multi-function display after its lumbago? Yes, even after it was damaged by a tiny splinter?


          What lumbago? What shard? Sorry, but did you even fly a plane?

          It is forbidden to have buttons on the coats of pilots and even mechanics when servicing them! God forbid that by chance one would not come off and enter the cockpit. What fragments are there. There cannot be more than one foreign object.

          Who can shoot a display during your flight? The enemy pilot sticks out of the window and shoots with a pistol?

          What nonsense do you write
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 8 January 2016 12: 52 New
        +4
        Quote: Vadim237
        and our dashboard cockpit engineers should learn.

        Learn.
        1. looker-on
          looker-on 12 January 2016 00: 43 New
          +1
          Learn .... in Photoshop. The real panel of the Su-35 is not like that. This is just Wishlist and a flight of fancy so far, unfortunately.
      3. Andrey VOV
        Andrey VOV 8 January 2016 13: 03 New
        +1
        I teach my mother-in-law to cook borsch ... her mother’s cabin so ...
      4. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 8 January 2016 13: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        and our dashboard cockpit engineers should learn.


        Judging by this picture, there is nothing to learn here: he is an MFI in Russia, too.
      5. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 8 January 2016 13: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        and our dashboard cockpit engineers should learn.


        Judging by this picture, there is nothing to learn here: he is an MFI in Russia, too.
      6. tehnoluks
        tehnoluks 8 January 2016 13: 36 New
        +1
        You shouldn’t be so, he’s beautiful

        And the glamorous blonde with a small dog and a big iPhone will fly on it. Yes! And more straziks.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 8 January 2016 18: 05 New
          0
          No, there will be another dog.
      7. The comment was deleted.
      8. Windy
        Windy 9 January 2016 20: 16 New
        0
        Oppa! Not expected. Americans came to the Soviet development? The "eggs" of the ejection seat are located both on ours (though there is one "egg"), they used to have them above their heads.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2016 13: 01 New
      +1
      Someone and the penguins are beautiful "birds"
    4. lis-ik
      lis-ik 8 January 2016 16: 01 New
      +2
      The plane is really nice, it looks good from almost all angles.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. The comment was deleted.
  4. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 8 January 2016 12: 19 New
    +1
    Vadim 237-it may be beautiful, but having a minimum of cutting load, it will simply be ineffective. And given the fact that it is very very expensive, this is not the plane that can make up the backbone of an air force of any country.
    1. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 8 January 2016 12: 42 New
      +2
      Vadim! True, beauty is a terrible force! Only American pilots themselves say that it’s cheaper to launch a piece of gold of similar weight in the place of an airplane in the air. wassat
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 14: 34 New
        +4
        Quote: zadorin1974
        Only here, American pilots themselves say that it’s cheaper to launch a piece of gold of similar weight in the place of an airplane in the air.

        You can understand the Americans - this is their money, but ours are so worried? smile Oh, what kind of article and everything is “expensive”, “ineffective” ...
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 43 New
      +2
      And he said that it would be used with a minimum payload, the maximum combat load he has more than 9000 kilograms - there are enough additional suspensions.
      1. purple
        purple 8 January 2016 20: 09 New
        0
        additional pendants, this is not stealth ...
        1. Nosgoth
          Nosgoth 9 January 2016 09: 34 New
          +1
          Stealth is not always needed, and on a batch of several thousand aircraft ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. alexej123
      alexej123 9 January 2016 01: 45 New
      +1
      I agree. If a bomber, then what is better than the Su-34go? If a fighter, then what is superior to Su-30go SM and Su-35go, I am silent about T-50. And so - the queen gave birth on the night of either a son or a daughter - this is the most accurate definition, well, stuffed with widgets, gadgets, etc.
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 9 January 2016 13: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: alexej123
        I agree. If a bomber, then what is better than the Su-34go?


        hmm ... let me think ... probably everyone!

        at least das



        eots



        AFAR discriminating objects 10 * 10cm

        combat load and stealth.

        Quote: alexej123
        If a fighter, then what is superior to Su-30go SM and Su-35go, I am silent about T-50.


        The same EOTS and DAS. in the case of the Su-30, there is also a radar and EPR that differs by 10 times.

        T-50 correctly silent. Who first began testing radar only in 2015 and his stealth is in great doubt, which is not particularly pleased with the Indians.
        Yes. and especially the external container tsu this is generally a song
  5. Altona
    Altona 8 January 2016 13: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    But F 35 is beautiful and high-tech,

    ---------------------------
    Well, only maybe. It will manifest itself, then we will see. In general, it is intended to overcome the enemy's highly air defense, bombing the Papuans and the old Tornadoes are enough.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2016 13: 15 New
      0
      F 35 will be further developed under the carrier of thermonuclear bombs B61-12.
  6. Altona
    Altona 8 January 2016 13: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    But F 35 is beautiful and high-tech,

    -----------------------------
    Except that. In general, it is intended "to overcome the enemy’s layered air defense" with its beauty and manufacturability. To bomb the Papuans these bells and whistles are unnecessary, and the old man "Tornado" is enough.
  • The black
    The black 8 January 2016 11: 11 New
    +4
    Quote: Vadim237
    But F 35 is beautiful

    Well yes, beauty is a terrible power ... laughing
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 8 January 2016 11: 14 New
      +6
      I would not be ironic. In my opinion, the words belong to Tupolev: "a beautiful plane will fly, an ugly one will not fly."
      1. The black
        The black 8 January 2016 11: 27 New
        +3
        Well, a little bit wrong .Pro handsome he did not say smile ... He said: "An ugly plane will not fly"
      2. BDRM 667
        BDRM 667 8 January 2016 13: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Korsar4
        I would not be ironic. In my opinion, the words belong to Tupolev: "a beautiful plane will fly, an ugly one will not fly."


        The irony is quite acceptable in the case of F-35 ...

        Under the influence of ecstasy (software), even he will fly. Only LOW-LOW yes . lol
    2. BLOND
      BLOND 8 January 2016 11: 31 New
      -4
      not very "clumsy work" in the photo
      ... you know, there is a racing car, there is a bus (cool and beautiful) ... here it looks more like a fancy minibus
      1. BLOND
        BLOND 8 January 2016 12: 01 New
        +2
        What is beautiful about him? Air intakes? Experts are tortured to regulate the engine by mode ... Although the computer can do everything (and the engine should not stall even if it is disconnected from the "brain")
        And if the “sneeze” is on the right and the plane is in a tailspin, then this is not a military plane, just an aircraft is heavier than air
  • seti
    seti 8 January 2016 11: 11 New
    +2
    Already read a similar article. Much has been written on this, but it is not in vain that some countries refuse to purchase the F-35. Too expensive, too capricious, difficult to maintain and most importantly still a question, but does it have all the characteristics of an 5 generation aircraft?
    Even rich America is unlikely to be able to afford a lot of them, and even if stamped under 100 pieces, how long can they be used intensively. Let them spend billions wherever possible and necessary to spend millions. And in years through 7-10 we will look at the air showrooms who will buy more PAK FA (export) or F-35. By coercion and by investment, F-35 can be sold, but I don’t think that many countries can afford it. And to bring down a couple of people who want it will be much less.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 8 January 2016 11: 55 New
      +6
      Quote: seti
      Much has been written on this, but it is not in vain that some countries refuse to purchase the F-35.

      They do not refuse yet, but reduce the quantitative application for the purchase of Lightning.


      Quote: seti
      the most important thing is the question, but is it a 5th generation airplane in all its characteristics?

      The speed characteristics of the F-35 are closer to 4th generation fighters.
      Quote: seti
      Even rich America is unlikely to be able to afford a lot of them, and even if stamped under 100 pieces,

      If I am not mistaken, more than 160 cars of various modifications have already been made.
      Quote: seti
      And in 7-10 years we’ll look at the air showrooms who will buy more PAK FA (export) or F-35.

      Three years ago, the MIG design bureau initiated the development of 5th generation LFIs, taking into account the experience of building MIG-1.44, Berkut and PAK FA ... The T-50 is not correct to compare with the F-35, as our plane is a heavy MFI, and therefore it it is more correct to compare with F-22.
      Best regards hi
  • Kazanec
    Kazanec 8 January 2016 11: 11 New
    +8
    Wait and see what happens from this plane. But I really want in my heart that nothing good would come out :)
  • svp67
    svp67 8 January 2016 11: 11 New
    +2
    Experts on the American F-35: very expensive and inefficient
    On palm trees I would hang such experts, for language, that would not be common. F35 is a completely new example of high-tech weapons and by definition it can’t be cheap, and it’s worth talking about the ego of effectiveness even after a couple of military operations with its participation.
    1. Reserve buildbat
      Reserve buildbat 8 January 2016 11: 29 New
      23
      I categorically welcome, Sergey!
      F-35 is truly a completely new example of high-tech weapons. Only technologies there are stupidly mixed and interfere with one another laughing
      We look: 1. They promise to teach him to shoot from a cannon in 2018, if I am not mistaken. 2. In terms of maneuverability, it is inferior to any 4 generation fighter, including even the F-16. 3. And what about his cruising supersonic? So did not achieve? So why was the garden fenced? 4. Invisibility due to radar absorbing coatings is, by definition, a funny thing. Coatings are effective only in a narrow range of wavelengths, which allows you to perfectly see the praised "stealth" in other ranges. 5. And what about his combat load? Two compartments for 1 rocket or bomb each and a non-firing gun? I remember the same situation was on the MiG-21 of the first options. I had to come up with a hanging gun, then set the normal one. And what kind of battle will these 2 missiles have? 6. A new helmet that turned out to be too heavy is also crazy))) It is made for each pilot on purpose and costs 400K bucks. HELMET, CARL !!!
      And no one has seen anything real pluses from him yet.
      1. Thirsty for wind
        Thirsty for wind 8 January 2016 11: 44 New
        +2
        Very nice plane! The miracle of design thought! Lord of the sky!
        Developers write bonuses and year off at the expense of the company.
        laughing
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 06 New
          +4
          Premium statements are already included in the price of the aircraft, many years in advance.
      2. svp67
        svp67 8 January 2016 11: 50 New
        +4
        Quote: stock buildbat
        And no one has seen anything real pluses from him yet.

        This will only solve the battle. Well and indirect evidence, for me the Israeli Air Force has a very high authority, if they refuse to use it, then the expert is really right, and if not, then no.
      3. retardu
        retardu 8 January 2016 12: 58 New
        +3
        Oh Lord, a typical set of stamps. As The Russian Interests were blaming Russian planes, so here everyone spat that it was a yellow newspaper, and already provided by Iksperty.
        1) Already shoots, read less yellow newspapers
        2) it is not regulated anywhere. This is a useful function primarily for the interceptor, for the MFI it is redundant. And it seems that according to the statement of LM, he can fly some distance at supersonic.
        3) In which others? On airplanes in meter? laughing
        Less EPR a priori reduces detection range
        4) http://topwar.ru/index.php?cstart=1&do=lastcomments&userid=28194#comment iwind already painted about the combat load, read, scroll
        5) how much a helmet of a new generation should cost (so as not to shout about the high cost), if the "old" without night vision cost $ 257 and this is in 000 (the dollar was a little different)
        And at first it was 700, then 000, right now another 600, it's getting cheaper before our eyes
        1. iwind
          iwind 8 January 2016 16: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: retardu
          4) http://topwar.ru/index.php?cstart=1&do=lastcomments&userid=28194#comment iwind already painted about the combat load, read, scroll

          hmm. I haven’t been here for a hundred years, and didn’t plan it (it became not interesting). But at the holidays I decided to stop by, and here on you, someone else remembers.
          On the results of the year on the F-35, he is somewhere between good and very good.
          New orders, Norway increased the order to 52 (+6). UK 138 pieces - planned to be reduced to 50-70. Italy built the factory for the production of F-35 for him students were specially trained for long-term production. Israel +14.
          The United States itself has tempered an additional 11 pieces. Next year a contract for 68 pieces was signed
          44 F-35A
          including 29 for the US Air Force, 7 for Israel, 6 for Norway and 2 for Japan.
          - 18 F-35B
          including 12 for the United States ILC and 6 for the United Kingdom
          - 5 F-35C for the U.S. Navy.
          unit price F-35A $ 92mln + engine.
          Combat readiness announcements F-35B.

          Recently conducted exercises using expeditionary bases with a runway size of 61x60 m

          Finished tests for BLOCK 3I in which the combat readiness of the F-35A will be declared in 2016. Only the ICG remains. Now working with BLOCK 3F.
          you can still write a lot of it, like laziness, and probably no one needs it.
          Well, if they are interested in a helmet here, they signed a contract for a 383 helmet of the 3rd generation (HMDS gen 3), the price is just over $ 264 thousand.
          The flight time is 46 flight hours; two aircraft exceeded 000 flight hours.
          Vidio on the results of the year.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 9 January 2016 07: 16 New
          0
          The precious helmet has already been replaced by several owners and went to eat from the captured helmet with the MiG-23 located in one small Middle Eastern country, in which another Arapian flyer hijacked him with an airplane during peace time for an anise bottle. laughing

          Quote: iwind
          On the results of the year on the F-35, he is somewhere between good and very good.
          .
          Combat readiness announcements F-35B
          .
          Recently conducted exercises using expeditionary bases with a runway size of 61x60 m

          wassat


          You, trolls are good here with themselves?

          The first letter in IOC means initial - "initial". And in fact, after several sorties from the landing ship in more than half of the cars, a universal joint fell out that goes from the engine to the fan and at which the moment is more than on the shaft of the destroyer. Therefore, they were made so that a full-size aerodrome strip for horizontal landing on it was nearby.
          Therefore, so that this marriage of software about which they write on the Internet but not a single word is noticeable on all three beautiful videos, without further ado, sticking this three-letter Boy Scout badge F-35B is transferred to Nipponia out of sight to the farthest air base laughing

          And in the F-35C, the shells crack due to hard landings on the deck with a hook, because the attachment point of the landing hook is next to the landing gear struts and there is no place to move it. F-35A still flies although Canada has refused them.
      4. Thronekeeper
        Thronekeeper 8 January 2016 17: 02 New
        +5
        And what about his cruising supersonic? So did not achieve? So why was the garden fence? 4. "Invisibility" due to radar absorbing coatings, a thing is, by definition, funny.
        He has problems with stealth.
        But, most importantly, this is not a fighter in principle. The presence of medium-range RVS and good radar systems are not made by multifunctional ISs like the Su-34, Rafal and F-18, nor the more narrow-profile F-35, sharpened under the "Wild Weasel" - an air defense breakthrough fighter plane. For the F-35 fighter, there is not enough half-speed and 2 km of ceiling. Due to which the maximum range of AMRAAMs falls by 40-50km from 130 to 80 somewhere. Against the target with an excess - say, the Su-35 on the ceiling is 50 at all. due to the insufficient height and additional speed of the fighter, combined with the speed that the engine gives the rocket, by the time the weapon is used, it will be well recognized by the radar and even the Su-35, Su-30, and MiG-31BM OLS, attacked and, probably, shot down.
        Yes, and for the PRR, since the myrikos have big problems with weapons, something like the Kh-31PD they don’t even have close - the TDRD PRR and the planning jeepies and PRLGSN bombs. Their range also envies strongly on altitude and discharge speed. Better if you attack S-300 or Triumph with special add-ons in the form of metro radars and protection from two-stage Pine-shell with OEPS which for HARM-ALARM and in general for detection are extremely difficult targets.
        It’s possible to break through the defenses near the ground, using stealth and air defense in a “fist fight” like the A-4 and even the F-111, in Vietnam, now it’s not.
        They shoved a lot of fuel, drove for range. Outrageously, the midsection was expanded and hacked by the LTX. They also wanted to sit on the Titanic and eat a fish.
        Shove in the non-pushable has not fused.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 8 January 2016 17: 15 New
          +2
          The garden was fenced to replace the mixed fleet with one type of aircraft in different versions. The decision is controversial, but there wasn’t much to see. As a result, we got something that incorporated so many compromises with aerodynamics, control, the weapon system, the engine and other things that had to turn superelectronics to manage this entire economy. But this was not the case, they did; electronics in the USA are at a good level. Yes, that's just one electronics LTX can not be fixed. And you won’t take more bombs.
          Therefore, they relied on stealth and accuracy of strikes. Well, what they got ... they got it. Finish it, of course, no where to go.
          So now it's up to the tactics of application.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 8 January 2016 17: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            So now it's up to the tactics of application.

            I have already said that no one has canceled the fighter pair yet ... So far, the level of technology does not allow creating a truly universal fighter platform that would be able to perform the tasks of both heavy IFIs and LFIs equally well (PAK FA is capable of performing LFI functions , like Raptor, but this is an overabundance of funds in relation to tasks) .In addition, the LFI has always been more massive than the heavy MFI.
            And the interceptor has always stood apart, as the requirements for it are completely different. This is the ceiling and speed and the most powerful radar.
            Best regards hi
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 8 January 2016 17: 42 New
              +1
              Yes, but the Raptors are much smaller than the 35's. And the attack aircraft from the latter is mediocre. Not a single one pulls at the interceptor. I don’t understand one thing: do they really want to move everything to F-35, and write off the old types? Or, somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, are the programs of specialized aircraft ripening, but is that just what it is at the moment? Yes, there is an upgrade to the F-15 / 16, but this is only a drag on time.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 8 January 2016 17: 55 New
                +2
                Quote: Wedmak
                Yes, but the Raptors are much smaller than the 35s.

                So am I about that. As well as the PAK FA, there will be fewer than the new LFIs with us.
                Quote: Wedmak
                And the attack aircraft from the latter is mediocre.

                From the F-35 the same attack aircraft, as well as from Almaty.
                Quote: Wedmak
                I don’t understand one thing: do they really want to move everything to the F-35, and write off the old types?

                They try. But they took on more than they can chew. With the hope that they will finish it.
                Quote: Wedmak
                write off old types?

                While no one is going to write off F-15/16/18, nor are we ready to write off all the 29th and 27th. We have a certain advantage in this, as we are building the PAK FA taking into account the errors of Raptor and Lightning.
                Quote: Wedmak
                Yes, there is an upgrade to the F-15/16, but this is just a drag on time.

                At least another 15-20 years ...
                Best regards hi
              2. iwind
                iwind 8 January 2016 18: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                Yes, but the Raptors are much smaller than the 35's. And the attack aircraft from the latter is mediocre. Not a single one pulls at the interceptor. I don’t understand one thing: do they really want to move everything to F-35, and write off the old types? Or, somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, are the programs of specialized aircraft ripening, but is that just what it is at the moment? Yes, there is an upgrade to the F-15 / 16, but this is only a drag on time.

                And who is everyone?
                for the Air Force, simply replacing the F-16 with the F-35. F-15, F-15E f-22 continue to serve
                For the Navy, the F / A-18 hornet (normal) is changed to F-35. f / a-18 super hornet continues to serve
                For kmp, the AV-8 is changed to F-35.
                And it's all. One exterminated-bomber is exchanged for another.
                A-10 (attack aircraft) - it generally fits in. Distribute his duties to other aircraft and UAVs (in 2016 additional MQ-9 riper). But they do not believe in the further life of the attack aircraft. Watching at least how the Russian Aerospace Forces operate in Syria below 5 km, you can say they do not fly. And they were designed for another.
                1. Thronekeeper
                  Thronekeeper 8 January 2016 22: 54 New
                  -1
                  That is the question. As for export, the F-35 Groboharrier Britons have been licking for many years to change the ILC in the same pile with their quasi-aircraft-carrying fleet. And for their own AB, compared with such quiet horror as the F-18, this is a breakthrough forward and upward. We change the harpoon to JASSM-ER and the main attack aircraft of the Navy looks very nice. As a "super heavy LFI" ... the F-16S DFG unit will serve for a long time.
                  They feed Israel through an arms loan program. Israel is linked to what the military-industrial complex needs, and not what the Jews need, who would rather buy Silent Needles as opposed to the Su-35 and even pay for the deployment of production. Until recently, it was the same with Egypt. Canada yes, refused. Most likely, Australia will refuse. However, the F-35 is in combat conditions 3 F-18 and 10 Harriers for sure, so that the KMP, YUSNevi and GB will write with joy when they bring these cars. F-16 they will not replace, but complement. Without the interceptor, the fleet still looks sad, but let them thank Bush for the sawn Tomkets and even destroy the phonics, supposedly so that Iran would not get it.
                  So there is a tactical niche for him. The terrorist Popil Kickbacks is also no longer offended and will not be offended. F-15 and F-16 will continue to serve.
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 9 January 2016 00: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: Thronekeeper
                    We change the harpoon to JASSM-ER and the main attack aircraft of the Navy looks very nice.

                    ??
                    Harpoon is RCC
                    JASSM-ER is a cruise missile.
                    The main RCC for the F-35 will be the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (NSM)
                    Quote: Thronekeeper
                    Israel is bound up with what the military-industrial complex needs, and not what the Jews need, who would rather Silent Needles

                    Only Silent Needles did not go beyond the drawings. Nobody needed him. and for am. The defense industry support for Boeing is much more important, they have been blackmailing the closure of factories for several years, one of the reasons for the constant extras. procurement of Boeing aircraft.
                    Quote: Thronekeeper
                    Canada yes, refused.

                    The new prime minister only said that he was against the participation of the F-35 in the tender. But the trouble is the Minister of Defense and Industry said that figs to you. losses only for prom. contracts valued at $ 11 billion in case of cancellation of the F-35.
                    "Sajjan indicated that the new government would not actively block the F-35 from participating"
                    The government will not oppose the participation of F-35. 21.12.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX
                    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-not-ruled-out-of-canadian-fighte



                    r-competition-420264 /
                    open industry letter
                    http://skiesmag.com/news/article/CanadianJSFIndustryGroupreleasesopenletteronF35


                    procurement # .U340L_mkrLB
                    Quote: Thronekeeper
                    Most likely, Australia will refuse

                    Absolutely not.
                    They are building a service center for engines for the entire Asia-Pacific region + plants for the production of avionics + keels. A 72-point contact has already been signed + several aircraft have been received.

                    "First F-35A with Australian Made Vertical Tails Takes Flight"
  • Locksmith
    Locksmith 8 January 2016 11: 12 New
    +3
    Thin competent trolling, so their RT !! laughing
    1. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 8 January 2016 13: 27 New
      -1
      The advertisement is engine of the trade! You understand business and nothing superfluous! And the rest is like an unforgettable O. Bender on the Georgian-Georgian road: "... give deng, give deng ..."!
  • D-Master
    D-Master 8 January 2016 11: 14 New
    +5
    The plane is certainly very so-so. But the gigantic funds invested in it make it impossible to retreat. This ugly duckling will be reached by all means and sooner or later they will be pushed into some form allowing its combat operation. In the meantime, the modification of the F-16 C / D was not in vain. It’s necessary to fight on something. F-16 really deserved workhorse in service since 1974 year. He drags the US Air Force and NATO.
  • Ogogoshka
    Ogogoshka 8 January 2016 11: 15 New
    +5
    The plane is magnificent, it is necessary to modify a bit, just one more billion dollars.
    1. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 8 January 2016 13: 29 New
      +1
      In-in a couple of dozens of "dzhumshudov" with files and the "thing in the hat"! We can share this contingent for cheap, we have a lot of them left after the “Cherkizon”! The master of all trades and legs!
  • ZYRYANIN
    ZYRYANIN 8 January 2016 11: 17 New
    -1
    The last attempts of the mattress defense are more like agony! In an attempt to create something to outshine the Russian aviation industry, they are stuffing a bunch of high-tech junk into the "old box". This quantitative increase to the detriment of a qualitative improvement is reminiscent of our auto industry, where, without worrying about driving performance (yes, in fact, about all quality), the interior is stuffed with all sorts of gadgets.
  • pts-m
    pts-m 8 January 2016 11: 20 New
    -2
    it’s time for pendos to switch to Wright brothers’s planes. Cheaper than that. You don’t have to attack anyone. Banks work, printing presses too. Live and rejoice. No need to make your friends happy.
  • S-17
    S-17 8 January 2016 11: 20 New
    +6
    And somewhere in the world alone Serdyukov cries and nervously bites his elbows laughing
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 08 New
      +1
      He now does not have to cry; he has a new, well-paid job.
  • ZYRYANIN
    ZYRYANIN 8 January 2016 11: 21 New
    0
    Quote: avvg
    Anyway, the Americans will find someone to shed them. "

    Or force, pushing on "allied" obligations
  • 0255
    0255 8 January 2016 11: 21 New
    +2
    How do you want the news about the failure of the F-35 to be true.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 8 January 2016 11: 21 New
    +1
    The story with the “Harriers” is repeated, it was conceived as a multi-purpose aircraft with a vertical. And at the exit, the aircraft supports the Marine Corps / landing, albeit not bad. Even a stormtrooper. 35 is generally incomprehensible. performance is better and cheaper.
  • awersa
    awersa 8 January 2016 11: 23 New
    +3
    Of course, progress goes forward and any machine has “early flaws and childhood illnesses”, these sores can usually be corrected in the process of further operation, but the misfortune of the 35th attempt to create a universal aircraft hoping for its perfection ... We have already passed this period, when they tried to do this on an airplane with variable wing geometry - instant 23 (fighter) and its many modifications, including instant-27 front bomber ... already in the 70s came to the inexpediency of this approach, as a result of which there were such beautiful machines as instant-29, su27, and a little later su-25, each performing its own task. The United States probably realized that their innovative aircraft could not be great for different tasks, so they try to push it as “friendly” as possible to recoup the development ... remember the story with the “flying coffin” F-104 ...
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 9 January 2016 08: 31 New
      0
      MiG-27 English SEPECAT "Jaguar" is not suitable for soles.
      Tomket and Tu-160 have variable sweep - since when did they become bad cars?
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 8 January 2016 11: 28 New
    10
    Kaptsov needs to read this lol
    Personally for me, so I absolutely agree with this Pierre Spray. Any aircraft, like any ship, is a compromise of characteristics under certain restrictions (be it cost, size,). There are always some conditions for achieving certain characteristics, and in this case it is impossible to create a super-duper plane, no matter how much it is wetted. Then it becomes gold and even large-scale production does not always solve the problem of value.
    How can this “miracle” (F-35) be called a super-plane if it loses in almost all of its usual peers !! ??? And our radars see him, and the flyer from it is clumsy, and the bomb load is not so hot, and even with certain limitations laughing
    F-22 was considered expensive, they decided to create a cheaper analogue, but they got expensive nedomerok, and it’s still not known how he will show himself in real life. That's already saved. Saw dough in an American way. But ambition does not allow to recognize failure. How so, we are exceptional laughing
    Now they are already singing that it will be like a super long-range missile and that, thanks to his computer, he will be able to shoot down the enemy from a safe distance. And all ??? That he is a super-plane ??? It’s funny. Yes, and we do not sleep, we also have our own super-long-range missiles and this "enemy" is easily taken.
    So all this fuss with this loser airplane is nothing more than a PR move, Canadians have already figured it out, the move is behind the rest
    My personal opinion is that the F-35 is bullshit so that lovers of American equipment like some of our homegrown "experts" do not sing there. F-22 and it will be more solid repeat
    hi
    PS For some reason, F-15, F-16, F-18 are now working everywhere ... Real workhorses ... And even the same "twenty second" are afraid to fly for some reason and give 1000% what the potential "thirty" are now fifth "would gather dust at the bases not only because of the enormous cost, but also because of the low combat qualities ... Such they are" super-duper " lol
    1. retardu
      retardu 8 January 2016 13: 03 New
      +4
      yeah, see where and how?
      That's it, homegrown experts who have nothing to do with aviation such as the Dave Indian.
      Where are they afraid to fly?
      The goal is to replace the previous generation fighter bombers. And he copes with it normally. He has better electronics, better electronic warfare systems, better guidance and visibility systems, and high interaction inside the wing. in a battle group of 4 f-35 2 are looking for targets, two are engaged in electronic warfare.
      The words of the instructor of the Norwegian Air Force in comparison with f-16
      Has a 30 to 70 percent greater range. It has the best dynamic characteristics, "while it is necessary to use afterburner on f-16, you don’t need to use it on f-35. I think about the EPR and the external suspension of weapons and sighting, navigation, electronic warfare containers for f-16, you can’t say anything, and without them, he does not fly anywhere. The EPR differs in coordination.
      F-35 radar better than f16. "" "
      Opinion on foreign forums

      http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-program-general-discus
      sion-12487-20 / # post293235
  • valokordin
    valokordin 8 January 2016 11: 30 New
    +1
    Following Israel, Turkey (I think there are not stupid people) Buy F-35 Ukraine, the Baltic states, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Belarus. The commander in chief of the Ukrainian Air Force will be lawyer Yarosh, the squadron commander will be Yatsenyuk (there is no one to put in the regiment) to the post of head. Yaresko Natashka, a waitress of Tymoshenko, claims the flight canteen. And brains on the mass.
    1. svp67
      svp67 8 January 2016 11: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: valokordin
      Following Israel, Turkey (I think there are no stupid people) Buy F-35 Ukraine, the Baltic states, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Belarus

      "+" for a good joke and the list of Georgia with Turkmenistan is not enough.
    2. BLOND
      BLOND 8 January 2016 11: 33 New
      14
      the outskirts will buy two helmets !!!
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 8 January 2016 11: 44 New
        14
        Quote: BLOND
        the outskirts will buy two helmets !!!

        One, training, on credit for 20 years, and he will not be paid, by decision they are glad.
      2. svp67
        svp67 8 January 2016 12: 02 New
        +8
        Quote: BLOND
        the outskirts will buy two helmets !!!

        In one of which their President will be "crowned", and the second one will be quickly sold to someone ... otherwise the penny for the "coronation"
        1. soaring
          soaring 8 January 2016 12: 52 New
          +1
          In one of which their President will be "crowned", and the second one will be quickly sold to someone ... otherwise the penny for the "coronation" laughing laughing laughing good drinks
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 8 January 2016 22: 55 New
      0
      Quote: valokordin
      Following Israel, Turkey (I think there are not stupid people) Buy F-35 Ukraine, the Baltic states, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Belarus.

      Belarus plans to buy 430 F-35 aircraft within 15 years and replace the entire fleet of obsolete MiG-29s, join NATO block by 2031, about which intensive negotiations are underway, as frequent visits to Minsk by Merkel, Holland and Putin indicate.
  • Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 8 January 2016 11: 30 New
    +1
    and what are his shortcomings? I only heard about catching fleas in programs (software) .. maybe there were failures and there were some but secret ... again iksperdy from VK and all sorts of Instagram ?? expensive then expensive but our T-50 will not be much cheaper --- the engine is still under development
    1. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 8 January 2016 11: 39 New
      +2
      The first drawback and it’s the main one, price and advertising company. He is a good aircraft, such a good one, a strong middling, multi-purpose generation 4 ++, and stands like a starship. Stealth at 5, flight performance at 3, weapons at ??? That's all...
    2. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 8 January 2016 12: 58 New
      +5
      Quote: Yak-3P
      and what are his shortcomings? I only heard about catching fleas in programs (software) .. maybe there were failures and there were some but secret ... again iksperdy from VK and all sorts of Instagram ?? expensive then expensive but our T-50 will not be much cheaper --- the engine is still under development

      That's the problem with catching fleas in software! Judging by the information available, there are a bunch of different "hardwar", and often incompatible in electromagnetic terms. And accordingly, a bunch of the corresponding "software"! These fleas appear regularly, as they are caught ... They drank the sight, the radar stopped working properly, subordinated the radar, the autopilot went down, or the car’s stabilization system! And so one after another, one after another ... From time to time, add-ons and software fixes are written, which cause new problems. Like a tractor Challenger had. After parking close to power lines, the 10Kv tractor forgot engine firmware. They finished, the engine worked, the autopilot stopped working ... They finished the autopilot, went glitches in the gearbox (it’s also controlled via the CAN bus ... For six months, they steamed with the tractor before setting it up. And there are only five electronic components. There are eleven new models ... And there are minor problems, updates come every two to three months ...
  • awersa
    awersa 8 January 2016 11: 32 New
    +3
    In short, you can certainly cook two eggs in a bucket of water, but the time and cost of cooking))))
  • APASUS
    APASUS 8 January 2016 11: 33 New
    +5
    A normal American approach to business when a plane does not correspond to certain performance characteristics is launched into the PR service. And they really will put the American aircraft in first place in all ratings .............
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 8 January 2016 12: 05 New
      +3
      Normal American approach to business
      Well, what are you, it is in our country all the thieves and embezzlers. But in America, no, no, what "cuts" did not hear.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 23 New
        0
        There he cut between firms, for his interests, into other developments - paying for his curiosity at the expense of the state.
  • LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 8 January 2016 11: 34 New
    +2
    Dear, cheap relative concept. Not more expensive than money. And they where they produce it, as you know, "the hens don’t peck." they are accustomed to relying on their technology, and they often solve problems “head on”. But it’s not always possible to include one’s “think-tank” in order to find a beautiful and elegant technical solution. They would work under our conditions, you look and would help. what
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 8 January 2016 11: 34 New
    +5
    Saw, saw and saw. Until victory. The Americans have no other options. Upgrading the F-16 / 15 will give them some time, but they will not be able to fly to infinity either. By the way, if they had made the F-35 with two engines, there would have been a better chance of its truly multifunctionality. And so they are trying to put in the Procrustean bed the unsuitable.
  • avva2012
    avva2012 8 January 2016 11: 37 New
    +2
    "Such common problems for all versions of a fighter aircraft include: increased propensity of vehicles to roll and stall at medium angles of attack; imperfection of the software of the aircraft control system; frequent failures of the power plant (SU), including the starter-generator and remote unit box; high vibration combustion in afterburner engine operating modes; low reliability indicators of on-helmet indication and target designation in the absence of indication on the windshield; on-board generation system failures inert gas. "
    Interestingly, and the failure of the power plant of an airplane with such an astronomical price, is it, like seeds?
  • Yak28
    Yak28 8 January 2016 11: 37 New
    -5
    With the collapse of the USSR, the Warsaw Pact countries moved to the United States along with equipment, which means that American aircraft were in the hands of American designers, except for strategic bombers and Mig31, as well as air defense systems, operational tactical missile systems, and armored vehicles. . And how much military documentation was handed over to the states. As a result of the information received and the use of its technology, how can the USA create a bad plane? Or a tank, or a rocket, and so on? To make the states create a plane worse than ours, we need a huge talent
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 8 January 2016 12: 02 New
      +4
      I won’t even dissuade you of the high intelligence of American designers and their deep knowledge of Russian military equipment ... About the RD-180 in no way, just ...

      The tank gun of the Russian manufacturers is forged, which allows to increase its resource many times ... They know this and "there", not with us. Know something - they know, but they can’t do it ...

      By the way, these legends about the best American technology in any TOPs on the Internet are scattered completely ... wink
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 8 January 2016 12: 26 New
        -2
        And why should the Americans launch rockets on their engines, if you can print a penny paper, draw a dollar on it, and Russia can buy rocket engines that are difficult to manufacture on these pieces of paper. winkAnd about the tank guns, I don’t remember the war where our modern tanks distinguished themselves.
        1. Andrey VOV
          Andrey VOV 8 January 2016 13: 11 New
          0
          Look at the vaunted Abrams harnessed with cornet in Yemen at a time ... look ... and then write ...
          1. Yak28
            Yak28 8 January 2016 13: 19 New
            +2
            And what did I write that the Abrams are not penetrable? Or maybe where I wrote that the Abrams are the best tanks in the world?
    2. avva2012
      avva2012 8 January 2016 12: 08 New
      +1
      And how much military documentation was handed over to the states. As a result of the information received and the use of its technology, how can the USA create a bad aircraft? Or a tank, or a rocket, and so on? To make the states worse than ours, we need a huge talent
      a paradox, however. But on the other hand, AK, which was even more accessible, and when there was a “Desert Storm”, the Americans often came across something with a Kalash camera. The reverse situation, Mercedes is on sale, and the engine, for some reason we do not.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 January 2016 12: 27 New
        +2
        And who will buy these engines, so that the production pays off, it is necessary to sell several tens of thousands of engines per year.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 8 January 2016 13: 59 New
          +4
          Quote: Vadim237
          And who will buy these engines, so that the production pays off, it is necessary to sell several tens of thousands of engines per year.

          The demand for engines of this class is enormous, but Mercedes will not place the production of these engines with us. And our engines have long and hopelessly become outdated morally. I will not give examples, but only we can’t switch to four valves per cylinder, they can’t go on diesels per liter power over 35ls / l. and much more. Why do I have to order engines for ships abroad, from MTU or in China. I hope after the launch of new production in Yaroslavl, Tutaev at YaMZ (in Tutaev TMZ and a branch of YaMZ), in Naberezhnye Chelny (Cummins and the new KAMAZ series with modified S / D, with new generation automobile engines, the problem will be solved. Because these ICEs are needed not only in the civilian, but also in the army.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 8 January 2016 18: 17 New
            0
            You need to create your own fuel management system, similar to Common Rail, but this is not a single year's work.
      2. Yak28
        Yak28 8 January 2016 12: 44 New
        -9
        Kalash has large gaps in the moving parts of the mechanism, because of this the dirt is blown out, and in other countries they went the other way, reducing reliability, but increasing firing accuracy and accuracy of automatic fire. Also, the AK has a removable receiver on which it is inconvenient to install modern sights. In general, it seems to me that Kalash was adopted because Kalashnikov had connections in the government. More interesting samples were presented at the competition for a new assault rifle
        1. Andrey VOV
          Andrey VOV 8 January 2016 13: 13 New
          +9
          What are you talking about that kind of ??? ??? I myself shot at least once from Kalashnikov ?? in skillful and right-handed hands everything will be so heaped on your forehead if you don’t have time to squeak
          1. Yak28
            Yak28 8 January 2016 13: 25 New
            -2
            And you probably flew on the F-35
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 8 January 2016 14: 52 New
              +1
              Quote: Yak28
              And you probably flew on the F-35

              This is completely optional, the main thing is to SPECIFICALLY SPEAK! smile
          2. Alf
            Alf 8 January 2016 19: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey VOV
            What are you talking about that kind of ??? ??? I myself shot at least once from Kalashnikov ?? in skillful and right-handed hands everything will be so heaped on your forehead if you don’t have time to squeak

            Right. In techies, we were taken out once to a shooting range. They distributed the machine guns, it is not known from whose hands, it is not known whether they were shot at all. They gave 9 rounds per 50 meters, I knocked out (I do not boast) two dozen, three eights and one nine, despite the fact that I had not shot before. Others shot about the same. One Fort Bragg shooting instructor (I think it’s not worthwhile to say WHO is training in F-B), stated that the range of REAL fire from assault rifles does not exceed 100 meters.
          3. cap
            cap 8 January 2016 22: 59 New
            +1
            gategate
            "The standard for incomplete assembly / disassembly of a Kalashnikov assault rifle in the Russian army is 15/25 seconds.
            Stacking 10./18 "
            Shutter AK-74. Find the design easier laughing
            1. corporal
              corporal 9 January 2016 22: 10 New
              0
              Quote: cap
              Shutter AK-74

              AKS-74U hi
        2. avva2012
          avva2012 8 January 2016 13: 26 New
          +4
          In general, it seems to me that Kalash was adopted because Kalashnikov had connections in the government.
          Did the sergeant have any links in the government? Joke.
          About gaps, it has long been known, since school, NVP was called. And when your machine gun stops shooting, then yes, it is very important that you can hang on it, or the accuracy is weak there. I would say disastrously important. fellow
        3. Alf
          Alf 8 January 2016 19: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Yak28
          Kalash has large gaps in the moving parts of the mechanism, because of this the dirt is blown out, and in other countries they went the other way, reducing reliability, but increasing accuracy and the accuracy of automatic fire.

          What is the use of super-precision shooting if weapons failing to go outside the factory?
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 8 January 2016 11: 40 New
    +1
    It’s already tired, the same thing every day ...
    Maybe enough about the F-35? Tired of, by golly ...
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 8 January 2016 14: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Maybe enough about the F-35? Tired of, by golly ...

      It's time to move on the T-50! Or is there nothing to say? what
      1. TSOOBER
        TSOOBER 8 January 2016 15: 07 New
        +5
        everything is according to plan, no need to rush! Photo from 07.01.16/50/5! T-XNUMX-XNUMXR handsome!
        1. Nosgoth
          Nosgoth 9 January 2016 09: 38 New
          0
          Everything is cool, of course, that's just the number of copies planned for the MO ... that's where the sadness is :-(
  • newcomer
    newcomer 8 January 2016 11: 45 New
    +6
    in general, somewhere I read about one ex-general on acceptance_yanki. so he said, for adoption, weapons should be effective (not to be confused with efficiency) and expensive. here you have all the answers. and about f35, well guys what is this super weapon? he was born already dead.
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 8 January 2016 11: 51 New
    +6
    Only numbers:
    USA, April 22 - News. The total cost of the program to create a stealth new generation fighter F-35 "Lightning-2" (Lightning II) reached 1,3 trillion dollars. This was announced by the head of the program, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan.

    http://www.news-usa.ru/vo-skolko-ssha-oboshlos-sozdanie-novejshego-istrebitelya-

    f-35.html


    For comparison:
    The official cost of the Apollo program is $ 25,4 billion in 1969, or approximately $ 149 billion in 2010 prices, includes the development and construction of the entire experimental-industrial complex.

    request
  • Yak28
    Yak28 8 January 2016 11: 52 New
    +2
    Don’t say that today the F-35 is the most advanced vertical take-off and landing aircraft in the world. It appeared of course due in large part to the documentation on the Yak-141 sold by the United States. But whoever managed to eat it
    1. 0255
      0255 8 January 2016 12: 34 New
      +1
      And the F-35, in turn, was "stolen" by the Chinese laughing
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 8 January 2016 12: 54 New
        +1
        Now it is a matter of honor to steal from China their lost technology. laughing
    2. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 8 January 2016 13: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Yak28
      Don’t say that today the F-35 is the most advanced vertical take-off and landing aircraft in the world. It appeared of course due in large part to the documentation on the Yak-141 sold by the United States. But whoever managed to eat it

      It is hard to disagree, especially since it is he and Harrier. Harrier is almost retired, our YAKs are history ...
      And more, nothing!
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 8 January 2016 14: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Yak28
      . Of course, he appeared largely due to the documentation sold by the United States about the Yak-141 aircraft.

      Did the lifting engines from Yak forget to steal and therefore put a fan on? That's out of luck request
      1. 0255
        0255 8 January 2016 15: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Quote: Yak28
        . Of course, he appeared largely due to the documentation sold by the United States about the Yak-141 aircraft.

        Did the lifting engines from Yak forget to steal and therefore put a fan on? That's out of luck request

        But the documentation for the Yak-141 was used in the F-35, it is a fact
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 8 January 2016 20: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: 0255
          But the documentation for the Yak-141 was used in the F-35, it is a fact
          The 3BSN rotary nozzle mechanism was developed by RR back in 1964 for the RB.153-76A engine according to the German project VJ 101E, and until 67, the engine and the nozzle passed quite successful ground tests, including fire tests.
          In 1968-69, the same engine was developed under the AVS project. By the way, for this project, for the first time, a scheme with a lifting fan with a gas-dynamic drive was worked out.
          By the time work began on the Yak-41, the nozzle mechanism was already in the museum of the company, where it remains today.
          A bit later, Yakovlevites used not only the 3BSN scheme, but also the general layout scheme of the VJ 101E, which is generally not surprising, since at the time of completion of work on supersonic VTOL in Europe, this scheme was considered the most promising.
          Subsequently, the Yakovlevites' successful experience in creating an aircraft with 3BSN attracted the attention of LM, who at that time were in search of the optimal scheme for their promising VTOL aircraft under the JSF project. Despite the fact that RR offered its 3BSN development services on the basis of its AVS developments, LM preferred to purchase documentation from Yakovlevites, since they were primarily interested not so much in the kinematics of the nozzle (it was well-known for a long time at that time), but as the accumulated operating experience nozzles on the Yak-141, and the Yakovlev experience was valuable because the Yak-141 scheme as a whole resembled that chosen for the X-35. In addition, cooperation with the Russians seemed more profitable for financial reasons. RR received a contract to develop the LM fan invented in LM, as well as to develop a gas rudder system (in this area, RR’s global leadership is undeniable).
          Nevertheless, for some reason, cooperation with the Yakovlevites did not work out (various reasons were mentioned, however, far from conspiracy theories), and a couple of years later the contract for the development of the nozzle was transferred to RR, and it is not known whether the documentation received from Russia was transmitted to RR. RR completed the development anew, and according to the company’s representatives, from scratch, and it was she who became part of the X-35 and subsequently the F-35.
          1. Wheel
            Wheel 8 January 2016 21: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Bayonet
            The 3BSN rotary nozzle mechanism was developed by RR back in 1964 for the RB.153-76A engine according to the German project VJ 101E, and until 67, the engine and the nozzle passed quite successful ground tests, including fire tests.
            In 1968-69, the same engine was developed under the AVS project. By the way, for this project, for the first time, a scheme with a lifting fan with a gas-dynamic drive was worked out.
            By the time work began on the Yak-41, the nozzle mechanism was already in the museum of the company, where it remains today.

            Something all of this reminds me of the famous F-1 engine, which is just as long and stubbornly in museums, and the Russian NK-33 and RD-180 are buying endos.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 9 January 2016 05: 31 New
              +2
              F-1 had nothing to do with it, although it worked unreliably, although it is not used now because of this.

              This pro-Lockheed troll, along with others with copy-papstones of such nonsense, crawls out here and there regularly. They have already been explained several times to them. Now blacklisted and thinks that his comments will not be seen laughing

              Both the Americans and the Germans could not create an engine like Yak. Also, how to make the overall weight distribution of the aircraft and the system for matching its thrust with the PD or fan (they took from any XV-5 so that there was at least something American in the F-35). Therefore, with the advent of the era of democracy, they took all this “missing” from the Yakovlevites. Not only that, then they took first Yak Design Bureau (and then part of the Yakovlevites in the USA) to saw Yak in F-35 to their contract. That is, they themselves did not master even this re-building. Because he doesn’t feel at all zealous (and before that Sikorsky did helicopters for them).
              For the Germans, the model of such a 3BDSM engine at the stand exploded successfully at 60% of the actual size just when the afterburner was turned on (as Russian should understand) even without trying, like the Americans, to deviate its nozzle down.

              In the U.S., later boiled over about AVS and VJ-101E, the XFV-12 tried to fly in which all this (nozzle and distributed throttle matching system) was not there, and not the Convair 200 in which the Americans only dreamed about it, and which existed only in the form of a pencil sketch.

              There was no X-35 as well as the X-32 "competing with him" before Lockheed came to Yakovlev. This competition was invented later, as it was immediately clear who would win it. After that, Lockheed took a Boeing to manufacture the F-35 for a subcontract.

              In the Rolls-Royce, Lockheed “gave away” the Yakovlev technology simply because he was not engaged in dvigov. Lockheed & RR specialists at Russian plants and at Yakovlev licking Freestyle technology to the last bolt have been in secret areas for 1,5 years, it was not a simple “sale of documentation” (and for some reason without a license, and everything was later patented by them from yourself).

              Prior to this, the same group of comrades who worked at McDonnell (and then moved to Lockheed) stole through British pseudo-consortium the technology from Harrier, from which they threw out the field for the British to share their experience with them.

              In the Soviet Union, in exactly the same way, all Soviet technologies for the lunar project, including the Surveyor soft landing system, life support systems and RP-1 kerosene fuel, turned out to be strange in the USA. They "bought" the automatic docking system later, as did the X-37 landing system on the runway from Buran. All life support systems of the ISS American segment are nevertheless concentrated in their module of Russian launch and production.
              Until now, the United States does not own the technology for the production of aviation titanium, even all SR-71s were made entirely from Soviet.
        2. looker-on
          looker-on 12 January 2016 00: 55 New
          0
          Can this fact be provided here? I am a connoisseur of facts.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 17 January 2016 08: 02 New
            0
            Go to the Lokhidov site of codeonemagazine, dial Yak-141 there - even they half-and-half with their anti-Soviet feces already openly admit this fact, you alone with a “bayonet” and a number of trolls here are “ahead of the planet”. laughing
            And earlier they recognized it openly, only then they shut up for a while.
  • iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 8 January 2016 11: 59 New
    +3
    I was especially amused about the modernization contract, which Lockheed won, well, not to give to Sukhoi. All this fuss with the F-35 recalls the story of "buy a brick, man." They bent the state corporations to themselves, as Ilyich warned. The last stage.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2016 13: 11 New
      0
      Lockheed Martin is still threatening to create the first thermonuclear reactor in 2023 - that's why they will milk the financial cow in the face of the US Armed Forces to the maximum.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 8 January 2016 13: 55 New
        +4
        Lockheed Martin still threatens to create the first thermonuclear reactor in 2023

        Yes, yes, yes ... Hundreds of scientists from different countries have been working on this for 30 years already, and all that could be done is 3-4 seconds of plasma burning when the energy output is several times less than was expended. And it’s like nothing that a dozen countries are forming the construction of a tokamak or stellarator without a guarantee of good luck. This Lockheed ... with a wave of his hand will build a reactor and put into commercial use. Chatterboxes.
        And somehow quietly passed the message about the launch of BN-800 in late July. For the uninitiated - this type of reactor will allow you to close the nuclear cycle on yourself. That is, the fuel generated in conventional WWER reactors is now stupidly stored. And it is very much. And BN it can be used. And the developed fuel of BN-on can also be reused, it is only necessary to dilute it with new fuel.
        So while they are developing a thermonuclear reactor, while Lockheed rubs his tongue, we already have working technologies far ahead of everyone else.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 8 January 2016 18: 13 New
          +1
          But they don’t give money for our own thermonuclear reactors.
          1. purple
            purple 8 January 2016 20: 24 New
            0
            Tacto in the tokamak project and Russia is involved? Are you a troll chtoli?
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 8 January 2016 18: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          And somehow quietly passed the message about the launch of BN-800 in late July. For the uninitiated - this type of reactor will allow you to close the nuclear cycle on yourself. That is, the fuel generated in conventional WWER reactors is now stupidly stored. And it is very much. And BN it can be used. And the developed fuel of BN-on can also be reused, it is only necessary to dilute it with new fuel.

          We have already been working on such projects for 30-40 years. There have been projects of atomic bombers and this is a fact. But as long as this question is open, there are a lot of problems with such a reactor. So far, only at the Wishlist level.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 9 January 2016 07: 13 New
            0
            Such work has been going on with us for 30-40

            Yes, but only we have a working reactor. Others only design or build. The first batch of MOX fuel was specially made for BN-800, which burns much faster in fast neutron reactors. To use it in thermal neutron reactors, not only will their modernization be required, but also special. A license from the IAEA is needed. Well, these are trifles.
            The most important thing is what and how this MOX fuel is obtained from:
            MOX fuel can also be obtained by processing irradiated fuel from power reactors. During processing, plutonium isotopes are extracted from it, for example, for fuel, after a fairly long campaign, almost two-thirds are Pu-239 and Pu-241 isotopes (fissile in thermal neutron reactors), and about a third are Pu-240 [5] [ 6]. Due to such a high content of the 240 isotope, plutonium obtained through the processing of fuels cannot be used to produce reliable and predictable nuclear charges.

            Nuclear bombers and cars were of course, but this project, with the serial production of BNs, will turn the entire nuclear industry upside down even before the fusion reactor is built.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 10 January 2016 22: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              Nuclear bombers and cars were of course, but this project, with the serial production of BNs, will turn the entire nuclear industry upside down even before the fusion reactor is built.

              Is everything all right, but how much will such a bomber cost? If Lebed from scratch costs a lard a half, I think. And is it worth it if the project’s profitability is positive in case of a good series, where can I get the money for?
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 20: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        Lockheed Martin still threatens to create the first thermonuclear reactor in 2023

        Well, they’re not the only ones smile On the pages of VO, promises are constantly being laid out to build many new products by 2020! Waiting for! hi
  • newcomer
    newcomer 8 January 2016 12: 01 New
    +5
    Yes, and here's another, well, to finish off this topic already. According to our experts (from KB Tu, Yak, Moment, Su, Grumman, even Lockheed), the Yankees squeezed everything they could from the Yak. further quote: “they were let down by a constant desire, even a moniac desire to complicate and mix everything up.”
  • newcomer
    newcomer 8 January 2016 12: 06 New
    +5
    yak 28, excuse me, what is the perfection of this object?
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 8 January 2016 12: 32 New
      0
      Which vertical take-off and landing aircraft today exceeds the F-35? If you call this one, then we will put the F-35 in second place among the aircraft GDP smile
      1. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 8 January 2016 14: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Yak28
        Which vertical take-off and landing aircraft today exceeds the F-35? If you call this one, then we will put the F-35 in second place among the aircraft GDP


        And, actually, a colleague, why do we need such an ashtray? And the documentation for the Yak-141 from poverty stepped ...
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 9 January 2016 08: 05 New
          0
          For 500 thousand, is it from the American? They could not give more?

          Yeah, also ka "Energy", "Buran", dos "Mir", SSBN pr 941 left only one, Yak in museums only two ... Most of the 12 world records (if not all) are still behind Yak laughing
    2. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 8 January 2016 13: 06 New
      +3
      The fact that it does not compare and not already!
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 8 January 2016 12: 10 New
    +3
    People, do not scold the plane, otherwise Americans are reading us.
    It is necessary to praise, praise, that would continue to do these aircraft and upgrade.
    And they began to produce modifications of these aircraft.
    More, more expensive, more technological ...
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 8 January 2016 15: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Zomanus
      People, don’t need to scold the plane, otherwise Americans are reading us

      I also think, why educate stupid Americans, let them spend money on all kinds of shit! After all, we definitely have it - ABOVE, FURTHER AND FASTER! fellow
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 15: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        After all, we definitely have it - ABOVE, FURTHER AND FASTER!

        That some enemy doubts! am
  • gg.na
    gg.na 8 January 2016 12: 15 New
    +2
    Ka-a-aaka-a-aayaayaaaa kraskii-i-iiva-a-aayaaya gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! negative wassat bully
  • givigor71
    givigor71 8 January 2016 12: 19 New
    +2
    Today is a beautiful day and I really want to raise a glass for sofa experts. For you Lord !!! Be sure to drop the link for peasants today, let them laugh ...
    But in general, is there a military?
  • fa2998
    fa2998 8 January 2016 12: 25 New
    0
    Quote: D-Master
    The plane is certainly very so-so.

    And what did other countries instantly bring to perfection? It was the same years and money. Just remember that the USA F-35 is already the second aircraft of the next generation, and the rest of the country has projects, models, pre-production prototypes and pictures! They’ll bring it, they will regret the money spent, you need to return it! hi
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 8 January 2016 12: 31 New
    +1
    Yes, let the "light elves" pick as many of these miracles of juvenile penguins as they can, just what they prescribed. laughing
  • HARDDEN_KMV
    HARDDEN_KMV 8 January 2016 12: 40 New
    +1
    Write a lot about YAK! But the main training apparatus and its modernization in the electronic warfare interceptor, etc. there is no possibility ... And from vertical take-off, our rollback did why !? The same Yak ate the floor of the tank on take-off) but it was still necessary to shoot to fly back and sit down so that with the current technology, well, in the absence of a “right” power unit there is no sense in vertical take-off! This is not advisable! Proved by the USSR !!!
    1. LÄRZ
      LÄRZ 8 January 2016 13: 31 New
      +3
      I agree. "You won’t take both a tit and a pussy in one hand"
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 9 January 2016 07: 56 New
      +1
      This is what you “prove” here ... So much neither on landing, much less on take-off the engine does not have time to eat, it happens in seconds.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 8 January 2016 13: 35 New
    0
    Not a bad movie about creating our planes, vertical take-off and landing.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 8 January 2016 16: 42 New
      +1
      Here is also a good one about the news:
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 8 January 2016 16: 57 New
        0
        Ndaa .... talks about Su-24M, and shows MIG-29. In general, this program is from the cycle "everything is cool with us, but it is secret and in general it is not the device that you are looking for." The crumbs of reliable information are mixed with tons of speculation, rumors, and even outright stuffing.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 8 January 2016 13: 44 New
    +2
    Do not waste time discussing what you have not seen, but reason from other people's words like: "... my uncle saw how the gentleman was eating ..."! Life will show that they "blinded" and how it will fly, and even more so how it will fight! The declared capabilities and abilities are tested by combat use, and everything else is just a "rustle of nuts"!
  • vic58
    vic58 8 January 2016 13: 51 New
    -1
    Hurray! The ingenious course of our intelligence! The most "platinum coffin" in the air! Only the price of 3 anti-aircraft missiles and F-50 count, please! If you didn’t study in “advanced Western” technologies ... hi
    And so the Fursenkos!
  • Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 8 January 2016 14: 30 New
    +1
    Personally, I prefer the Chinese approach to the problem - the F-35 is a good aircraft, ours are a little worse, but MUCH cheaper. We will build three of them for each F-35, in a real battle the F-35 will have time to shoot down one, maximum two of our aircraft. Our third plane will overwhelm the F-35 and fly to destroy other targets. Something like this. Why make such a complex, expensive and vulnerable aircraft, if with this money you can make five aircraft simpler, but narrowly sharpened, including to shoot down the F-35?
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 8 January 2016 18: 17 New
      0
      Expensive, because under the F-35 brand, the Americans created three aircraft. Multipurpose, vertical landing aircraft and aircraft for aircraft carriers. Moreover, the grandmothers divorced primarily allies. Most need only the first option, and they pay for the development of all three.

      On the other hand, the error of our MIG is repeated. Why stuff everything you can into the simplified version of the F-22. MIG made MIG-35, but cannot sell it. Customers of a light aircraft do not need all these bells and whistles.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 January 2016 18: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: ism_ek
        MIG made MIG-35, but cannot sell it.

        What’s the reason MIG-35 became a light fighter? MIG-35 is more of an average MFI. Have you seen its mass? But you can’t sell it, because it’s a deep but still modernization on the 29th. And now everyone is moving for generation 5.Do not upgrade the 29th, it will not become a 5th generation LFI.
  • wicked pinnochio
    wicked pinnochio 8 January 2016 14: 38 New
    +1
    If the plane is as bad as they say, why the shtatovtsy rush with it like a written shell?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 8 January 2016 14: 45 New
      +1
      why shtatovtsy rush with him like a written bag?

      And they have no other options. To begin designing a new, let's say fighter, is much more expensive. And time will pass decently. You can resume the release of F-22. True, there were rumors that their assembly line was dismantled and the slipway went to metal. I don’t know whether to believe or not. But still, it would be cheaper than starting a new one.
      1. 0255
        0255 8 January 2016 15: 52 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Only the F-22 can be resumed. True, there were rumors that their assembly line was dismantled and the slipway went to metal. I don’t know whether to believe or not. But still, it would be cheaper than starting a new one.

        They write that the Raptors production line is mothballed, in which case their production can be resumed
      2. wicked pinnochio
        wicked pinnochio 9 January 2016 16: 39 New
        0
        well, they like to throw money down the drain
    2. Alf
      Alf 8 January 2016 19: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: wicked pinnochio
      If the plane is as bad as they say, why the shtatovtsy rush with it like a written shell?

      Because it can make good money.
      There are wonderful words in the Robocop film - Ten years of production, twenty-five years of production of spare parts, who cares that it does not work.
  • Chidoryan
    Chidoryan 8 January 2016 18: 34 New
    +2
    Yes, how much can you console yourself with the fact that the F-35 is a bad plane. From article to article. The same is visible to the blind - some kind of inferiority complex. There are no analogues in the ranks yet; I am ashamed!
  • Eastern wind
    Eastern wind 8 January 2016 19: 12 New
    0
    It will be possible to speak about efficiency after their mass combat use. As for me, let them fall apart even when taking off!
  • cap
    cap 8 January 2016 22: 39 New
    0
    Su-35 vs F-35. "Uncle beats a child with a bat"
    Is the most secretive American combat aircraft F-35 easy prey fighter Su-35? Some believe that this is a completely true statement, writes indrus.in 26 July.
    In July 2008, an air battle simulation was carried out with the participation of a Su-35 fighter against a mixed fleet of American fighters - F-22, F / A-18 Super Hornet and F-35, where the latter was “beaten with a baton as a child”
    . The simulation was carried out on the basis of the US Air Force Hikam in Hawaii, which was witnessed by at least four representatives of the Australian Air Force and military intelligence. Member of the Australian Parliament Dennis Jensen (Dennis Jensen) with skill said that during the "strictly classified simulation" F-35 was "mercilessly beaten by a Su-35 fighter."

    Sukhoi company presents Su-35 as a fighter of the 4 ++ generation with some signs of the fifth generation, that is, with stealth characteristics. His ability to shoot down stealth planes is largely determined by super-maneuverability. Very expensive Western fighters are in the role of "plates" for rifle shooting.
    http://topwar.ru/30092-su-35-vs-f-35-dyadya-izbivaet-dubinkoy-rebenka.html
    Something like that hi
  • Orionvit
    Orionvit 8 January 2016 22: 52 New
    0
    Quote: avvg
    Anyway, the Americans will find someone to "gag" them.

    All world experts unanimously say that the F-35 is "indecently expensive", and that is to say the least. Only countries that are in direct vassal dependence on the states will buy it. And about the combat characteristics, we will see. And I completely forgot, all these 4 +++++ are tired of already. There is a plane that people don’t like, let them try a real air battle.
  • cap
    cap 8 January 2016 23: 09 New
    -2
    Quote: cap
    gategate
    "The standard for incomplete assembly / disassembly of a Kalashnikov assault rifle in the Russian army is 15/25 seconds.
    Stacking 10./18 "
    Shutter AK-74. Find the design easier laughing

    Shutter M-16 for comparison. hi To clean the holes with a toothpick. It's in the desert either. Or a thorn from saxaul. Maybe not quite right here. But on the branch it was talked about lobbying Kalashnikov in the government. Hooked.
  • vv3
    vv3 9 January 2016 00: 24 New
    +4
    The F-35 in the main version has only 1 drawback - high cost. But we don’t buy it, we resist it. And this is a serious opponent in long and medium combat. The declared technical innovations and capabilities are impressive, and are not implemented on our production aircraft. - this is a completely different plane and there are a lot of controversial points on which everyone pokes a finger ... Of course, not everything can be trusted for a word, but you can not underestimate the enemy.