Military Review

Media about the new mountain of American F-35

155
The work on the F-35 fighter information systems is behind the scheduled schedule on 11 months, RIA News message portal Business Insider.




“It is expected that the developers of the fifth-generation fighter-bomber of the fifth generation Lockheed Martin F-35" Lightning "II will miss the key deadline for the release of the sixth software block of the Block 3F aircraft," the portal said, explaining that "this part of the code is responsible for combat and training capabilities of the machine. "

“Without the F-35 code, there simply will not be,” says the publication.

According to the head of the US Department of Defense Testing and Evaluation Department, Michael Gilmore, “the plane will not be fully operational by the planned date - July 2017 of the year”.

At the same time, he noted that “the main problems of the vessel have long been known - the incompleteness of the IT skeleton of the fighter — autonomous information management system, instability of avionics in the Block 3F phase, insufficient reliability and maintainability of the engine.”
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wiruz
    Wiruz 2 February 2016 17: 36
    41
    In short, you can wrote on the grave "Born dead!" laughing
    1. St Petrov
      St Petrov 2 February 2016 17: 48
      38
      Well this is that. Where's the support group for this miracle waffle. Israel only recently increased the order

      1. Mikhail Krapivin
        Mikhail Krapivin 2 February 2016 17: 52
        +5
        Judging by your photo - in the synagogue :)
        1. St Petrov
          St Petrov 2 February 2016 17: 55
          +5
          apparently in the software and glider development team there was too much% of the inhabitants of the great country of diggers

          1. cniza
            cniza 2 February 2016 17: 59
            +6
            All the more valuable - the device will be more expensive. laughing
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. avdkrd
            avdkrd 3 February 2016 02: 01
            +3
            Quote: c-Petrov
            apparently in the software and glider development team there was too much% of the inhabitants of the great country of diggers

            In general, among IT specialists in Sash, a very large percentage of Russians. Apparently help than they can)))
        2. NIKNN
          NIKNN 2 February 2016 19: 28
          40
          But Russian experts say that a good plane. And it is clearly visible on radars, and often breaks, and gets off easily. In a word, for us it is a good plane.
          1. poacher
            poacher 2 February 2016 22: 21
            0
            and again Putin's long arm is visible, "Vladimir is omnipresent."
      2. Oleneboy_
        Oleneboy_ 2 February 2016 18: 11
        0
        Isn't America vetoing the sale of 5th generation fighter jets?
        1. KnightRider
          KnightRider 2 February 2016 18: 16
          +5
          Quote: Oleneboy_
          Isn't America vetoing the sale of 5th generation fighter jets?

          On the F-22. The F-35 was built "by the whole world" and was initially offered to the "allies"
          1. shans2
            shans2 2 February 2016 21: 46
            0
            here you have a flying brick, do not skimp, fly on.
        2. Alf
          Alf 2 February 2016 21: 30
          +2
          Quote: Oleneboy_
          Isn't America vetoing the sale of 5th generation fighter jets?

          So then fighters, not budget eaters.
      3. papas-57
        papas-57 2 February 2016 19: 40
        +1
        '' eh what is that. Where is the support group for this miracle waffle. Israel has only recently increased the order. '' Old Jew - We cried our money!
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. shans2
        shans2 2 February 2016 21: 45
        +2
        the mice injected but ate a cactus drinks
      6. Marconi41
        Marconi41 3 February 2016 04: 43
        0
        Quote: s-t Petrov
        Israel only recently increased the order

        Here, mark my word. It is the Israelis who will bring this would-be plane to mind. By the way, they and all these amerovsky inconsistencies on hand. After all, now the Jews are prohibited from changing its avionics when buying the F-35. In this situation, the Americans can lift the ban. Maybe then "Lightning" will fly as planned.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 3 February 2016 10: 07
          0
          Quote: Marconi41
          After all, now the Jews are prohibited from changing its avionics when buying the F-35. In this situation, the Americans can lift the ban. Maybe then "Lightning" will fly as planned.

          In fact, we have already agreed on the possibility of replacement. The Israeli version is called f35i. The only thing that the first 19 aircraft will go in the basic international version. And the rest are already sharpened under Israeli requirements
    2. Sober
      Sober 2 February 2016 18: 00
      +4
      Quote: Wiruz
      "Born dead!"

      I think it's too early to bury. As the saying goes: We will see. But that he was born prematurely, no doubt.
    3. tol100v
      tol100v 2 February 2016 18: 02
      +4
      Quote: Wiruz
      In short, on the grave you can write "Born dead!"

      Rather CONCEPT DEAD!
      1. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 2 February 2016 18: 48
        15
        Quote: Tol100v
        Rather CONCEPT DEAD!


        I am not sure of the correctness of my conclusions, but what I read here on the site and what I read, for the sake of interest in other sources, led me to think that the Americans were trying to create a universal plane. As far as I know, such attempts were earlier, including those of our designers, but ours refused to attempt universalization and were right! An attempt to combine in one hammer both a chisel and a sledgehammer, and what else can be combined there, in my opinion, is doomed to failure initially! Correct me if I am wrong.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2016 20: 17
          15
          You are both right and wrong at the same time. In principle, a certain versatility is possible and needed - for example, such a class of aircraft as a fighter-bomber. For example, the Su-35 is a very formidable fighter, one of the first in the world. But he also "knows how" to work on the ground, although here his capabilities will be inferior to a specialized bomber / missile carrier. But here's how the Su-35 attack aircraft is completely unusable, and of course, it would never occur to anyone to try to make a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft out of it.
          Again - technicians, brave guys, in principle, can make a good multi-purpose aircraft, but genetics, these messy clever men, still have not bothered to breed universal pilots. You can prepare an ace of air combat, which is also capable of striking at ground targets, but he can’t achieve mastery in the high art of a bomber - completely different art, other training and all that. And vice versa, a bomber pilot is quite possible, able to fend for himself in an air battle - but put him in a fighter and send him into battle against the master of air battle - nothing can be done.
          Therefore, some reasonable universality makes sense. It is not always possible to use the required number of bombers - why then not bring fighters to business, entrusting them with relatively simple hired targets?
          But the Americans managed to try to link such fundamentally different machines as VTOL, fighter and bomber in one design. Instead of trying to make some modern analogue of the F-16 and F-18, which could change the workhorses of the fleet and the Air Force (and this task was for American filmmakers on the shoulder), they began to wise with a vertical take-off ... well, they ruined the program , of course.
        2. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell 2 February 2016 20: 39
          14
          Think right. The idea was good, but initially it went wrong. In addition to the possibilities in the technical specifications, the limitation of the final price was proposed - ~ 80 million per piece, depending on the version. More than 3000 vehicles are planned to be built. It did not work out, they are already fighting so as not to "take off" for 150 million, but problems are like a snowball: the cannon of the Marines will not fire until 2019, the ship is out of tune with the deck, the IT specialists need to rewrite millions of lines. There is a lot of advanced stuff, but stuffing it all under the skin and making it work will take a sweat.
          Already they say that he will not be able to fully replace the fleet of airplanes: against the A-10 it is too fast and not protected, against -16 it is not so agile, -15 will not raise as much, -18 on the deck will replace ... The T-50 has time get on the wing, let's see what will be offered to replace the Su-25. In general, the Russian concept looks more mundane, but it will work more confidently, and trample on the market ...
          1. Marconi41
            Marconi41 3 February 2016 04: 57
            0
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            now they say that he will not be able to fully replace the fleet of airplanes: against the A-10 it is too fast and not protected, against -16 it is not so agile, -15 will not raise the same, -18 will replace on the deck ..

            Something you all poured into one bottle. Americans are not at all, as many people think. They know how to build aircraft and F-15 and F-16 confirmation of this. But even the same F-15 has a lot of modifications for different purposes. Do not forget about the Raptor - not a very weak car. Lightning is an attempt to replace the F-16 with some additional features, and the Americans do not fill everything in the world in the same plane as we do. There will be an F-35 for both the Air Force and the Navy, but it will still be different planes.
        3. Marconi41
          Marconi41 3 February 2016 04: 49
          +1
          Quote: Diana Ilyina
          An attempt to combine in one hammer both a chisel and a sledgehammer, and what else can be combined there, in my opinion, is doomed to failure initially!

          Not quite right. The Americans were replacing the already obsolete F-16. In principle, they got their way. The characteristics of the F-35, whatever we say, is better than that of the F-16. So everything has grown together. Well, Lightning disease from the category of children. Our T-50 is also not yet in the army. Will finish yet. Money will be printed and finished.
          1. VP
            VP 3 February 2016 07: 29
            +1
            Quote: Marconi41
            Well, Lightning disease from the category of children.

            Lightning disease is from the category of conceptual rather than children's ones.
            What, damn it, children’s if he had his first flight in 2000 and since 2006 sawed small series, while seemingly already having experience working on the fifth generation?
            Initially, it was conceived as an addition to the 22nd. Moreover, a much cheaper addition than the 22nd.
            Type a pair of the 15th and 16th.
            Among the number of shortcomings of the 22nd there is a significant for the Pentagon - the lack of the ability to work on the ground. Therefore, the 35th was to, including, receive enhanced shock capabilities.
            Sorry, it’s invented, yeah, the heavy one flutters without looking down, and the light one must be laced upside down with any baida in order to flop around different sheds.
            Then the thought came to clever figures - and what for we are generally a variety sort in different forms, let's generally make one letach for all. Well, like, we’ll introduce him only modifications and shit, that’s happiness.
            No sooner said than paid.
            And the 35th began to do one in three faces - both for the army and for the navy and for the marine corps.
            It turned out that this is complete fun. For example, the Marines are now hysterical, they can't finish finishing the 35th for their needs. Now they, poor things, are finishing off their harriers by extending their service life and buying in addition seven dozen decommissioned aircraft from the Britons purely for spare parts. Since squeezing everything into a "universal strike for all" aircraft, which was initially planned as just a budgetary supplement to the 22nd, it does not work sensibly. Already in 35B they abandoned the use of 900-kg bombs, having cut the sturgeon down to 450-kg and still the stone flower does not come out.
            The next zrada - having made a light fighter a "universal strike" suddenly discovered that it stupidly began to lack traction and maneuverability, that it was never "like the 16th only of the fifth generation", it turns out that it has ceased to fit into some of the requirements for the fifth generation , for example, to the possibility of a long flight at supersonic without afterburner.
            Then they made a feint, like why did the fifth generation need all kinds of speed, maneuverability? His type of business flew up, hit from afar and ran away.
            Oha. Only here are other diseases. For such tactics, you need to have appropriate weapons, and the 36th does not have missiles that can be hit without entering the affected area, it has the longest-range AIM-120, which has been spanked for thirty years and which flies up to a hundred, despite the fact that at a hundred it is fig at whom it hits, the probability of hitting at such a distance is not so impressive. And for normal air defense systems, seeing the 35th is not a special problem - all "stealth" is sharpened for the centimeter range (while optimized in the frontal projection), while the air defense radars are multi-range. And it is not particularly difficult to dump the 35th yourself or throw a tip at it for fighters.
            Despite the fact that the declared detection range by 35 meters is 150 km. Moreover, it is for the purpose with an EPR of 3 square meters. And with a probability of detection of 0,5 rather than guaranteed detection. And at the same time for scanning in a narrow sector and irradiating the target for 2 seconds. Those. in fully polygon conditions.
            Those. the elaborated application concept is doubtful.
            In general, there you can sing odes to geniuses who, having conceived one thing, managed to make from an initially normal airplane it is not clear what. And the prospect of adopting the F-35 for arms has not yet been seen.
    4. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 2 February 2016 18: 17
      25
      I am in the comments for each such article, I write about the same thing: - It is necessary to allocate funds and increase production volumes of the F-35. Replace all F-15s and F-16s that are in service with NATO. The EU needs to reduce the allocation of funds for nuclear submarines and frigates, and vice versa to invest in the entire F-35 defense budget.
      1. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 2 February 2016 18: 25
        15
        Quote: Lord of the Sith
        I am in the comments for each such article, I write about the same thing: - It is necessary to allocate funds and increase production volumes of the F-35. Replace all F-15s and F-16s that are in service with NATO. The EU needs to reduce the allocation of funds for nuclear submarines and frigates, and vice versa to invest in the entire F-35 defense budget.


        Write correctly! I, a person far from the intricacies of military technology, have already read so many "flattering" reviews about this "miracle" of the American aircraft industry that even I have a strong opinion that this plane will be made of platinum, fly on palladium fuel and shoot golden rockets!

        We wish good luck to Lockheed-Martin employees in mastering the next dohreniliard of the ever-dead presidents!
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 2 February 2016 18: 49
          +1
          Quote: Diana Ilyina
          Write correctly! I, a person far from the intricacies of military technology, have already read so many "flattering" reviews about this "miracle" of the American aircraft industry that even I have a strong opinion that this plane will be made of platinum, fly on palladium fuel and shoot golden rockets!
          We wish good luck to Lockheed-Martin employees in mastering the next dohreniliard of the ever-dead presidents!

          And you had no desire to find the source from where the American portal compromised the information? The fact is that several Internet sites have been reprinting an article from Blomberg for a week already. Well, so as not to seem like a complete copist, they are sucking sensations out of a finger. And it was written about this.
          The United States intends to build 500 F-35 fighters of all three versions before the completion of 3F software development, Bloomberg News reports.
          Tests of the aircraft will continue until at least August 2018, when Block 3F will be integrated into all manufactured aircraft. In 2015, 45 aircraft were produced, by 2018 it is planned to reach level 100, and by 2020 the production rate will increase to 120 aircraft in year. This year, 2016 aircraft should be produced for all customers.
          The main reason for the delays is the development of Block 3F software. Its creation can only be completed at the end of 2017, whereas the end of 2016 was previously planned. The F-35 is called a “flying computer,” whose software consists of 8 million lines.
          1. corporal
            corporal 2 February 2016 19: 07
            +2
            Quote: Aron Zaavi
            8 million lines.

            Interestingly, but on a regular computer how much?
            1. Wheel
              Wheel 2 February 2016 22: 29
              +5
              Quote: Corporal
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              8 million lines.

              Interestingly, but on a regular computer how much?

              Linux has exceeded 10 million
              Windows is estimated at least 30 million with a strapping.
          2. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 2 February 2016 19: 24
            11
            Quote: Aaron Zawi
            And you had no desire to find the source from where the American portal compromised the information? The fact is that several Internet sites have been reprinting an article from Blomberg for a week already. Well, so as not to seem like a complete copist, they are sucking sensations out of a finger. And it was written about this.


            You see, I am an economist, by education and profession, and that's why I'm used to counting! Let's take a look at the calculations. You say the Americans are planning to build 500 F-35s. I was not too lazy to see its cost, the figures are different, but on average, somewhere around $ 100 million. Multiply 100 * 000 = $ 000. Next, we look at the cost of the contract for two Mistrals, which is 500 euros. Converting $ 50 yards to euros, that's about 000 yards. Divide this amount by the cost of one Mistral, we get 000 ships. I understand that the Mistral is not the best ship in the world, but 000 ships and 1 planes !!! What is more profitable ?!

            I understand that the comparison is not correct, there are different functions and goals, but all the same, the effect of 76 ships will be higher than that of 500 aircraft! Especially considering that the ships may not be Mistrals, but some kind of nuclear submarine or something else! In addition, 100 million, this is far from the final cost, how much it will cost to fine-tune the software and other nodes to a sane state, God and the Pentagon alone knows!
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 2 February 2016 19: 47
              +4
              Quote: Diana Ilyina

              I understand that the comparison is not correct, there are different functions and goals, but all the same, the effect of 76 ships will be higher than that of 500 aircraft! Especially considering that the ships may not be Mistrals, but some kind of nuclear submarine or something else! In addition, 100 million, this is far from the final cost, how much it will cost to fine-tune the software and other nodes to a sane state, God and the Pentagon alone knows!

              You are absolutely right. The functions are completely different. Moreover, you calculated the cost of the box without its filling, weapons, crew, and so on. By the way, the majority of specialists also estimate the cost of the T-50 at $ 100 million, and what is more preferable to leave the Air Force without modern aircraft, and to buy another submarine? In aviation, as life shows, the demand is higher.
              1. Diana Ilyina
                Diana Ilyina 2 February 2016 20: 02
                14
                Quote: Aaron Zawi
                You are absolutely right. The functions are completely different. Moreover, you calculated the cost of the box without its filling, weapons, crew, and so on. By the way, the majority of specialists also estimate the cost of the T-50 at $ 100 million, and what is more preferable to leave the Air Force without modern aircraft, and to buy another submarine? In aviation, as life shows, the demand is higher.


                I understand that Wikipedia is a brehun, but still: "At the same time, according to Putin, the plane will be 2,5-3 times cheaper than foreign counterparts. India planned to purchase the PAK FA at a price of $ 100 million per plane."

                Do not confuse the cost of the aircraft for yourself and the cost of export! In addition, the characteristics of our aircraft are much higher than those of the US. Anticipating your valid objection, how do I know, I’ll say. I don’t know, nobody knows, but experience shows that when the launch in the series is delayed, our planes turn out better, an example is the American F-15 versus our Su-27! You do not think that I am a sucker! I work in a serious enterprise related to the military-industrial complex and I am required to understand many things by job. I did not say that aviation should be left without new cars, God forbid, on the contrary, aviation is one of the main priorities! The question is different, the ratio of costs to the final result, and here it is, the Americans have big problems! As far as I understand it, the aircraft is raw and its refinement is postponed further and further and no one can say the final cost, that's what it is about!
                1. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 2 February 2016 20: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  [. Anticipating your valid objection, how do I know, I’ll say. I don’t know, nobody knows, but experience shows that when the launch in the series is delayed, our planes turn out better, an example is the American F-15 versus our Su-27! You do not think that I am a sucker!

                  I never think badly of a person without good reason. As for your promise of the superiority of the Su-27 over the F-15, this is an unsubstantiated assumption. F-15 participated in a much larger number of conflicts and perfectly established itself.
                2. opus
                  opus 2 February 2016 21: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  Do not confuse the cost of the aircraft for yourself and the cost of export!

                  Required. Export will be MINIMUM is 18% cheaper
                  How are you
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  economist, by education and by profession, and therefore used to count
                  should know that6
                  1.When exporting (exporting abroad of the Russian Federation / CU), 18% VAT is refunded (and ours are paid where to go)
                  TN FEA EAEU 8802300007 (ATTENTION !!! Due to the lack of an officially approved list of military product codes, this note can be used EXCLUSIVELY for reference and informational purposes.)
                  -Export Duty No
                  - Export Licensing No (basic)
                  18% refundable
                  2. All imported components that are supplied to fulfill the export contract ..
                  Well, for example, the EAEU TN FEA 8526912000 5% TP + 18%. Our pay in full (23,7% in total).
                  And for export contracts TP is conditionally charged, VAT is reimbursed.
                  3. Competition. We do not. There is also some:
                  Russia lost the "contract of the century" for the supply of MiGs to India: the state armaments program is under threat
                  From items 1,2,3, 20, 30 for export, the cost will be CHEAPER by XNUMX-XNUMX% than for the RF Ministry of Defense.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  I work in a serious enterprise related to the military-industrial complex and I am required to understand many things by job.

                  Seriously?
                  1. opus
                    opus 2 February 2016 21: 52
                    -1
                    Quote: Diana Ilyina
                    I was not too lazy to see its value, the numbers are different, but on average somewhere around $ 100 million.

                    1. They have a cost, this is the cost of an LCI (you as a serious "economist" should know.)
                    We have, as it were, not quite. Under the USSR, for sure, now partially.
                    The cost of the SU-35 is not included in the sale price of the Su-27S.
                    Yes, and junk .. in the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2013 N 1291 on the LAN "gu-gu"
                    2. Costs at the low level of the initial serial production No. 6-7 (not including the engine) - (Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots 6 and 7) for 71 units:
                    F-35A: $ 98 million
                    F-35B: $ 104 million
                    F-35C: $ 116 million
                    MORE
                    An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $ 85 million, which is the equivalent of $ 75 million in today's dollars.

                    August 11 2015
                    Amount of new supply contract 48 Su-35 fighters for the Russian Air Force will be 100 billion rubles: 2 083 333 333 r / piece
                    64,9363 r / USD

                    $ 32 is almost the basic configuration, and up to $ 082 (if stuffed). Comparably?
                    (contract of 2009: 48 combat aircraft of this type, the cost of which amounted to 66 billion rubles, was signed in 2009.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    still have not bothered to breed universal pilots.

                    general misconception about Joint Strike Fighter (single strike fighter)
                    F-35B Lightning II STOVL for Royal Navy KPM
                    F-35A - aircraft for the US Air Force
                    F-35C - aircraft for the US Navy.
                    English pilots will not fly on the F-35A, and USAIF pilots will not sit at the helm of the F-35B Lightning II STOVL, then the same thing about the F-35I

                    Yes, the model is a unified fighter-bomber for NATO countries based on land and at sea.
                    But this does not mean that pilots are "universal" or all 2 in 1 as head shoulders!
                    It's the same as Volkswagen's MQB modular platform: cheap and fast, but at the output of Audi, Seat, Skoda and Volkswagen (from Polo to Passat)
                    in a simplified version of course (MQB is their future), such as VAG concern PL71 platforms / the following cars are built on it:
                    Volkswagen Touareg (7L) 2003 -
                    Audi Q7 (4L) 2005 -
                    Porsche Cayenne 2002 -

                    Quote: Diana Ilyina
                    I understand the comparison is not correct,

                    For an "economist" of a large "serious" defense industry enterprise IT SHAME

                    Quote: CERHJ
                    This is very softly said !!

                    Well, very soft. Maybe harder: stupidity
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2016 22: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: opus
                      The sum of a new contract for the supply of 48 Su-35 fighters for the Russian Air Force will amount to 100 billion rubles: 2 083 333 333 r / piece
                      64,9363 r / USD

                      Aghas :))) But this is bad luck - the cost of a contract usually indicates the cost of not only the plane, but also the cost of its maintenance, which is carried out by the manufacturer and which makes the contract extremely expensive (there are tens of percent). And in the case of the F-35, the price is ONLY the board itself (and that without the engine :)))
                      Quote: opus
                      general misconception about Joint Strike Fighter (single strike fighter)

                      I actually wrote about the pilots :)))
                      Quote: opus
                      Yes, the model is a unified fighter-bomber for NATO countries based on land and at sea.
                      But this does not mean that pilots are "universal" or all 2 in 1 as head shoulders!

                      Yeah. Read which aircraft the F-35 was supposed to replace in the same Air Force. A-10, F-16 ... Quite the same aircraft, right? :))
                      1. opus
                        opus 2 February 2016 23: 03
                        -4
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And in the case of the F-35, the price is ONLY the board itself (and that without the engine :)))

                        repeat, well written
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        at the level of initial serial production No. 6-7 (not including the engine) - (Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots 6 and 7) for 71 units:

                        And so:
                        Tories Hit Reset Button On F-35 As Report Finds Program's Cost Will Be $ 45.8 Billion
                        true auditors disagree: But the accounting firm KPMG noted that National Defense has not built in enough contingency funds to account for the wild swings in sticker price of the radar-evading plane.
                        In the report for the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute, he said the full bill for buying, operating and maintaining the planes is at least $ 56-billion and not the $ 45.8-billion the government has already acknowledged because its bleeding-edge technology is still under development.
                        56 billion and 45,8. in how
                        So take it.
                        While all this is "the seventh water on jelly"
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I actually wrote about the pilots :)))

                        Not only
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But the Americans managed to try to link such fundamentally different machines as VTOL, fighter and bomber in one design.

                        Well, I added the same thing about the pilots.

                        Quote: opus
                        English pilots will not fly on the F-35A, and USAIF pilots will not sit at the helm of the F-35B Lightning II STOVL, then the same thing about the F-35I


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quite the same planes, right? :))

                        repeat:
                        Quote: opus
                        Volkswagen's MQB modular platform: cheap and fast, but at the exit of Audi, Seat, Skoda and Volkswagen (from Polo to Passat)


                        Polo and Passat are exactly the same cars?

                        Times are changing, the goals and objectives of the sun are the same:
                        "new" A-10 is not needed, and the F-16 is highly specialized (it was sharpened for something else)
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2016 22: 03
                    +4
                    Quote: opus
                    Required. Export will be MINIMUM 18% cheaper

                    Yes you! Well, who would have thought? laughing
                    For orders to the War Ministry, there are pricing rules, a dreary system of coordinating cost standards, and so on and so forth. There is none of this for export contracts - the prices are dictated by the market. You can sell at three times the cost price - use it for you, well done. This is the first thing. And secondly, supplies to the military go through Rosoboronexport, and there are soooo cheating, that ...
                    So it’s not worth it, right, to write about VAT, it is decisively lost amid margins on export contracts.
                    1. opus
                      opus 2 February 2016 23: 14
                      -2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Yes you! Well, who would have thought?

                      What about me"? It seems to me that no one thought ... about VAT, and even more, especially
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      economist, by education and by profession

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      There are rules on orders for the Ministry of War

                      No one has canceled VAT, we read contracts and tenders
                      There is no VAT in the USA (for export or not for export, drum. Shipping and That are more expensive yes).
                      Only sales tax ("land" and various), but the Pentagon does not pay it.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You can sell at three times the cost price - use it for you, well done. This is the first thing. And secondly, supplies to the military go through Rosoboronexport, and there are soooo wrap up that ...

                      repeat:
                      Quote: opus
                      There is another one:
                      Russia lost the "contract of the century" for the supply of MiGs to India: the state armaments program is under threat

                      and examples like India are a bunch
                      I know those "cheats": the return of Migs from Algeria riveted from counterfeit goods and the second part is worth something.
                      4UD and NOT ONE landing, fines of 200tr

                      We are waiting for the privatization of state enterprises in 2016 for a trillion rubles ... (budget, nem money, forced) and


                      $ 20 billion x80 p / $ =?

                      material here:

                      Schaub all were business like our state capitalists.
                      ----------
                      Rosoboronexport is certainly not Rusnano ...... but hello
                    2. Serg65
                      Serg65 3 February 2016 09: 27
                      +1
                      hi Greetings Andrew! Ignore the Kaptsovsky opus Zamvoltu, but switched to aviation! laughing
                3. Marconi41
                  Marconi41 3 February 2016 05: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  An example of an American F-15 vs our Su-27!

                  Not a fact ma'am. Firstly, in order to determine this, real combat operations are needed. Secondly, the SU-27 was created in response to the F-15, and at first, by its characteristics, these first F-15s did not catch up. And even now, the F-15 and Su-27 are quite comparable opponents.
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 2 February 2016 21: 38
              +2
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              I understand that Mistral is not the best ship in the world, but 76 ships and 500 aircraft !!! What is more profitable ?!


              D more "protect" parrots and baby elephants :)
              1. opus
                opus 2 February 2016 23: 34
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                D more "protect" parrots and baby elephants :)


                Thank you for reminding me hi
                I forgot the classics


                Likewise, the "economist" with experience Diana Ilyina considers the F-35 in the "Mistrals"
            3. VP
              VP 3 February 2016 07: 37
              +1
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              You say that the Americans plan to produce 500 F-35s. I was not too lazy to see its value, the numbers are different, but on average somewhere around $ 100 million. Multiply $ 100 * 000 = $ 000.

              This is not true. They have already taken 54 billion in only one development at the moment. In development!
              And about a batch of 500 aircraft this is not at all a fact. The 22nd was generally going to release several thousand but in the end ..
    5. mihasik
      mihasik 2 February 2016 18: 20
      +1
      Quote: Wiruz
      In short, you can wrote on the grave "Born dead!" laughing

      I would say this: We wanted to make an airplane, but it turned out to be “push-pull”, because they themselves did not understand what they wanted from it. So it turned out not the SU-35, but just the F-35. F * whipped "EFka" his own?)
    6. Maksus
      Maksus 2 February 2016 20: 17
      +1
      Block 3 - isn't this the third episode? That is, the 2 of the first quite fly themselves. Well, the third one is delayed, and the first one still does not smell with us. Why rejoice?
    7. lotar
      lotar 2 February 2016 20: 34
      +1
      I do not exclude the possibility that these constant imperfections are just a legitimate way to launder money. And if so, then America is clearly among the leaders in corruption.
  2. horoh
    horoh 2 February 2016 17: 38
    +7
    Come on, cool plane, there is a topic for cutting wink
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 2 February 2016 17: 50
      12
      In vain swear colleagues. Thanks to this truly legendary plane, you and I always have something to make fun of :)
      1. Bkmz
        Bkmz 2 February 2016 18: 17
        +1
        Come on, how a military aircraft may not be very good, but as a vehicle, it’s quite a supercar.
    2. dyksi
      dyksi 2 February 2016 18: 20
      +2
      By the way, American military experts are increasingly raising the topic of recreating the specialization of combat aircraft of the type, F-15, F-16, A-10, or our MiG-31, Su-27, MiG-29, Su-25, etc. because, in fact, it is more efficient and cheaper. They believe that the seizure of the entire combat aircraft market by one company led to this "wonder of the world." In addition to all this, they believe that after all these projects, their pilots will still need to be returned to a normal psychological state of a fighter pilot, or an attack aircraft (and this problem is just beginning to emerge, its effect is yet to come), they are not happy with the dominance of software , and the F-35 suffers from it no less than from other bells and whistles. everything should be in moderation. In short, there are proposals to remove the F-16 from storage, "Superhornets" and simply "Hornets" will reign on aircraft carriers, and so they constantly write about the A-10. So, food for thought.
  3. Altona
    Altona 2 February 2016 17: 39
    +1
    How will it take off that? With such jambs ...
    1. Gorjelin
      Gorjelin 2 February 2016 17: 41
      +7
      How will it take off that? With such jambs ...

      What difference does not make for this))
      Guys loot cut, straight from the machine, crisp fresh
    2. Vasya_Piterskiy
      Vasya_Piterskiy 2 February 2016 17: 43
      +4
      Let them give it to us, our craftsmen will process it with a file and fly, no matter where!)
      1. Mikhail Krapivin
        Mikhail Krapivin 2 February 2016 17: 51
        +3
        Quote: Vasya_Piterskiy
        Let them give it to us, our craftsmen will process it with a file and fly, no matter where!)


        Yeah, and drill holes in the wings, so as not to fall off;)
    3. zennon
      zennon 2 February 2016 19: 49
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      How will it take off that? With such jambs ...

      Drozite! Since 2006 produced. Already 174 pieces have bred ...
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 February 2016 21: 35
        0
        Quote: zennon
        Drozite! Since 2006 produced. Already 174 pieces have bred ...

        And how many of them FLY NORMALLY?
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 2 February 2016 21: 54
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: zennon
          Drozite! Since 2006 produced. Already 174 pieces have bred ...

          And how many of them FLY NORMALLY?

          Все.
          1. Shark Lover
            Shark Lover 3 February 2016 08: 13
            0
            The AN-2 also flies normally so far. I think only flying for that kind of money and ambition is not enough.
  4. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 2 February 2016 17: 39
    +2
    How much more money will be cut on this project?
    1. Pravdarm
      Pravdarm 2 February 2016 17: 56
      +5
      At that pace, it will soon be like a shuttle!
      Supermaster level cunning! First, they will suck and saw the loot from their budget => the price will rise, and then from the budgets of suckers, who will vparyat this "golden ovno" (already vparili).
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 2 February 2016 18: 04
        +3
        Jews are certainly not suckers, but then they performed)
      2. jjj
        jjj 2 February 2016 19: 10
        +8
        Today they talked about the Challenger, about its last flight. Most of all struck by the conclusion: "The ship was ruined by the cold snap that happened on the night before the start in the sunniest state of America." They designed the shuttles without taking into account all possible weather factors. So you think the principles of American design have changed?
        1. Alf
          Alf 2 February 2016 21: 37
          0
          Quote: jjj
          They designed shuttles without taking into account all possible weather factors. So you think American design principles have changed

          It will urgently redo the weather at the flight sites. For this, HAARP and created. laughing
        2. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 21: 53
          +1
          Quote: jjj
          They designed shuttles without taking into account all possible weather factors.

          It was not the shuttle itself that exploded, but one of the engines of the first stage of the launch vehicle.
  5. lysyj bob
    lysyj bob 2 February 2016 17: 40
    +4
    "Without the F-35 code, there simply will not be

    Well, we got to the most important thing! Bucky, saddles - all garbage, the most important thing is not! And how many lards will it take now for the F-35 to be?
  6. asbond
    asbond 2 February 2016 17: 40
    +3
    Based on all that has been said, the only conclusion suggests itself: "the car is raw"! And if we take into account its cost, then the wording "customer's divorce" suggests itself. This, naturally, from the point of view of a layman. What will the professionals say?
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 2 February 2016 18: 14
      +7
      Quote: asbond
      Based on all that has been said, the only conclusion suggests itself: "the car is raw"! And if we take into account its cost, then the wording "customer's divorce" suggests itself.

      The car is not a problem - the car is damp, you can’t formulate it better.
      But Americans can’t recognize this, because they are the most and kickbacks are everywhere charged, the first places in the ratings, expert analysis and advertising time are paid. So how do they behave?
      They just stupidly put pressure on their vassals, and they are happy to pay for remaking and fixing problems, ordering themselves new lots ..........
      I think that the fate of the F-117 awaits him, quietly without giving any pomp, they closed the program and slowly wrote off the remaining cars
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 2 February 2016 18: 33
        0
        Well, if so, and maybe the F-104 will work out, with "combat" operation ...
        Given the cost of the program, you can’t close it quietly, the noise will be scary.
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 2 February 2016 21: 56
          +1
          Quote: engineer74
          Given the cost of the program, you can’t close it quietly, the noise will be scary.

          As it was rare to meet information that the F-35 stump from the F-22 and inferior in some performance characteristics. And if tomorrow a new one appears high tech (this word is an American trend) is a super plane that will eclipse all the planes in the world ............ Americans will forget the F-35 as well as the F-117, in which the Pentagon invested almost as much money as in his R&D is Lockheed Martin.
      2. Alf
        Alf 2 February 2016 21: 41
        +1
        Quote: APASUS
        I think that the fate of the F-117 awaits him, quietly without giving any pomp, they closed the program and slowly wrote off the remaining cars

        For example, so.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 21: 55
      +2
      Quote: asbond
      Based on all that has been said, the only conclusion suggests itself: "the car is raw"! And if we take into account its cost, then the wording "customer's divorce" suggests itself. This, naturally, from the point of view of a layman. What will the professionals say?

      And professionals are who makes a divorce. They do not read our Military Review in Russian. Question into the void.
  7. Same lech
    Same lech 2 February 2016 17: 40
    +5
    Very expensive plane ...
    in a large-scale war, of course, an inexpensive and technologically advanced weapon wins, and all these expensive military toys are good for the Papuans and natives who have no means of struggle against them.
    Therefore, I believe that in an armed clash with an advanced adversary, the United States will nevertheless rely more on the time-tested F-16 F-15, F-18 HORNET.
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 2 February 2016 17: 54
      +3
      What about the F-22? In their ranking, the Americans rated one of their 22nd in ten of our fighters. Optimists and dreamers.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 22: 13
      +1
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      in a large-scale war, of course, inexpensive and high-tech weapons prevail

      I wonder who the Americans want to start a large-scale war with. With Russia or what? These are their dreams and they know that they cannot do this purely physically. You will recall how many millions of soldiers were prepared at the border for an attack on the USSR, how many military equipment and aircraft.
      Neither America nor NATO will be able, like Hitler, to concentrate such an army at present at the borders of Russia.
      Therefore, we have to fear a "global non-nuclear strike" with high-precision, high-tech and not at all cheap weapons - 15000 cruise and ballistic missiles. Our air defense and missile defense are not able to shoot down all these missiles launched within one hour.
      But again, the concentration of carriers of these weapons around the land and sea borders of Russia is not possible. This is the default preparation for an attack and also will not go unnoticed.
      Conclusion - we will not have, as you say, a "large-scale" war with NATO and America. Any "large-scale" use of non-nuclear weapons will have a thermonuclear response.
      But with individual countries, Ukraine or Turkey, we can fight without the use of nuclear weapons.
  8. Foresterer
    Foresterer 2 February 2016 17: 44
    +2
    Born defective. Amen.
  9. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 2 February 2016 17: 46
    +2
    Come to us to be treated hippos and she-wolf ...
  10. ANANATOLY PAULOV
    ANANATOLY PAULOV 2 February 2016 17: 46
    +3
    I doubt that F35s will ever become combat vehicles. After all, they have not yet created missiles for conformal deployment with a sufficient range, and they themselves do not know when they will be. When there are such missiles, there will be an airplane. In the meantime, this is a very expensive toy. And no matter what "codes" they blundered, the plane will not be.
  11. newcomer
    newcomer 2 February 2016 17: 46
    +5
    I misunderstand something. F22 on reviews of Amer’s specialists, on avionics and comp. systems remained at the level of 90gg. now we see almost the same (almost!) problems with f35. the question arises, even a few, have the Yankees forgotten how to do avionics and electronics? or do these two gliders have no upgrade resource? I would like to know the opinion of the nexus, if present.
  12. DMoroz
    DMoroz 2 February 2016 17: 47
    +2
    “This is the incompleteness of the IT skeleton of a fighter - an autonomous information management system, the instability of avionics in the Block 3F phase, and the insufficient reliability and maintainability of the engine.”

    And how many units have already steamed the allies? They are not designers and technicians, they are damn effective sales managers of what nobody needs because of unsuitability
  13. gas113
    gas113 2 February 2016 17: 49
    +2
    Chot for a plane flying codes? I always thought that the engine consumes kerosene produces traction, the pilot controls, the wings create lift. And in this freak, what do codes create lift?
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 2 February 2016 21: 40
      +1
      Quote: gas113
      Chot for a plane flying codes? I always thought that the engine consumes kerosene produces traction, the pilot controls, the wings create lift. And in this freak, what do codes create lift?


      But does Su, starting with 27, know how to fly at all? No code?
      Think a little ... At least a little ...
  14. viktor561
    viktor561 2 February 2016 17: 49
    +1
    Well, in FIG they do it - they cut the loot of the huge military budget or for the Pontus greatness of America - against the natives
    fight - they won’t climb on us - definitely!
    1. ANANATOLY PAULOV
      ANANATOLY PAULOV 2 February 2016 17: 53
      +2
      You yourself answered your own question. BABLO SAWING.
  15. gas113
    gas113 2 February 2016 17: 55
    +8
    Yes, if the valiant hacker Vasya inserts an unreadable Russian word in three letters into the code, then all these planes will be covered with another Russian unprintable word
  16. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 February 2016 17: 56
    +4
    Block 3F is 100% software ready.
    Those planes that fly now have Block 2A,
    Block 2B (for F-35C marine aircraft)
    or Block 3i - approximately 97-98% of software availability.
    1. your1970
      your1970 2 February 2016 18: 33
      0
      Block 3F, insufficient reliability и maintainability engine. "
      Blocks can be at least foundation concrete, but if the enginesunreliable - then the rest is all in principle unimportant ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 2 February 2016 18: 51
        +5
        More than 180 aircraft are already in the air. Pilots are trained
        4 countries, and not a single plane crashed. This is a record for
        new models. Where is the unreliable engine?
        This is an engine similar to the F-16 engine, only enlarged
        power, while much more economical.
        1. Wellych
          Wellych 2 February 2016 19: 47
          +1
          More than 180 aircraft are already in the air. Pilots are trained
          4 countries, and not a single plane crashed. This is a record for
          new models. Where is the unreliable engine?

          With such raids, there must probably be positive feedback from the direct operators? Well, with the exception of advertising maxims by marketers and people involved in the gesheft? ...
        2. your1970
          your1970 2 February 2016 21: 35
          0
          According to US Department of Defense Testing and Evaluation Michael Gilmore ...
          All claims against him repeat
        3. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 2 February 2016 22: 19
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          More than 180 aircraft are already in the air. Pilots are trained
          4 countries, and not a single plane crashed. This is a record for
          new models. Where is the unreliable engine?
          This is an engine similar to the F-16 engine, only enlarged
          power, while much more economical.

          In June 2014, the fifth-generation F-35 Lighting II fighter engine caught fire when preparing the aircraft for takeoff. Flights of this type of aircraft were temporarily stopped, the incident prevented the premiere of the aircraft at the air show in Farnborough.

          If he managed to take off, he would surely have crashed.
        4. Skifotavr
          Skifotavr 2 February 2016 23: 57
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh

          This is an engine similar to the F-16 engine, only enlarged
          power, while much more economical.

          The engine for the F-35 was created as a further more powerful development of the F-22 engine. In this regard, I wonder why it looks like an engine from the F-16? Also cylindrical?
        5. APASUS
          APASUS 3 February 2016 19: 12
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          More than 180 aircraft are already in the air. Pilots are trained
          4 countries, and not a single plane crashed. This is a record for
          new models. Where is the unreliable engine?
          This is an engine similar to the F-16 engine, only enlarged
          power, while much more economical.

          Take the time to read an article on conceptual issues with the American F-35. Due to the shortened take-off and vertical landing capabilities adopted at the request of the US Marine Corps, the aircraft is bad in almost everything else: speed, maneuverability, and survivability. Moreover, he must replace a large fleet of several types of aircraft. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-us-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-th
          e-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5 - See more at: http://russianinterest.ru/F-35-problemy#sthash.ML6wuYcj.dpuf
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 February 2016 20: 00
            0
            Quote: APASUS
            Take the time to read an article on conceptual issues with the American F-35. Due to the shortened take-off and vertical landing capabilities adopted at the request of the US Marine Corps, the aircraft is bad in almost everything else: speed, maneuverability, and survivability.

            Which of the F-35 are you talking about? There are three of them. You do not compare SVD and AK, although they also have more 60 percent of the total details
            1. APASUS
              APASUS 4 February 2016 18: 56
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              Which of the F-35 are you talking about? There are three of them. You do not compare SVD and AK, although they also have more 60 percent of the total details

              Try following the specified link
    2. Pajamas
      Pajamas 2 February 2016 19: 04
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Block 3F is 100% software ready.
      Those planes that fly now have Block 2A,
      Block 2B (for F-35C marine aircraft)
      or Block 3i - approximately 97-98% of software availability.

      I also think that they’ll finish it, there is a lag, but to doubt that the country with the largest number of qualified programmers will not cope with the task of software is children's naivety, everything else is steps to unmanned aerial vehicles. We must carefully monitor and squeeze, rather than throwing caps into the air, otherwise it very much resembles Svidomo’s resources, any delay we have there is YOUR enthusiasm. You need to be calmer.
      1. VP
        VP 3 February 2016 08: 25
        0
        Quote: Pajama
        the country with the largest number of qualified programmers

        Are you talking about India or something?
        In American software companies, the majority of developers are not predominantly American. There are Indians, there are Chinese, there are ours, and in general, whoever is not there. Plus, they give a lot of things for development to the side, ordering from other companies and for freelance.
        Yes, why go far - the well-known Windows is a development product of hundreds of companies around the world, including in Moscow. MS there by and large the customer, coordinator and seller. Of course, they also write in themselves, but they themselves would not have pulled it out.
        Or, if smaller, some DivX. Make in Tomsk, coordinator and customer in the States.
        I don’t think that until the development of software for the 35th, foreign citizens and companies and employees who are US citizens but whose nationality can raise questions about loyalty will be allowed.
        1. Pajamas
          Pajamas 3 February 2016 17: 11
          0
          Quote: VP
          Are you talking about India or something?
          In American software companies, the majority of developers are not predominantly American. There are Indians, there are Chinese, there are ours, and in general, whoever is not there. Plus, they give a lot of things for development to the side, ordering from other companies and for freelance.

          Whip, Prat, Morisson, A Birdman for Your Hindus? And giving it to non-US citizens is quite possible, they will set the universal task of managing and controlling the process, but I assure you that in the USA a lot of strong programming schools will cope on their own, and the fact that many tasks for writing code are given to Russia and India is quite understandable, the software consumption market in the USA the largest in the world, and we and the Indians are much cheaper. of their own.
    3. Wheel
      Wheel 2 February 2016 22: 37
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Block 3F is 100% software ready.

      Software is never 100% ready
      The law is like that.
      Patches are constantly molded to it, then patches for patches, then updates, again patches and when the number of patches exceeds a certain limit, a new release appears with which everything repeats in the same way.
    4. opus
      opus 2 February 2016 23: 26
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Block 3F is 100% software ready.

      If or May 2015, 97.5% percent of the required F-35 software is currently flying and 99.9% percent of the required software has been coded. This equates to about 10,000 lines of code that remain to be written.
      More specifically about the blocks, then like this:
  17. cap
    cap 2 February 2016 17: 57
    0
    “At the same time, he noted that“ the main problems of the vessel have long been known - it is the incompleteness of the fighter's IT skeleton - an autonomous information control system, the instability of avionics in the Block 3F phase, and insufficient reliability and maintainability of the engine ”.

    Did I miss something? How does he even fly?
    Constructors on stage.
    Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (eng. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Russian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II) is a family of promising, inconspicuous fifth-generation fighter-bombers developed by the American company Lockheed Martin (Tactical Aircraft Systems) in three versions: an option for the needs of the US Air Force (ground fighter - CTOL), for the US Marine Corps and the British Navy (fighter with a short take-off and vertical landing - STOVL), and for the needs of the US Navy (carrier-based fighter - CV).

    The Lockheed Martin consortium also includes Northrop Grumman Corporation, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, Allison and British Aerospace. Skunk Works in Palmdale, California and Aeronautical Systems are participating in the development of individual sites.

    As the famous character said, "Klava, I'm lying!".
    1. LÄRZ
      LÄRZ 2 February 2016 18: 55
      +2
      Quote: cap
      The Lockheed Martin consortium also includes Northrop Grumman Corporation, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, Allison and British Aerospace. Skunk Works in Palmdale, California and Aeronautical Systems are participating in the development of individual nodes.

      "Seven nannies have a child without supervision"
      1. TiRex
        TiRex 2 February 2016 19: 54
        +1
        Do you think our planes without KB cooperation create? The genius Sukhoi sat in his office and piled a new plane ...
        1. LÄRZ
          LÄRZ 2 February 2016 20: 17
          +2
          Quote: TiRex
          Do you think our planes without KB cooperation create? The genius Sukhoi sat in his office and piled a new plane ...

          God have mercy! But here you need the closest mutual understanding and common work on a specific end result. And here it turns out: "Here we made the engine (or something else), and then you figure it out yourself, without us." And if the product is still "raw", then there is nothing to announce it, let alone sell it.
  18. bikeev1234
    bikeev1234 2 February 2016 17: 59
    0
    Another American bucket with bolts wants to fly.
  19. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 2 February 2016 18: 05
    0
    In this plane there is only one cant, the fact of its creation.
  20. BOB044
    BOB044 2 February 2016 18: 06
    +2
    Money is not a success, but brains are needed to make it fly.
  21. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 2 February 2016 18: 09
    +2
    "Fedorino grief" -American version.
  22. 1774
    1774 2 February 2016 18: 11
    +1
    But what do you want a universal plane, and a reconnaissance plane, and a fighter, and a bomber and God knows what else. At one time, flying tanks and submarines experimented. I’d like to glue them together so that you can hold on to take universal glue, you want as they say for centuries, let's say wood, take wood glue.
  23. Prisoner
    Prisoner 2 February 2016 18: 13
    0
    They would shoot the poor, so as not to torment. Or is not all the money cut yet?
  24. ramzes1776
    ramzes1776 2 February 2016 18: 15
    0
    But the idea itself is certainly good. But it’s not the fate of the mattresses to bring it to perfection. It’s something like F-117. The toy is expensive, but the output is zero.
  25. triglav
    triglav 2 February 2016 18: 19
    0
    Exactly, a toy. They are too smart with the equipment.
  26. Nix1986
    Nix1986 2 February 2016 18: 26
    +1
    The result of the states is to some extent logical. The limit in LTH has been reached at the current level of technology. The situation is reminiscent of the development of piston aviation at 45, you can increase stealth, avionics, and over-the-air overheating by some level, but this will be an increase that is not offset by an increase in the price level of the aircraft. Compare in current prices F16 and its replacement F35, yes F35 is better, but as much as the price? Not very far.
  27. Garis
    Garis 2 February 2016 18: 27
    0
    The trouble is what. Ai-ai-ayay. Surely the Russians are to blame and Putin in particular ... lol
  28. pogranicnik
    pogranicnik 2 February 2016 18: 34
    0
    Yes, they did not create (and I think they will not create such an aircraft) which the Russians did not shoot down, would !!!!
  29. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 2 February 2016 19: 03
    +2
    Yes, you fucking bogey! Will we finally wait or not, when IT fully flies ?! Without "jambs" and "..small improvements". Otherwise, really, let's come to us (there are sanctions on the side). And, as there V. Vysotsky: "... we will instantly show up to you, with shovels and pitchforks, think about it for a day and correct the defect."
  30. Flat5160
    Flat5160 2 February 2016 19: 14
    0
    We are waiting for, apparently the next stillborn child of the US Air Force. This will be clear after the SU35S has established itself in Syria. After all, the United States considers money and the balance will not be in their favor, especially since our aircraft is 4 ++ generation, and not the 5th. And on the way our T50 aircraft complex, which will probably be cheaper and not inferior to the American F35. To whom they will be breathing in their rolling technique.
    1. TiRex
      TiRex 2 February 2016 19: 57
      0
      Allies, they will not be able to gain ours in any case.
  31. bastard
    bastard 2 February 2016 19: 27
    +1
    pie:

    they take it all boldly
    everything turns into rude
    but if you are embarrassed
    then just spend less effort
  32. tracker
    tracker 2 February 2016 19: 52
    +1
    The F-35 is a 5th generation real aircraft, but today it is expensive, but the Americans plan to produce this universal aircraft in an amount of about 2.5 thousand, then the price will be normal. Quietly and calmly pass tests and acceptance in the army and navy. At the same time, hypersonic missiles are being developed for them, if adopted, all of our air defense systems will be like clubs against bows. He will hope that the decisions on the S-500 will be brought to the time in time to develop the Americans
    1. VP
      VP 3 February 2016 09: 09
      -1
      Did you joke so subtly right now?
      The 35th, firstly, is not a real first-generation aircraft at once for several requirements that are put forward for fifth-generation aircraft. Secondly, it is not real in the sense that it is real as a combat unit and it is not even known to the developers when it appears in that capacity. Rather, the terms are called, but judging by the number of times it was all postponed and postponed, the called dates are not certain but an excuse.
      About a series of 2,5 thousand is also a subtle mockery.
      The F-22 was originally planned as a series of multiple larger than what was actually released. Most likely, the 35th orders will be reduced even more than the 22nd. It is not yet in fact (it was announced that it will be fully armed in 2019, which also causes skepticism) and many countries are already beginning to doubt it and reduce future orders.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 February 2016 10: 29
        0
        Quote: VP
        35, firstly, is not a real first-generation aircraft for several requirements that are put forward for fifth-generation aircraft.

        Actually is. The requirements for the fifth generation are extremely arbitrary, and the Americans, as having washed down the first fifth generation plane and riveting the second with an eye on the experience of the first, can vary these requirements as it suits them.
        1. VP
          VP 3 February 2016 10: 36
          -1
          They can. They can generally include only the requirement of stealth for centimeter range radars in the frontal projection.
          But there are already universally recognized, for example, the requirement of afterburner supersonic.
          And F-22 they do not pass to the fifth in other respects. put forward by them. 22 has no circular information system. And the requirement of all-angle shelling is not fulfilled.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 February 2016 11: 16
            0
            Quote: VP
            But there are already universally recognized, for example, the requirement of afterburner supersonic.

            Nope. Firstly, afterburning super-sound has long been achieved on aircraft of the previous generation. You are talking about cruising afterburner. So he has a lot of problem moments. In particular, the engine resource is killed. Significance is doubled. And other lovely moments. In maneuvering, afterburner afterburning is more important. And you still can’t get away from a rocket even on a cruising afterburner, it cannot be compared with speed - there is no limiter in the person of a person who is experiencing overload. In addition, cruising afterburning on the F-35 is still there, and has been declared for a long time. There were times when he was absent, but long ago sank into oblivion.

            Quote: VP
            And F-22 they do not pass to the fifth in other respects. put forward by them. 22 has no circular information system. And the requirement of all-angle shelling is not fulfilled.

            You stubbornly do not understand that the requirements for the fifth generation are just a set of characteristics that does not limit, but sets goals. Americans do not need over-maneuverability, for example. It’s just that they solved her tasks through an all-angle review and advanced electronics.

            In fact, the fifth generation differs from the fourth by a multiple increase in the capabilities of the fighter compared to the previous generation. And not theoretical thoughts 25 summer ago
            1. VP
              VP 3 February 2016 11: 33
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              You are talking about cruising afterburner.

              About him, of course.
              Quote: Pimply
              So he has a lot of problem points

              Well, this would not have been put forward in due time by the requirement for the new generation if it had been achieved easily and naturally on previous planes.
              If I'm not mistaken, then the Yankees themselves included it in the set of mandatory parameters for the fifth generation, at least I read it from them.
              Quote: Pimply
              Americans do not need over-maneuverability, for example. It’s just that they solved her tasks through an all-angle review and advanced electronics.

              They simply "proudly refused" it when they began to understand what kind of miracle Yudo turns out. Initially, they tried to make the 35th as a kind of functional analogue of the 16th but the next generation, their ambitions for maneuverability ended later.
              As well as the combat radius.
              According to an all-round review - yes, this is a requirement of a new generation and it was put forward by the Yankees. The 22nd is deprived of this. But an all-round review does not reject maneuverability, actually. Like electronics.
              Quote: Pimply
              In fact, the fifth generation differs from the fourth by a multiple increase in the capabilities of the fighter compared to the previous generation.

              What is the multiple increase? Here we take the F-15. What exactly is unattainable for him if you upgrade over the tag?
              In fact, only stealth wins multiple times. But now more and more discussions are going on, but is it so necessary? Indeed, for decimeter radars, these stealth are quite well visible, as for centimeter from many projections that differ from the frontal. And for the sake of stealth, you have to make big sacrifices such as lower combat load, refusals from external suspension and other things, confused structures, difficulties with maintenance, etc. Those. skepticism began to appear.
              But you are right that the requirements for generations are changing. Moreover, in the direction of lowering these requirements wink
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 3 February 2016 12: 10
                +1
                Quote: VP
                Well, this would not have been put forward in due time by the requirement for the new generation if it had been achieved easily and naturally on previous planes.
                If I'm not mistaken, then the Yankees themselves included it in the set of mandatory parameters for the fifth generation, at least I read it from them.

                25 years ago. Reached on the F-22. Reached on the F-35. But removed from the dominant requirements.
                And the demand was the opportunity to overcome dozens of kilometers on overburning supersonic sound.

                Quote: VP
                They simply "proudly refused" it when they began to understand what kind of miracle Yudo turns out. Initially, they tried to make the 35th as a kind of functional analogue of the 16th but the next generation, their ambitions for maneuverability ended later.

                They achieved super-maneuverability on the F-22. Thrust vector controlled engine. But then, realizing that it was problematic to compete with any new all-angle missiles, F-35 refused this requirement. But they have the so-called transparent cockpit, which allows the pilot to look through the body of the aircraft.
                And about maneuverability ...
                F-35 fully maintains control at an angle of attack of 50 °.

                It is able to fly tail-to-tail, maintaining control even at supercritical angles of attack (110 °) and, at the request of the pilot, confidently return to horizontal flight. Watch the first minute. Anyway, look at all three parts of the video, maybe most of the stupid questions will go away.




                Quote: VP

                What is the multiple increase? Here we take the F-15. What exactly is unattainable for him if you upgrade over the tag?


                For starters - compared to which of the F-35x? Secondly, a lot.
                The level of visibility and integration, thrust, avionics with open architecture.
                Read at least something on the subject besides cheers-patriotic articles and that warms your soul. May you see clearly
                1. VP
                  VP 3 February 2016 12: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Pimply
                  Read at least something on the subject besides cheers-patriotic articles and that warms your soul. May you see clearly

                  Sorry, but after this rudeness, discuss with yourself. Arguments like that "you are a jingoistic patriot", that "you are a state department" are the lot of people whose point of view is always unshakable, limited, and a priori does not allow its change. A discussion with such an opponent makes no sense whatsoever - as a result, the exchange of points of view and arguments comes down to the banal dragging of the opponent into srach through the transition to personalities and attempts to insult. You have already started it. I come out of the discussion - where I will find it with all my heart on other resources.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 3 February 2016 14: 04
                    +1
                    Quote: VP
                    Sorry, but after this rudeness, discuss with yourself. Arguments like that "you are a jingoistic patriot", that "you are a state department" are the lot of people whose point of view is always unshakable, limited, and a priori does not allow its change. A discussion with such an opponent makes no sense whatsoever - as a result, the exchange of points of view and arguments comes down to the banal dragging of the opponent into srach through the transition to personalities and attempts to insult. You have already started it. I come out of the discussion - where I will find it with all my heart on other resources.

                    Respected. The discussion assumes that the person at least slightly updates his information on the topic, looks at what is happening. Forgive me if you somehow hurt, but damn it, take at least 10-15 minutes to review materials on the topic on which you are going to discuss. You heard something patriotic, and immediately decided to defend your point of view. Read at least once again the requirements for the fifth generation, and when they were put forward, the arguments and counterarguments on the topic, and not the joyful chants of "F-35 g_no!" Then the discussion may be
          2. d.antonov
            d.antonov 3 February 2016 11: 43
            0
            Hi, is there an article about f-22? Interesting to read.
            Well, in general it is not clear, the f-22 has a good all-angle launch detection system
            http://www.lockheedmartin. com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/missile-launch-detector-mld/mfc-mld-pc.pdf
            whose capabilities will be expanded to OLS: "Lockheed Martin continues to advance the modular design of MLD with thedevelopment of both high resolution and multi-spectral sensors and an expandedalgorithm that incorporates situational awareness and defensive Infrared Search andTrack (IRST)"
            all-angle shelling is implemented in aim-9x, which they have been staffing with recently

            And as for the f-35, its Americans are not so low in level compared to the f-22

            http://www.f-16. net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27875&sid=810f009bcbbf1a4e6823f05ba009080e
    2. VP
      VP 3 February 2016 10: 52
      0
      Not at all quiet and not at all calm. With tantrums and scandals.
      To date, they have indicated the date of acceptance into service in 2019. This is not the first, and most likely not the last, transfer. Let me remind you that the first flight of the F-35 was in 2000.
      Hypersonic missiles against air defense systems ... The declared range of target detection in firing conditions at F-35 is 150 km.
      The detection range of both the S-300 and the S-400 Malekho is greater. And the question is - why do you need an F-35 for those missiles?
      Will this rocket fit into the plane or will it have a range of 50 kilometers? I remind you that the F-35 has an internal suspension, i.e. severe restrictions on the dimensions of weapons.
      And something tells me that a rocket that will work at an acceptable range and have a speed greater than 5 km / s (the target speed at which four hundred can no longer work, it has a slightly lower target maximum) will not even be shallow.
  33. Sergey333
    Sergey333 2 February 2016 20: 27
    -1
    Quote: LÄRZ
    LÄRZ

    Born to crawl cannot fly laughing
  34. Cobra77
    Cobra77 2 February 2016 20: 28
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    What about the F-22? In their ranking, the Americans rated one of their 22nd in ten of our fighters. Optimists and dreamers.


    For the price I think even 1 to 30-50. All this resembles the German military-industrial complex of the end of the war, when the prodigies went completely for money.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 2 February 2016 23: 31
      0
      Quote: cobra77
      For the price I think even 1 to 30-50. All this resembles the German military-industrial complex of the end of the war, when the prodigies went completely for money.

      Only with those prodigies did all jet aircraft go.
  35. arckan33
    arckan33 2 February 2016 20: 39
    -1
    Is there a similar technique in Russia? Or at least projects of operating time? So what are you jesting? When your provitelstvo money allocates for novye then we will see that your design bureau will be able to develop and bring to metal
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2016 20: 44
      +1
      Quote: arckan33
      Is there a similar technique in Russia? Or at least projects of operating time?

      PAK FA, Su-35 ... doesn’t say anything? Sorry:)
      Quote: arckan33
      So what are you jesting?

      From the height of our developments, the fuss around the F-35 looks extremely funny
      Quote: arckan33
      When your provisional money allocates for novye

      Which year marks out.
      Quote: arckan33
      then we'll see

      And look, and look ...
    2. VP
      VP 3 February 2016 09: 19
      0
      Is.
      In general, check out one interesting article, an overview of the fifth generation aircraft manufacturing industry in the world, not only in the Russian Federation or the States
      http://judgesuhov.livejournal.com/144148.html
  36. arckan33
    arckan33 2 February 2016 20: 40
    0
    Or Putin on Kalina until 2030 will ride
  37. arckan33
    arckan33 2 February 2016 20: 41
    0
    Sorry Putin
    1. VP
      VP 3 February 2016 09: 32
      0
      It is clear - for the sake of "Putin" and wrote, for the sake of this and pumped.
  38. tchoni
    tchoni 2 February 2016 20: 53
    -1
    how zadolbali bury fy-35y. And his seat is bad, and the engine is not reliable, and the software is not softistiny ... But he, the scoundrel, everything flies. in quantity as much as two hundred .. and the conveyor belt is getting little by little, and combat duty is already carrying out little by little ... no way, the cattle will not die ...
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 2 February 2016 23: 32
      0
      Quote: tchoni
      how zadolbali bury fy-35y. And his seat is bad, and the engine is not reliable, and the software is not softistiny ... But he, the scoundrel, everything flies. in quantity as much as two hundred .. and the conveyor belt is getting little by little, and combat duty is already carrying out little by little ... no way, the cattle will not die ...

      And most importantly - not a single serious accident at the moment
    2. VP
      VP 3 February 2016 09: 23
      +1
      It doesn't fly. It is not accepted for service because it cannot reach the degree of combat readiness required for adoption. Those. so far it has failed as a combat aircraft. And 180 issued are used only for "pilot training". and reassuring the customer winked
      So about "Armata" we can say that we are already producing them with might and main, as many as 18 have already been made. But in fact, Armata is not yet in service, while there are only parties for testing and preparation, so there is nothing to talk about.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 February 2016 10: 41
        0
        Quote: VP
        It doesn't fly. It is not accepted for service because it cannot reach the degree of combat readiness required for adoption. Those. so far it has failed as a combat aircraft. And 180 issued are used only for "pilot training". and reassuring the customer

        As of April 2015, the total flying time of the F-35 fleet reached more than 30000 hours. Doesn't fly, yeah.
        1. VP
          VP 3 February 2016 10: 57
          +1
          The glider also flies.
          F-35 does not fly like a combat aircraft. He is not in service anywhere and he is not included in the combat schedule anywhere. He's stupidly not a combatant.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 February 2016 11: 38
            -1
            Quote: VP
            F-35 does not fly like a combat aircraft. He is not in service anywhere and he is not included in the combat schedule anywhere. He's stupidly not a combatant.

            The ILC announced that the first unit of the F-35B, the VMFA-121 squadron, had reached the initial state of alert in July 2015.
            1. VP
              VP 3 February 2016 12: 04
              +1
              If I'm not mistaken, the state of initial combat readiness of the Americans is considered if the combat readiness of the aircraft is above 50%.
              Those. limited fit. Very limited. Almost unsuitable for conducting full-fledged hostilities and cannot be involved in operations. They determined the calculated combat readiness by the 19th year.
              And you can understand why this was done (from the initial battle). Just look at the belonging of this squadron.
              VMFA-121 belongs to the Marine Corps. It is the KMP that has the most difficult situation with the 35th. They extend the life of their harriers by disassembling old ones for parts due to the fact that the replacement of "vertical units" does not work out yet.
              Having made a bet on the F-35, they were left without an airplane that had the possibility of a short take-off, the horn does not replace them.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 3 February 2016 12: 12
                0
                Quote: VP
                Those. limited fit. Very limited. Virtually unsuitable for conducting full-fledged hostilities and cannot be involved in operations. They determined the calculated combat readiness for the 19 year

                Well, actually now you are diligently adjusting reality to your own opinion. Do you know what the initial alert state is? What does it specifically consist of?
  39. DMM2006
    DMM2006 2 February 2016 20: 58
    +1
    Quote: Sith Lord
    I am in the comments for each such article, I write about the same thing: - It is necessary to allocate funds and increase production volumes of the F-35. Replace all F-15s and F-16s that are in service with NATO. The EU needs to reduce the allocation of funds for nuclear submarines and frigates, and vice versa to invest in the entire F-35 defense budget.

    Absolutely agree. God give them more of these wonderful machines. And so that they do not stop there. Let a couple of hundred billion tanks swell into such a promising machine. And they praise it to their partners more, even if they are small invested.
    You look, and we have a little more time for rearmament on the backward, one might even say finished Su-35 (I read some Pindo comments on the review of our Su-30 MKI) ... And in ten years or so you look and their "wunderwaffle" will meet "and our" ferrous metal "in the sky of some Yemen. That's when we will evaluate who is the boss and who just went out for a walk.
  40. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 2 February 2016 21: 16
    0
    I’m interested in this, This super waffle is controlled by a computer. pilot application enlighten EW comp can not cut down ?. Drones seem to be cut down. Maybe it’s easier not to knock it down and jam it like a fish, put it in a zone or where you can provide a zone. As in an anecdote, the fried eggs and eggs are in the pan and the eyes themselves pop up.
  41. afrikanez
    afrikanez 2 February 2016 22: 36
    0
    Canadians famously passed the moment with the F-35. Meaningful however. lol
    1. opus
      opus 2 February 2016 23: 30
      0
      Quote: afrikanez
      Canadians famously passed the moment with the F-35. Intelligent however

      What Canada?

      With CF-18, it's still "time to tie up", its days are numbered
      Will buy

      A favorite of F-35 lobbyists and marketers, the URF for the F-35 aircraft is $ 65.9 million. Want an engine? Make it $ 76.8 million; that's in base year dollars; the SAR doesn't do the calculation in the slightly higher then-year dollars. Moreover, that ridiculously understated $ 76.8 million is only for the Air Force's A version; the pricier C model for the Navy has a URF (with engine) of $ 88.7 million, and the Marines' B model (with engine and lift fan) is $ 103.6 million.
    2. VP
      VP 3 February 2016 10: 06
      0
      The Norgi are also trying to refuse to refuse, the Australians are also in full swing about "well, you nafik with this 35"
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 February 2016 11: 23
        0
        Quote: VP
        The Norgi are also trying to refuse to refuse, the Australians are also in full swing about "well, you nafik with this 35"

        Do not try.
        http://ria.ru/world/20150922/1271917813.html
        In addition, they are one of the holders of a controlling stake in the so-called (first-stage participating countries that have invested in development and receive various preferences for this).
        1. VP
          VP 3 February 2016 11: 42
          0
          Maybe. I read that the norgs were about to announce a tender and this was regarded by the Americans as a veiled attempt to evade procurement.
          We need to look where the article is here, perhaps it is earlier and later the Pentagon still finished them.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 February 2016 12: 13
            +1
            Quote: VP
            Maybe. I read that the norgs were about to announce a tender and this was regarded by the Americans as a veiled attempt to evade procurement.
            We need to look where the article is here, perhaps it is earlier and later the Pentagon still finished them.

            Norwegians thought to cut the military budget. After ours began to actively brighten up, they revised the military budget, taking into account the threat to them from Russia.
      2. opus
        opus 3 February 2016 12: 20
        +1
        Quote: VP
        Norgi, too, in denial trying to leave

        Our PRESS gives wishful thinking
        On sept. 22, 2015, ceremonies were held at the Lockheed Martin F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, to celebrate the rollout of the first F-35A Lightning II for the Norwegian Armed Forces. Officials from Norway, the United States, and Lockheed Martin attended the ceremony and gave their remarks on this momentous occasion.


        Royal Norwegian Air Force Col. Odd-Steinar Haugen, the Norwegian national deputy in the F-35 joint program office, signs the AM-1 center fuselage as part of the ceremonial delivery ceremony hosted Dec. 4 by Northrop Grumman.



        Quote: VP
        the Australians are also in full swing


        Australia's first F-35A Lightning II pilot, Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson, has flown a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F-35A for the first time at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona on May 15.

  42. Olegi1
    Olegi1 2 February 2016 23: 36
    +2
    That's interesting: how many lines of code are in the F-35?

    In F-22, as far as I know, 22 million lines (for all systems). For comparison - the entire Boeing 787 Dreamliner - 9 million.

    Autopilot of the 787th - 2 million. So, they have been doing it for 5 years. At the peak of only TESTING the code (which lasted 2 years), ~ 500 engineers were involved. Labor and money are easy to imagine ...
    1. opus
      opus 3 February 2016 12: 34
      +1
      Quote: Olegi1
      That's interesting: how many lines of code are in the F-35?

      over 8 million
      Developing, integrating and testing more than 8 million lines of code on a supersonic stealth fighter is no small task
      F-35 software enables:

      Flight controls
      Radar functionality
      Communications, navigation and identification
      Electronic attack
      Sensor fusion
      Weapons deployment



      all this is "worth the lines"
      Quote: Olegi1
      In F-22, as far as I know, 22 million lines (for all systems

      you are mistaken: 1,7 million rows.

      The software that provides the avionics system's full functionality is composed of approximately 1.7 million lines of code. Ninety percent of the software is written in Ada, the Department of Defense's common computer language. Exceptions to the Ada requirement are granted only for special processing or maintenance requirements.
      For fun on the Xbox HD MLOC DVD player?
      Not the whole system (!), Only the game part - 4.7 MLOC
      4,7 million rows.
      Xbox HD DVD player can control THREE F-22


      Quote: Olegi1
      For comparison - the entire Boeing 787 Dreamliner - 9 million.

      7 million
      For comparison

      The US Army's Future Combat System is estimated at 60 million lines of code (MLOC)
      The software that runs the Boeing 787 is almost 7 MLOC, triple that of the 777
      GM says future cars will have> 100 MLOC (that sounds high, but hey, )
      So, yes there's a lot of code out there, it's growing, and it's getting more complex. It's tough to put these numbers into perspective ...

      A million lines of code printed out would be 18,000 pages (a million lines is 18000 typewritten pages)
      A million lines of code will typically have 100,000 bugs pre-test (for a million lines, 100 errors occur during tests)
      A million lines of code costs $ 20m to $ 40m (1MLOS costs from 20 to 40 million US dollars)
      1. Olegi1
        Olegi1 3 February 2016 13: 22
        0
        Thanks for the information!

        Somehow he himself doubted about F22. According to B-787 according to your schedule - for 10m, not 7 and not 9 wink

        For fun on the Xbox HD MLOC DVD player?
        Not the whole system (!), Only the game part - 4.7 MLOC
        4,7 million rows.
        Xbox HD DVD player can control THREE F-22


        This is all about the cost of one line of code. In aviation, for obvious reasons, it is checked much more seriously. As an example, according to statistics, verification of the code of the system with the highest level of criticality A (there are 5 of them: A, B, C, D, E) is on average 70% of the cost of developing the code as a whole.
        1. opus
          opus 3 February 2016 16: 58
          0
          Quote: Olegi1
          According to B-787 according to your schedule - for 10m, not 7 and not 9

          Pozh.
          The schedule is not mine.


          text from the report, and someone drew a graph for presentation
          On the one hand they write: 6.5 MLOC for the Boeing 787
          with another:
          About 1k processors; 10+ MLOC, RTCA DO-178B software AFDX: Avionics Full- Duplex Switched Ethernet Legacy to most contemporary NAV / COM / SUR / MX RF Dept. of Electrical, Computer, Software & Systems
          Quote: Olegi1
          This is all about the cost of one line of code. In aviation, he, for obvious reasons

          It is clear.
  43. ikrut
    ikrut 3 February 2016 03: 00
    +1
    Quote: Diana Ilyina
    Trying to combine in one hammer, and a chisel, and a sledgehammer, and what else can be combined, in my opinion is doomed to failure initially! Correct me if I am wrong.

    You are not wrong (IMHO). No one has yet been able to refute the golden law of mechanics, which says that "commonality is inversely proportional to power." Apparently the Americans so believed in their "exceptionalism" that they decided that they were subject to the laws of nature and common sense.