Military Review

How much money sawed the US Navy. 2015-2016

111



Comments to the articles on the purchase of military equipment usually contain references to the "cutting of funds." But, you see, it is difficult to "cut" millions, if after three years you have to hand over the finished destroyer.

As a result, last year the American fleet received the following list of samples of naval equipment:

Expeditionary floating base “Lewis Puller”

Landing helicopter carriers “Mistral” proved to be excessively expensive for service in peacetime. In order to reduce costs, the Pentagon proposed the concept of a military floating base based on a large-capacity civilian vessel. Alaska tanker with cut out tanks; on the lower deck there is a hangar with equipment, on the upper deck there is a helipad.



230-meter USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) the size of an aircraft carrier and the cost of 5% of the cost of the destroyer.

Full displacement 78 000 tons.

The standing crew consists of 34 civilians.

If necessary, the number of crews can be increased to 300 people: flight crew, sailors and special forces. Basic aviation armament includes four heavy combat support helicopters CH-53E (or its mine-sweeping variant MH-53E). On board there is a hangar, a store of aviation ammunition and equipment for refueling with aviation fuel. The power supply system is made according to military standards - with full electric movement and the ability to quickly redirect energy to specifically selected consumers.

The mother ship does not carry heavy weapons, the tasks of ensuring its safety are assigned to ships of other classes.

Main tasks: patrolling in selected areas, observation, clearance of fairways, anti-terrorist "attacks" and conducting "point" operations in hostile territories.

How much money sawed the US Navy. 2015-2016


According to the command, the use of such “hybrids” will allow to save the resource of expensive warships and redirect them to solving more adequate tasks.

Frigate

Last year, the US Navy wrote off their last frigate Simpson, one of the 50 ships of the Oliver H. Perry type, built during the 1977-1989 period. By the time of the write-off, the Simpson was the only existing ship that managed to sink the enemy ship (Iranian frigate Johan).



The retirement does not promise peace 30-year veteran - in the world lined up a long string of people willing to buy American trash. Ukraine can become one of the potential buyers.

The old frigates were replaced by LCS - high-speed (up to 45 knots) ships of the coastal zone, combining the functions of frigates, minesweepers, patrol cutters, anti-submarine and small rocket ships. The first 24 LCS (0 sub-series) will be equipped with only the simplest defensive armament and a set of aircraft. Starting in 2019. another half dozen LCS with reinforced weapons should be built (the installation of the “budget” version of the Aegis system) and equipped with additional anti-shatter armor are considered.


USS Jackson Adoption Ceremony (LCS-6)


In the past year, the Navy handed over two warships of the coastal zone, the Jackson and Milwaukee, and three more were launched (Little Rock, Omaha, and Gabriel Gifford).

USS Milwaukee (LCS-5) failed two weeks after the start of service.

Submarine forces

In August, the 2015 was commissioned by the twelfth multi-purpose “Virginia” type submarine, named “John Warner”.

USS John Warner (SSN-785) refers to the so-called. “The third subseries”, created for conducting combat operations in shallow water. Compared with its predecessors, it has a rebuilt nose with a “horseshoe” antenna GUS, most suitable for work at shallow depths. There, in the bow, are two six-shot launch glasses with “Tomahawks” or another target load.



Construction of the submarine was conducted with 2013 year. Noteworthy tactic number “Warner”: 785-I account for the submarine stories American Navy.

Additions to the Aegis family

Last year, John Finn (DDG-113) was launched and Raphael Peralta (DDG-115) was baptized - the sixty-third and sixty-fifth Arl Burk destroyers. The first is named in honor of the hero of the Second World War, the second - in honor of the Mexican marines who died in Iraq and received posthumous citizenship.



Both destroyers belong to the Restart sub-series IIA. The changes affected the modification of the Idzhis BIUS with increased capabilities for solving missile defense tasks, a new aviation complex with MH-60R helicopters and a set of unmanned underwater vehicles for search and destruction of mines.

The armament of the destroyer is based on 96 rocket launchers and a multifunctional radar with a peak 6 megawatt output power. The Aegis CMS is capable of automatically accompanying hundreds of targets under water, in the air and in space, distributing them depending on the threat they pose and consistently activating the destroyer defense lines.

The cost of these superboats exceeds 1,8 billion dollars. The average construction rate is about three years.

Simultaneously with the launching of Finn and Peralta, last year the next 69 th destroyer Delbert Black was laid down, belonging to the IIA subsection “Technology Implementation”. In the design of this ship will be combined some technical solutions of the destroyers of the future.

And finally - heavy artillery.

In December last year, Zamvolt was put to sea at the test.

Experimental destroyer, built for eight years and promised to make a revolution in the naval business. According to the concept of application, “Zamvolt” corresponds to the class “cruiser” - a large, well-armed ship for single raids to the coast of the enemy.

Being recreated in metal, “Zamvolt” looks different from what its creators represented. Budget constraints did not allow the creation of a new analogue of Ajis, as a result, instead of a multifunctional destroyer, a highly specialized strike ship was built. A bold experiment that embodies the best achievements of engineering.

The unusual shape of the contours - to increase the seaworthiness and reduce the visibility of the destroyer. Turbo-electric transmission with the possibility of flexible redistribution of energy flows (useful in the future, with the appearance of the “railguns”). Perspective radar with active PAR. Combined rocket-gun armament. Integrated automation, which allowed to reduce operating costs and not to put at risk extra crew members.



In the coming 2016, the US Navy expects an even more impressive replenishment. Next in line is the Gerald Ford-class lead carrier, the Illinois nuclear submarine, and final adoption fleet two new destroyers - mentioned “J. Finn ”and“ Zamvolta ”. It is also expected to adopt the MQ-4C Triton marine patrol drone, capable of inspecting 30 million square meters in one 4-hour flight. kilometers of ocean surface.

Let the "sawing" means further!
Author:
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mera joota
    Mera joota 3 February 2016 06: 27
    25
    How much money sawed the US Navy. 2015-2016

    Oleg lures patriots with a loud headline, after reading the article they will begin to play gunfire, about the national debt, the printing press, etc. for the content "somewhat" does not match the title. In theory, the article is another dance on a sore callous and Oleg will again be declared an agent of the State Department engaged in "admiration for the enemy" ...
    1. sub307
      sub307 3 February 2016 07: 09
      +9
      It looks like that .... And more: "Let the funds" continue to be sawed! " - it's kind of like a balm for the soul of "true patriots", however ... We remember -
      Mirror and Monkey
      "Than the gossips count to work,
      Isn't it better to turn on yourself, godfather? "
      We have never had a shortage of our own "sawers" .... We would have to keep track of our funds in time, excuse me to "bend my fingers" here ..., there are quite enough facts ALREADY known ..., and here unfortunately we have to many more (quite possibly) - "wonderful discoveries". We follow the "press" ....
      And ... the fact that the "bad neighbor's cow is dead" is "wonderful" ....
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 3 February 2016 10: 24
      +3
      Quote: Mera Joota
      lures patriots with a loud heading

      Hooray patriots, I dare to clarify
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 3 February 2016 22: 08
        +4
        Quote: Pimply
        Quote: Mera Joota
        lures patriots with a loud heading

        Hooray patriots, I dare to clarify


        Sorry, but you cannot call patriots patriots. For from their drowning only harm to the country. so that they are in reality pests, which means real enemies of our state.
    4. Jack-b
      Jack-b 3 February 2016 10: 44
      +7
      Quote: Mera Joota
      How much money sawed the US Navy. 2015-2016

      Oleg lures patriots with a loud heading

      He beckoned by the title, but he did not answer the question. Minus for such a jamb. And that everything is good in the American Navy, we already know.

      UPD. According to http://prokhor-tebin.livejournal.com/667449.html?nojs=1
      , then on 2015. The US Navy has laid down a budget of $ 148 billion. Of these, $ 14,4 billion has been allocated for shipbuilding.
      Now you can discuss.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 February 2016 12: 29
        +2
        Quote: Jack-B
        for 2015 The US Navy has laid down a budget of $ 148 billion. Of these, $ 14,4 billion is for shipbuilding.
        Now you can discuss.

        What’s the penny to discuss ...
        Americans spend $ 147 billion annually on anti-obesity


        On Fat Karl! Navy budget as fat!
        1. Jack-b
          Jack-b 3 February 2016 13: 14
          +1
          Quote: Mera Joota
          On Fat Karl! Navy budget as fat!

          Well, this is not the cost of the American budget, but the expenditure of Americans as citizens, these are somewhat different things. But the numbers are certainly impressive))) Instead of spending less on food, they spend extra on fighting obesity. I do not like Zadornov, but here he is absolutely right.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 February 2016 16: 24
            -1
            Quote: Jack-B
            Instead of spending less on food, they spend extra on fighting obesity.

            Cheap food just causes the most problems. The question is not less to spend, the question is to eat right.
          2. Mera joota
            Mera joota 3 February 2016 18: 39
            0
            Quote: Jack-B
            Well, this is not the cost of the American budget, but the waste of Americans as citizens

            You look at their medical expenses, admirals nervously smoke manila hemp with envy ... At some food stamps, several aircraft carriers J. Ford and Zumwalt destroyers fly out every year ...
    5. self-propelled
      self-propelled 3 February 2016 12: 50
      +1
      in general, the topic is to laugh like that. the more the enemy "nags", the less headache we have (such is the axiom). "overseas friends", you have not yet cut the budget of "the world's best fighter F-35 (there is still a reserve for" cutting "). And there is also an ocean of opportunities for" saws "- in the states they fall in love with" promising weapons systems "(which for some reason are leveled by the "stone axes" of the Russian defense industry) request good luck in "catching up" for backward barbarian country
    6. Gogia
      Gogia 3 February 2016 14: 02
      -1
      Look at the ships of the coastal zone - 45 knots is not a fig, if about the same complex as on Grad Sviyazhsk will stand. Americans are not stupid - they do it like ours - everyone will be driving civilian transporters. The price is a penny, but they are not bad ... We must consider the use of ocean-class container ships for deploying Club-K :)))) 200-500 missiles on deck :)))) Americans are in shock ....
      1. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 3 February 2016 15: 38
        +2
        ..... Look at the ships of the coastal zone - 45 knots is not a fig dog ...

        ... I suppose Kaptsov got excited here ..... He didn’t wonder why the displacement ships are quite large (all kinds of boats do not count) the ships have a maximum speed of 30-35 knots ???? .... For the same reason , as in aviation, for a very long time they could not overcome the sound line ..... Only with the advent of jet engines did the situation move .... Moreover, the claimed boat is quite large in size .... lol
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 3 February 2016 21: 44
        0
        Quote: Gogia
        45 knots is not a fig, if about the same complex as on Grad Sviyazhsk will stand

        What the hell? For a ship that is designed to strike KR over hundreds of kilometers, such a speed is simply useless. And without rockets I don’t really understand who they are going to chase at 45 knots.
  2. Good cat
    Good cat 3 February 2016 06: 57
    +1
    Of all the devices, only Burke impressed me, all the rest is rubbish, Zamvolt is still a rare freak, I hope that its fighting qualities are the same.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 4 February 2016 20: 02
      0
      Burke is also not impressive, the Americans, with tenacity worthy of a better application, continue to build highly specialized carriers for tomahawks.
  3. Nix1986
    Nix1986 3 February 2016 07: 07
    -13 qualifying.
    Nasty article, don't you want to calculate how much sawing in our country ?! It remains only to give an example of the saying "we see a splinter in someone else's eye, but we don't even notice a log in our own." Yes, add another series of articles to the continuation "America will collapse because of the printing press, the Yellowstone will explode, America will be seized by blacks, zombies and aliens", such articles are flocked with clouds of patriots pluses to pick up comments ala "T34 will win the Abrams and IL2 will knock down the raptor."
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 3 February 2016 07: 25
      10
      Quote: Nix1986
      A nasty article, do not want to calculate how much to saw in our country ?!

      You are either a master in the fight against trolls, or the banter of the author did not reach you :-)

      Somewhere on TOPWAR there was an article about psychology. And there was described a case in which an anti-Soviet rally was dispersed in the GDR in the 50s. It was just that SA soldiers without weapons were released into the crowd of Germans, and they, being distributed among the crowd of protesters, began to shout anti-Soviet slogans with them, like "Ivan, go home!" After that, the serious anti-Soviet event turned into a farce, and the confused Germans went home without any violence. That was a masterful drain of German trolling! You use the same methods, professional!
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 3 February 2016 08: 42
        +1
        It's just that there have already been many articles on the subject of the collapse of America from "ardent" patriots, which from the very name of the article begins to twist in the stomach. If you constantly write "Ass" on the sausage, then soon you won't even look at the sausage, so here it is. And so thanks to your comment, I read the article, the author (+).
      2. King, just king
        King, just king 3 February 2016 09: 55
        +4
        By post Alex_59

        I don’t remember where, I don’t remember when, but I came across infa that it would be like in England, or in the USA, one of the first demonstrations of women for their rights (ridiculed) was dispersed by gas causing uncontrollable diarrhea. Then VRODE was banned as a barbaric means. I don’t understand the truth why? No demonstrations and excesses!
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 3 February 2016 10: 01
          +4
          Quote: King, just king
          I don’t remember where, I don’t remember when, but I came across infa that it would be like in England, or in the USA, one of the first demonstrations of women for their rights (ridiculed) was dispersed by gas causing uncontrollable diarrhea. Then VRODE was banned as a barbaric means. I don’t understand the truth why? No demonstrations and excesses!


          Anatoly, about this Bushkov wrote in his cycle about Piranha. But in reality there is no such gas. request
          Read if interested: Non-lethal chemical warfare agents
          http://topwar.ru/39261-boevye-otravlyayuschie-veschestva-ne-letalnogo-deystviya.
          html
          1. King, just king
            King, just king 3 February 2016 10: 34
            +2
            Sergey (Bongo) thanks for the link. I read
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 3 February 2016 10: 34
              +1
              Quote: King, just king
              Sergey (Bongo) thanks for the link. I read

              hi
          2. psiho117
            psiho117 3 February 2016 15: 44
            0
            Quote: Bongo

            Bushkov wrote about this in his series about Piranha. But in reality there is no such gas.

            Hmm, why is this not in reality? Synthetic emetics quite arouse mating and vomiting.

            Here, even in the article you cited, this is mentioned:
            Synthetic and natural emetics are capable of inducing vomiting and other symptoms of damage in various ways of their entry into the body, including inhalation. In the victims, irrepressible vomiting begins transiently, accompanied by diarrhea
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 3 February 2016 15: 53
              +1
              Quote: psiho117
              Hmm, why is this not in reality? Synthetic emetics quite arouse mating and vomiting.
              Here, even in the article you cited, this is mentioned:

              Against the background of other disorders, such as blurred consciousness. Dear Anatoly (Tsar, simply Tsar), as I understand it, writes about a substance with a narrowly targeted action without other "side" effects. I can assure you, you can even get crap just by grabbing a good dose of tear CS.
  4. kotuk_ha_oxote
    kotuk_ha_oxote 3 February 2016 07: 12
    10
    Quote: Nix1986
    Nasty article, don't you want to calculate how much sawing in our country ?! It remains only to give an example of the saying "we see a splinter in someone else's eye, but we don't even notice a log in our own." Yes, add another series of articles to the continuation "America will collapse because of the printing press, the Yellowstone will explode, America will be seized by blacks, zombies and aliens", such articles are flocked with clouds of patriots pluses to pick up comments ala "T34 will win the Abrams and IL2 will knock down the raptor."

    Unread, but condemn?))
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 3 February 2016 07: 13
    0
    Ochadnye differs to America, another super-duper ships, another "everything is super in America and everything that is said about it is a lie" ... lol
    But for some reason we don’t prostrate ourselves before America, we don’t recognize its exceptional position, we don’t sing the ode to the Burks and Zamwolts (unlike some patriots) lol
    Maybe because we know how to deal with all this, we believe in ourselves, and not in some kind of exclusivity. We build our own, and not try to imitate the praised Americans Kaptsov.
    Yes, we have many times less equipment, but we are not going to attack anyone and we do not need to prove anything to anyone!
    And green candy wrappers, on which different irons are built there, have long cost nothing and are not provided with anything. They are provided with this iron, which is so praised by O. Kaptsov.
    And for every big exceptional priest there are answers that are more asymmetrical and therefore much more effective. We already know how to protect helicopters from anti-aircraft fire ("Vitebsk"), we are able to disable entire ships (the case with "Cook"), we will soon have the S-500 ...
    And most importantly, we do not try to assert ourselves at the expense of others and do not scream at every corner about threats, we do not stoop to the usual yard insult, we call our names what they usually wrap up in beautiful words and invented tolerances.
    So bullshit all these attempts to create universal ships for all purposes (LCS). These irons are "Zamwolts", which are capable of swimming only in the tropics and without the usual escort from the same "Burks" they are nothing. And the rest is an ordinary fleet, just too inflated for a poppy nose wherever possible.
    Stop singing odes to the disgusting person soldier laughing
    PS Although Hollywood knows how to brainwash with patriotism that I am not surprised at the craving of our "patriots" for foreign beads and glass soldier
    And, I almost forgot, where are those vaunted "Raptors", which are super? Something you can't see them point-blank in the Middle East? Maybe all the same sawing and PR? what request laughing
    And we have enough shortcomings, especially in the "passpiles" of funds, but this is not a reason to praise and bow before anyone. winked
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 3 February 2016 07: 35
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The ordinary

      Quote: Rurikovich
      Yes, that's just us

      Quote: Rurikovich
      Yes, at times

      Quote: Rurikovich
      And green candy wrappers

      Quote: Rurikovich
      And for every big exceptional booty

      Quote: Rurikovich
      And most importantly

      Quote: Rurikovich
      So bullshit all these

      Quote: Rurikovich
      Stop singing

      A person has boiled ...
      1. Kuzyakin15
        Kuzyakin15 3 February 2016 20: 13
        0
        Mera Jo0ta: ... boils in humans ...

        Probably, too, he grabbed the gas, and overdid it. So it got ... diarrhea
    2. Forest
      Forest 3 February 2016 10: 52
      +2
      Enough to believe that the Su-24 with a system for protecting the aircraft from the Su-34 was able to somehow influence the most powerful destroyer network. Better look at our fleet, which can only do something in the North and the Caspian Sea, and in other places - a collection of obsolete remnants of the former power of the USSR.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 3 February 2016 11: 01
        +7
        Quote: Forest
        Enough to believe that the Su-24 with a system for protecting the aircraft from the Su-34 was able to somehow affect the most powerful destroyer network.

        It's fake No. The case with the alleged "blinding" of the radar equipment of the USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) destroyer, which was widely publicized in a number of domestic media and caused a surge of "hurray-patriotic" moods, unfortunately does not correspond to reality. Since due to financial constraints, the Khibiny L-175V electronic warfare system was never installed on Su-24M aircraft. In the 1990s and 2000s, a suspended container version of the KS-418E with the Khibiny REP complex for export Su-24MKs was developed, but beyond the construction of models, the matter did not progress.
        Quote: Forest
        Better look at our fleet, which can only do something in the North and the Caspian Sea, and in other places - a collection of obsolete remnants of the former power of the USSR.

        But I agree with that. yes
        1. Forest
          Forest 3 February 2016 12: 51
          0
          Here I prove to everyone that the Su-24 has become only a small part of what happened, but noticeable to everyone.
    3. Rumata
      Rumata 3 February 2016 16: 18
      0
      Marshal on the site of the Military Review, can not know that the whole story with Cook, from beginning to end, is a stupid duck. They wrote about this here more than once ... Although the density of delirium in this opus is just off scale, that explains a lot.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 3 February 2016 16: 22
        +5
        Quote: Rumata
        Marshal on the site of the Military Review, can not know that the whole story with Cook, from beginning to end, is a stupid duck. They wrote about this here more than once or twice ...

        They are different "Marshals" ... lol
        1. Rumata
          Rumata 3 February 2016 19: 59
          +2
          Quote: Bongo
          Quote: Rumata
          Marshal on the site of the Military Review, can not know that the whole story with Cook, from beginning to end, is a stupid duck. They wrote about this here more than once or twice ...

          They are different "Marshals" ... lol

          What can not but rejoice ..
  6. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 3 February 2016 07: 42
    +1
    Honestly, Kaptsov’s continuous fap to the US Navy is already beginning to tire.
    Well, all right, everyone has their own fetish, but bias and bias in his articles so penetrate.
    Also,
    But, you must admit, it’s difficult to “saw through” millions if in three years you need to have a finished destroyer ready.

    Not at all difficult. The endless apupey with the F-35 proves this. The plane seems to already be there, but in it one thing needs to be brought to mind or remade, then another ... And Vaska is listening and eating Lockheed just know yourself manages to inflate the project budget.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 3 February 2016 08: 29
      +8
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      The plane seems to be already there

      The total number of produced F-35 at the end of April 2015 was 140 units, including 20 test boards owned by Lockheed Martin.

      As of April, the total flying time of the F-35 fleet reached 30 hours. 35 air force pilots were allowed to fly the F-200. For eight years of operation not a single fighter was defeated or lost. The Lightning tests were carried out in conditions far from the ideal training ground, and included such elements as flights from an aircraft carrier, refueling in the air, vertical take-off and landing on the deck of an amphibious assault ship in daylight and dark.

      In other words, the number of ALREADY F-35s built by many times exceeded the size of the park of all its peers (Dasso Rafal, Su-35S, etc.). The plane seems to already be there.
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      but in it one thing must be brought to mind or redone,

      Any aircraft has many modifications.
      Modifications MiG-21 -

      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21bis Front-line fighter
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21M Fighter-Interceptor
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21MT Interceptor Fighter
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21MF Fighter-interceptor
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21P Interceptor fighter
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21PF Fighter-interceptor
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21PFM Interceptor Fighter
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21PFS Fighter-interceptor
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21S Fighter-interceptor
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21SM Fighter Interceptor
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21SMT Interceptor fighter
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21F Front-line fighter
      Mikoyan, Gurevich MIG-21F-13 Front-line fighter

      All remade, apparently could not bring to mind
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 09: 49
        +8
        Quote: BENNERT
        In other words, the number of ALREADY F-35s built by many times exceeded the size of the park of all its peers (Dasso Rafal, Su-35S, etc.). The plane seems to already be there.

        Yeah. That's just taking into account the fact that the plane is still not considered combat ready, this is not an achievement, but a uniform idiocy.
        The car is damp. The machine has a bunch of limitations. The machine cannot participate in military operations. But - already 140 boards, while for trial operation (which is happening right now) it would be more than enough to have 6-8 sides of each modification, i.e. only 18-24, well, 30 pieces.
        And the serial production of a frankly crude, unfinished aircraft is not too much, as I tell you. This is evidence that the manufacturer has a good lobby.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 3 February 2016 09: 53
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And the serial production of a frankly crude, unfinished aircraft is not too much, as I tell you. This is evidence that the manufacturer has a good lobby.

          Andrey, with all due respect, do you know the degree of completion of the Su-35S?
          Any combat aircraft adopted for service has a lot of defects and childhood sores. Ask about the accident rate of the first MiG-21 and Su-7 and compare it with that of the F-104 "flying coffin".
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 11: 07
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            Andrey, with all due respect, do you know the degree of completion of the Su-35S?

            More or less. And, I dare to assure you, the degree of completion of the Su-35S is much higher than the F-35
            Quote: Bongo
            Any combat aircraft adopted for service has a lot of defects and children's sores.

            Yes. Only here is the difference between childhood sores and what is happening with the F-35 is enormous.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 3 February 2016 11: 15
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              More or less. And, I dare to assure you, the degree of completion of the Su-35S is much higher than the F-35

              Well then, you know the epic with the armament of the Su-35S and the forced step back that was made in this area. How do you personally evaluate this?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes. Only here is the difference between childhood sores and what is happening with the F-35 is enormous.

              Not sure. No. Yes, and probably worth a breakdown of the modifications to the F-35, the degree of completion of which varies greatly.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 12: 13
                0
                Quote: Bongo
                Well then, you know the epic with the armament of the Su-35S and the forced step back that was made in this area. How do you personally evaluate this?

                I don’t understand what you mean. Do you mean the NSC, or rumors about the R-77 or something else?
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 3 February 2016 12: 18
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I don’t understand what you mean. Do you mean the NSC, or rumors about the R-77 or something else?

                  Do you know what medium-range missiles are currently armed with combat aircraft and why? And also, what changes had to be made to the arms control system?
              2. silver_roman
                silver_roman 3 February 2016 12: 18
                0
                Quote: Bongo
                Well then, you know the epic with the armament of the Su-35S and the forced step back that was made in this area

                I welcome you.
                the question was not brought to mind?
                Do you mean the use of promising RVV missiles ?! Or what is the point?
              3. opus
                opus 3 February 2016 12: 59
                +3
                Quote: Bongo
                Well then, you know the epic with weapons of the Su-35S


                This is no longer an epic.
                Not from scratch: it is impossible to fight on these machines. But you can show at air shows (PR above all!)

                Akhtuba State Flight Testing Center (GLITS) and its negative preliminary detention on a Su-35 aircraft:
                About 28 unanswered questions of the 1st list ", ie a list of deficiencies that must be eliminated before the aircraft is put into operation.
                No data found, everything is hidden. About F-35 all the jambs are in sight.

                The question is "half-washed".
                Is it probably easier for you to get an opinion?

                Under the new Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, a special commission was created from authoritative military specialists and representatives of the defense industry complex, which recorded the facts
                incomplete work on "Su-35S", which the KLA was asked to eliminate at their own expense.
                Commission report not yet available
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 3 February 2016 13: 41
                  +3
                  Quote: opus
                  Is it probably easier for you to get an opinion?

                  This is not a secret, but for a number of reasons I will refrain from commenting on this issue. sad In my opinion, such images of combatant Su-35S with a similar composition of weapons say more than any statements by Bondarev.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 14: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: Bongo
                    In my opinion, such images of combatant Su-35S with a similar composition of weapons say more than any statements by Bondarev.

                    But have we already got R-77 in combat units? :)
                    According to the information I have, the R-77s with the Su-35S were tested, I could not hear about the negative conclusion. And the presence of junk on combat vehicles is easily explained by the fact that no one supplied new missiles to the combat units
                    1. Bongo
                      Bongo 3 February 2016 14: 08
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But have we already got R-77 in combat units? :)

                      As if you don’t know. No.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And the presence of junk on combat vehicles is easily explained by the fact that no one supplied new missiles to the combat units

                      But the Su-35S was not originally imprisoned under the R-27 ... the machines had to be modified.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 14: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Bongo
                        As if you don't know

                        I didn’t hear that they were.
                        Quote: Bongo
                        But the Su-35S was not originally imprisoned under the R-27 ... the machines had to be modified.

                        I don’t understand this at all. What is there to refine?
                      2. Bongo
                        Bongo 3 February 2016 14: 19
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I don’t understand this at all. What is there to refine?

                        That is, you want to say that arming a combat aircraft of the UR, the use of which as part of the armament was not originally provided for, does not require modifications to avionics? wassat
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 15: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Bongo
                        That is, you want to say that arming a combat aircraft of the UR, the use of which as part of the armament was not initially provided for, does not require modifications to the avionics

                        The first one. Where did the information come from that the use of R-27 is not provided?
                        The second one. If, however, the use of R-27 is not provided, then WHY?
                        Third. If the answer to the second question is: "Because the R-27 has a semi-active homing system," then where is the evidence that the R-27R was ever used with the Su-35S? wink
                        About the photo. According to my data, the Su-35 successfully tested R-27T and R-27P, the first of which has an infrared seeker, and the second has a passive radar seeker And I don’t see at all why the noble Don (or Su-35S) should not use missiles with such homing.
                        In general, I would like to get any detailed argumentation of your theory.
                      4. Bongo
                        Bongo 3 February 2016 15: 47
                        +5
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The first one. Where did the information come from that the use of R-27 is not provided?
                        The second one. If, however, the use of R-27 is not provided, then WHY?
                        Third. If the answer to the second question is: "Because the R-27 has a semi-active homing system," then where is the evidence that the R-27R was ever used with the Su-35S?

                        Andrey, I will not comment on all this, excuse me, and so I already got "on the hat" for excessive frankness. It's a pity "Ancient" on business trips, he would have put you "on the shelves", he has nothing to lose in retirement.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        About the photo. According to my data, the Su-35 successfully tested the R-27T and R-27P, the first of which has an infrared seeker, and the second has a passive radar seeker. And I absolutely do not see why the noble don (or Su-35S) should not use missiles with similar homing.

                        Well, apparently you are better informed than me living in Komsomolsk. hi
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 16: 23
                        +2
                        Quote: Bongo
                        It's a pity "Ancient" on business trips

                        Absolutely agree. Sorry.
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Well, apparently you are better informed than me living in Komsomolsk.

                        I do not pretend to be omniscient and am ready to change my point of view - but under the influence of some kind of argumentation. Well, or if the Elder says, then I no longer need arguments drinks
              4. opus
                opus 3 February 2016 16: 42
                +1
                Quote: Bongo
                But the Su-35S was not initially imprisoned under the R-27 ..

                In my opinion you are mistaken. Of course not "sharpened", but it was in the nomenclature B from the very beginning.
                Are there APU-470 and AKU-470 there?



                and nothing else is "necessary" wink
              5. Bongo
                Bongo 3 February 2016 16: 52
                +1
                Quote: opus
                Are there APU-470 and AKU-470 there?

                Certainly yes
                Quote: opus
                and nothing else and "do not need

                Not quite so, at least the R-27s in the 23rd IAP began to be suspended on the Su-35S recently. Before that, they flew only with the R-73.
              6. opus
                opus 3 February 2016 17: 00
                +1
                Quote: Bongo
                R-27 in the 23rd IAP began to be suspended on the Su-35S recently. Before that, they flew only with the R-73.

                maybe few 73 of them are available?
                can: http: //tam.ge/ge/ (out of stock) belay
                (Yours there probably bullet every hour at targets)
                or again some kind of jamb.
                but nothing contradicts the 27th on the SU-35m ... except for the anachronism of course.
                Or maybe because in a well-known corporation

                managers rule?
              7. Bongo
                Bongo 3 February 2016 17: 02
                +3
                Quote: opus
                maybe a little 73?

                Thank God, we have enough R-73 and R-27 in our warehouses, and then something newer - alas, oh ...
    2. opus
      opus 3 February 2016 16: 14
      +3
      Quote: Bongo
      This is not a secret.

      Sergey, I’m not a CWI and generally about V.
      I'm talking about "critical" shortcomings, which again (according to rumors) =: you can't fight on these machines.
      According to rumors, well, there are a lot of problems, Pogosyan, in my opinion, was kicked for this.
      I sensibly understand that now there will be stubborn cracklings and "leading economists" splashing saliva.
      But it excites me that there would not be 1941 again.
      And about the F-35:
      -You have to pay tribute to the Americans write about the shortcomings, treat them and pay them in the open.
      -Compare it with SU-35 (s) fool , I won’t comment.
      In a frenzy, the brains of the "burialists" have dried up altogether
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 3 February 2016 16: 20
        +5
        Quote: opus
        Sergey, I’m not a CWI and generally about V.
        I'm talking about "critical" shortcomings, which again (according to rumors) =: you can't fight on these machines.

        Probably already possible, but "with restrictions".
        Quote: opus
        I sensibly understand that now there will be stubborn cracklings and "leading economists" splashing saliva.

        Where without them ... wink
        Quote: opus
        But it excites me that there would not be 1941 again.

        Not you alone. good
        Quote: opus
        -You have to pay tribute to the Americans write about the shortcomings, treat them and pay them in the open.

        But this is worthy of respect. yes
        Quote: opus
        In a frenzy, the brains of the "burialists" have dried up altogether

        This is a pathology ... belay
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 13: 59
    0
    Quote: opus
    Akhtuba State Flight Test Center (GLITs) and its negative preliminary conclusion on the Su-35 aircraft: About 28 unanswered questions of the 1st list ",

    Huh. But will you not be so kind and tell me the DATE of this momentous event? No? So let me remind you - 2012.
    And the conclusion was reached when our pilots had as many as SIX machines in trial operation, if my sclerosis was not lying to me.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 3 February 2016 14: 02
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Huh. But will you not be so kind and tell me the DATE of this momentous event? No? So let me remind you - 2012.
      And the conclusion was reached when our pilots had as many as SIX machines in trial operation, if my sclerosis was not lying to me.

      In fact, until recently, the situation was virtually unchanged. The combatant Su-35S in the 23rd IAP were in approximately the same condition. No wonder Shoigu on this occasion pounded on the table with his fist.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 14: 11
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        In fact, until recently, the situation was almost unchanged.

        Well, I heard that a number of shortcomings were corrected back in 2013. Anyway, I don’t even know that there are 28 questions there, there is very little information, the reliability is doubtful. Well, now 4 cars are sent to Syria, I don’t think that they would be sent there, if there were a plane with a plane in general
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 3 February 2016 14: 15
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, I heard that a number of shortcomings were corrected back in 2013.

          Until mid-2015, most of the Su-35S, let's say without going into details - "limited combat capability."
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, now 4 cars are sent to Syria, I don’t think that they would be sent there, if there were a plane with a plane in general

          And I did not say this, although this is largely not advisable. request Another question is with which medium-range SDs and how much does their current combat potential correspond to the design?
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 15: 42
          +1
          I propose not to discuss on three diverging branches, but to continue in one, above comment
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The first one. Where did the information come from that the use of R-27 is not provided?
  8. opus
    opus 3 February 2016 16: 30
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    let me remind you - 2012.

    hold on.
    So sound for 2015, 2014, 2014 for the Su-35mu?

    F-35 Flight Test Progress Report
    DOT & E report
    TEST POINTS
    Static Structural and Durability Testing
    Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT & E)
    F-35 FLEET PLANNED VS. ACHIEVED FLIGHT HOURS

    etc. read regularly.
    Oh yes isho

    + "super-economists from serious defense industry enterprises are making a deal."
    .
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    when our pilots had as many as SIX machines in trial operation

    1. It has become more.
    2.Year already 2016
    and only on the basis of these TWO (!) points, you so "authoritatively" convince

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And I dare to assure, degree of information Su-35S much higher F-35

    Do you suffer from such a disease as "populism"?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 17: 04
      +1
      Quote: opus
      Do you suffer from such a disease as "populism"?

      This is called - from a sore head to a healthy
      Quote: opus
      So sound for 2015, 2014, 2014 for the Su-35mu?

      Why voice it? According to unverified data (OBS agency), some pilots who worked with the Su-35S stated that the preliminary detention on the car was negative. Moreover, this conclusion was given in 2012.
      Was there really a negative conclusion in 2012, or is it an internet fantasy? No reliable data. Let's say that it was.
      What was fixed and what was not fixed afterwards? No data. In general, no, although there are no confirmed opinions on the network that the Su-35S with the R-77 was tested and everything turned out fine.
      Those. it’s not at all clear what the problems were, how large they were. Yes, as of 2012, there should have been some kind of problems, well, that’s the trial operation. There is no evidence that the Su-35S encountered any unsolvable problems that cannot be resolved in principle, or at least not resolved today. The same Ancient spoke of them as excellent machines with childhood diseases.
      Come you. And declare - USE LOST! And as the only argument you present ... the very negative conclusion of 2012, the very fact of its existence is not so that it is absolutely reliable.
      And after that, are YOU talking to me about populism?
      Quote: opus
      1. It has become more. 2. The year is already 2016 and only on the basis of these TWO (!) Points, you so "authoritatively" convince

      First, you make an unprovable statement about the condition of the Su-35S, bashfully keeping silent about the fact that it refers to 2012. And when they point you to a date and hint that since 2012 a lot of water has flowed, and that all these shortcomings could have been fixed long ago (if they existed at all) - you instead of somehow confirming your point of view, i.e. :
      1) Tell us about the shortcomings of the Su-2012S in 35 and where you got it from.
      2) Tell about which of these shortcomings have not been fixed to this day and where you got it from
      Do you suggest ... to do this to me? :))
      Dear opponent, you say that the Su-35 is mired in problems. You this statement and justify
      1. opus
        opus 3 February 2016 18: 01
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This is called - from a sore head to a healthy

        hardly. populism is not peculiar to me. ryakrya-causes intoxication, pour slop F-35 ( I don’t know the essence) ,also
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Why voice it? P

        why are you then on the "clear eye"
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And, withto assure me the degree of completion of the Su-35S is much higher than the F-35

        ?
        I admit that you "stood next to" the Su-35M, maybe even in a chair, like this "Mukhamedzhan" in the F-18 (at the exhibition).
        Further, what are these "highly wise" conclusions?
        On the idle talk zhurnalyug (them and ours, bloggers), when 1 line from the report is pulled out and slander.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        or is it internet fantasy? No reliable data.


        Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov:"during testing in 2013 year industry had to solve a number of technical issues. In particular, the testers had complaints about the actions of multi-function screens in the cockpit, as well as to the engines.
        We had to extend flight tests. "

        Problems of grounding its avionics, which led to the flickering of multi-functional indicators during the passage of thunderclouds, as well as problems with the engine (as confirmed, see accident)
        What kind of video shooting by Bogdan on a mobile phone is "shaking" at alpha = 16 in total

        ?
        about GLITs and appendix No. 1 indirectly confirms being there until 2012, as well as a disruption of supplies
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you suggest ... to do this to me? :))

        Yes.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You claim that the Su-35 is mired in problems.

        populism bordering on blatant lies.
        Where am I claiming this?
        Example is
        The only thing I said:
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And I dare to assure Su-35S is much higher than the F-35

        The statement is not even worth the time to refute it.
        idle talk and populism
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 18: 48
        0
        Quote: opus
        ryakrya-causes intoxication, pour slop F-35 (I don’t know the essence), the same

        What is happening to you is not called "intoxication", but "butthert". And the presence of such a process clearly indicates some difficulties. You, not the Su-35S :))
        Quote: opus
        Why are you then on a "clear eye" Quote: Andrey is from Chelyabinsk And, I dare to assure, the degree of completion of the Su-35S is much higher than the F-35

        Because according to my information, the degree of completion of the Su-35S is much higher than the F-35. Moreover, this information is divided into 3 information flows:
        1) Official Relation. According to them, everything is good at drying, only minor childhood diseases that are inevitable on such a project remain
        2) Unofficial data from the network. Which generally confirm the official version.
        3) Data from the Pentagon, which hardly assigns the F-35 "initial combat readiness" and threatens to bring the plane to mind in 2019.
        What can you offer in contrast? A little more than nothing.
        Horror stories about the problems of the plane in 2012, and Bondarev's statements in 2013. What does this have to do with airplanes in 2016? What is irreparable in "flickering screens"? How does this flicker correlate with the recently canceled F-35 flight altitude and G-limits? Someone has screens flickering, and someone over 5 is prohibited from flying.
        Quote: opus
        populism bordering on blatant lies. where did I say that?

        Do you not only have arguments, do you also have problems with memory? Well, let me remind you, it’s easy for me.
        Quote: opus
        you can’t fight on these machines. But you can show at air shows (PR above all!)

        blatant lie, huh? wassat
      3. opus
        opus 3 February 2016 20: 42
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        , and "butthert"

        uh ... what a nasty thing
        I feel the topic is very close to you and is of interest (I first learned such a word).
        probably it is in stock

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Because according to my information

        Kindly SHARE!
        What is going to be there?
        tape (s) ru?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What can you offer in contrast? A little more than nothing.

        I was right
        Butthurt-
        Quote: opus
        I feel the topic is very close to you and is of interest

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, let me remind you, it’s easy for me

        Difficult, difficult for you.
        The fact that you bring this from the NEWSPAPERS is just

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Unofficial data from the network. Which generally confirm the official version.

        Quote: opus
        Not from scratch same places : You cannot fight on these machines. But you can show at air shows (PR above all!)








        what is even referred to here

      4. opus
        opus 3 February 2016 20: 45
        +1
        --------------------------
        T.ch.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        According to my information

        it is better not to flutter your tongue, but to share, well, at least a little "open" the veil.
        I would especially love to read
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The data of the Pentagon, which with difficulty assigns the F-35 "initial combat readiness" and

        Shl (and for the word "thank you")
        Straight about you:

        Minusyahi (1mu) is probably the same yours? lol
        "and immediately begins to show his negative in every way possible."
      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 22: 06
        +1
        Quote: opus
        I feel the topic is very close to you and is of interest (I first learned such a word)

        To my deep regret, many people suffer from a butthert in front of my eyes. The argument ends - the butchert begins. But this is not your case - in your case, the argument did not start yes
        Quote: opus
        Difficult, difficult for you.
        The fact that you bring this from the NEWSPAPERS is just

        Again:)))
        Quote: opus
        Not from scratch: it is impossible to fight on these machines. But you can show at air shows (PR above all!)

        I don't see any newspaper. I don't see any links. I see a comment (or rather an opus) of opus, and nothing more :)) You didn't write "you can't fight on this machine based on the materials of such and such a newspaper." You wrote "You cannot fight on this machine."
        In general, I am completely disappointed in you. You are not even able to answer for your own words.
        Quote: opus
        What can you offer in contrast? A little more than nothing.

        I was right
        Butthurt-

        Nope.
        Quote: opus
        populism bordering on blatant lies.

        Quote: opus
        The statement is not even worth the time to refute it.

        Quote: opus
        idle talk and populism

        THIS IS BUTHERT :)
        Quote: opus
        Minusyahi (1mu) is probably the same yours?

        No, but thanks for reminding me. Receive and sign :)
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 4 February 2016 15: 09
    0
    "I have information, the degree of completion of the Su-35S is much higher than the F-35" ////

    I don’t know how many Su-35s are, and F-35s have about 97%.
    "The 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base is the first operational F-35A squadron and will reach combat readiness in August 2016." In 6 months.

    For marines, the first F-35B squadron was declared operational in August 2015.

    F-35C slows down ...
  10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2016 20: 12
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base is the first operational F-35A squadron and will reach combat readiness in August 2016

    Nothing in the article is about training pilots on simulators? :))
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/151201-mst-gearing-up-for-f-
    35a-operations.html
  • iwind
    iwind 3 February 2016 21: 02
    +2
    Quote: opus
    F-35 Flight Test Progress Report
    DOT & E report
    TEST POINTS
    Static Structural and Durability Testing
    Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT & E)
    F-35 FLEET PLANNED VS. ACHIEVED FLIGHT HOURS

    By the way me very surprised openness of the program. I generally can’t remember anyone else uploading quarterly and annual reports. Feel free to write about your doorposts. Although it was worth it to classify everything and write only a positive officer like everyone else?
    1. opus
      opus 4 February 2016 01: 07
      +1
      Quote: iwind
      I am very surprised at the openness of the program.

      international project, many sponsors. all require a report.
      own budget in "-" Senate / Congress grumbles
      well and so on
      Quote: iwind
      Although it was worth it to classify everything and write only a positive officer like everyone else?

      How are we?

      ?
      Su-35 vs F-35. "Uncle beats a child with a baton"

      Quote: Butthed
      1) Official Relation. According to they are all good at drying, there were only minor childhood diseases inevitable on such a project

      I remember the story.
      the same s * in 1914 "Russia is ready! Is France ready? ” and in February 1914 in the "Exchange statements" (and so glamorous)
      ... by the spring of 1915 a large shortage of shells and other military equipment of the Russian army was discovered
      What ended with 1MB - everyone knows
      wink
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 3 February 2016 21: 53
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Yes, and probably worth a breakdown of the modifications to the F-35

    Everything is much simpler. A few years ago, articles appeared periodically that said that a country was going to buy an F-35. But then articles appeared that these countries, instead of purchasing new aircraft, decided to upgrade the old F-15, 16, 18. Actually, today I read an article about the fact that in the USA they allocate money for the design and construction of new nuclear submarines, as well as the purchase of 18 modernized F-18.
  • Bennert
    Bennert 3 February 2016 10: 11
    +3
    1. There is reality, there are conventions. A combat-ready is just a word.

    140 aircraft, 200 trained pilots, 30 flight hours. a full cycle of flights from land and sea airfields has been completed, refueling has been worked out in the daytime and in the dark, flights to the training ground: the use of air-launched missiles and aircrafts. F-000s are dispersed throughout America, with the goal of introducing airbase personnel to the new machine.

    If this is not a combat-ready (ready-made, combat-ready) aircraft, then the Air Force of all other countries of the world can be immediately deleted as non-existent.

    2. July 31, 2015, F-35B equipped with the first U.S. Marine Squadron
    But?

    3. There is no need for the participation of the F-35 in hostilities

    After all the tests and training firing, what could prevent him from dropping a bomb on a real target?

    4. There used to be a bike, funny - "the designer is Sukhoi, and the technician is wet", but does this mean that Sushki were bad planes.



    After passing all the tests and tests - to call F-35 raw, at least biased
    And who are the judges?
    1. iwind
      iwind 3 February 2016 11: 30
      +2
      Quote: BENNERT
      If this is not a combat-ready (ready-made, combat-ready) aircraft, then the Air Force of all other countries of the world can be immediately deleted as non-existent.

      2. July 31, 2015, it was announced that it was ready for combat by the first US Marine Corps Squadron equipped with the F-35B
      But?

      For high-intensity conflicts of the F-35, it is not yet ready. For a war like Syria, no problem, but why is it there.
      F-35 now you need to raise the level of readiness for flights. the average percentage is 51%, which is the norm for a new aircraft, but still. It should be noted that the percentage of combat readiness is highly dependent on the novelty of the issue. For example, at the Hill F-35A airbase, the average combat readiness is 81%, but there are new aircraft.
      and you need to catch up with the test lag, it is not critically high (not counting those that are set above the plan, it reaches 54% for the F-35C)
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 11: 49
      0
      Quote: BENNERT
      If this is not a combat-ready (ready-made, combat-ready) aircraft, then the Air Force of all other countries of the world can be immediately deleted as non-existent.

      Listen, well, nobless, it is ultimately obsolete, just tell me in all chilling details why such a wonderful aircraft is still assigned the status of "limited combat readiness"? :) And why is its transfer into "technical operation" planned for 2019? :))
      Quote: BENNERT
      And who are the judges?

      Pentagon, do not believe wink
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 3 February 2016 12: 19
      0
      Quote: BENNERT
      A combat-ready is just a word.

      Somewhat different.
      Now, during trial operation, changes are made to the design, avionics, engine, when the aircraft reaches combat readiness, all 140 aircraft will undergo modernization to the level of a combat ready aircraft, that is, they will be rebuilt again, then the pilots will have to re-develop the car (to a lesser extent).
      Like it or not, Lockheed Martin’s commercial move is visible here.
      Quote: BENNERT
      July 1, 2015, F-35B equipped with the first U.S. Marine Squadron

      Most likely this is a forced decision. Nowhere to go CMP, no choice.
      Quote: BENNERT
      There is no need for the participation of the F-35 in the fighting

      18 jan. 2016 - The United States changed its mind about writing off the A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft, which performed well in Iraq ... However, the ongoing operation against ISIS in Iraq and ... "The A-10 attack aircraft play an irreplaceable role in the fight against ISIS.
  • Hon
    Hon 3 February 2016 10: 17
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    That's just taking into account the fact that the plane is still not considered combat ready, this is not an achievement, but a uniform idiocy.

    who is he not considered combat ready? the creators of the transfer of carbon monoxide?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The car is damp. The machine has a bunch of limitations. The machine cannot participate in military operations.

    Have you personally tested it? does she even fly? laughing trust the press less, because if you look at the west, nothing flies here either, everything is rusty and old. And suddenly oh, our rusty planes and rockets, fucking ISIS
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 3 February 2016 10: 26
      +2
      Quote: Hon
      There used to be a bike, funny - "the designer is Sukhori, and the technician is wet", but does this mean that Sushki were bad planes.
      The bike sounded a little different:
      The designer is Sukhoi, the plane is raw, and the technician is wet.
      "Airplane - raw" - that's what you threw away. Because if you quote it as it is, it turns out that Sushki were bad planes, yes. At the time when this bike was created. So "the F-35 is raw, the budget is empty, the pilot is wet, and Lockheed is full." Well, then they will probably finish it, it will be combat-ready, but for now, like this.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 11: 53
      0
      Quote: Hon
      who is he not considered combat ready? the creators of the transfer of carbon monoxide?

      By the Pentagon. Look at the status of the F-35 - "initial level of combat capability", technical operation by 2019 ..
      1. Hon
        Hon 3 February 2016 13: 01
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Hon
        who is he not considered combat ready? the creators of the transfer of carbon monoxide?

        By the Pentagon. Look at the status of the F-35 - "initial level of combat capability", technical operation by 2019 ..

        and what does the term "initial level of combat capability" mean? as a specialist you probably know
      2. iwind
        iwind 3 February 2016 20: 29
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Hon
        who is he not considered combat ready? the creators of the transfer of carbon monoxide?

        By the Pentagon. Look at the status of the F-35 - "initial level of combat capability", technical operation by 2019 ..

        And when did the Pentagon report this?
        All plans so far. BLOCK 3F will appear in 2017. There are risks, but they have not been reported with the transfer yet. .
        "The F-35 program is still in the development phase. This is the time when the F-35's capabilities are expected to be maximized. While the program is 80 percent complete, we recognize there are known deficiencies that need to be corrected and potential remains. for future research. Our commitment to overcoming challenges is unshakable. We will continue to work with the F-35 to make fixes and improvements as quickly as possible. Upon completion of the F-35 development program, the goal is to provide all the capabilities of Block 3F (Mission Systems, weapons ) "The head of the JSF program from the pentagon.
        https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015-dote-report-public-response-statement
        Block 3F - Block 3F provides 100 percent of the software necessary for the full potential of combat, including, but not limited to images of the channel, full of weapons and embedded systems. Software Development Mission System Block 3
        Block 3F - Block 3F provides 100 percent of the software required for full warfighting capability, including but not limited to data link imagery, full weapons and embedded training. Mission Systems Block 3F software development is 98 percent complete.
        https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        At whom - screens flicker, and to whom over 5 it is forbidden to fly.

        And to whom? This restriction was removed so long ago, at least 2-3 years of the year
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • iwind
    iwind 3 February 2016 10: 38
    +5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    gu. That's just taking into account the fact that the plane is still not considered combat ready, this is not an achievement, but a uniform idiocy.
    The car is damp. The machine has a bunch of limitations. The machine cannot participate in military operations. But - already 140 boards, while for trial operation (which is happening right now) it would be more than enough to have 6-8 sides of each modification, i.e. only 18-24, well, 30 pieces.
    And the serial production of a frankly crude, unfinished aircraft is not too much, as I tell you. This is evidence that the manufacturer has a good lobby.

    It’s interesting, but does this also apply to su-27, otherwise they were also made around 100 before being adopted?
    "The armament of the Su-27 was adopted by a government decree of August 23, 1990, at that time the Su-27 had been in operation for 5 years already. From combat units, the first in June 1985 were the Su-27 pilots of 60 IAP of the Far Eastern VO (Dzemgi). . Su-1989 aircraft were in service in 27 combat units of the Air Force and Air Defense Forces of the USSR. "
    http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su27sk/history/
    If we talk about the first 100, they are on training and test bases, without them, pilots, mechanics to conduct tests, and so on, have to learn anything anywhere. They are not fully combat ready there; they will be a school desk all their lives. And so they benefit participating in tests, etc. dragging combat-ready aircraft there does not make sense + there would be a delay in training and until they would have completed the completion of all tests of the final version.
    F-35 on November 2015 flew 43,400 hours.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 3 February 2016 12: 27
      0
      Quote: iwind
      It’s interesting, but does this also apply to su-27, otherwise they were also made around 100 before being adopted?

      Adoption and removal from service is a formality. It is not related to the technical readiness of the aircraft and its presence in combat units. I don’t remember specific examples, but it happened that for ten years the product has been in operation, and there is no decision on adoption. As well as the opposite - T-34-85, IS-2, was decommissioned just a few years ago, although they have not even been in storage for a long time.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 February 2016 11: 48
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The car is damp. The machine has a bunch of limitations. The machine cannot participate in military operations. But - already 140 boards, while for trial operation (which is happening right now) it would be more than enough to have 6-8 sides of each modification, i.e. only 18-24, well, 30 pieces.

    There, it seems, the main problem is in bringing the software, it will be brought and reinstalled on all previously released ones. And as for raw cars - you can recall our M4, which went into the "series", in which almost every car differed from the previous one, also with an unrealized main point of the terms of reference - the range, and a year after the operation of the M4, the 3M took off.
    Is it possible to give an example of a machine that would not be initially raw? I doubt it.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 3 February 2016 10: 54
    0
    Mig just simply upgraded often, the joint of generations, new equipment appeared - put the series went.
  • Cherdak
    Cherdak 3 February 2016 14: 10
    -1
    Quote: BENNERT
    In other words, the number of ALREADY built F-35s has many times exceeded the number of the park of all its peers


    You must always consider the economic component:

    The general contractor of the F-35 program is Lockheed Martin, which implements it jointly with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. The US partners in the F-35 program at the design and demonstration stage of the system are the 8 countries - the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia. Singapore and Israel joined in as participants without risk sharing.


    The Americans really pushed the project through and had virtually unlimited resources, starting from a modest "$ 40 billion" (did not face similar budgets in the military aircraft industry). For example, if the PAK FA was given at least 10% of the spent overseas funds, then more than a dozen samples would fly.
    1. opus
      opus 3 February 2016 16: 47
      0
      Quote: Cherdak
      For example, if at PAK FA at least 10% of the overseas funds were spent, then more than a dozen samples would fly.

      not sure.
      1. In addition to money, there is a limitation on the technological base of industry.
      2. We would have been "stolen" if 10% of the F-35 had been dumped.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 February 2016 09: 02
        +1
        Quote: opus
        We would have "stolen" if 10% of the F-35 were dumped.

        Quote: Cherdak
        The general contractor of the F-35 program is Lockheed Martin, which implements it jointly with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. The US partners in the F-35 program at the design and demonstration stage of the system are the 8 countries - the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia. Singapore and Israel joined in as participants without risk sharing.

        The Americans really pushed the project and had virtually unlimited resources, starting with a modest "$ 40 billion"

        Quote: iwind

        By the way, I am very surprised by the openness of the program. I generally can’t remember anyone else uploading quarterly and annual reports. Feel free to write about your doorposts. Although it was worth it to classify everything and write only a positive officer like everyone else?


        Everything was stolen from us for 500 thousand dollars, they were stuck around with non-Russian labels and they lie (including about what jambs there) openly. wassat CAPITALISM!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQlNgBfXjfM

        For American and other apologists for democracy, I will immediately note that the main American module "Dawn" / "Zarya" on the ISS is also Russian-made and launched, the X-37 uses automatic equipment from the "Buran" for landings (just as the Soviet one was used by the AMS Surveyor), Yak-130 under the name Alenia Aermacchi M-346 was also copied for 5 million lire laughing (Italians) but almost without any alterations, and abroad, according to an interestingly drawn up contract, only they could sell it ...
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 3 February 2016 07: 56
    +1
    With regards to "cuts". Patriots often, deliberately or without realizing it, confuse the theft of funds allocated for R&D with their spending with an unfavorable result, or if the resulting product for some reason turned out to be more expensive than planned. Historically, a new product is an order of magnitude more expensive than previous developments; it never happens that a new generation aircraft costs the same price as the previous one.
    Let's take the history of the creation of such a masterpiece as the Su-27. The fact that this interceptor fighter turned out to be more expensive by SEVERAL orders of magnitude of its predecessor Su-15, I hope is not worth saying. For cost overruns on the Su-27 in Stalin's times, the Sukhoi Design Bureau (including the cleaners) would have moved to a "sharashka", and the GK would have gone to cut the forest with a jigsaw. BUT we know very well that, despite numerous mistakes and miscalculations, the output appeared that plane that the whole of Russia is rightfully proud of.
    Or an example from a completely different field, medicine:
    Last year, $ 100 billion was spent on fighting cancer in the world, 10,3 percent more than in 2013 and significantly more than the 75 billion spent in 2010.

    But the search for a cure for cancer has been going on for decades, who can calculate how much money has been spent? But on the way out, nothing. Trillions of dollars thrown to the wind? That's where you can shout about the cut, but who says that you need to stop the effort? So the cost of finding a cure for cancer will only increase until humanity receives it and to all who find it, all of humanity will thank you very much ...
    1. looker-on
      looker-on 3 February 2016 08: 27
      0
      Cancer medicine cannot be created. As well as from banal herpes. Who, then, will be treated and spend money on medicines and hospitals?) Will not allow such a story neither the corporation nor the authorities. They are looking for drugs that relieve symptoms or treat but not for long. Alas, medecine is a mega business
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 February 2016 10: 21
        -1
        Quote: looker-on
        Cancer medicine cannot be created. As well as from banal herpes. Then who will be treated and spend money on medicines and hospitals?

        Those. if there is a cure for cancer, then no one will be treated? Your logic is strange. In the world, millions of cancer patients are ready to give everything for a cure for cancer, moreover, they are increasing every time and the demand for a medicine will be constant, that's where money can be mowed ...
        1. Rumata
          Rumata 3 February 2016 18: 21
          0
          And the billionaire Jobs, this secret medicine was not enough, as well as hundreds of thousands of friends, the mighty of this world, who died due to cancer ..
      2. Rumata
        Rumata 3 February 2016 18: 18
        +1
        Quote: looker-on
        Cancer medicine cannot be created. As well as from banal herpes. Who, then, will be treated and spend money on medicines and hospitals?) Will not allow such a story neither the corporation nor the authorities. They are looking for drugs that relieve symptoms or treat but not for long. Alas, medecine is a mega business

        Rave. Many types of cancer were a death sentence 20-25 years ago, and are now being treated. For example, earlier 95% of patients with skin cancer of the same species died. Now he is partially treated, partially inhibited and mortality is just over 10%, I am already silent about a breakthrough in the early diagnosis of cancer in the last 10 years. There are dozens of types of cancer that have not been treated for not so long ago, and now success rests on diagnostics and how everything is neglected. People write about conspiracies of scientists either VERY far from medicine or suffering from conspiracy of the brain, which is practically incurable.
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 3 February 2016 18: 45
          +1
          Quote: Rumata
          There are dozens of types of cancer that have not been treated for not so long ago, and now success rests on diagnostics and how everything is neglected.

          So I do not argue how everything is arranged in this regard ... And we have healthy men burn like candles because ... In terrible agony ... A cure for cancer is a chance for countries like ours, where the avbolites are of the Ava dog level. ..
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 February 2016 11: 36
      +1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      For cost overruns on the Su-27 in Stalin's times, the Sukhoi Design Bureau (including the cleaners) would have moved to a "sharashka", and the GK would have gone to cut the forest with a jigsaw.

      Come on! Surely Kotin and Zaltsman, who had requested a million rubles for the first short-term loan, had gone somewhere? smile
      Or let’s recall the history of the M-88 - the engine was put into service, put into series, several types of aircraft were launched under it ... and suddenly - production was stopped, the engine was sent out for six months for revision, and the aircraft were let out with what is.
      And if you recall the serial and adopted products, which after some time were removed from service due to the impossibility of fine-tuning? One DS-39 was worth ...

      So the Stalinist USSR was very humane to the designers. Yes, there was Taubin - but even after him, OKB-16 presented for testing something that made hair stand on end at the training ground. For instance:
      Since February 42nd three times these kind people went to the forest for the tree defective MFIs were taken for testing. Three times they were sent with matyugs to work better. And in August, they bring another rustle to NIPSVO ... with a crack on the bolt. And this shutter (surprise! Surprise!) Breaks even during the calibration of cartridges.

      And then they provided for testing firing PTR with a dead shot barrel.
  • looker-on
    looker-on 3 February 2016 08: 26
    +3
    They love to run into Mr. Kaptsov here. Mainly because of his fondness for the concept of a modern ship with powerful armor. I believe that any concept has the right to exist and should be open to discussion. This particular article is a plus. The United States is building a fleet. New ships are constantly being introduced. They deliver more ships of the 1st 2nd rank per year than all of Russia in 10 years. And someone else is trying to assess our chances in the open confrontation of ships at sea. Sadness and alas. Sawing money is probably present everywhere. But someone else also has real ships and not "in 2018 we will have an aircraft carrier."
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 3 February 2016 08: 52
      +7
      Quote: looker-on
      And someone else is trying to assess our chances in the open confrontation of ships at sea. Sadness and alas.

      If wars were won by simply counting the tanks and comparing their performance characteristics, then there would not be a single war. The winner would be determined by simple calculations. For example, the Soviet Union could take over the whole of Europe for Portugal itself already 23 June 1941 year.
      Quote: looker-on
      Someone else has real ships and not "in 2018 we will have an aircraft carrier."
      Everything is simple here. Society has a request for Imperskost. But society does not fumble in shipbuilding and economics - it's boring. However, the public is power. And it must be reassured. So they feed breakfast. In reality, there will be no aircraft carrier, for Russia it is on the list of importance somewhere under the number 6948, right after the repair of the road in the village of Ust-Zyukayka.
  • SeregaBoss
    SeregaBoss 3 February 2016 08: 34
    +1
    Of course, we must pay tribute to the engineers and designers, all the same they are building interesting ships, but soon the union of states will fall apart, then the fun will begin!
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 3 February 2016 08: 55
      +2
      Quote: Serge Boss
      then the fun begins!

      "The whole country will have a rest in the Canaries for three years" (C) "Shirley-Myrli"
  • Riv
    Riv 3 February 2016 08: 50
    0
    In vain, the author believes that the Yankees can only cut grandmothers. They know how, of course, but it cannot be said that everything went to sawdust. In fact, a real minuscule went into sawdust ...

    "Zumvolt" is an experiment (and the author himself agrees with this). The concept, not the ship, really. At one time in the USSR, T-35 tanks were adopted. They did not become massive, but they were tested in the troops and the experience of their operation was very useful in the design of later models. The T-34 was also once a concept tank. IL-2 - by aircraft concept and so on. Is it possible to say that the first two samples of "thirty-fours" that reached the test site under the personal supervision of the designer and broke down every kilometer were a waste of people's money?

    So do not "pus saw". They will do this even without the author's permission. But you have to look at what happens and cut it out better.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 3 February 2016 09: 06
      +5
      Quote: Riv
      In vain, the author believes that the Yankees can only cut grandmothers. They know how, of course, but it cannot be said that everything went to sawdust. In fact, a real minuscule went into sawdust ...

      The author does not think so, you apparently did not understand anything after reading this publication. request Although Oleg sometimes brings, he is far from a stupid person.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 3 February 2016 09: 06
    0
    Mistral airborne helicopter carriers turned out to be excessively expensive for peacetime service
    - Americans for 50 years do not build amphibious helicopter carriers, if the author did not know. But now they are building half a dozen airborne transport docks of the "San Antonio" type. Expensive, you say? Well, I don't even want to comment on the author's delirium: the commissioning of universal submarines, the task of which is to sink our ships and boats at their bases, therefore, they are adapted to shallow water conditions, and more than 6 dozen Berks with new ships, when we have only 1 full-fledged destroyer - the author calls this a saw cut. Yes, we should have cut the Fleet just a little bit!
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 3 February 2016 09: 41
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      Americans 50 years old do not build landing helicopter carriers

      Well, not at all. USS America (LHA-6) is a clean landing helicopter carrier, it even has a dock. no camera.
      Quote: Engineer
      Yes, we would have to cut the Fleet at least a little bit!

      It is strange that you did not feel the sarcasm that the article just shows through ...
    2. Bennert
      Bennert 3 February 2016 09: 44
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      - Americans about 50 years old do not build landing helicopter carriers

      They even came up with a whole classification:
      LHA - Landing Helicopter Amphibious

      America-class amphibious assault helicopter carriers (LHA-6), a series of two ships
      - "America"
      - "Tripoli"

      the main one was launched in 2012, accepted as a member in 2014

      257 meters length
      Displacement 45 thousand tons
      Crew: 1000 people + 1670 Marines
      Air wing: 12 convertiplanes, 11 helicopters, 6 VTOL aircraft (Harrier or F-35B)
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 February 2016 10: 23
        +1
        Quote: BENNERT
        America-class amphibious assault helicopter carriers (LHA-6)

        Oleg Kaptsov, by the way, doesn’t like them very much, kicks in every case.
  • King, just king
    King, just king 3 February 2016 09: 46
    +6
    Yo-my ... 69 Burke was laid down. Even somehow there is nothing to say. SIXTY NINTH !!!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2016 10: 06
      +4
      That's why the US fleet in terms of combat power surpasses ours - probably 10 times already.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 3 February 2016 12: 23
        +1
        in the western ratings, our fleet is either on the 5th or on the 6th place, losing to the states, the Britons, the Japanese and others. In fact, we really have trouble in the fleet: there is, of course, a "light at the end of the tunnel", but everything is sooo long and a lot of sticks are inserted into the wheels. The same GTE threw us back for 3-5 years. Ukrainians are watching fool
        1. King, just king
          King, just king 3 February 2016 14: 05
          0
          To the post silver_roman about ratings.

          Yes, let the Western ratings put us at least in the fifty-millionth place. All THEIR ratings are leveled by one abbreviation: BDRM!
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 3 February 2016 16: 14
            +1
            It's good that at least not BDSM laughing
            I agree with you in terms of ratings, which is most often nonsense, but in relation to the strength of the fleet, I have to agree.
            In fact, our Navy is limited to ocean ships (1 and 2 ranks) of 10-15 pieces.
            Which are already a long time in the ranks.
            I really look forward to the appearance of our new destroyer. If the series goes at least a few dozen, then we can talk about power. It’s just that the Russian Federation, possessing huge water borders, sprays its forces very much. Enemies are standing around. Of course, if you put everything together, then there will be an impressive force, clearly not comparable with the same states.
            By the way, the same French and shaving their nuclear weapons are exclusively on underwater vehicles, but they won’t immediately shoot them. We won't either. Frankly, if we are afraid to answer for our blatantly shot down aircraft (su-24), then we definitely will not dare to use nuclear weapons.
  • itr
    itr 3 February 2016 10: 08
    +2
    Of course much more than our defense industry
    But I hope in this direction we will not overtake and overtake them!
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 3 February 2016 10: 58
      0
      Quote: itr
      Of course much more than our defense industry
      But I hope in this direction we will not overtake and overtake them!

      Our military-industrial complex could please us more often if the Defense Ministry learned to dictate its requirements.
      Take a look at the mess that is going on with the ships under construction and commissioned. All efforts and resources are spent on the construction of ships of the same class of various projects ...
    2. Your friend
      Your friend 3 February 2016 16: 40
      0
      Quote: itr
      Of course much more than our defense industry
      But I hope in this direction we will not overtake and overtake them!

      I hope we never have an aircraft carrier. There is no more unnecessary ship for the Russian Federation.
  • Belousov
    Belousov 3 February 2016 10: 46
    -3
    Well, how can Kaptsov not lick the American keel? There has been so much talk about the practical benefits of a zamvolta iron, or rather about the absence of any real benefit ... There is nothing besides pure PR. As for the rest of the fleet, yes, they outnumber us many times over. But you just need to remember about the intended purpose. The AUG is an offensive weapon, but we do not have such goals, we do not carry "democracy" to anyone, we do not need to maintain a similar grouping, although this does not negate the need to restore our fleets, especially the Pacific.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 3 February 2016 10: 58
      +1
      Quote: Belousov
      They have already talked so much about the practical benefits of the Zamwolt iron, or rather, the absence of at least any real benefit ...

      Say, who forbids

      My opinion is that a similar missile and artillery destroyer is also needed by the Russian Navy. At least, this is the type of ship that could bring maximum benefit in the conflicts of the last decade, where the Russian Navy took part

      War in ossetia - artillery shelling of targets on the Black Sea coast of Georgia and Abkhazia, being outside the coverage area of ​​the Georgian Armed Forces.

      Operation in Syria - rocket and artillery shelling + functions of a mobile helicopter base.
      its excellent radars and other means of detection would be useful

      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 February 2016 11: 49
        0
        Quote: BENNERT
        The war in Ossetia - artillery shelling of targets on the Black Sea coast of Georgia and Abkhazia, being outside the range of the Georgian armed forces.

        Do you want the fame of "Hipper's child killers"? wink

        And in general - why in this case unique nulle a ship to duplicate the missile forces and artillery of the ground forces? If the fleet really wants to also take part in forcing the banana republic to peace and shoot along the coast - let the "Kutuzov" be put back into operation.
        Quote: BENNERT
        Operation in Syria - rocket and artillery shelling + functions of a mobile helicopter base.
        its excellent radars and other means of detection would be useful

        EMNIP, in Syria, there are practically no battles along the coast - there is no one to shell. And the functions of helicopter bases perform well on ordinary land sites.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 3 February 2016 22: 52
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          EMNIP, there are practically no battles in Syria off the coast - there is no one to shell

          80 mines with KR
          Quote: Alexey RA
          in forcing the banana republic to peace and shooting along the coast - let "Kutuzov" be put back into operation.

          easier to build a new
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 February 2016 10: 22
            0
            Quote: BENNERT
            80 mines with KR

            Do you want to go along the curve of the United States - the destruction of cheap targets many times more expensive than their missiles? smile

            In fact, the entire use of the Kyrgyz Republic in Syria now is a mixture of public relations with integrated military tests of the widest possible range of guided weapons systems (and their carriers) under conditions as close to combat as possible. Who in peacetime, for example, will completely shoot the BC 4 MRCs and collect real statistics - how will the launch go, how many CRs will reach the target and where they will get (individual launches cannot give statistics - do you need a relatively large sample)?
            And the main load in real work on the militants is borne by Sukhoi's vehicles with "cast iron" dropped according to the data of the onboard PrNK.
            Quote: BENNERT
            easier to build a new

            Judging by how the Navy does its best to keep afloat large pots of still Soviet-built, it’s not easier.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 3 February 2016 12: 37
        +1
        Quote: BENNERT
        The war in Ossetia - artillery shelling of targets on the Black Sea coast of Georgia and Abkhazia, being outside the range of the Georgian armed forces.
        For the sake of pressing Georgians to make a destroyer worth more than 3,5 billion dollars? I am in shock. It’s cheaper to bribe the Georgian Minister of Defense and ask them to go deaf and go blind for a couple of days. In extreme cases, there is aviation, and with due care, we can recall the experience of the Second World War, where the Germans had such devices - Artilleriefährprahm.
        Quote: BENNERT
        Operation in Syria - rocket and artillery shelling + functions of a mobile helicopter base.
        its excellent radars and other means of detection would be useful

        Again, a direct destroyer is needed. And what exactly does he need so much that they have managed without him for several months and is everything all right?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 February 2016 14: 16
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          For the sake of pressing Georgians to make a destroyer worth more than $ 3,5 billion? I am in shock. It’s cheaper to bribe the Georgian Minister of Defense and ask them to go deaf and go blind for a couple of days.

          Hyhix ... about the Falklands, there was a joke that the money spent on the operation (Thatcher officially declared in 1982 that Falkland war against Argentina cost Britain about $ 1.19 billion), the British could buy in bulk the entire Argentine junta.
        2. Bennert
          Bennert 3 February 2016 22: 59
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          For the sake of pressing Georgians to make a destroyer worth more than $ 3,5 billion? I am in shock.

          One way or another, the Russian Navy will have to make a destroyer. The whole question is what.

          Guns don't cost billions
          Zamvolt’s cost - its power supply, automation, composite stealth add-on and all related problems. Nobody talks about scrupulous copying.
          Quote: Alex_59
          . And what exactly does he need so much that they have managed without him for several months and is everything all right?

          Zamvolt - the only type of ship that can benefit in such conflicts.
          Had he been at the Navy, he would have found use
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 4 February 2016 07: 13
            0
            Quote: BENNERT
            Zamvolt is the only type of ship that can be useful in such conflicts.
            Had he been at the Navy, he would have found use
            Of course everything is so, but I have doubts ... Such ships should be created not for the sake of beating Georgia, but for more serious tasks. And what are the "more serious" tasks for our Navy? Confronting NATO fleets - but making a dozen expensive destroyers (we won't manage anymore) for this task is somewhat absurd, because All the same, NATO's superiority at sea is so gigantic that these destroyers will repeat the fate of WWII battleships. Hence the question - why then in general in this way (with the help of destroyers) climb into the ocean? Those. as if we come to the conclusion that the task of confronting NATO must be solved by some other means. In the issue of pressing Georgia and Syria, there is no urgent need for such ships, and in the Baltic and Black Sea in general, the main caliber of the Navy should be aviation - any of our Su-27/24/34 covers each of these seas with a full load and when flying at low altitude ... At the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, the task of coastal defense, anti-aircraft defense and air defense of the near zone with the support of coastal aviation and air defense is completely solved by the TFR (frigates), which, thank Allah, we can (if we want) rivet more than a dozen. For the presence and display of the flag, it is again cheaper to send a couple of frigates to the coast of Cuba, for this Zumwalt is not needed. We do not need to cover the aircraft carriers either - we have one of them. So fig knows.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 3 February 2016 11: 08
    +1
    The author is a shitty man! The title of the post is like the yellow press! "The mutant fly infected the boy with salmonellosis, from which he managed to get pregnant from the kiss of the cat!"
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 3 February 2016 11: 21
    +2
    Quote: King, just king
    Yo-my ... 69 Burke was laid down. Even somehow there is nothing to say. SIXTY NINTH !!!


    Well, what do you want? They have been under construction since 1988. Soon for 30 years. For this period, you can build 69 ships. In the USSR, BODs of the "admiral's series" similar to destroyers were built at a comparable pace, 2 sides per year. So the USSR did not collapse, there could also be about 70 of them now.

    The United States did not ruin their country and did not stop their weapons programs. Here is the result.
  • KULEMA
    KULEMA 3 February 2016 11: 25
    +2
    The article is interesting! All the same, the power of the US Navy is huge. For the first time in this group I encounter a real analysis of the enemy’s B / T
    1. serverny
      serverny 3 February 2016 11: 44
      -3
      This is not an analysis, but a short review article with an extremely wretched headline in the best traditions of the govnopisateli yellow press.
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 3 February 2016 11: 50
    +3
    Our authorities and officials flutter their sides with tongues and stuff their wallets; the enemy, having a developed industry, is arming itself at a fast pace. But we will laugh at them as they saw their own money.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 February 2016 11: 53
    +1
    We are forever concerned about how they saw money over the hill, although it would be more natural to care about how they saw money in their native country. And they are sawing in the way that no dreamers can dream of in a nightmare. And it should be noted that what the author calls a cut is actually a normal waste of money for promising projects.
    The fact that these projects are not always obtained as they were intended is also quite natural, because to assess the risks associated with new technologies is not always possible to eat. And this is just the case when a negative result is also a result.
    In his native country, the cut was initially laid down in any more or less large project financed from the budget, whether it be a road project or a cosmodrome project. Moreover, the proportion of the planned cut is sometimes up to 50% of the project cost.
    Now call me a developed foreign country where this is possible.
    Please do not call the nursery monkey.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 February 2016 11: 58
    +1
    The floating base was impressed. By looking for and finding unexpected solutions that are effective in terms of the result-cost criterion. And then "cut, cut". Yes, corporations get money, there are probably lobbyists. But there are results too. LCS, Zamwalt is something that no one else has.
  • Old_Python
    Old_Python 3 February 2016 12: 03
    +1
    It’s a strange thing - after reading Kaptsov’s article, I, as a domestic shipbuilder, should prostrate myself and sob over the worthlessness of both my own and all Russian shipbuilding. And along the way, experience the most acute orgasm and fierce envy about the Shipbuilding Industry of the United States of America, the Fleet Construction Program of the United States of America and the United States Navy itself.
    And here you go - well, not the slightest urge! Something is wrong with me ... I'll go eat.
    wassat
  • mvg
    mvg 4 February 2016 21: 26
    0
    Quote: BENNERT
    Quote: Alex_59
    For the sake of pressing Georgians to make a destroyer worth more than $ 3,5 billion? I am in shock.

    One way or another, the Russian Navy will have to make a destroyer. The whole question is what.

    Guns don't cost billions
    Zamvolt’s cost - its power supply, automation, composite stealth add-on and all related problems. Nobody talks about scrupulous copying.
    Quote: Alex_59
    . And what exactly does he need so much that they have managed without him for several months and is everything all right?

    Zamvolt - the only type of ship that can benefit in such conflicts.
    Had he been at the Navy, he would have found use

    Wouldn't Missouri ride?