Military Review

F-35 fighter has fallen victim to a changing political environment

249



The continuing criticism of the F-35 fighter by the military and the media, as well as its incompatibility with the modern philosophy of air combat, force the US Air Force to consider the option of resuming the production of X-NUMX-summer F-40 and F-15 fighters. Is F-16 so bad? It's just that its creators made the same mistake as Beria.

Since the First World War, the actions of the fighters were built according to the scheme formulated most clearly by the Soviet ace Alexander Pokryshkin during the Second World War: "altitude - speed - maneuver - fire". This formula, in turn, was based on the principle of “bullet - fool, the plane - well done”.

“What about the vaunted superiority of the United States in the air and the need to have supergangs of the 21st century in order to restrain China? Well, we could have such a plane, but we don't have one. ”

In other words, the emphasis was placed on the fact that the fighter could catch up with the enemy, get close to the distance of a cannon shot or the distance defeated by an air-to-air missile, and in the case of a maneuverable aerial combat, surpass the enemy in aerobatic qualities. However, starting from the third generation of fighters, designers are beginning to deviate from the “bullet-fool” principle, making the aircraft’s armament more and more intelligent. There are missiles with infrared head pointing, pulsed radar. On-board equipment with a more sophisticated guidance system allows you to hit targets that are out of sight. Typical representatives of this generation are American F-104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom, Soviet MiG-19 and MiG-21. The trend towards the intellectualization of destructive armament has been consolidated and intensified in the fourth and fifth generation aircraft.

Economical versatility


Designers F-35 had to solve the dilemma "platform or dog dump". The “classic” fighter was traditionally built under the Pokryshkin formula, but the creation of intelligent long-range weapons was considered by the designers of the F-35 to reduce the functions of the aircraft to a simple computerized platform. The task of which is to be a “launching pad” for these funds and at the same time their control center. No wonder, as applied to modern combat aircraft, the term “complex” is increasingly being used, emphasizing the integration of “intelligence”. weapons in the "intelligence" of the aircraft.

Imagine now that this platform will not only be able to avoid entering the enemy’s air defense zone, but it also will not have to catch up with the enemy, hide from it, or conduct a maneuverable air battle with it, which is also called a “dog dump”. Launched from a distance, the rocket itself will find the target long before it can dodge the strike.

And if the aircraft will have to solve combat missions in the sky controlled by the enemy, then the defense will be focused on systems capable of confusing the missile. And it’s better to make sure that the enemy simply didn’t see you, so the creators of the F-35 paid much attention to its radar invisibility.

Highly intelligent equipment and weapons are not the only distinguishing feature of the F-35. Military officials decided to make a unified aircraft for the three types of US forces - the Air Force, Navy and Marines. In fact, why spend the effort and money on the creation of three different types of aircraft, when you can build one with minor (as it was then thought) modifications? This explains the paradox: why, having already had an F-5-type 22 fighter, the USA began to create F-35. F-22 - machine, created mainly for air combat. He can strike at ground targets, but his main task is to destroy enemy aircraft. F-35 is a “multipurpose”, in which, depending on the modification, the bombing of ground objects and direct support on the battlefield play the same important role as the fight against enemy aircraft.

"Turkey", embodied the mistake of Beria

One of the main designers of the F-16 fighter Pierre Spray in an interview with the American Internet resource Digg.com called the F-35 "turkey". In America, turkey - one of the symbols of a hybrid of stupidity and satiety. According to Spray, any attempts to create a universal aircraft such as the F-35 are doomed to failure. Take, for example, the F-35 vertical take-off designed for the Marine Corps. The massive propulsion system “eats up” a significant part of the aircraft’s carrying capacity, and the relatively small wings do not provide it with the necessary maneuverability either for air combat or for direct support of ground forces. The same lack of maneuverability is different options developed for the Air Force and Navy. The maximum speed of the F-35 Mach, a component of the 1,6 Mach, is also unlikely to strike the imagination, given the fact that this indicator in modern fighters from Russia, Europe and the USA, including the F-15 and F-16, either reaches or exceeds the Mach 2.
As for the “invisibility” of F-35, then, according to the American Internet resource Fool.com, this invisibility can be ensured only if it carries all its bombs and missiles inside, and this is only 17% of its capabilities. If something is on the external suspension, the aircraft becomes as noticeable as conventional winged cars.

In this regard, I involuntarily recall историяwhich was told by the former deputy general designer of the aircraft Andrey Tupolev Leonid Kerber in his memoirs Tupolev sharaga. Even before the war, Lawrence Beria tried to convince Stalin to build a super-bomber. Tupolev also proposed to build an average front-line dive bomber, which was destined to go down in history under the name Tu-2.

“I told your suggestions to Comrade Stalin,” said Beria to Tupolev. - He agreed with my opinion that we now need not such a plane, but a high-altitude, long-range, four-engined dive bomber, let's call it PB-4. We are not going to inflict pinpricks (he pointed out with disapproval the ANT-58 drawing [which was later named Tu-2]), no, we will smash the beast in its lair! .. Take action (nod towards the prisoners, among whom was Tupolev), so that in a month they would prepare proposals on PB-4. Everything!"

This “technical task” is difficult to call anything other than delusional. High-altitude means a hermetic cockpit, that is, a limited view, and a breeder taking aim with his plane needs a magnificent view. Four-engine, distant, therefore, heavy. Since a dive of the PB-4 would have been subject to much greater overload than when bombing from horizontal flight, it should have had a much stronger construction, and this, in turn, led to further weight gain. In addition, a dive involves strikes against targets from low altitude, and the four-engine giant is an excellent target for anti-aircraft gunners. Finally, the dive biker needs maneuverability at the level of briskness, and where can we get it from such a heavy truck?

“In a word,” recalled Kerber, “the masses are“ against ”and not a single“ for ”, except for primitive thought: since the Germans and Americans already have single-engine dive-bombers, we must surpass them and create not a“ king-bell ”, but“ a king -picker "!"

After some thought, Tupolev decided that it was possible, but not necessary, to make such a “universal” monster. He insisted on his point of view, as a result of which the Soviet pilots received one of the best bombers of the Second World War, the Tu-2. It is obvious that the creators of F-35 did not take into account the experience of "Tupolev", and most likely, just did not know about it.

Only “old men” go into battle - and win

The American magazine Popular Mechanics called the F-35 an "impressive misfortune," and according to one test pilot of this vehicle, it was "not worth a penny" in aerial combat. At the same time, the magazine referred to the declassified test report of F-35, which fell on the pages of the American Internet resource War is Boring. This report contained information about test air battles conducted between the F-35 and F-16, which has been in service with the US Air Force for over 40 years. Despite the fact that the F-35 flew in the most lightweight version, and the F-16 "dragged" under its wings fuel tanks, the "old man" in these battles showed far better fighter qualities. Even the famous F-400 pilot’s 35 thousand dollars helmet, which gives the pilot all the necessary tactical information and allows him to see “through the cockpit”, turned out to be “too bulky” to allow him to look back without any obstacles. Interestingly, the developer of the new fighter, Lockheed Martin, did not dispute the pilot’s conclusions, saying only that “F-35 was designed to destroy the enemy aircraft before the start of the maneuvering battle”.
Apparently, these test battles, in addition to the exorbitant cost of F-35, became one of the reasons why the Pentagon, according to the American Internet resource Aviation Week, began to seriously consider the additional purchase of 72 multi-role fighters like F-15, F-16 and even F / A-18. These machines were developed by 40 and more years ago. Of course, we are talking about the acquisition of deeply modernized fighter jets, which, together with the upgraded 300 F-16 and F-15 fighters, "will be able to strengthen F-35 and F-22 in intensive air combat". According to the plans of the Pentagon, F-15 and F-16 will remain in service until at least 2045 of the year. This means that the “old men” will quantify F-22 and F-35 at least until the end of the 2020-s.

Question will


The US Department of Defense intends to purchase X-NUMX aircraft of the F-2547 type by 35. The total cost will exceed 2038 billion dollars, which will make this military program the most expensive in US history. For comparison: the cost of the whole Apollo lunar program, taking into account inflation as of 400, did not exceed 2005 billion dollars a year. If we add to the cost of purchasing the F-170 also the cost of operating them until the last aircraft of this type is written off, then the F-35 will cost US taxpayers 35 a trillion dollars or more. And this despite the fact that this car does not justify the hopes placed on it.


How do the military capabilities of Russia and NATO

According to The Week magazine, "it's time to put an end to this." “The only reason this has not yet been done is the money already spent on this program. Many military experts agree that combat aviation I could better solve my problems with the F-16 and F-18 than the prohibitively expensive F-35, ”the author of the publication believes.

“What about the vaunted superiority of the United States in the air and the need to have supergangs of the 21st century in order to restrain China? - He wonders. - Well, we could have such a plane, but we do not have it. And the best incentive for military contractors to produce good equipment is to show that Washington can “knock down” a program that is not working and that costs 1,3 a trillion dollars while in flight. Will Washington have enough political will to do this? ”

The victim of far-fetched doctrine


So what happened to the F-35? The same as with the Soviet fighter MiG-3, created on the eve of the Second World War. His image was determined by the doctrine popular in those times that the upcoming air battles will take place at high altitudes and speeds. But, as it turned out, the Luftwaffe pilots were not going to compete with the Soviet fighters in speed and altitude, but preferred to fight at low and medium altitudes, and not always at full throttle. As a result, good at high altitudes, the MiG-3 turned out to be heavy, clumsy and not fast enough on small and medium-sized, it was withdrawn from the “first line” units and was used only in air defense units.

Like the MiG-3, the F-35 fell victim to the doctrine, which did not fully correspond to the modern tactical realities of the air war. Recall that, according to its creators, "F-35 is designed to destroy an enemy aircraft before the start of a maneuverable battle." But, as it turned out during the tests, the characteristics of the F-35 do not give him a guaranteed opportunity to do so. It means that with a high degree of probability he cannot avoid a “dog dump”, in which the Russian MiGs, Su and Chinese fighters designed on the basis of them have a clear advantage over F-35 in terms of maneuverability.

Perhaps the situation with F-35 would not have seemed so dramatic in the United States if the Yeltsin-Clinton era of the “strategic partnership” between Russia and the United States continued. Then the United States would not have to worry about possible fights between Russian and American fighters in the foreseeable future.

But times have changed - Moscow began to actively pursue in the international arena a policy that sometimes runs counter to the interests of Washington, and the events in Syria demonstrated the quality of Russian military aviation. The prospect of an armed conflict between Russia and the NATO forces, alas, is now more real than 20 years ago, and therefore the United States needs to think about what to oppose to the Russian “Su” and “MiGs”. And the deeply modernized "old men" F-16 and F-15, in their maneuverability and dynamic characteristics, seem to be better suited for this role than the ultra-modern F-35.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/society/2016/2/3/791907.html
249 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aleksander
    Aleksander 6 February 2016 06: 43
    14
    I think that it's just a complicated plane - and they will "finish" it - time is needed.
    And in general, any such complex product (successful, unsuccessful) is an experience in the development of technologies, materials, etc., which means a step forward in the direction of creating an exactly good aircraft.
    PS What does Beria have to do with it ?! belay Inappropriate analogy, in my opinion.
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 6 February 2016 07: 15
      34
      Quote: Aleksander
      I think that it's just a complicated plane - and they will "finish" it - time is needed.

      It is impossible to "bring" anything when the concept itself is initially flawed.
      Quote: Aleksander
      And in general, any such complex product (successful, unsuccessful) is an experience in the development of technologies, materials, etc., which means a step forward in the direction of creating an exactly good aircraft

      Well, not at the same price, by golly. More than one and a half hundred cars were released, and the F-35 has not yet been adopted. That is, it is one and a half hundred prototypes? Not bad.
      Quote: Aleksander
      PS What does Beria have to do with it ?! Inappropriate analogy, in my opinion.

      Here I agree, it is absolutely inappropriate to compare a project that existed on paper, and is completely implemented. The passage about the MiG-3, by the way, was also surprising - it was created to counter the English DBA, just like a high-altitude interceptor. Do not forget that until 1940 the British hatched plans for the bombing of Caspian oil fields.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 6 February 2016 08: 05
        12
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        More than one and a half hundred cars were released, and the F-35 has not yet been adopted. That is, it is one and a half hundred prototypes? Not bad.

        Actually, the F-35B reached operational readiness. There is a delay in terms, but this is a working moment. As for the number of aircraft, the program is gigantic with more than 3000 aircraft for the United States and its allies.
        In the history of our aviation, a relatively comparable program (adjusted for time, of course) was the construction of a "single" multi-mode fighter and a striker Mmg-23. And how did we suffer with it until we brought it to a somewhat combat-ready form. A bunch of strange Pepelatsev MiG-23S with whom they did not know what to do later.
        So it’s too early to rejoice.
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 6 February 2016 08: 49
          +8
          Quote: Odyssey
          So it’s too early to rejoice.

          Actually, I’m not happy.
          Quote: Odyssey
          In fact, the F-35B reached operational readiness.Timing Delay have but it work moment

          Such a "worker", sho pepets. As far as I remember, the first F-35 took off ten years ago. Since then, the terms of its adoption have been constantly postponed, and the cost of the program has only increased. Compare with our PAK FA, which flew for the first time in 2010, and serial deliveries of its VKS are planned from next year. I will note that with absolutely incomparable budget of our and US projects.
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 6 February 2016 10: 29
            -2
            Quote: Ami du peuple

            Such a "worker", sho pepets. As far as I remember, the first F-35 took off ten years ago. Since then, the terms of its adoption have been constantly postponed, and the cost of the program has only increased. Compare with our PAK FA, which flew for the first time in 2010, and serial deliveries of its VKS are planned from next year. I will note that with absolutely incomparable budget of our and US projects.

            Ten years ago, a prototype was raised, i.e. a car without a native engine, without electronics, etc. And that's just the "A" model. With the native Prat-WhItney F-119 engine, the plane took off only in 2010. And to this day, neither this engine, nor its modifications for "B" and "C" do not cause problems and work like a clock. In terms of the complexity of the avionics, this is a machine that has no equal.
            As for the PAK FA, judging by the work on the machine in 2016, work on even prototypes will not end yet.
            T-50-1 - frequency tests performed, revision underway.
            T-50-5R - performed CHI, the elimination of identified defects is ongoing.
            New production dates.
            T-50-6-2 - transfer to LIS after assembly of the aircraft after applying the RPP - 01.02.2016, chi (including with weapons) - 26.02.-12.03., The first flight - 26.03., Delivery - 04.04.2016.
            T-50-8 - transfer to LIS 30.01.2016, application of RPP - 26.02.-15.03, rearrangement of the cabin - 14.04.-04.05, CHI - 15-23.05., First flight - 29.05., Change - 05.06.2016.
            T-50-9 - Docking to the 15.03.2016 GLASS, transfer to 30.04 LIS, delivery - 31.08.2016.
            T-50-10 - docking of the fuselage 01.03., Docking GLASSES 20.04. transfer to LIS 30.06., change - 30.10.2016.
            T-50-11 - docking of the fuselage 30.05., Docking GLASSES 30.07., Transfer to LIS 30.09., Delivery - 30.01.2017.

            therefore, we see that the T-50-1C in 2017 has not even been planned yet, that is, not only the transfer to the troops, as you put it, but even military tests, which last from a year to two, are not discussed.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 14: 21
              14
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              With the native Prat-WhItney F-119 engine, the plane took off only in 2010. And to this day, neither this engine, nor its modifications for "B" and "C" do not cause problems and work like a clock.

              This is somewhat inaccurate.
              A US Department of Defense internal oversight body found 61 non-compliance with Pratt & Whitney engines. Another agency, the US General Audit Office, after its own inspection, also reported serious problems with Pratt & Whitney engines (a division of United Technologies Corp.), the performance of which turned out to be two times lower than expected. “... Engine reliability is low, and it is still very far from compliance with the goals of the program. <…> Solving new problems and improving the reliability of the engine may require additional design changes and re-equipment, ”says the department's report.
              1. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 6 February 2016 18: 12
                -5
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                This is somewhat inaccurate.
                A US Department of Defense internal oversight body found 61 non-compliance with Pratt & Whitney engines. Another agency, the US General Audit Office, after its own inspection, also reported serious problems with Pratt & Whitney engines (a division of United Technologies Corp.), the performance of which turned out to be two times lower than expected. “... Engine reliability is low, and it is still very far from compliance with the goals of the program. <…> Solving new problems and improving the reliability of the engine may require additional design changes and re-equipment, ”says the department's report.
                what year is the publication?
                1. your1970
                  your1970 6 February 2016 22: 58
                  10
                  According to the head of the US Department of Defense Testing and Evaluation Department, Michael Gilmore, “the plane will not be fully operational by the planned date - July 2017 of the year”.
                  He noted that “the main problems of the vessel have long been known - this is the incompleteness of the IT skeleton of the fighter - an autonomous information management system, the instability of avionics in the Block 3F phase, insufficient reliability and maintainability of the engine. "
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 7 February 2016 09: 34
                  +3
                  Quote: Aron Zaavi
                  what year is the publication?

                  If I am not mistaken, April 2015.
            2. 73bor
              73bor 6 February 2016 16: 14
              +4
              Next year there will be, you and your friends don’t even compare there another level of theft, we are just CHILDREN in this, genes are affecting! It doesn’t mean that it’s effective, the pilot with the superpermissive can’t turn his head, but when bailing out this head in the helmet will remain, but without the body, you need to cut a new jumpsuit, damn money again!
            3. Remy_Argo
              Remy_Argo 6 February 2016 17: 52
              +4
              You can argue ad infinitum, but as anti-aircraft gunners say:
              "If we do not fly, then no one will fly"
              SAM S-300V4 below
            4. Ezhaak
              Ezhaak 7 February 2016 13: 23
              0
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              In terms of complexity, avionics is an unrivaled machine.

              And here the fact is categorically ignored, the more complex the avionics, the greater the chance of failure!
            5. Genry
              Genry 8 February 2016 16: 00
              +1
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              With the native Prat-WhItney F-119 engine, the plane took off only in 2010. And to this day, neither this engine, nor its modifications for "B" and "C" do not cause problems and work like a clock.

              Specialists say the opposite:
              http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/142927/the-long-history-of
              -f_35-engine-problems.html
              The shoulder blades are falling ...
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              that the T-50-1S in 2017 has not even been planned yet, that is, not only the transfer to the troops, as you put it, but even the military tests, which last from a year to two, are not yet discussed.

              And where is the information on the adoption of the F-35. Only enthusiastic praise, so as not to think.
            6. nikolay_major
              nikolay_major 9 February 2016 13: 44
              +1
              I hasten to upset you, on KNAAZ there is already a small-scale production of this aircraft. In particular for weapons developers. In 2016, mass production will begin.
              And the fact that you indicated T-50-11 - means that R&D is not finished because we have product 30 (a new engine for PAK FA) and in 2017 it is planned to commission it to work with the aircraft fuselage; an aircraft with this engine will go into production only in 2018, before that AL-41F1 will be put (Analogue of the SU-engine 35C with increased traction)

              And at the expense of F-35 they have long said that the project is utopian. Even American engineers said that it would be cheaper to produce 3 different aircraft - than one multi-purpose one.

              In terms of complexity, avionics is an unrivaled machine


              There is nothing good about it - the more complicated it is - the more expensive and not more reliable it is. For example, complex avionics can be easily drowned out by electronic warfare systems because it is more vulnerable.
          2. NIKNN
            NIKNN 6 February 2016 12: 08
            13
            as with the Soviet MiG-3 fighter, created on the eve of the Second World War

            The author, do not touch those MiG-3s, just this aircraft was developed according to the specific concept of the interceptor, but removed it from production for other reasons. hi
            As for the F-35, then nothing that goes unnoticed. Some R&D of what they cost, by the way, they cost just as much as it costs (a pun came out) repeat
            Specifically, the F-35 certainly pleases us if you do not take into account the developments that will emerge in the following products ... request

            But Russian experts say that a good plane. And it is clearly visible on radars, and often breaks, and gets off easily. In a word, for us it is a good plane.

            1. sivuch
              sivuch 7 February 2016 00: 32
              +3
              I agree about Mig-3. Let's say the battle over England just took place at high altitudes
          3. Pimply
            Pimply 6 February 2016 12: 11
            +6
            Quote: Ami du peuple
            Such a "worker", sho pepets. As far as I remember, the first F-35 took off ten years ago. Since then, the terms of its adoption have been constantly postponed, and the cost of the program has only increased. Compare with our PAK FA, which flew for the first time in 2010, and serial deliveries of its VKS are planned from next year. I will note that with absolutely incomparable budget of our and US projects.

            The first flight is December 15 2006. And? The first flight with YF-22 was 29 of September 1990 of the year, with F-22: 7 of September 1997 of the year. And the start of operation is only 15 December 2005 year.
            Serious projects - this is not to piss under the bush. The design part of the T-50 began in the 2002 year. Americans are de facto developing three different aircraft. At the same time, ours will go to the series in 17, but no one says that in this very series everything will be completed to the perfect look. It is still not clear what is with engines, with weapons systems, etc. As a result, at the beginning there will be the same small series as the F-35. It's just that the Americans have it clearly indicated.
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 6 February 2016 12: 18
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              The design part of the T-50 began in 2002. The Americans are de facto developing three different aircraft. At the same time, ours will go into series in the 17th, but no one says that in this very series everything will be completed to the perfect look. It is still not clear what is with engines, with weapons systems, etc. As a result, at the beginning there will be the same small series as the F-35. It's just that the Americans have it clearly indicated.
              Well, about the engines, some information has passed.
              The first prototypes of the new engine for the fifth-generation PAK FA aircraft will be ready by 2017, told RIA Novosti Deputy General Designer of the United Engine Corporation (UEC) Victor Belousov.
              - So far, only demonstration engines are ready, on the basis of which this prototype, "product 30", will be created. I think the first flights with him will take place in 2018, said Belousov.
              According to the main parameters, the new power plants on 15-18 will be percent more efficient than the AL-41F1 engine, which PAK FA is equipped with now, said the head of the UEC Vladislav Masalov. In particular, they will provide cruising supersonic mode and have a lower life cycle cost.
            2. Altona
              Altona 6 February 2016 12: 50
              +3
              Quote: Pimply
              The first flight is December 15 2006. And? The first flight with YF-22 was 29 of September 1990 of the year, with F-22: 7 of September 1997 of the year. And the start of operation is only 15 December 2005 year.
              Serious projects - this is not to piss under the bush. The design part of the T-50 began in the 2002 year. Americans are de facto developing three different aircraft. At the same time, ours will go to the series in 17, but no one says that in this very series everything will be completed to the perfect look. It is still not clear what is with engines, with weapons systems, etc. As a result, at the beginning there will be the same small series as the F-35. It's just that the Americans have it clearly indicated.

              ----------------------------
              Your arguments are always at the level of "I am the main exhibit at the Van Gogh exhibition." How will IT fight and fly? And not with indigenous tribes, but under the full program with a comparable and dangerous enemy both in the air and ground air defense. Despite the new buns, this is a faint shadow of former greatness and a huge obelisk of future shame.
              1. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 6 February 2016 13: 34
                +1
                Quote: Altona

                Your arguments are always at the level of "I am the main exhibit at the Van Gogh exhibition." How will IT fight and fly? And not with indigenous tribes, but under the full program with a comparable and dangerous enemy both in the air and ground air defense. Despite the new buns, this is a faint shadow of former greatness and a huge obelisk of future shame.

                Well, what is your statement supported by? Words alone.
                1. Altona
                  Altona 6 February 2016 13: 53
                  +7
                  Quote: Aron Zaavi
                  Well, what is your statement supported by? Words alone.

                  ----------------------
                  Should I repeat what is written in the article? That the claimed characteristics in the form of speed and aerobatic properties are poor.
                  1. Aaron Zawi
                    Aaron Zawi 6 February 2016 14: 03
                    -1
                    Quote: Altona

                    Should I repeat what is written in the article? That the claimed characteristics in the form of speed and aerobatic properties are poor.

                    the article writes nonsense with an attempt to fit the fifth generation under the fourth. I'm not saying that at the time of designing the fourth generation there were no all-round missiles for BVB (10-30km), but no one even thought about missiles for DVB (120-180km). Not to mention the stealth capabilities of fifth-generation cars. Modern radar and electronic warfare equipment, all that will change the face of air combat is unrecognizable.
                    1. Altona
                      Altona 6 February 2016 14: 20
                      11
                      Quote: Aron Zaavi
                      the article writes nonsense with an attempt to fit the fifth generation under the fourth. I'm not saying that at the time of designing the fourth generation there were no all-round missiles for BVB (10-30km), but no one even thought about missiles for DVB (120-180km). Not to mention the stealth capabilities of fifth-generation cars. Modern radar and electronic warfare equipment, all that will change the face of air combat is unrecognizable.

                      --------------------------
                      The article says what is written. What is designed and produced in the amount of 174 units is no less nonsense and also cannot fend off all the old and new challenges. Moreover, the cost of this product is ugly high, for comparable and less money, shock space systems were previously developed. You can give as many technical details as you like, but believe me, no microcircuits, display, helmets with Gorilla Glass, ABS plastic handles, titanium bearing beams, new reinforced fenders and nano-dyes, no engines, programs can cost so prohibitively expensive.In the plane there has long been a respectable share of sawing. The Australians generally questioned the feasibility of this brainchild, counting in the surrounding countries the number of Sukhoi and their Chinese clones.
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply 6 February 2016 15: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Altona
                        That designed and released in the amount of 174 units represents no less nonsense

                        And what exactly is nonsense? Can be more?
                      2. d.antonov
                        d.antonov 6 February 2016 15: 29
                        +1
                        They called into question, but for some reason spent 700 on the transfer of avionics in Australia.
                        Australia has signed a contract for 72 aircraft, a plant for engine maintenance for the entire Asia-Pacific Region is under construction /
                        What doubts? Carlo Copp? laughing
                      3. mav1971
                        mav1971 7 February 2016 15: 55
                        +3
                        Quote: Altona
                        Moreover, the cost of this product is ugly high, for comparable and less money, shock space systems were previously developed. You can give as many technical details as you like, but believe me, no microcircuits, display, helmets with Gorilla Glass, ABS plastic handles, titanium bearing beams, new reinforced fenders and nano-dyes, no engines, programs can cost so prohibitively expensive.In the plane there has long been a respectable share of sawing.


                        I was always amazed at the unpopularity of such judgments.

                        They see the finished product and believe that it is its contents that are the real value.

                        I will give an example from the side.
                        The Intel processor has a prime cost of materials used in it of the order of 2-3 dollars for modern money.
                        But.
                        Building a factory on the 0.65 manufacturing process cost 2-3 a billion dollars.
                        The development of production technologies for this factory is also billions.
                        For the manufacture of new lines, it is necessary to create new machines with the required quality of accuracy. Their development and production require more money.
                        Under these developments, new material science research is needed.
                        Personnel training, salaries, deductions.
                        Creating one "some nafig" processor - there is an effect of the qualitative growth of technologies in many others. even seemingly non-adjacent areas.
                        Type of membrane technology. For air purification for the required purposes.
                        Plus, a break-in of technology at first, until the percentage of output of suitable products rises from the level of 2-3% to the level of 89-90%
                        And the bill is already going to tens of billions.
                        And in order to be in the subject, technological processes must be completely transferred to a qualitatively new level approximately once every 3-4 of the year.

                        And you come to the store and think. as? how damn such a chip. albeit a big one, can it cost 200-300 dollars?
                        Speculators! Cut it!

                        After all, you do not think about that. in order to produce F-35 everything changes.
                        Qualitative needs are changing - accordingly, new machines and lines are being developed and created.
                        New conductors, new insulating materials, new matrices for displays, new paints with new consumer characteristics - for everything you need to create technologies, process technology, equipment from scratch and work it all out to the level required by the customer.
                        The creation of the same helmet is an almost completely new direction in electronics.
                        Not from science fiction films. And the real one. and do not compare this helmet with that. what goes on in client electronics disguised as a virtual reality helmet. This is a kindergarten.
                        The same need to cover the aircraft in the field with new paint for 30 minutes - makes it necessary to develop both paint and equipment from scratch.
                        And this is precisely the very hundreds of billions of dollars distributed across all American and non-American manufacturers.
                      4. Altona
                        Altona 7 February 2016 16: 19
                        +2
                        Quote: mav1971
                        After all, you do not think about that. in order to produce F-35 everything changes.
                        Qualitative needs are changing - accordingly, new machines and lines are being developed and created.
                        New conductors, new insulating materials, new matrices for displays, new paints with new consumer characteristics - for everything you need to create technologies, process technology, equipment from scratch and work it all out to the level required by the customer.
                        The creation of the same helmet is an almost completely new direction in electronics.
                        Not from science fiction films. And the real one. and do not compare this helmet with that. what goes on in client electronics disguised as a virtual reality helmet. This is a kindergarten.
                        The same need to cover the aircraft in the field with new paint for 30 minutes - makes it necessary to develop both paint and equipment from scratch.
                        And this is precisely the very hundreds of billions of dollars distributed across all American and non-American manufacturers.

                        ------------------------
                        No, of course, I never thought about it. Because I have not been a technologist and designer all my life. And when I was studying at the institute, my sister worked on some secret software in Arzamas, where they designed electronics for the Buran, and in general half of the Gorky region plowed for this Buran with their intellect. And I don’t know that we developed impact-resistant glasses, not liquid americans, and we supply them impact-resistant glass of 150kg per cm, which they call by marketing names. And I don’t know that the architecture of the Elbrus processor looks suspiciously like the Pentium. I also don’t know that Bill Gates lured our programmers from Novosibirsk to him in 1992, who wrote to him with stunning Windows-95, and he became rich. And he paid them 50 thousand a year in total and gave them 50 thousand shares. So I do not see work from scratch, as well as the stealth technology itself. I can argue here for a long time, because this airplane has been discussed for a long time, but no one saw it in battle like the Raptor.
                      5. Pimply
                        Pimply 7 February 2016 17: 16
                        +3
                        Quote: mav1971
                        And you come to the store and think. as? how damn such a chip. albeit a big one, can it cost 200-300 dollars?
                        Speculators! Cut it!

                        Do not try to reason the fool. He lives in his fantasy world
                      6. to persuade
                        to persuade 9 February 2016 04: 02
                        0
                        I once read an article in the Moto magazine about what the real cost of an iron horse is worth thousands of 20 greens, because I love motorcycles, so, one insider give an interview in which he did not speak in detail about suspension technologies, systems stabilization, all kinds of sensors - all that required a lot of engineering intervention. - Everything that you see, looking at this fiery red bike that is behind me, I bought for 20 thousand, but it’s not worth it, its cost is a maximum of 2 thousand, whatever technologies are used in it, they cost a lot at the time of introduction into production, and then the conveyor runs, and all these lotions and stray that marketers feed you when selling an iron horse (any technology product, for that matter) are needed to get money out of your pocket .. something like that. And consider it a cut or an overpayment for the fact that it’s already not worth so much, I think it’s not worth it, I’m a buyer.
                  2. DarkRiver
                    DarkRiver 7 February 2016 17: 36
                    +3
                    Quote: Aaron Zawi
                    Not to mention the stealth capabilities of fifth-generation cars.

                    A question to all fans of the F-35. Just wondering how the Americans intend to implement the main concept of this fighter "first saw, fired, and fled", for example, in the event of a situation when it has to strike in the depths of Chinese, Russian, that is, even Iranian territory? Even the much less visible Sentinel failed to complete its INTELLIGENT mission over Iran, let alone the F-35 strike, which would glow like a searchlight on radar compared to the Sentinel drone.
                    1. mav1971
                      mav1971 7 February 2016 20: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: DarkRiver
                      Quote: Aaron Zawi
                      Not to mention the stealth capabilities of fifth-generation cars.

                      A question to all fans of the F-35. Just wondering how the Americans intend to implement the main concept of this fighter "first saw, fired, and fled", for example, in the event of a situation when it has to strike in the depths of Chinese, Russian, that is, even Iranian territory? Even the much less visible Sentinel failed to complete its INTELLIGENT mission over Iran, let alone the F-35 strike, which would glow like a searchlight on radar compared to the Sentinel drone.



                      The first does not mean a specific pilot.
                      Americans create weapons of network-centric wars.
                      I already wrote more than once - you need to see that individualism is over.
                      This has been proven by many for a long time.

                      There is a pack. All-aspect, all-mode.
                      Real-time data exchange between all military branches.
                      As an example, the simplest.
                      The equipment of the unobtrusive drone detected the radiation of the surveillance radar of the mobile ZRAK of the Pantsir type at a distance twice exceeding oncoming detection. Both the command and the data for launching the rocket on this Shell are transmitted to a completely different aircraft. Flying "devil is where". And he launches rockets. Not even knowing that this very ZRAK is standing somewhere. He himself does not see him personally, does not identify him. But he knows that there is this and that - he is. Sees on the tactical screen.
                      A single information battlefield is called.
                      This is the basis of the potential of F-35.
                      and no matter who fills this very field.
                      Whether satellites, Avaxes, drones, air or ground, special forces groups or tank units.
                      The overall picture is formed in real time.

                      We must understand that the modern military doctrine of tactical combat, expressed extremely simplistically, sounds like this:
                      "And the essence of this fable is that a flock of hares pi ... t a lion!"
                      And another term.
                      A strong, trained fighter is cooler than the crowd of average fighters. Except when it is not a mob of rabble, but a group prepared in advance for joint action.
                      They are all mediocre, but they have all the labors painted and they work as a single organism and therefore significantly stronger.


                      So the F-35, average in characteristics, goes into production, inferior in speed to someone, inferior to someone in maneuverability, someone in armament.


                      But. In the event of a real clash of groups (namely groups, not singles), F-35 will have a clear chance of winning.
                      Just due to the very scheme of group interaction at the level of the concept of work of avionics and the corresponding tactics of this very concept.

                      And as I understand it, striking targets that you don’t see at all (but they are) will be the main doctrine of using such aircraft.

                      I'm sorry. that I give such philistine examples. But I don’t know how it is very intelligible for everyone to explain that the era of Pokryshkin, as a vivid example of individual qualities, is ending.
                    2. DarkRiver
                      DarkRiver 7 February 2016 22: 15
                      +1
                      I'm sorry. that I give such philistine examples. But I don’t know how it is very intelligible for everyone to explain that the era of Pokryshkin, as a vivid example of individual qualities, is ending.

                      I understand all this perfectly, and I also read these magical advertising brochures for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But, what you described will probably work against countries with a small territory and weak air defense. Now imagine the F-35, which needs to strike at Beijing or Nizhny Novgorod, with a high degree of probability it will have to act over enemy territory where it will shine like a Christmas tree on all radars, incl. from very unfavorable angles. There is no need to exaggerate the possibilities of stealth technology, you can discover anything if you set a goal. And what would this clumsy and weakly armed F-35 be worth if spotted? Technology has changed a lot since Vietnam, but the general paradigm of American strategists is the same. Then the Americans planned to shoot down enemy planes from afar using V-V missiles, in which they greatly succeeded, now with the help of mythologized stealth, but something tells me in a serious conflict, with a serious country everything will again come down to a dog dump like in Vietnam and here- then all the "compromise" design decisions made for the sake of stealth technology will appear.
                    3. Pimply
                      Pimply 7 February 2016 22: 34
                      0
                      Quote: DarkRiver
                      And what will this clumsy and weakly armed F-35 cost if it is spotted?

                      In fact, he is neither one nor the other.

                      Quote: DarkRiver
                      with a high degree of probability he will have to act over the enemy territory where he will shine like a Christmas tree on all radars including from very unfavorable angles.

                      ??
                    4. DarkRiver
                      DarkRiver 7 February 2016 22: 55
                      +1
                      Supersound without afterburner can? In terms of maneuverability, the Su-35 is not inferior to the mebe? That's why it’s clumsy. Tell me, how many weapons can I carry in the internal suspension? External for obvious reasons does not count. That is why lightly armed.
                      ??

                      A little hint. Sentinel. Iran. They spotted and planted. Or are you one of those romantics who believes in Viennese forest fairy tales about the EPR like a golf ball?
                    5. Pimply
                      Pimply 8 February 2016 00: 54
                      -1
                      Quote: DarkRiver
                      Supersonic without afterburner can?

                      Actually, it can. Although here we are probably talking about cruising oversound, right? A long time ago yes, maybe. Only this is a very controversial mode, which puts the aircraft resource, and which in fact is not so important for the fight. But yes, maybe this was said long ago. Specifically, on the 2012, the fighter in the F35A version is capable of flying at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 (o is in 1,2 times the speed of sound) for ~ 240 km without turning on the format camera. With the advent of all-advanced rockets, the ultra-maneuverability is generally controversial, especially given the fact that the most effective speeds in combat are subsonic. It is certainly spectacular at the airshow, but in reality. Do you know how many pilots and cars lost due to loss of consciousness by the pilot from overload?
                      In F-35, super-maneuverability was replaced by wide-radius spherical information awareness and all-round rocket armament
                      Quote: DarkRiver
                      By maneuverability Su-35 is not inferior to meyby?

                      More than likely not. Look at the F-35 video for fun.

                      Quote: DarkRiver
                      That's why neklyuzhiy. Tell me how much weapons can carry in the internal suspension?

                      Let's
                    6. DarkRiver
                      DarkRiver 8 February 2016 02: 07
                      +2
                      Actually, maybe

                      1,2 Mach on cruising, with a maximum speed of 1,6? That I beg you)) Well, without weapons and with a minimum supply of fuel it may be able to crank out such an advertising trick, but Eurofighter can do it, that's where the reservation is about 240 km. In short:
                      "Although the Pratt & Whitney F135 F-35 engine was not designed to achieve a supercruise capability, [14] the F-35 is able to maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using afterburners. "Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise



                      Let's

                      Look at your own picture carefully. You see at least one long-range missile in there. like AGM-88? Nope, only bombs. Doesn't fit, right? Sadness. Well, how are we going to implement the "shot from afar - dumped" concept? With bombs flying a maximum of 15-20 km? From 15-10 km and rather miserable radar stations will be brought in.
                      But in the PAK-FA long-range missiles will enter, we have a barn be healthy there, bebebe))

                      Only this is a very controversial regime that lands an aircraft resource

                      A strange statement, in fact, this mode is interesting because it allows you to fly in supersonic mode with gentle engine modes.

                      In F-35, super-maneuverability was replaced by wide-radius spherical information awareness and all-round rocket armament

                      Oh yeah ... replaced ... but they didn’t forget to fix the 6-barrel Vulcan, and it’s obvious - they are preparing to fight from afar ... An old Vietnamese song, how many American planes were there that were going to fight from afar? 3500 seems.

                      More than likely not. Look at the F-35 video for fun.

                      There is a video where the F-35 rotates a pancake without slowing down like a Su-35?
                    7. Operator
                      Operator 8 February 2016 09: 54
                      0
                      A short-range all-aspect air-to-air missile launched into the rear hemisphere (with a 180-degree turn) loses 50 percent in flight distance.

                      The super-maneuverable 35-degree pancake-deployed Su-360 will shoot down the F-35 at twice its range.

                      Those. Su-35 in melee has absolute superiority over the F-35.
            3. Pimply
              Pimply 7 February 2016 22: 33
              -1
              Quote: mav1971
              I'm sorry. that I give such philistine examples. But I don’t know how it is very intelligible for everyone to explain that the era of Pokryshkin, as a vivid example of individual qualities, is ending.

              Not so much to the absolute - but overall very true. You are minuscule people stupid
            4. aksakal
              aksakal 8 February 2016 01: 43
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              Not so much to the absolute - but overall very true. You are minuscule people stupid
              - Look at the opinion of "tovarischi from Israel" of yourself. And how they reason with a clever look, as if they have their own aircraft production laughing Reason, reason, but what you have been told is what you will fly on! laughing
              Quote: mav1971
              I'm sorry. that I bring such philistine examples
              - surprised by network centrism laughing When the Russians create a layered air defense system, this topic has long been mastered there with the transfer of the necessary information and, in general, with the creation of a single information field - and here, the MAV prishov and with a smart look, tells us Papuan natives about the discovery.
              Tomorrow, with the same look, MAV will tell what advanced Americans have discovered swarm intelligence and now be afraid, because a bunch of micro-UAVs from amers will be terrible and invincible. Only he himself MAV will not know that these algorithms were used in Soviet anti-ship missiles to reliably defeat the enemy AUG. It's just that the conscientious ones didn't think of calling these algorithms "swarm" for PR purposes, they just made good anti-ship missiles.
              Quote: mav1971
              There is a pack. All-aspect, all-mode

              You're trying to heal us about swarm algorithms, right? So upset - you already see, this topic was shawan in the days of the USSR. Well, somewhere in the amers more elaborated, but this does not change the essence. Both the plane and the idea itself sucks completely and cut the same. The T-50 is an individually strong aircraft, but believe me, it will be able to unite in a swarm with other aircraft in the same way. And in the struggle of the middle-aged swarm with the swarm (namely, a swarm, and not an uncoordinated bunch of strong men), I will put strong men on a swarm of strong men
              MAV, you don’t need to hold us here for fools and apologize falsely here, this topic has long been shavan, but somehow the Soviet anti-ship missiles with such algorithms do not cost billions, and here the Americans used in the airplane - and not even billions, but trillions. Amers is a common thing. They will come up with artificial neural networks (ANNs) and try to pair software based on these ANNs for crazy loot laughing Although these ANNs are not much different from conventional algorithms in terms of cost, and many problems could have been solved using conventional algorithms, no, the Americans will still try, and this is a swindle in their usual style.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 6 February 2016 14: 33
    0
    Quote: Altona
    Your arguments are always at the level of "I am the main exhibit at the Van Gogh exhibition." How will IT fight and fly? And not with indigenous tribes, but under the full program with a comparable and dangerous enemy both in the air and ground air defense. Despite the new buns, this is a faint shadow of former greatness and a huge obelisk of future shame.

    Well, for example, in conjunction with a UAV, my little aggressive friend. The software architecture allows this. At the F-35's, there is a wide range of weapons, and if you read something besides cheers-patriotic articles, you would know that he and everything are OK with maneuverability, and not a single device has been lost in 10 for years - which in general an extremely rare case, especially with the already quite decent series in 170 machines.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 6 February 2016 15: 26
      +1
      Why should a fighter-bomber pilot plant another UAV?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 February 2016 20: 02
        +1
        Quote: kugelblitz
        Why should a fighter-bomber pilot plant another UAV?


        Then that allows you to immediately increase the radius of one aircraft and turn it into the center of a single combat system.
        1. Altona
          Altona 7 February 2016 16: 26
          +1
          Quote: Pimply
          Then that allows you to immediately increase the radius of one aircraft and turn it into the center of a single combat system.

          --------------------------
          And the pilot with aerobatics does not need to vomit, gain speed, load his body with extreme sports. The drone flies, bombs, knocks it down with air defense and to hell with it, the main station, the womb is safe. And the range of missiles is now expanding for everyone. But not the fact that the F-35 will be able to get away from all missiles with an aerobatic maneuver.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 7 February 2016 17: 17
            -1
            Quote: Altona
            --------------------------
            And the pilot with aerobatics does not need to vomit, gain speed, load his body with extreme sports. The drone flies, bombs, knocks it down with air defense and to hell with it, the main station, the womb is safe. And the range of missiles is now expanding for everyone. But not the fact that the F-35 will be able to get away from all missiles with an aerobatic maneuver.

            Is not a fact. But for this he has many other features before he is forced to leave by aerobatic maneuver
          2. mav1971
            mav1971 7 February 2016 20: 36
            0
            Quote: Altona
            ... But not the fact that the F-35 will be able to get away from all missiles with an aerobatic maneuver.


            Why would he enter the direct contact zone?
            If his equipment receives all the information from a bunch of sources up to passive detection and launch missiles significantly in advance?
            Without direct own target designation?
            He shot "in the dark" and turned ...
            And the rocket went on inertial and then turned on its active seeker at the right time.
            Why the right moment? Yes, because on the same AMRAAM a two-way communication system is already being installed. And it is quite possible to correct and redirect in flight.

            And when there is an AFAR with a broadband and noise-like signal on your plane, then you see, but you are not yet.
            And you can control the rocket. but they haven’t seen you yet.
            The concept is different.
            Switch brains from DOSAAF flying clubs to modern computer games.

            For former gambling adolescents grew up, graduated from military academies and colleges, occupied important posts such as the Rand Corporation, came to the American army and reconfigure its tactics.
          3. Operator
            Operator 7 February 2016 22: 00
            +1
            An AMRAAM missile launched at a maneuvering target is always corrected in flight via a radio channel, which means that there is radio emission from the F-22 and the Su-35 onboard RTR system will detect the "invisible" one or two times.

            So switch brains from the level of teenage gamers laughing
          4. mav1971
            mav1971 7 February 2016 22: 27
            0
            Quote: Operator
            An AMRAAM missile launched at a maneuvering target is always corrected in flight via a radio channel, which means that there is radio emission from the F-22 and the Su-35 onboard RTR system will detect the "invisible" one or two times.

            So switch brains from the level of teenage gamers laughing


            Well, well.
            With Version D what to do then?

            1. In the case of the F-22, I have always been amazed at how quickly people on the forums "detect" the broadband and noise-like signals of modern radars.
            Like the one used on the F-22.
            For stationary RTR systems, this is the most difficult task. but with us it turns out to be "easy and natural" ...

            2. Correction of the rocket in version D does not necessarily come from the aircraft that launched it.
            The launch can be based on the Avax target designation, and tracking on a maneuverable target can also be carried out by Avax.
          5. Operator
            Operator 7 February 2016 23: 29
            -1
            1. This is not about detecting the noise-like signal of the F-22 radar, but about the direction-finding of the F-22 radio commands for aiming AMRAAM missiles on the cruise flight.

            2. You can link to the fact that the radio tracking of AMRAAM rockets of modification D on the cruise flight can be carried out by AWACS AWACS aircraft?
          6. mav1971
            mav1971 8 February 2016 07: 05
            0
            Quote: Operator
            1. This is not about detecting the noise-like signal of the F-22 radar, but about the direction-finding of the F-22 radio commands for aiming AMRAAM missiles on the cruise flight.

            2. You can link to the fact that the radio tracking of AMRAAM rockets of modification D on the cruise flight can be carried out by AWACS AWACS aircraft?


            1. as far as I understand, radio commands are delivered not by a separate channel of the radio transmitter, but by an integrated packet in the pulse of the radar itself.
            And version D was optimized for the operation of the F-22, F-35 radar.

            2. Accompaniment with AWACS from much earlier rocket versions.
            Search.
            FSUE "GosNIIAS", STATE AND PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF CLASS WEAPONS
            "AIR - AIR" FOR THE 5TH GENERATION AIRCRAFT, Under the general editorship of Academician of the RAS E.A. Fedosov.
            2004 year !!!
          7. Operator
            Operator 8 February 2016 10: 23
            0
            1. Indeed, the plans for future work to improve the centimeter radar F-22 and F-35 stated endowing them with additional functions such as RTR, EW and data transmission.
            Even after the implementation of these plans, no one has canceled the physical principle of detecting a working radar from its radiation in any mode, including LPI, because the radar power of three orders of magnitude exceeds the radiofone power of the airspace.

            2. Radio command AMRAAM missiles (optimized for centimeter radar F-22 and F-35) from the aircraft AWACS (equipped with a decimeter radar) is impossible by definition.
            As for the opinion of the GOSNIIAS model 2004 of the year - according to the model 2016 of the year, no one in the USA plans to turn the AWACS aircraft also into a fighter directing missiles at the enemy.
            As they say, God forbid a single AWACS'y (glowing in the radio range for 1000 km) survive in battle as an AWACS aircraft, and not try to replace the flocks of "Predators", "Lightning", "Eagles", "War Falcons" and other partridges laughing
          8. mav1971
            mav1971 8 February 2016 22: 22
            0
            Quote: Operator
            1. Indeed, the plans for future work to improve the centimeter radar F-22 and F-35 stated endowing them with additional functions such as RTR, EW and data transmission.
            Even after the implementation of these plans, no one has canceled the physical principle of detecting a working radar from its radiation in any mode, including LPI, because the radar power of three orders of magnitude exceeds the radiofone power of the airspace.

            Detecting its operation in LPI mode is possible. But guaranteed from a distance of 30 km, and ideal conditions for RTR with 50 km.
            And compare this to the 400 km detection of conventional slit using ALR-94.

            Quote: Operator

            2. Radio command AMRAAM missiles (optimized for centimeter radar F-22 and F-35) from the aircraft AWACS (equipped with a decimeter radar) is impossible by definition.


            What do you mean?
            Those. in your opinion it is unrealistic to place receivers of different ranges in the nozzle part and on the trailing edges of the rudders? Are they so huge? Well, look at the diagram. There the transceiver located in the nozzle part has the size of a matchbox ...
            simplified link-xnumx is worth it.

            AMRAAM, starting with the C3 version, has already been unified with all types of US and partly NATO aircraft. Regardless of the types and frequencies of their radar.



            Quote: Operator

            As for the opinion of the GOSNIIAS model 2004 of the year - according to the model 2016 of the year, no one in the USA plans to turn the AWACS aircraft also into a fighter directing missiles at the enemy.


            He can do this from the end of the 90 of the last century.
            Since the introduction of the Jitids Link-16.
            And by the way.
            Americans plan to equip their AWACS missiles. See the MALI project.
  • otter.1
    otter.1 24 February 2016 13: 55
    0
    It’s you switching your brains, We’re not a banana republic for you, and don’t enter the zone; And I’ll tell you a secret, we also have means of suppression, or have you forgotten? To listen to you, he will fly over San Francisco and from there he will wet the Eurasian continent with drones (By the way, We do not see your stealth technology well, with our radars) and we will try to repel the attack with slingshots in our hands. The MiG-31, when it was with AFAR, held a frontline of 800 km and gave priority to goals for Sushki in zero in real time. So do not bast our cabbage soup gentlemen.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 7 February 2016 00: 35
    +6
    Yes, nothing with maneuverability nor OK. Horizontal - at the level of the late F-16, accelerating and rate of climb are not so hot.
    And what, after the fire, that Lightning flew again?
  • Altona
    Altona 7 February 2016 16: 23
    +2
    Quote: Pimply
    Well, for example, in conjunction with a UAV, my little aggressive friend. The software architecture allows this. At the F-35's, there is a wide range of weapons, and if you read something besides cheers-patriotic articles, you would know that he and everything are OK with maneuverability, and not a single device has been lost in 10 for years - which in general an extremely rare case, especially with the already quite decent series in 170 machines.

    ---------------------------
    Of course it flies, I don’t argue. And the car drives better if it is hung with TEBS electronics, which controls any movement of the body by feedback on the behavior of the suspension and brakes. And the engine with a small volume can now be accelerated by turbocharging. Progress is coming, who is arguing.
  • d.antonov
    d.antonov 6 February 2016 15: 27
    -1
    Silently it will fight and fly.
    Why are you sending read an article, a collection of nonsense?
    Go to the site f-16.no
    or defense sense, in the f-35 branch.
    There are enough people working in the defense industry of different countries, you can ask, they will answer you. Everything has already been worked out there 50 times.
    For some reason, the F-35 is cherished only by couch analysts and the yellow press, while pilots and people who work directly in the defense industry do not.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 6 February 2016 15: 32
      +4
      How many people on Russian forums write specifically dealing with the latest technology, about its operation characteristics and characteristics?
      1. d.antonov
        d.antonov 6 February 2016 15: 42
        0
        And there are people dealing with technology in real life.
        And with planes and submarines.
        Another thing is that they all cannot tell. But they can clarify something, especially if it’s frank nonsense.
        And yes, those people on this forum who are related to real airplanes disagree with many nonsense about f-35
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 6 February 2016 16: 09
          +4
          There is data on which national security depends, and non-illusive punishment shines for responsible people for excessive talkativeness.
          And in general, on such sites, there’s just no point in looking for the truth, it’s easier to find it among haters. I even buy consumer electronics like this, having previously studied all the negativity.
    2. Altona
      Altona 6 February 2016 17: 01
      12
      Quote: d.antonov
      Go to the site f-16.no
      or defense sense, in the f-35 branch.
      There are enough people working in the defense industry of different countries, you can ask, they will answer you. Everything has already been worked out there 50 times.

      ----------------------
      This is how we are discussing: go to the site, go to the forum, follow the link, give a link. We play the entire war on the Internet. Technical details, no aircraft was lost. In what mode do they fly? What techniques are practiced in flight? I understand the Israelis. They have a Middle Eastern theater of operations, it is bright and clean, there you can sharpen electronic buns for your local tasks, tie software to a drone, we smoke, it fights with stupid Arabs, everything is great. When these wonders fall under the sights of a serious adversary, "Houston, we have problems" begins. Radars go off, diapers fill up, exceptional Marines kneel. And so everything is fine. The beams are stretched on the stands, the software for the cannon is written, the chassis hydraulics are reinforced, the explosives fan is finished, the helmets provide the "looking zru", the radar with over-the-horizon vision, the missile with an additional guidance channel.
      1. mvg
        mvg 7 February 2016 15: 43
        -3
        Yes, as it were, the chosen ones fought with the Soviet guys. And not with green lieutenants, but aces. And, how to put it mildly, they carried them out with a "dry" account.
        PS: What does Houston have to do with it? Maybe still to school? Despite quarantine?
        1. Altona
          Altona 7 February 2016 17: 11
          +2
          Quote: mvg
          PS: What does Houston have to do with it? Maybe still to school? Despite quarantine?

          ---------------------------------
          It's probably a little late in school, after 46 years and a technical institute, where hydraulics was studied. The phrase "Houston, we have a problem" is an Internet meme for unforeseen problems. I read a lot about the F-35, and I write my comments, relying on memory. So go to the relevant sites yourself and read how the size and sweep of the wing affects the aerobatic properties, see what layout this aircraft has, there are 3D screenshots on the net. There are engine characteristics, it is really good, but it is one. And there is a lot of things. , but to be a shock, you need to hang the BC on the outer points of the suspension. And the fox's invisibility, as well as aerobatics. The boom there is titanium inside, in itself a masterpiece, titanium is generally an uncomfortable metal to process. The front landing gear was rather weak, the plane was “goat” when landing, with hydraulics. It's dangerous in the deck version, you don't have to hook the air arrestor and all that. Here's what I read and saw, that's what I write.
          1. mvg
            mvg 10 February 2016 17: 12
            0
            46 ... a lot of time has passed since graduation ..
            wing size and sweep

            Do not let this "penguin" climb into the "dog dump", they sharpen it for another. He is a drummer. But he will stand up for himself.
            There are engine characteristics, it’s really good, but it’s alone
            So what??? The F-16 also has one, and the Grippen .. What are they? Have you surpassed their twin-engine counterparts in the accident rate? 174 F-35s have flown> 30000 hours and not a single major accident. Not a single car crashed. If you hint at its "assault properties", then this is NOT an aircraft of direct support of troops. This is not Rook or Thunderbolt.
            need to hang BC on the external points of the suspension
            What for? He will take his 2 - 2.5 tons in the inner compartment, and in stealth mode he will suppress the air defense and gearbox, after suppression, he will fly with his 8 - 9 tons on the external load ...
            titanium is generally inconvenient in processing metal
            In the courtyard of the 21st century, not only did we learn how to work with titanium, some of the titanium nuclear submarines do, and do not complain ..
            The front landing gear was weak
            We urgently need to write in Houston ... Let 2 !!! they’ll do it in the front .. And there they’re completely fools ... And this Guinpin, and lands on airfields, and on aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers ... that's what a bastard ... and without accidents.
            PS: There are so many videos in the internet about this "underplane", and that I was from REALLY specialists, I haven't heard anything bad about it ...
            Even at 46, you need to learn a little .. But this phrase: "How does the size and sweep of the wing affect the aerobatic properties, look at the layout of this aircraft, there are 3D screenshots on the network", I will probably copy it to my personal archive ... ? Although I did not study at the aerospace faculty, but I went to visit them, well, so, to spill over to the cards :-)
    3. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 6 February 2016 18: 17
      +2
      Quote: d.antonov
      and pilots and people working directly in the defense industry, no

      Well, the answer is nauseatingly simple: - "By the fact that they want to continue to fly and work until retirement."
      1. alexej123
        alexej123 7 February 2016 13: 56
        +1
        Yes, and more. My past experience with under-stamped documentation. I think that the F-35 has the highest security classification. Why are all the victorious reports, gallant comments, etc. In theory, the work should go quietly and painstakingly. Yes, because to convince those countries that have invested that everything will be good. Look at the T-50. Minimum information. Yes, there may be successes and failures. But nobody shouts about them. Here, even on the official sites "Everything will be fine".
        1. Altona
          Altona 7 February 2016 17: 32
          +1
          Quote: alexej123
          I think the F-35 has the highest secrecy mark.

          --------------------------
          Probably, apart from the fact that the Chinese opened the server with the documentation a long time ago and transferred some of the technologies to their 20th and 31st, we didn’t transfer the technology to them, nor did the Americans ...
          1. alexej123
            alexej123 8 February 2016 21: 51
            0
            Well, this is the success of China’s intelligence and the failure of US counterintelligence.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. alexej123
      alexej123 7 February 2016 13: 45
      0
      Yes, because they praise that they feed from this program. Really indicate flaws, money spent and planned costs - more likely to be covered. Everyone wants to eat.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 7 February 2016 21: 27
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    Actually, I’m not happy.

    Well, you are a humanist, but I’m glad if everything ends in failure, but you need to judge objectively, while it’s too early to judge the failure.
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    Since then, the timing of its adoption has been constantly postponed, and the cost of the program only increases. Compare with our PAK FA, which first flew in 2010, and serial deliveries of its VKS are planned from next year. I note, with an absolutely incomparable budget of our and the US projects.

    Well, they have already answered you. I note that there are a few more problems with the T-50 than the press reports ... Although the T-50 program is more likely to be comparable to the F-22 than to the F-35.
  • andre
    andre 6 February 2016 09: 03
    -13 qualifying.
    I won’t be surprised if the Americans will buy the Su-25 SU-30 SU-34 and SU-35. And what, international cooperation, Pasha Mercedes (the kingdom of heaven to him) and Taburetkin’s return to the Moscow Region and go forward ,,,,,,
    1. Altona
      Altona 6 February 2016 12: 52
      +1
      Quote: andre
      I won’t be surprised if the Americans will buy the Su-25 SU-30 SU-34 and SU-35.

      --------------------
      The Americans bought a number of Su-27s in the post-Soviet space and even sold how much. Left in a special squadron, and so, our plane does not meet their service standards.
      1. your1970
        your1970 6 February 2016 23: 02
        +1
        and MI-8 to Afghanistan
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 6 February 2016 10: 41
    +2
    Quote: Odyssey
    Actually, the F-35B reached operational readiness. There is a delay in terms, but this is a working moment. As for the number of aircraft, the program is gigantic with more than 3000 aircraft for the United States and its allies.

    This is a logical incident - Norway ordered 52 F-35s (I don’t remember which modification) at a price of more than 9 billion Baku.
    The issue of money is a separate issue. But if everything is so bad - why did the Norwegians invest (and big) in a raw and unfinished plane?
    1. Altona
      Altona 6 February 2016 13: 18
      +6
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      The issue of money is a separate issue. But if everything is so bad - why did the Norwegians invest (and big) in a raw and unfinished plane?

      --------------------
      If the United States asks you very convincingly in the spirit of "The Godfather": "I have an offer to you from which you cannot refuse." Can you refuse? It is unlikely ...
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 7 February 2016 21: 34
      0
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      But if everything is so bad - why did the Norwegians invest (and big) in a raw and unfinished plane?

      God bless them with Norway, the main indicator is our Jewish friends. So if they give up on F-35A, then we can talk about big problems ...
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 7 February 2016 23: 58
        0
        Quote: Odyssey
        God bless them with Norway, the main indicator is our Jewish friends. So if they give up on F-35A, then we can talk about big problems ...

        And from this side it is only about increasing the order.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 8 February 2016 00: 16
          +1
          Quote: Pimply
          And from this side it is only about increasing the order.

          That's just the point. And although in no way, to put it mildly, am I a fan of the state of Israel, but the ability to defend my interests (by any means) with our Jewish friends (as well as the ability to fight and choose military equipment to meet the needs of your theater) you can only learn.
          I will never believe that they can buy for their Air Force an unusable fighter that can be replaced by F-16 and F-15.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 14: 30
    +4
    Quote: Odyssey
    In fact, the F-35B reached operational readiness.

    The Americans have a slightly different wording.
    F-35V reached the initial operational readiness

    And where is the ILC, the Harriers are already at the limit of developing a resource.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 7 February 2016 21: 31
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      The Americans have a slightly different wording.

      Ueli smile I agree.
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      And where is the ILC, the Harriers are already at the limit of developing a resource.

      You can’t argue either. And even compared to the Harriers, even such an F-35B was a huge walk forward.
  • 73bor
    73bor 6 February 2016 16: 06
    +3
    What does it have to do with joy or not, because you will not mind the fact that a penknife with a bunch of functions (even Swiss) is worse than an ordinary Finnish or Caucasian dagger!
    1. Altona
      Altona 7 February 2016 17: 29
      0
      Quote: 73bor
      What does it have to do with joy or not, because you will not mind the fact that a penknife with a bunch of functions (even Swiss) is worse than an ordinary Finnish or Caucasian dagger!

      ---------------
      Yes, so the argument is about nothing yet. It's like talking about vases. Which is better, crystal or porcelain? Better is the one where the bouquet is well placed and enough water for it. This crap will fly to the war and show everything. No one has seen the raptor in battle, and the aircraft has been in service for 15 years.
  • lepilla
    lepilla 6 February 2016 16: 43
    -5
    In fact, all goyazdo easier. When the F-22 was created, there were no full-fledged air combat missiles, and therefore the requirement for over-time was relevant. In the era of the development of the F-35, there were already all-aspect rockets and therefore super maneuverability was not needed. Russians have a different situation. They have no all-angle missiles and therefore they are trying to compensate for their lack of super-maneuverability in the developed T-50.
    1. tomket
      tomket 7 February 2016 01: 01
      +7
      Quote: lepilla
      Russians have a different situation. They have no all-perspective missiles and therefore they are trying to compensate for their lack of super-maneuverability in the developed T-50.

      Is this what they tell you in Israel ??? Oh wow !!!!
      Quote: lepilla
      and therefore, over-maneuverability was not needed.

      And you don’t know that the missile launch ranges for non-maneuvering and maneuvering targets differ by a third, or even half?
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 6 February 2016 18: 08
    +1
    Quote: Odyssey
    There is a delay in terms, but this is a working moment.

    It seems to me that the matter is not in the delays and timing, but in the fact that according to the US analysts, the f-35 stupidly lacks the engine power for the land and sea version about 25%, and for the vertical, more so, in terms of fuel economy 8 -10%. This is if you embody Wishlist in speed, maneuverability, range, in the dimensions of the airframe and engine that are today, I’m not talking about the rest.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 7 February 2016 21: 36
      0
      Quote: cherkas.oe
      f-35 stupidly lacks engine power for the land and sea version about 25%

      Well, yes, problems with the engine is problem number 1. If anything can cast doubt on the entire program, then this is the engine.
  • dauria
    dauria 6 February 2016 12: 19
    -6
    It is impossible to "bring" anything when the concept itself is initially flawed.


    Can you justify depravity?

    The plane was initially "strike" (according to our functions of a fighter-bomber and a front-line bomber). To dominate them- F-22
    Range parameters, thrust-weight ratio, armament, REO - everything is in the norm of modern requirements for attack aircraft (and ours too)

    Three-in-one design succeeded - 80% component compatibility. Plus the engine from the F-22. All this made the development and further operation much cheaper than the creation of three "specialized" different machines. Maybe it's easier for us - we don't need aircraft carriers and verticals (?), We will turn the PAK-FA into a bomber. But we will no longer see the market.

    And then, there is such a thing, the peculiarities of the theater. An example would be the P-39 Cobra, rejected on the western front and well established on the eastern.
    And about the "expensive", so try to make it cheaper. There can be no talk here, because no one except the Americans built it.
    1. Altona
      Altona 6 February 2016 12: 56
      +6
      Quote: dauria
      Can you justify depravity?

      The plane was initially "strike" (according to our functions of a fighter-bomber and a front-line bomber). To dominate them- F-22
      Range parameters, thrust-weight ratio, armament, REO - everything is in the norm of modern requirements for attack aircraft (and ours too)

      ----------------------
      The article says. You have not read? This miracle is unlikely to be able to sneak up and penetrate from a distance with a smart rocket, the enemy has comparable radars. And in aerobatics and speeds it is an open penguin even in comparison with the honored old men in the person of F-16 and F-15.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 February 2016 14: 34
        -5
        Quote: Altona
        The article says. You have not read? This miracle is unlikely to be able to sneak up and penetrate from a distance with a smart rocket, the enemy has comparable radars. And in aerobatics and speeds it is an open penguin even in comparison with the honored old men in the person of F-16 and F-15.

        The article writes a lot of cheers-patriotic faith. Which warms the ears of cheers patriots
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 6 February 2016 15: 25
          +6
          The article has a lot of water, but the essence is in it. Aircraft from the category of flying axes, with still low visibility. But for a long time there are radars for detecting the meter range, as well as being improved by a millimeter with a phased array.
          Therefore, hoping only for stealth and rockets is short-sighted, since no one has canceled dog dumps. Reminds a situation before Vietnam.
        2. kotvov
          kotvov 6 February 2016 18: 14
          +2
          The article writes a lot of cheers-patriotic faith. Which warms the ears of the cheers,
          I sympathize with you, you are more inspired by the plane, which, for some reason, Canada refused. There you can see sitting dumber than you.
          1. retardu
            retardu 6 February 2016 18: 34
            -2
            No dumber, that's why no one refused.
            https://www.flightglobal. com/news/articles/f-35-not-ruled-out-of-canadian-fighter-competition-420264/
            The defense industry voiced its premiere to Phi and everything remained as it was
        3. shans2
          shans2 6 February 2016 19: 41
          +5
          All of you, we all in Israel are standing in line for this prodigy !!! 111 laughing
        4. Altona
          Altona 6 February 2016 21: 53
          +5
          Quote: Pimply
          The article writes a lot of cheers-patriotic faith. Which warms the ears of cheers patriots

          -------------------------
          Yes, nothing warms me personally. This plane is not a thing in itself, but a part of a system, and a new system of global strike. This is a complex task of updating tactical weapons and linking them with allies. Therefore, the allies should buy new vehicles, not the upgraded F-15 or F-18, for example. And individually in this plane there are wonderful things that engineers managed to concoct and which you paint with such ardor. But all put together is the phrase "Why did you give birth to me with such an ass?" Such is the plane ...
      2. dauria
        dauria 6 February 2016 15: 15
        +1
        This miracle is unlikely to sneak up and hit from afar with a smart rocket, the enemy has comparable radars


        That is, the EPR from the basic equation of radar can be thrown out? belay No matter what "comparable" radars you put in, the enemy's EPR reduction must be compensated for. With what? Power, KND (consider the linear dimensions of the antenna), PRM sensitivity? Well, well .... "Science" fiction with other ranges from HF to gamma radiation, please, do not offer.
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 6 February 2016 15: 30
          +1
          Just meter waves help to pinpoint targets, but they have low accuracy and are not suitable for guiding missiles.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 16: 44
            +5
            Quote: kugelblitz
            Just meter waves help to pinpoint targets, but they have low accuracy and are not suitable for guiding missiles.

            But they can transmit data to fighters and air defense systems.
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 6 February 2016 17: 27
              +5
              I completely agree with you, for this they are intended.

        2. aleksey980
          aleksey980 6 February 2016 20: 14
          +2
          Quote: dauria
          With what?

          As far as I remember, Ufimtsev Peter Yakovlevich himself answered this question - by the number of radars integrated into a common network.
        3. Altona
          Altona 7 February 2016 17: 45
          +1
          Quote: dauria
          That is, the EPR from the basic equation of radar can be thrown out?

          ------------------------------
          You can also throw away the ground radar. If I remember the technical task, then such an aircraft is designed to overcome the layered air defense system. If not, then why the hell are all these bells and whistles he has? In general, I do not remember the case that the Americans did not use AWACS and Hokai to control the situation in the air, and we are a ground-based radar. A military aircraft is not a Lancelot knight, but part of the system.
      3. xtur
        xtur 7 February 2016 00: 24
        +2
        > This miracle is unlikely to be able to sneak up and hit from afar with a smart rocket, the enemy has comparable radars.

        If a radar comparable in quality to Irbis were installed on the MiG-31, then he would have seen the F-22 and F-35 for 200+ km. For 200 km !!! This is a completely obvious technical fact, to which it is worth adding the F-35’s lack of maneuverability and simply maneuverability, most likely leading to the fact that the RVV-BD + MiG-31 with a decent radar will have it from a distance of 200km +.
        And then the whole praised F-35 sales program would just go ... well, you understand me :-)

        Who would buy such an incredibly expensive product with frankly average combat qualities

        I’m even afraid to suppose whether the hatred of the MiG alone explains the categorical unwillingness of the entire Russian elite to invest in restoring the MiG-31 production and damn the American investments worth several trillion dollars
        1. mvg
          mvg 7 February 2016 16: 43
          -3
          Maybe it's better to write out "Murzilka"?
    2. RomanS
      RomanS 6 February 2016 22: 11
      +2
      As for the market, you are absolutely right. Even the USA, far from all planes sell (sold) to the foreign market. Maybe you should consider the F-35 as a commercial project? After all, after the victory in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States did not have any worthy opponents in the world of arms?
  • olegkrava
    olegkrava 6 February 2016 12: 53
    -1
    To Americans, even a joke can not be applied. Everything that you do with your own hands, everything is bad, but what you do as separate parts of the body, they do not fit into one gate either according to intellect or the state of your body.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • tomket
    tomket 7 February 2016 00: 42
    +1
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    about the MiG-3, by the way, was also surprising - it was created to counter the English DBA, just like a high-altitude interceptor.

    No where is it confirmed that the MiG-3 was created as a high-altitude fighter! MiG-1 was created as a competitor to Yaku and LaGG and the main criterion was speed. Less corned beef at night.
  • SPACE
    SPACE 6 February 2016 07: 19
    0
    Quote: Aleksander
    I think that it's just a complicated plane - and they will "finish" it - time is needed.

    Of course they’ll bring it, this is what the question is, and all its difficulties, in its concept, you don’t have to be a visionary to understand that to bring it to the possibilities of dealing with a serious opponent is unreal! Two F-35 links in any way and always lose to a group of aircraft in the composition of the Su-25 SU-30 SU-34 and SU-35. The only positive point about the unavailability of the F-35 is that there will be no serious, large-scale war in the near future.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 6 February 2016 07: 31
      +3
      Quote: SPACE
      Two F-35 links in any way and always lose to a group of aircraft in the composition of the Su-25 SU-30 SU-34 and SU-35.

      What does this statement follow from? The Su-30, and especially the Su-34, shine like Christmas trees. If these are 2 F-35 links optimized for gaining air supremacy (that is, without weapons on external suspensions), then we will have problems ... I'm not sure Irbis’s capabilities are enough to be the first to spot an adversary and launch missiles.
      1. gvozdan
        gvozdan 6 February 2016 14: 34
        17
        As soon as the hatches are opened, then all invisibility will end. In general, the whole trouble with f35 is that they expected that powerful radars and electronic warfare systems would only be with them. But it turned out that both of them will also be with us at least. But on normal planes. The main thing on the plane is the glider, and everything else is attached. Americans are ruined by their "exceptionalism" and "impunity"; they want domination and superiority at any cost. Hence the ideas such as invisibility, inaccessibility, etc. This is evident in everything from the first atomic bomb to the present day. They want to keep the whole world in fear, but not to fight with anyone, and if they fight, then with a deliberately weak enemy both in number and in quality. This is the essence of the nation of hucksters: to cheat, cheat, weights, hit from around the corner, because fighting is stupid.

        Ours proceed from reasonable sufficiency, and manage to make breakthroughs for much less money. Our focus is more on basic research giving a new quality.
        1) Americans have not mastered the fuselage, and since the 4th generation they have been stably losing in speed and range
        2) The maximum overload for amers is 7-8 for our 9 G
        3) The controlled thrust vector is only for f22 and then on the same plane (because they wanted it so or because it didn’t work out ???)
        4) On equal radar, on electronic warfare perhaps we are already ahead.
        5) Long-range missiles at least at the R-37 level did not appear among the amers.

        Two main concepts of f35 stealth and vertical take-off for option B are Soviet developments recognized by our leadership as unpromising. Because besides airplanes, we also have air defense, which already then saw these invisibles. VTOL (Yak-141 compare with F35, surprisingly even the ancient Yak has a maximum speed of 100 km / h more than that of the f35) with existing engines it loses by its main characteristics much more than benefits from vertical take-off. And with new engines (type 30) and UVT, our aircraft will be able to take off from a short run and a springboard no worse than vertical flyers.

        And we must take into account that the United States got a head start at 15 and cheated on endless money, while Russia at that time lost half the population, one third of its territory, two civilians in the Caucasus, and to this day has been entangled by the CIA under the guise of funds from NGOs and other traitors and saboteurs.

        And against the background of all this, the USA gave birth to such a miscarriage as the F35 whose invincibility is explained by some kind of magic sensors, they would also say that each F-35 has a full-time magic wand, which at the right moment turns this flying pumpkin into a normal plane.
        1. d.antonov
          d.antonov 6 February 2016 15: 34
          -7
          that f-35 that f-22 9 G, what are you talking about?
          Why do we need such missiles as the r-37 to shoot down non-maneuvering transporters?
          About airborne electronic warfare is doubtful
          Nevertheless, this miscarriage is an excellent replacement for the f-16, which is seen in combat use.
          Only see Yankee, read their branches about f-35
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 16: 51
            +4
            Quote: d.antonov
            that f-35 that f-22 9 G, what are you talking about?

            F-35A is supposed to be 9 G, F-35B: +7 G, F-35C: +7,5 G, but F-35A is still flying with restrictions.
        2. Altona
          Altona 7 February 2016 17: 51
          0
          Quote: gvozdan
          3) The controlled thrust vector is only for f22 and then on the same plane (because they wanted it so or because it didn’t work out ???)

          --------------------------
          A flat nozzle has less infrared "visibility" than a round nozzle. This can be attributed to a design "compromise".
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 6 February 2016 23: 01
        +1
        Invisibility is not all that an airplane needs to fulfill its tasks, in addition, in some cases, invisibility is simply unnecessary, as it will not fulfill its functions. For example, in case of mass use and because of own emitting means, a different range of radar waves of the locator or its operation in the light well, and electronic warfare equipment.
      3. tomket
        tomket 7 February 2016 01: 07
        +1
        Quote: Odyssey
        and especially Su-34

        It seems that Su-34 as the fighter of gaining air supremacy continues to position the most stubborn.
        Quote: Odyssey
        Su-30

        Why is the Su-30 more noticeable in principle than the F-15, say? In general, the question is, what about the f-35 with IR signature? In theory, with its "miracle engine" and the absence of a flat nozzle, in this range it should look like a blazing Christmas tree.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 7 February 2016 21: 53
          0
          Quote: tomket
          It seems that Su-34 as the fighter of gaining air supremacy continues to position the most stubborn.

          Yes, but this is the condition that the Cosmos Group of Su-34, Su-30, Su-25, and Su-35 set against the F-35. The condition is very strange, but this is its condition.
          And I understood him on the assumption that he had in mind an aerial battle where the Su-30 and Su-35 bombers were covered. If he had in mind the work on the ground, then why include in the Su-35 and Su-30 group which are they don’t work at all in their current form of land. Yes, and it’s strange to compare the F-35 with someone in terms of work on the ground. In the case of unsuppressed air defense, it’s best here.
          Quote: tomket
          How is the Su-30 more fundamentally more noticeable than the F-15?

          Fundamentally nothing smile It simply does not exist in the conditions of the task posed by the Cosmos.
          Quote: tomket
          In general, such a question, but what about the f-35 with visibility in the IR range?

          But this is already classified smile Well, and so, our secret plan is precisely to detect the OLS-ohm. But under the conditions of the task set by the Cosmos, the illumination from the Su-34 and Su-30 on the locator will be earlier than the detection of the F-35 in the infrared range.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 6 February 2016 12: 12
      -1
      Quote: SPACE
      Two F-35 links in any way and always lose to a group of aircraft in the composition of the Su-25 SU-30 SU-34 and SU-35.

      Why?
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 6 February 2016 22: 47
        +3
        Quote: Pimply

        Why?

        With the fact that the range of tasks and the volume that specialized aircraft can perform is greater.
      2. tomket
        tomket 7 February 2016 01: 09
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Why?

        Why not? :)
  • Igor39
    Igor39 6 February 2016 07: 22
    +6
    It takes time and a few billion smile
    They have a more intelligent approach to cutting dough. laughing
  • VIT101
    VIT101 6 February 2016 07: 43
    +3
    Quote: Aleksander

    PS What does Beria have to do with it ?! belay Inappropriate analogy, in my opinion.


    But Beria was right! Immediately after the war, Tupolev urgently began to create a four-engine long-range bomber, but there was no more time and had to copy the American B-29 at the direction of Stalin.
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 6 February 2016 08: 24
      +9
      You confuse white and sour. Before the war they demanded PB-4 diving four-engine, and B-4 was high-altitude horizontal, you catch the difference. Despite the fact that by the end of the war a prototype 29-engine strategic bomber was developed and tested in the Tupolev Design Bureau. But the ego had to be brought to mind, but since such an aircraft was needed already yesterday, they went along a simple path and copied the already worked-out design-B-4.
    2. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 6 February 2016 08: 31
      +1
      Quote: VIT101
      But Beria was right!

      Tschemta, it was a misconception about the distant dive bomber. Can you imagine the difference between horizontal bombs, large and medium altitudes, and dives?
      Quote: VIT101
      Immediately after the war, Tupolev urgently began to create a four-engine long-range bomber, but there was no more time and had to copy the American B-29 at the direction of Stalin.

      There was quite a distant high-altitude bomber four-engine TB-7 (Pe-8). The combat use radius of 2000 km was considered, at that time, quite sufficient. The B-29 was made to copy by the post-war geopolitical situation and the increased overall technological level. In a machine with such characteristics during WWII, there was no need.
      1. VIT101
        VIT101 6 February 2016 09: 34
        +1
        [quote = Ami du peuple] [quote = VIT101] And Beria was right! [/ quote]
        Can you imagine the difference between horizontal bombs, large and medium altitudes, and dives?

        I think that I represent no worse than you. It is about working on a machine of a completely different level with a sealed cab.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Aleksander
      Aleksander 6 February 2016 09: 25
      0
      Quote: VIT101
      But Beria was right! Immediately after the war, Tupolev urgently began to create a four-engine long-range bomber


      And read the article? Beria wanted a DIVE long-range bomber
  • Voha_krim
    Voha_krim 6 February 2016 07: 54
    +3
    Quote: Aleksander
    I think that it's just a complicated plane - and they will "finish" it - time is needed.

    One of the main problems in the development of the F-35 is the delay in creating software for the Block2 system, which is responsible for the overall control of the combat capabilities of the aircraft, in particular for various information transmission channels and shooting systems.
    "The most serious flaws were found in navigation systems and targeting accuracy. These software problems slow down the integration of weapons, as well as postpone test flights," notes Business Inside.
    Block2 also has problems with firing accuracy, the use of radars, passive sensors, a friend or foe recognition system, and electro-optical targeting for strikes. "If the Block2 code is not corrected, then the F-35 project itself will fail," the newspaper writes.


    RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/world/20160205/1370268994.html
  • SIMM
    SIMM 6 February 2016 09: 45
    0
    They will bring it, no doubt!
    Only by the time they bring this trough to the level of the previous generation (F16), we will already be adopting the aircraft of the SIXTH generation ...)))
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 February 2016 12: 13
      +2
      Quote: SIMM
      They will bring it, no doubt!
      Only by the time they bring this trough to the level of the previous generation (F16), we will already be adopting the aircraft of the SIXTH generation ...)))

      And again caps-caps-caps
  • Simon
    Simon 6 February 2016 11: 17
    0
    Let them bring it up, our T-50s will be put into production in this series, and then they will move on. good laughing
    Although upgrading the F-15 and F-16, at least modifying the F-35, you still need to invest money, and these are not small amounts. So that time works for us. yes
  • kotyara
    kotyara 6 February 2016 11: 30
    +1
    In this case, try to bring to mind any of the projects of the perpetual motion machine! An analogy with Beria, while in the same way as with a perpetual motion machine (which, as you know, is not possible) that Beria and current US designers want to combine incompatible!
  • Altona
    Altona 6 February 2016 12: 43
    +1
    Quote: Aleksander
    PS What does Beria have to do with it ?!

    -----------------
    Well, they farted a little in his direction. They referred, as it were, to the wrong opinion.
    1. sniper
      sniper 6 February 2016 14: 18
      +3
      Colleagues, what are we arguing about? Yes, I am glad that not everything is going smoothly overseas. But do not forget that experience is gained mainly on errors and their corrections. Our "potential" can afford it on such a scale. They decided to cut down a very complex product, so it doesn't work out ... So far, it doesn't work out ... They will finish it off, gaining invaluable experience that will be used in subsequent developments. Well, and comparing two non-existent aircraft without their real performance characteristics seems to me a futile occupation ... Well, something like that, in my opinion ...
  • lepilla
    lepilla 6 February 2016 14: 23
    -1
    Alexander, I agree with you
  • 73bor
    73bor 6 February 2016 16: 01
    -1
    It’s just that these poets made a computer with wings, but you had to make a plane, because just look at the pilot training programs here, the pilot must control the plane and they must control the computer interface in the plane without thinking about the behavior of the car in the air!
  • tomket
    tomket 7 February 2016 00: 44
    +1
    Quote: Aleksander
    PS What does Beria have to do with it ?!

    Indeed, what does Beria have to do with it? Let's better remember the German dive king Henkel-177, who was embodied in metal. And we will spit on both Henkel and Hitler and Obama with Lockheed.
  • Samoyed
    Samoyed 7 February 2016 20: 47
    +1
    The article is clear! Outrageous multifunctionality on old principles = dead end.
  • Dmitry Volodin
    Dmitry Volodin 6 February 2016 06: 54
    +3
    The potential ratio table is interesting, and the article has been written from one angle or another a dozen times, nothing new. Minus "-"
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 6 February 2016 07: 24
      0
      though I don’t understand some of the numbers in this table. here is the US Navy 473 ship. I also counted aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, landing ships, minesweepers, their littoral ships, and staff ships. counted 151 ships. where are the remaining 300 s +? what did they count and what else did they count? patrol boats? Of course, I missed something, but not 300 ships?
  • Magic archer
    Magic archer 6 February 2016 06: 57
    +1
    I won’t be surprised if instead of 35 Americans start to buy deeply modernized F-15,16 and 18 machines are proven, and such modifications as Silent Eagle, for example, are a little inferior to F-35, and even in terms of price the quality is completely superior
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 February 2016 07: 36
      -1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      I won’t be surprised if the Americans start buying deeply modernized F-35 and 15,16 instead of the 18th

      Already do. And not only them, but also other NATO countries.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 6 February 2016 07: 51
        +4
        Quote: Dart2027
        Already do.

        In fact, the last F-15 was transferred to the Air Force in 2001, the last F-16 in 2005. Only the Super Hornet is delivered and not instead of the F-35, but instead of the F-18 Hornet as part of a planned replacement.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 February 2016 11: 31
          0
          Quote: Odyssey
          In fact, the last F-15 was transferred to the Air Force in 2001, the last F-16 in 2005

          New ones are possible, but we are talking about modernizing existing ones.
  • Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 6 February 2016 07: 01
    +8
    Well, I wouldn’t kick once again Beria L.P. Giving the task to create a really absurd project of a four-engine diving heavy bomber, Beria proceeded from the fact that our intelligence already had information about the development of a similar-purpose aircraft in Germany, here it is:
    In November 1937, the project was assigned the designation He 177 “Greif” (“vulture” or “griffin”, the name comes from the griffin on the coat of arms of the city of Rostock, where the Heinkel company was located). The aircraft was supposed to deliver 1000 kg of bombs to a distance of 6600 km. It was assumed that the speed of the aircraft will be 545 km / h. It was possible to drop bombs from a dive.

    Xe-177 powerplant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 610A / B liquid-cooled engines, each of which represented a pair of two DB 605. That is, it was a four-engine plane.
    In addition, it was believed (and it cannot be said that it is unreasonable) that a dive bomber can deliver much more accurate strikes than with conventional horizontal bombardment, and therefore dive bombers require much less than conventional bombers. And this is resource saving, which was vital for the USSR during the war years.
    As for the American miracle aircraft F-35, in order to make a sound judgment about it, it is necessary that it be released in any significant amount, be used in combat aviation for a long time, and experience in its use in real combat situations is desirable. In the meantime, none of this exists, all reviews of this aircraft will be of an advertising nature (if the reviews are superlative) or speculative.
    I have the honor.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 6 February 2016 07: 20
      +1
      Thanks, I kept trying to put the mosaic together. I could not believe that just so L.P. Beria and I.V. Stalin could give directions to such a project. Everything got up with your information as the doctor ordered.

      P.S. The brow needs training.
    2. ava09
      ava09 6 February 2016 07: 21
      +1
      It seems that the article was written with the aim of speculating on the topic of the F-35, and most importantly, once again without reason to kick Beria.
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 6 February 2016 07: 45
        -8
        Of course, I know about love for Beria on this resource that he was a brilliant and sinless GREAT leader of the Soviet people, but I did not know that he was a brilliant aircraft designer. And I am also very surprised why Beria does not have a 15 meter high monument from gold from a loving people? Disorder, it is necessary to collect funds from the people and put.
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 6 February 2016 12: 15
      0
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      As for the American miracle aircraft F-35, in order to make a sound judgment about it, it is necessary that it be released in any significant amount, be used in combat aviation for a long time, and experience in its use in real combat situations is desirable. In the meantime, none of this exists, all reviews of this aircraft will be of an advertising nature (if the reviews are superlative) or speculative.

      Well, it was released at the moment in the amount of 150 pieces. This is the so-called small series.
  • Alceers
    Alceers 6 February 2016 07: 07
    +5
    Quote: Aleksander
    PS What does Beria have to do with it ?! Inappropriate analogy, in my opinion.

    Quote: Aleksandr72
    I would not once again kick Beria L.P. D


    A fascination for TS readers?

    But more seriously, the impression of the article was spoiled by a kick to Lavrenty Palych. The source was not picked up competent. Already dismantled several times. Kerber did not write "Tupolev Sharaga" is the fruit of inventions of anti-Sovietists from "Posev"
  • Senior manager
    Senior manager 6 February 2016 07: 14
    0
    I support the article, every tool is designed for a specific job. It is such an aircraft that you may need, but not in such quantities and for very specific tasks. If modern electronics is hung on Kalashnikov, he will no longer meet his mission, will switch to another class of weapons. But the rich have their own habits, they wanted such a plane, they got such a plane. Now they will think where to apply it.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 6 February 2016 07: 19
    +9
    For all the criticality of the F-35 project, the article is lamer.
    1) Suppose the author is right and the F-35 is a mistake. Well, fine, then just logic dictates to us glorification of the F-35 and the need to do all we can to promote this project. After that the Americans will be left with an unfit for combat aircraft. The author, on the contrary, "advises" the American how is it better. Why do we do better for Americans?
    2) The author claims that “the F-35 is designed to destroy an enemy aircraft before the start of a maneuverable battle.” But, as it turned out during the tests, the characteristics of the F-35 do not give him a guaranteed opportunity to do this. ”Where does this follow? Where is the evidence for this claim? And if this statement is not proven, then all the rest of the author's criticism is unconvincing. So far, only supposedly, the F-35 had problems with the F-16 in the BVB, well, this is the "open secret". From the very beginning it was clear that the main problems were Moreover, if the creators of the F-35 were able to create an aircraft that, at the very first stage of its life, could maneuver the F-35 in the near one, then they could safely be given a Nobel Prize.
    3) The complexity of the F-35 program consists in the combination of the requirements of a stealth, strike, and also a "single" aircraft. This is the history of aviation has not yet known. So far, given the complexity of the program, tests are going quite smoothly. The main difficulties are in the reliability of the engine, everything else including problems with the software provision, a helmet and some delay in timing are quite working moments. There will certainly be problems with aircraft maintenance (stealth aircraft are very capricious), but this is still ahead. Perhaps, of course, the Americans will screw up with the F-35, which I sincerely wish them, but for now, as they say, it's too early to rejoice.
    PS Strange fantasies about Tupolev who "insisted" on the construction of Tu-2 in spite of Beria and Stalin are clearly not added to the credibility of the article.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 6 February 2016 07: 59
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      The author claims that “the F-35 is designed to destroy an enemy aircraft before the start of a maneuvering battle.” But, as it turned out during the tests, the characteristics of the F-35 do not give him a guaranteed opportunity to do this. ”Where does this follow? Where is the evidence for this claim?

      With the author's evidence, it has already become a rule of pouring over the F-35 not to go down to such "trifles" as evidence.
      But here evidence is not needed because the BVB does not die at all because of the superiority of the F-35, because of the improvement of the ECO and missiles with TGSN.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 6 February 2016 08: 15
        +3
        Quote: Mera Joota
        With the author's evidence, it has already become a rule of pouring over the F-35 not to go down to such "trifles" as evidence.
        But here evidence is not needed because the BVB does not die at all because of the superiority of the F-35, because of the improvement of the ECO and missiles with TGSN.

        It all depends on the combat situation. It is possible that in the collision of large groups of aircraft and the mutual use of electronic warfare some of the aircraft will actually engage in close combat. We need to carry out mathematical modeling, we need to conduct exercises on this topic.
        But here's what exactly, the F-35 was not created for the BVB, so to conclude that he is weakly combat due to the fact that at the first stage of his life he lost the F-16 in the near, is simply a mistake.
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 6 February 2016 11: 55
          0
          Quote: Odyssey
          Perhaps in the collision of large groups of aircraft and the mutual use of electronic warfare, some aircraft will indeed enter close combat

          Will not join. I will repeat myself. BVB occurs at distances of less than 1 km., Modern electro-optical systems detect the enemy at a distance of at least 20 km., Modern "close combat" missiles with TGSN (RVV-MD, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, Python-5) for a long time crossed the launch range of medium-range missiles of 20 km., therefore, before convergence at a distance of 1 km. it just won't work.
          Modern TGSN operate in the three ranges of IR, UV and visible light and it will be very difficult to disrupt the capture because thermal traps will not help, UV lamps too. It’s not up to the BVB that the attacked pilot will be, that's for sure ...
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 7 February 2016 22: 00
            0
            Quote: Mera Joota
            Will not join. I will repeat myself. BVB occurs at distances of less than 1 km., Modern electro-optical systems detect the enemy at a distance of at least 20 km., Modern "close combat" missiles with TGSN (RVV-MD, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, Python-5) for a long time crossed the launch range of medium-range missiles of 20 km., therefore, before convergence at a distance of 1 km. it just won't work.

            The question here is what is meant by BVB. Some now interpret melee as any battle with the use of MD missiles. And then the jamming systems also do not stand still.
            But in general, I am inclined to agree with you on this issue.
      2. xtur
        xtur 7 February 2016 00: 44
        +2
        > The author's evidence is bad

        But do F-35 supporters need evidence? Wasn’t there a report of the congressional commission that the F-35 engine was not powerful enough and there was no message that the developer agreed with this and started developing a more powerful engine?

        Supporters of the F-35 compromise themselves precisely because they ignore completely obvious facts and always say that what is already there is simply a superlative degree.

        I can give an example of the T-50. Everyone knows that with the current engine, the plane does not fully realize TK, and that this engine will appear only in a few years. No one is hiding the existing problem.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 7 February 2016 22: 05
          0
          Quote: xtur
          I can give an example of the T-50. Everyone knows that with the current engine, the plane does not fully realize TK, and that this engine will appear only in a few years. No one is hiding the existing problem.

          Just the T-50 compared to the F-35 is a completely closed program. Our people like to keep everything secret. The question with the engine was simply impossible to hide no matter how hard you try.
          Amers have a different approach to secrecy. They launch 2 versions of one event, versions directly opposite to each other and begin to actively develop them. And you go, they say, try to guess which one is correct.
          Well, the Chinese in general are masters of hiding the truth under hundreds of types of lies.
          Each has his own style, his own style. smile
          1. xtur
            xtur 8 February 2016 01: 19
            0
            > Just the T-50 compared to the F-35 is a completely closed program.

            closed for any new developments is quite normal, from my point of view.

            In general, I don’t care about American media - I’m talking about our members of the forum who defend obvious development defects as PR managers of American products.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 6 February 2016 12: 20
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      ? And if this statement is not proven, then all the rest of the author's criticism is unconvincing. So far, only supposedly, the F-35 had problems with the F-16 in the BVB, well, this is the "open secret". From the very beginning it was clear that the main problems were Moreover, if the creators of the F-35 were able to create an aircraft that, at the very first stage of its life, could maneuver the F-35 in the near one, then they could safely issue a Nobel Prize

      By maneuverability, here after the first minute you can see

      1. Operator
        Operator 6 February 2016 13: 46
        0
        Particularly impressive view stelsovskogo aircraft for 200 million. with ammunition on external gimbal on 7: 56 laughing
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 6 February 2016 14: 06
          -6
          Quote: Operator
          Particularly impressive view stelsovskogo aircraft for 200 million. with ammunition on external gimbal on 7: 56 laughing

          According to Indians, the PAK FA costs $ 200 million, and the F-35A, the largest Laiting model, costs $ 90 million.
          1. Operator
            Operator 6 February 2016 19: 53
            +4
            In November, Lockheed Martin's 2014 and the US Department of Defense signed a contract to supply the next F-43 35 aircraft. The contract amount was 4,7 billion dollars. The price of one F-35 modification A was 94,8 million, modification B - 102 million, modification C for naval aviation - 115,7 million. All prices do not include the cost of the engine.

            According to Aviation Week, the cost of X-NUMX F-65 Lightning II fighters and their maintenance for 35 years for Canada exceeded 20 billion US dollars. Those. life cycle cost per serial F-40,4 briskly approaches one billion US dollars (billion, Karl) laughing

            The cost of one serial T-50 is unknown to anyone, including Indians, because OCD has not yet been completed, let alone the start of production.
            1. Operator
              Operator 7 February 2016 00: 40
              -1
              In September 2015, the Norwegian Ministry of Defense announced plans to procure 52 F-35 worth 10 billion dollars starting in 2017.

              Almost 200 million bucks apiece (with engine).
      2. serverny
        serverny 7 February 2016 12: 46
        0
        Roller pure PR and damage control.

        In fact, the F-35 lost all training battles practicing BVB scenarios against the "oldies". And then they tell us "on paper, the characteristics are good - then everything is okay."
  • LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 6 February 2016 07: 30
    +2
    "A negative result is also a result." Nothing, snot-tears will wipe away and make a normal car. Maybe not this one, but another. Just give me the money, right?
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 6 February 2016 07: 32
    +1
    To be honest, it is already pretty tired of the discussion, and especially the protection from some users of this aircraft. Brought, not brought to mind - this is their problem. While the money spent is not measured, and things are still there.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 6 February 2016 08: 01
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      While the money spent is not measured, and things are still there.

      Where exactly?
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 6 February 2016 08: 58
        0
        called the F-35 "turkey." In America, a turkey is one of the symbols of a hybrid of stupidity and satiety

        It seems that one of the designers of the F-16 knows what he is talking about.
        and according to one of the test pilots of this car, it "is not worth a penny"

        The tester of this aircraft is obviously also in the subject.
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 6 February 2016 11: 10
          -1
          Quote: rotmistr60
          It seems that one of the designers of the F-16 knows what he is talking about.

          All the designers of the F-16 have long been retired or in the next world, what can they know?

          Quote: rotmistr60
          The tester of this aircraft is obviously also in the subject.

          Who exactly? For example, I read interviews with testers and reports in which everything is fine.
          How can "Woz still be there" correlate with data on the production of more than 170 vehicles, the beginning of production at sites in Turkey, Italy and Japan?
  • X Y Z
    X Y Z 6 February 2016 07: 36
    +2
    Fine-tuning is a necessary and correct matter, but the only question is what you bring. If conceptually the machine is made incorrectly, then no fine-tuning will help. We already knew this on the Yaks.
  • Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 6 February 2016 07: 37
    -8
    With nuclear deterrents, spending too much on aviation is a waste. In the USSR, aviation was a thousand times larger than now in Russia, and the result is known. And aviation is now mainly needed only for local conflicts.
  • magirus401
    magirus401 6 February 2016 07: 49
    +1
    Quote: Viktor fm
    With nuclear deterrents, spending too much on aviation is a waste. In the USSR, aviation was a thousand times larger than now in Russia, and the result is known. And aviation is now mainly needed only for local conflicts.

    To my mind. we already went through this, under Khrushchev N.S., artillery against missiles ....
  • Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 6 February 2016 08: 01
    +1
    magirus401 Wash. we already went through this, under Khrushchev N.S., artillery against missiles ....

    I guess I still live longer. Just the same Khrushchev was for missiles, but against aviation. Under him, many flight schools were disbanded, and the emphasis was placed precisely on missile weapons, including Pauls.
    1. oxotnuk86
      oxotnuk86 6 February 2016 21: 39
      -5
      Not accuracy crept in. MIG-19 was shot down by a missile and Paursa was shot down by a Su-7 which was distilled from Siberia. The intermediate landing was weapons in the Urals - the missiles were on a transporter. They lifted him lightly and the order was to bring down a conversation about what would happen to him did not even rise. On st. sound he jumped to the U-2 and a jet stream destroyed him. The interview was in K.P. in 90 years. What fake was given to us? Paurs saw the launch of a rocket got out of the plane, didn’t catapult, it wasn’t provided for, he was captured. What is left of the plane from a missile hit and is there time for leaving the plane?
    2. oxotnuk86
      oxotnuk86 6 February 2016 21: 39
      0
      Not accuracy crept in. MIG-19 was shot down by a missile and Paursa was shot down by a Su-7 which was distilled from Siberia. The intermediate landing was weapons in the Urals - the missiles were on a transporter. They lifted him lightly and the order was to bring down a conversation about what would happen to him did not even rise. On st. sound he jumped to the U-2 and a jet stream destroyed him. The interview was in K.P. in 90 years. What fake was given to us? Paurs saw the launch of a rocket got out of the plane, didn’t catapult, it wasn’t provided for, he was captured. What is left of the plane from a missile hit and is there time for leaving the plane?
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 7 February 2016 21: 36
        0
        No one Su-7 then shot down. There was an order to ram, because there was no armament, no bk, no anti-loading suit. And the plane was a Su-9. And the fact that in addition to the S-75 there was a pilot Mentiukov, ready to go on ramming, this is advice to all enemies: stay at home.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 6 February 2016 08: 15
    0
    IMHO, an airplane must first fly WELL, and everything else is an addition. I don’t want to analyze the mistakes of the striped-eared aircraft industry, but, fortunately, the absence of real rivals for a long time led their design idea to a dead end. And the cost of developments in their implementation has become completely unimaginable. And when real opponents appeared in the form of super-maneuverability of Russian fighters, it was too late to change something.
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 6 February 2016 08: 17
    -2
    Apologists for close air combat. You can simulate BVB between modern aircraft equipped with optoelectronic systems capable of detecting CC at a distance of 20-40 km. in the front hemisphere and with missiles with a thermal all-angle seeker with a range of 30-40 km.?
    How will the air gun help in this case if:
    The best conditions for using cannon weapons for a fighter-type maneuvering target are a range of 250-350 m, an approach speed of 150 km / h.

    The so-called "dog dump" or bend fighting is possible precisely at such distances, but how to reach it if it is already at a distance of at least 10 km. (out of line of sight with the naked eye) will both vehicles have to take measures to disrupt the guidance of the enemy missile's TGSN? And this is provided that modern TGSN operate in three bands is a very difficult task, heat traps will not help ...
    So, until effective anti-missile countermeasures against TGSN missiles have been found, it is possible to forget about BVB ...
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 09: 48
      +1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      So, until effective anti-missile countermeasures against TGSN missiles have been found, it is possible to forget about BVB ...

      F-35 carries a very limited number of missiles in the internal compartments, and if on the external load, then what is it better than F-15.
      It turns out that the F-35 is redundant to pacify the colonies, which proves the successful use of the A-10 Thunderbolt in Iraq against ISIS, and there are questions about its use in intensive combat operations (limited speed and altitude), there are some doubts about the great advantage in stealth (large frontal cross-sectional area) moreover, air flow resistance negatively affects fuel consumption; if Lockheed Martin specialists solve all problems, they will definitely be worthy of respect.
      Somehow they offer it obsessively to everyone, which causes doubts
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 6 February 2016 11: 42
        -3
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        F-35 carries a very limited number of missiles in the internal compartments, and if on the external load, then what is it better than F-15.

        Come on. Can you prove it?
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        It turns out that the F-35 to pacify the colonies is redundant

        Here it is ... And Su-35 and Su-34 against igiloids just right? Suitable level?
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 13: 21
          +2
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Come on. Can you prove it?

          And what to prove, four pieces, there are 4 suspension points for missiles, but if we assume that the aircraft had the task of destroying some kind of ground target, then there will be a maximum of two missiles.
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Here it is ... And Su-35 and Su-34 against igiloids just right? Suitable level?

          Su-35 there so that all sorts of Turks would not climb the Su-34 for point bombing, this is the 4th generation.
          If the USA has F-15 and F-16 F-35 there is definitely superfluous.
          1. d.antonov
            d.antonov 6 February 2016 15: 38
            0
            Well, work on it until four, then maybe there will be more
            Americans will push even more missiles into fighter jets

            The US Air Force command signed a contract with the American company Raytheon to develop two types of weapons that could be carried in the internal compartments of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II fighters. According to Aviation Week, we are talking about small SACM rockets and MSDM self-defense ammunition. Thanks to the new development, the military plans to increase the amount of ammunition carried by fighters without making any changes to the suspension systems of the internal arms bays.

            According to preliminary data, SACM will be used along with AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. It is not yet known what the ammunition performed by Raytheon will be. Earlier, the American company Lockheed Martin presented its own initiative developments on the SACM project, which will increase the number of missiles carried by F-35A fighters three times. Lightning II can only carry four AMRAAM missiles (two in two compartments). Lockheed Martin announced the possibility of deploying six SACM missiles in these compartments.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 16: 25
              +1
              Quote: d.antonov
              Lightning II can only carry four AMRAAM missiles (two in two compartments). Lockheed Martin announced the possibility of deploying six SACM missiles in these compartments.

              Six so six, good luck, the situation is a bit like a classic.
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 7 February 2016 20: 44
                0
                Quote: saturn.mmm

                Six so six, good luck, the situation is a bit like a classic.


                You are laughing in vain.
                The same AMRAAM, when it appeared, flew only 60 km.
                Now he flies on 180, with the same sizes.
                1. nikolay_major
                  nikolay_major 9 February 2016 14: 31
                  0
                  Our R-37s also fly 300 km and?
                  At the final stage of development of KS-172 - 400 km. launch range, what of this?
            2. Operator
              Operator 6 February 2016 19: 22
              +1
              The Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM) missile developed by the CUDA program is two times less than the AIM-120 AMRAAM and even lower in flight range. The joy that F-35 will take on the 12 SACM instead of the 4 AIM-120 is equivalent to the surprise that Su-34 can take on the 32 OFUB-250 instead of 8 OFUB-1000 laughing

              The Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM) is not a missile at all, it is a miniature active defense system fired from a container instead of heat traps, designed to destroy air-to-air missiles in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft.
            3. xtur
              xtur 7 February 2016 00: 49
              +3
              > Well, they are working on this, while four, then maybe more will be

              in a limited space you can shove a strictly limited number of missiles. If the volume of this space is insufficient, then it is impossible to push the right number of missiles there
              Otherwise, I have to believe that the Americans will be able to make small three-liter cans ;-)
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 7 February 2016 20: 48
                0
                Quote: xtur
                > Well, they are working on this, while four, then maybe more will be

                in a limited space you can shove a strictly limited number of missiles. If the volume of this space is insufficient, then it is impossible to push the right number of missiles there
                Otherwise, I have to believe that the Americans will be able to make small three-liter cans ;-)

                If they can make rockets of the AMRAAM class, with a slightly smaller diameter and folding surfaces, they can hang 5 pieces in each compartment ...
                The human thought does not stand still ...
              2. samoletil18
                samoletil18 7 February 2016 21: 43
                0
                Small three-liter cans will be telescopic. Remember folding glasses. Only they leak.
        2. nikolay_major
          nikolay_major 9 February 2016 14: 34
          0
          I can not.
          To do this, it’s enough to understand that the internal compartment is not dimensionless, the internal compartment can only be increased to the detriment of flight performance, either smaller fuel tanks or smaller engines — correspondingly weaker ones or an increase in the dimensions of the aircraft.

          In the first case, we get a decrease in the flight range, in the second it is not at all clear what will be, will these engines be enough to lift everything that we shove into the internal compartment, and in the third, an increase in mass and size
  • Idiot
    Idiot 6 February 2016 09: 22
    +6
    I would be careful not to quote both Tupolev and his associates, especially when Beria is mentioned. One real case: when creating our analogue of the B-29, Tupolev designed a bomb bay for a special product to be leaky. Atomic engineers could not convince him to seal the compartment. Then they turned to Beria. Having thoroughly studied the issue (which he always did) and realizing that the atomic lobbyists are right, Beria passed a resolution: "To the Tupolev: the compartment must be sealed." He wrote the name of Tupolev with a small letter, which meant the highest degree of contempt on his part. Needless to say, the bomb bay was rapidly pressurized. Beria's authority as a manager among scientists was colossal, among themselves they called him LP, a tribute to efficiency and objectivity. Read Kurchatov, or archival documents on the USSR Atomic Project, they are published. Not a single swear word about Beria. Tupolev, by the way, actually destroyed the Myasishchev design bureau of its main competitor. Tu-160 was created by Myasishchev, but after the disbandment of the design bureau, all the documentation was transferred to the Tupolev design bureau.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 6 February 2016 09: 30
    +1
    A successful F-35 or not will show a real battle, even if the F-35 project is a mistake, then for today it is the most perfect vertical take-off and landing aircraft in the world. The F-35 is an excellent experience and base for creating new vertical take-off aircraft and landing, unfortunately, we abandoned the creation of a GDP plane. In the history of aircraft building, it is full of unsuccessful aircraft, for example the F-104 Starfighter, Ka-50 Black Shark turned out to be an unsuccessful helicopter due to the presence of one pilot who couldn’t conduct alone with proper efficiency battle and control the machine, as a result, about 10 helicopters were assembled. Then, later, a successful two-seat version of the Ka-52 Alligator helicopter came out. The Su-47 Golden Eagle was also an unsuccessful project that had been tinkering with for several years. having analogues Yak-141 turned right away. request
    The United States has about 170 F-35s and about 200 F-22s in service, and the 6th generation fighter is being developed. We are not commercially producing and using 5th generation aircraft, 5 T-50 flight prototypes that still need to be brought to mind and put on the conveyor does not count. wink
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 11: 21
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      . But the development of a promising unparalleled Yak-141 turned right away.

      Why did you turn it off?
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 6 February 2016 13: 14
        +2
        They sold all the documentation for the Yak-141 to the Americans and closed the project. In the 90s, it was fashionable to sell everything and undermine the country's defense
  • Yak28
    Yak28 6 February 2016 09: 36
    +1
    Quote: rotmistr60
    Brought, not brought to mind - this is their problem. While the money spent is not measured, and things are still there.

    And they do not care about the money, they print it, and not from hard workers collect constantly raising prices for everything.
  • sergosam
    sergosam 6 February 2016 09: 44
    +1
    While we were at large, we were going to fight on TB-3, while Beria did not sit them down, we instantly created TU-2.
  • Ilya77
    Ilya77 6 February 2016 09: 46
    +3
    I must admit, even with all the possible shortcomings of the F-35, they have riveted them already a hundred and a half, we have 35 dryers only about 40, the T-50 has not been in the army at all for now, and generally have not heard anything about it for a long time. Given the style of military operations of the United States - and this is a complete suppression of enemy air defenses and air forces, and considering with whom they are at war, the F-22 is enough for air battles, for everything else the F-35 is enough for their eyes. Of course, 1,3 trillion. bucks for such a thing is probably overkill, with a series of 2500 aircraft one plane should cost 50 million, it’s clear that the price probably includes weapons, spare parts, etc., but all the same, the amounts are unimaginable.
  • Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 6 February 2016 09: 48
    +2
    Beria may have been mistaken, but his actions are not in any way connected with what he did to the country and the army of Judah with a spot on his head. The author gives a table of the correlation of forces of the Russian Federation. And NATO I think that Beria in a nightmare would not allow this, at least there would be an equal sign
  • SIMM
    SIMM 6 February 2016 09: 49
    0
    Kapets, a 40-year-old aircraft will be in service until the age of 45.
    This plane will be 70 years old !!!))))
    Well, what fighters of 1945 are in service with us, albeit modified ...))))))))))
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 February 2016 09: 59
    +2
    F-35 is a good plane. It's just that the NATO countries did not expect that our generation of fighters would change. Look at the composition of the planes that the possible opponents of NATO have - the planes of the 3rd generation, at best the 4th, and what kind of air defense? The F-35 is designed to defeat all this. And for the proceedings with the aircraft of the 4th generation and 4+, the F-22 is needed (and here the direct monopoly of the United States). That's all. Countries of the 3rd world generally began to transfer to aircraft such as "Tucano", and who is richer on the Yak130, and so on. Thus the USA:
    1. monopolized the market of fighters of the Western world.
    2 monopolized control over a few competitors such as Rafal and Eurofighter, the 4th generation of Soviet fighters with the help of the F-22.
    3 unified fighters and tactical bombers and the VTOL in all NATO countries.

    From all this, the creation by Russia of components for aircraft of the 5th generation and the 5th generation itself is knocked out. , but you can negotiate with us and not enter into direct confrontation. For successful export of the 5th generation (T-50 due to price and politics, it will not be the most successful) we need a light fighter, the most unified in terms of unit with T-50) single-engine. Not too confused on the Stealth, but with super sounds and super maneuverability and communication capabilities like the older T-50)
  • Lexus
    Lexus 6 February 2016 10: 23
    +5
    When we have (deliveries of T50 begin) a similar technique then we can compare. While comments look like yapping pugs at an elephant.
    F35 solves all the tasks for which it is created. As part of the concept of multi-purpose invisibility.
    As the only fighter, it may not be as good as the allies of the United States want. But the United States has raptors and production lines have only been mothballed. Based on the experience gained in the design of the 35th, they will modernize the 22nd.
    Already, f35 flies more than Su35 and Su30 combined.
    The concept of two fighters (easy and cheap with a heavy, expensive fighter for gaining air supremacy) has been accepted by the us and the ussr a long time ago. And the Americans fully realize it.
    In addition, the Americans forced the Allies to fork out for development as well.
    If our Medvedev knew how.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 11: 31
      +2
      Quote: Lexus
      In addition, the Americans forced the Allies to fork out for development as well.
      If our Medvedev knew how.

      Something the Indians paid.
    2. gvozdan
      gvozdan 6 February 2016 15: 56
      +2
      1) Well then, let's compare after the F35 will meet at least with the Su-35 in equal conditions. And then comments f35 developers look like an attempt to sell shit under the guise of chocolate.
      2) Only here f / a-35 would cope with f18 tasks with new electronics.
      3) f35 flies a lot ... only shitty.
      4) Sometime later, along with the modernization of the f-22, the modernization of the T-50 may happen in parallel
      5) The USA coped with the concept of "light", but the concept of the cheap one is no longer there.
      6) Americans already milk the whole world without f35. It would be strange if, for example, Hitler could not force occupied France to fork out.
  • General_colonel
    General_colonel 6 February 2016 10: 36
    +2
    If you read National interest what American analysts write there, you can find similar wording in many articles. In particular, in an article about the delivery of S-300s to Iran, they write that "only aircraft with stealth technology such as B-2, F-22, F-35 will be able to operate in the S-300 area." In an article about the deployment of Russian S-400s in Syria, they again write "only aircraft with stealth technology like B-2, F-22, F-35 will be able to operate in the S-400 area." Probably, according to their ideas, the F-35 should fly in the enemy air defense presence zone in the conditions of military airfields destroyed by cruise missiles. An aircraft for colonial wars against a weak enemy, but with an air defense system. I wanted to say that we should abandon the idea that the cancellation of the F-35 program is possible. They wanted just such an aircraft, they did not get all the characteristics, but they will continue this program and we must proceed from the fact that the F-35 will be purchased in large quantities.
    1. gvozdan
      gvozdan 6 February 2016 16: 00
      +2
      Let it fly at least once in a zone of hostile air defense (at least some) to begin with. And then one f-117 was already flying, already removed from armament.
  • Ruby
    Ruby 6 February 2016 10: 42
    0
    Quote: Aleksandr72
    Xe-177 powerplant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 610A / B liquid-cooled engines, each of which represented a pair of two DB 605. That is, it was a four-engine plane.

    So the Germans just fell for Hitler's demand that the plane should be dive. From here and such an arrangement of engines. To make a 4-motor dive with a classic arrangement of engines did not work, since it was necessary to reduce the wingspan.
    As a result, the Germans from this layout of engines had more problems than from the enemy. According to their own statistics, more planes were lost in accidents than from enemy forces.
    But Tupolev did well, unless of course this story with Beria is not a legend, but the truth. I was able to insist on my decision.
    As for the F35, history knows quite a few examples of unsuccessful designs. On the other hand, each plane has its own time and place. That same Spitfire did not go at the front, although it is considered one of the best WWII fighters, again, the Cobra did not show itself very badly, and the Allies considered it an "iron" suitable only for ground attack ground targets.
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 6 February 2016 10: 42
    +3
    events in Syria have demonstrated the quality of Russian military aircraft.
    In Syria, our pilots do not have to fight modern air defense and fight enemy fighters. The IS does not use AWACS and EW, does not strike tactical missiles at our airfields. Therefore, we talk about the qualitative superiority of our airborne forces in the fight against an equal enemy, drawing on the experience of Syrian bombing --- This is too unfounded confidence.
    1. gvozdan
      gvozdan 6 February 2016 16: 15
      +3
      Well, who then demonstrated the qualitative superiority of their Air Force in the fight against an equal enemy ??? In my opinion, there are not even those willing for such demonstrations. And then a friend wrote "demonstrated quality" and not superiority over an equal opponent.

      And it is not yet known how the airborne forces showed themselves with an equal adversary with their A-50 air defense systems and electronic warfare systems at their airfields covered by anti-missile defense systems.

      So a double edged sword.

      But the bottom line is that either the Americans with their coalition desperate muffs or the same peep * abol, bombed in two years at times less than the VKS for 4 months. And if the second is true, then everything that they say including their military power against a real enemy can be called into question.

      "They don't negotiate with the weak," and "nobody kicks a dead dog."
  • pofigisst74
    pofigisst74 6 February 2016 11: 25
    +1
    I remember that the vaunted, hyped "stealth" was shot down in Yugoslavia from a 19-year-old air defense complex. Therefore, I do not understand their confidence in the invulnerability of this aircraft for modern air defense systems, and not NATO ones. request
  • Lexus
    Lexus 6 February 2016 12: 06
    -4
    Quote: pofigisst74
    I remember that the vaunted, hyped "stealth" was shot down in Yugoslavia from a 19-year-old air defense complex. Therefore, I do not understand their confidence in the invulnerability of this aircraft for modern air defense systems, and not NATO ones. request

    There is nothing authentic and documentary. The roofing felts were shot down; there is no roofing felts; the roofing felts accidentally dumped the roofing felts accidentally and accidentally fired. Maybe he fell?
    You need to be a clinical idiot to assume that the technique created on the basis of the past generations has some kind of holy spirit for the destruction of stealth aircraft.
    Some of the ops' confidence is probably based on such non-"absolute" concepts as the EPR of the electromagnetic radiation from the wavelength of the srk radar.
    1. gvozdan
      gvozdan 6 February 2016 16: 28
      +2
      I think the wreckage of the F-117 at the Belgrade Aviation Museum makes things a little clearer.
  • UNAUTHORIZED
    UNAUTHORIZED 6 February 2016 12: 24
    +1
    Thanks to the cool American PR, many countries have already invested in this aircraft, from Australia to Canada and Norway. But in my opinion, an attempt to create a universal aircraft will destroy it, which I sincerely wish him.
  • UNAUTHORIZED
    UNAUTHORIZED 6 February 2016 12: 57
    0
    Excuse me, who offended the wish of failure of the American plane?
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 6 February 2016 13: 04
    +1
    In general, it is interesting to read the comments, foreigners publish a bunch of articles in which they scold the F-35, refer to people with names, pilots, simulations of fights, etc. They talk about the backwardness !! (yes yes) of some INTEGRATED aircraft systems, compared to modern SUSPENDED systems, etc. The results of tests on ships are given and are not yet very comforting, the marines reach the "initial BG" on simulators! smile I wish all these foreign experts, pilots, and military-related journalists read the topvar and the defenders, if only they would cheer up smile

    I understand very well that the F-35 will be brought to mind in at least one modification and that it will be a great aircraft, the Americans know how to make airplanes, perhaps the best in the world BUT! Now this plane has big problems, this is obvious. He is not yet able to replace the 4th generation and apparently for another ten years everything will be the same, but personally I think about 15-20 years. Just in the year 2030-35, the year will become the F-35 BASIC aircraft of the US Air Force and will be reliable, etc.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 February 2016 15: 00
      +3
      Quote: barbiturate
      Americans know how to make planes, perhaps the best in the world BUT!

      There were also not very successful aircraft. In the case of a hitch, they have the opportunity to use the development of their satellites, which was, for example, when developing a tank (cooperation with the Germans), cooperation with the British and Israelis in developing a helmet, most likely they will pass the fifth generation with a not-so-successful -35 but technology is greatly advanced to create the sixth generation.
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 6 February 2016 15: 17
        +1
        I agree that everyone has setbacks and the Americans too. Here are some requirements for the F-35, they are now trying to bring and please everyone, until it turns out not very. Even just looking at the shape of the F-35 airframe, its elongation and dimensions, one engine - we can already say with confidence that the aircraft is based on electronics, coupled with a decrease in visibility, but what happens is still a question.
    2. d.antonov
      d.antonov 6 February 2016 21: 07
      0
      Throw me at least one such article with a link to the pilot, and not to anonymous sources (and don’t give me the National int, daily bst. David ax which have nothing to do with it)
      You can at least find a review of the pilot of Norway, Australia and the USA, while this will be a video, and not some kind of national int. with reference to the "authoritative" opinion of the Indian deiva.
  • kotuk_ha_oxote
    kotuk_ha_oxote 6 February 2016 13: 27
    0
    Quote: Mera Joota
    I read interviews with testers and reports in which everything is fine.
    How can "Woz still be there" correlate with data on the production of more than 170 vehicles, the beginning of production at sites in Turkey, Italy and Japan?

    Will the Japanese get F35?
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 February 2016 15: 03
      0
      Quote: kotuk_ha_oxote
      Will the Japanese get F35?

      Yes
  • metallic
    metallic 6 February 2016 13: 30
    +1
    Quote: Fitter65
    Before the war, demanded PB-4 diving 4-engined

    It was Kerber who was telling what "demanded" was. And the author of the article followed him.
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 6 February 2016 15: 42
    +2
    In my understanding, there is an analogy for a combat aircraft:
    1) A glider is a fighter and his physical data
    2) The weapon is a sword
    3) all types of protection is a shield

    f35 - frail fighter, despite the fact that the shield and sword at his and the enemy are about the same level. And in 10,15,20,25 years it will be so. There will be a competition of the nostril in the nostril for the shield and the sword. But they will hang new shields and swords on the frail fighter. And the new glider is a new plane.

    My opinion is that they will not be brought to anything; in the best case, it will remain in history as a laboratory airplane, on which the dead-end branches of the development of military aviation worked. Of course, the United States can long and painfully scare all of its wunderwaffles until it meets a real enemy. To some extent f35 is a US trap into which it itself fell. Well, the United States cannot recognize such a failure before the whole world. The reputation of the world's first arms supplier will be hopelessly spoiled, as well as the reputation of a world leader. (The situation is similar to the problem of the US public debt, debt is increasing everyone understands that it will not end in any good, but they continue to print bonds and dollars, because the way back not anymore)

    Surprisingly, the f35 objectively loses the characteristics of the glider to its fellow 4 generations, but it seems to be doing it with its advanced electronics. And to put this advanced electronics on old people of the 4th generation is too difficult ??? As a result, the entire value of the F35th is reduced to stealth. And the value of this stealth was questioned from birth. Because the growth of radar capabilities significantly outstrips (and overtook then) a possible increase in stealth technologies (and this growth goes more into the area of ​​electronic warfare which is not particularly important for EPR).

    As an analogy, we can cite a story about how (all the same the United States and the British) wanted to make an unbreakable "flying fortress", but the growth of the firing capabilities of fighters buried all hopes. Because the plane is not a bunker. In relation to F35, the plane is not a ninja in a dark corner.

    In general, the golden rule of the developer of anything - "innovations should not worsen the basic characteristics of the object." Do no harm like a doctor.
    1. maxes
      maxes 6 February 2016 16: 26
      0
      I agree. At the first exposure to the radar, the F35 combat path will end, there are no absolute invisibilities yet, it will not be able to dodge a retaliatory strike, all hope is for electronic warfare and heat traps. And a catapult.
  • Freeman
    Freeman 6 February 2016 15: 45
    0
    Even the famous F-400 pilot’s helmet, worth 35 thousand dollars, which gives the pilot all the necessary tactical information and allows you to see “through the cockpit”, was “too cumbersome” to allow you to freely look back.

    I didn't understand this "passage". Why turn your head back in such a "miracle helmet"? What prevents information from the sensors of the rear hemisphere to be displayed on it?

    IMHO. And regarding the dilemma "platform or dog dump", then the development of any type of weapon goes in the direction - "I saw earlier, shot further."
  • maxes
    maxes 6 February 2016 16: 16
    +1
    The F-35 aircraft is certainly interesting. And a breakthrough in aircraft manufacturing. Only the technology of creating one aircraft as a steam locomotive drags a lot of related industries ...
    And everything would be fine, but ... (Beria is to blame, Beria wassat ) but his concept is more suitable for UAVs - the F-35 is just a carrier of missile weapons, it is not a combat aircraft.
    And the concept itself is not new; during the Vietnam War, third-generation fighters fought and the American McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II fighter did not even have guns. What for? "We saw the target on the radar, fired a rocket and ended. Why air combat?" But the rocket does not always hit. And the MiG-21 is already close ...

    On the F-35, everything is the same: I saw it first (since I myself was "hardly noticeable") or pointed it from AWACS or KP, fired a rocket. But if he was noticed - consider the dead, the apparatus is not able to fight.
    -------------
    By the way, somewhere the information flashed that not only the main radar station with AFAR would be installed on the PAK FA aircraft, but also a set of other, both active and passive radar and optical radar stations, spread over the entire surface of the aircraft.

    So let's see what is stronger "invisibility" or "keen eye". And then there are A-50 AWACS aircraft.
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 6 February 2016 16: 38
    +3
    And more about stealth. Look at the F-117 and the F-35 and tell me which one is made by stealth technology?
    1. electrooleg
      electrooleg 7 February 2016 18: 01
      0
      No. The long-wave radar will see everything :)
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 6 February 2016 16: 51
    +2
    And from the bottom F-117 is almost flat, only 10% of the design of the airframe is made of metal alloys. And S-125 shot him down. And there is evidence of a downed pilot about a rocket rising from below.

    And why Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force did not begin to modify this aircraft here ???
    1. d.antonov
      d.antonov 6 February 2016 17: 15
      0
      he was limited in maneuvering and still had a lot of stocks, too narrowly specialized. Nevertheless, he gave the best practices on stealth.
      The fact that he was shot down 800 time out of 1+ sorties is only a pilot’s mistake.
      99,9% of F 117 was not just shot down - could not be found; and in the only case when he was shot down, they were aimed not at him (because they failed), but visually, relying on the spread of the "anti-aircraft shotgun" C 125 ...

      Well, you think with your head then, really ... Here's a quote from Colonel Zoltan Dani
      "On March 27, 1999, Yugoslavian Air Defense Colonel Zoltan Dani shot down an F-117 under the control of Dale Zelko. On that day, Djordje Anicic's group, which included Zoltan Dani, took a strategic position and deployed the S125M air defense system.
      So from, S125M saw F117 from a distance of 24 km, after which the plane disappeared from the radar and appeared at a distance of 14 km.

      The Yugoslav troops were forbidden to turn on the radar for a long time, due to the fact that the NATO Air Force used HARM missiles, which are aimed at the radio signal. The radar was switched on for a short period of time and immediately switched off. On that day, the group of Djordje Anichich, which included Zoltan Dani, took a strategic position, deployed the S125M air defense system and began to monitor the airspace. Somewhere at a distance of 23 km, the radar spotted the target, but due to the fact that the target appeared and disappeared, it was impossible to hover. After that, the target completely disappeared from sight, apparently went on vacation, but suddenly appeared at a distance of 14 km. Zoltan Dani gave the order to turn on the main radar and begin aiming at the target, but nothing happened. The target appeared and disappeared, and, finally, tired of meditating on a blinking dot on the stroboscope and waiting for a deadly HARM to fly from it, at a distance of 13 km Zoltan ordered a shot at the target with direct fire using the "Karat". This method had to be resorted to, since the radar and the escort station could not fix the aircraft. The rocket and the flying shovel met at a distance of 11 km from the calculation of the air defense missile system.
      1. gvozdan
        gvozdan 6 February 2016 20: 36
        +3
        That's right. This is what we are talking about. F-117 is a stealth plane with an EPR of 0,025. A F-35 EPR 0,001? Look at them, how is the difference in EPR of these aircraft 25 times? Although, according to all external signs, the f-117 EPR should be lower at times.
        6 out of 7 lost F-117 crashes due to control complexity. 64 pieces were released including 5 prototypes.

        C-125 system of 1961. maximum range of 17,5 km; minimum 3,5 km. The minimum ESR of the target is 0,3. And on the radar of this installation, a shovel plane appeared and disappeared. Now imagine what will happen at least with the S-300? and notice there is not manual guidance and launch (automatic) and vertical launch, you do not need to rotate the rockets towards the plane. The S-300 systems were developed and modernized from 1967 to 2005, the F-117s were produced from 83 to 90 and were removed from service in 2008. We can say the latest modifications of the S-300 to the same age as the f-117. The fact that the f-117 was shot down by the S-125 complex suggests that stealth technologies cannot compete with new radars

        What am I leading to - the plane is either little noticeable (which does not help much against modern radars) or it flies normally. The trade-off is when stealth technology does not degrade flight performance. The T-50 demonstrates this approach to us, the F-35 demonstrates the “neither fish nor meat” approach to us. Because it flies like a log and its EPR should be like a log compared to the F-117 cubicle.

        The fact that he flew 800 sorties to one defeat only indicates that serious air defense did not oppose him. And the fact that the air defense acted under the constant threat of destruction by other means of the superior enemy does not add f-117 pluses. Not to mention the fact that the nighthook did not bomb Yugoslavia alone.

        As for the developments - in science, a negative result is also a result. If you look from this point, then yes.

        Stealth has only one meaning to reduce the detection distance and then if a bunch of conditions are met (certain: viewing angle, radar frequency range, receiver and transmitter in one place, prohibition of suspensions, illumination at the moment of opening the doors of the compartments). mutated into "stealth"). It does not work against a serious opponent, it is not needed against a weak one.
        1. barbiturate
          barbiturate 6 February 2016 20: 52
          +2
          Our experts estimate the EPR of the F-22 when irradiated in the "muzzle" - 0.5 in other angles is significantly higher. Of course, the F-35 will not have an RCS of 0.001. I won't talk about the F-117, perhaps its RCS is lower than that of the F-22, 35 due to the lack of a radar washer in the nose smile
          So you still got excited with such low ESR
        2. d.antonov
          d.antonov 6 February 2016 20: 56
          0
          There is no data, even approximate, about the t-50 stealth, while there is no talk of compromise. Yes, and what does it mean does not work? Reducing the detection range occurs in any case. Serious air defense is a loose concept.
          According to the same open sources (depending on which one to take), EPR = EPR f117, according to other sources, f-35 EPR is lower than that of f-22.
          The U.S. Air Force sees it as a strike breakthrough link in conjunction with the F-22 and AWACS aircraft. He, unlike the F-22, has a larger volume of internal compartments, even fairly large-sized products are placed there. F-22 or Avax are at the turn of the enemy’s air defense means detecting radiation and pulling the bearing and tracking at the same time through the protected channels giving target designation to the F-35 air defense, taking into account the fact that they are behind the radio horizon from the ground it is difficult to detect them. But after all, there is also an AWACS at the enemy, and stealth is useful here. The radio contrast against the background of the earth is much worse than against the sky, add here also a low ESR. Plus, the overall compartments into which you can put a shorter-range weapon than on the suspension, but the detection line for such silent, inconspicuous targets even with AWACS is very small, and if you think about flying with allowance for terrain and counteracting the AWACS of the enemy with electronic warheads, the chance of success is many times higher than there is no stealth circuit

          And the "experts" can only speculate, they do not know the real data
          1. gvozdan
            gvozdan 7 February 2016 00: 47
            +6
            You are based on stealth that no one can confirm, there are only advertising statements, beautiful fairy tales about magic sensors. I can also tell a fairy tale:
            One Su-35S arrives with the hibins, turns off your radars and slowly but surely cuts everyone out. And all the f35 sneakily made their missiles launch and are unmasked by the local anti-aircraft defense, the f35 missiles do not hit anyone because the anti-aircraft missile link has a collective electronic warfare system leading all missiles away. Handsomely? I think it's beautiful.

            And it can be even simpler: There is layered air defense of all kinds in the overlap, radars of all stripes of all ranges of all possible viewing angles, some work in passive mode, all are on alert, active sources are covered with shells. All this economy is wrapped up with electronic warfare of all kinds. How will you storm? If you are seen earlier and better, and rockets evil horseradish fool. And the tomahawks don't achieve goals. And all this in motion is with a constant change of position, and some shoot on the go.

            These are our fantasies, no more. Only I fantasize for my homeland, and you are for the enemy and invader, who last time destroyed 15 million civilians only.
            1. d.antonov
              d.antonov 7 February 2016 13: 30
              -1
              well, you can’t discuss anything at all, besides people who work in the defense industry, no one will confirm anything other than advertising statements. Nevertheless, this site exists.
              And my fairy tale differs from yours in that I described its more or less real application and where its stealth is useful.
              You described miracles, Khibins do not turn off any radars (I generally hope that you didn’t take this with a bullshit about Donald Cook) and the collective electronic warfare system that takes away all the missiles down with wonders too. Amers also have airborne reb and it is not known whose is better, so planes will not hit each other?
              And with the advent of 120D with a two-channel connection, the probabilities of hibin fall even more.
              Nobody has a layered air defense, maybe the USSR did, and even that, with reservations.
              And why the massive tomahawk raids do not reach their goals is also not clear.
              Well, it’s ridiculous to hear about the enemy of the invader in the 21st century, especially since this refers to the USA and Russia.
              Perhaps I agree that before the battle it’s all theoretical calculations that with a probability of 90% do not coincide with reality.
              1. Operator
                Operator 7 February 2016 14: 35
                0
                In addition to the subjective opinions of manufacturers and operators (who are afraid of losing their income), there are still objective flight characteristics of aircraft, such as, for example, the F-35A / Su-35C:

                Statement on combat duty: - / Syria 2016 year
                Maximum take-off weight, t: 29,5 / 34,5
                Wing area, sq.m: 42,7 / 62,04
                Wing load, kg / m2: 690 / 556
                Maximum thrust of engines, t: 19,5 / 29
                Thrust: Units: 0,66 / 0,84
                Maximum speed, km / h: 1700 / 2500
                Flight range without PTB, km: 2200 / 3600

                Objective data on the EPR of both aircraft and the permitted operational overload of the F-35A are not available.

                Based on LTH, the F-35A is a strike aircraft, and Su-35C is a multi-function super-maneuverable aircraft.

                At the same time, the use of the F-35A as a drummer leads to a loss of stealth due to the small volume of internal weapon compartments and the need to engage external hangers.

                Attempting to use the F-35A as a fighter with long / medium-range missiles in the internal weapons bays will also result in a loss of stealth due to the need to use a radio command line to guide the missiles on the cruise flight until the target is captured by radar missiles.

                At the distance of the use of self-guided short-range missiles with thermal seeker F-35A is visible with the help of infrared R-Su-35С.

                The multifunctional Su-35C is a self-sufficient aircraft, and the F-35A attack requires for its combat use support from the F-22, which only the United States Air Force has limited size and production has ceased. In this regard, the question is - what is the point of using F-35C in the air forces of other countries?
              2. gvozdan
                gvozdan 7 February 2016 22: 06
                +2
                The site exists for fantasy. How real is your option is also your imagination.

                The whole virtual war between your assumptions and mine lies in the fact that in your version, nobody sees your planes, cruise missiles Avaxa, and if you see it, it still won't hit for other reasons. And in my assumptions, everything is accurate to the reverse. Where the truth will show only practice.

                1) But I hope with the fact that the attacker is simply obliged to fly into the enemy’s air defense zone, you will not argue. And to other equals, an advantage is added due to air defense.

                2) AVAKS is a large, unobtrusive target - one (old) P-37 or (new) RVV database will drop the Avax at a distance from 250 to 300 km. (The most long-range RVV is US 180 km)

                3) Tomahawks can be shot down when approaching with S-300/350/400 / (500 in the future) air defense shell C2, Tor M2, Buk M3, etc. And air defense systems are mostly mobile, some like Thor and Shell are firing on the go. In addition to mobile complexes, there are stationary radars. Almost all the latest modifications of the air defense system were sharpened, including the work on the RC, the EPR of which is approximately equal to or less than that of the f22 and f35, and the flying flare is quite low. What is the likelihood of the Raman or subtle f35 to remain unbroken? and hit your goals? And the goal in the first stage is the air defense itself. Which can also work in a passive mode, and be invisible on the background of the earth.

                4) The most interesting thing is why the f-22 f-35 and avax will fly into the air defense zone and what kind of blows they can deliver from their compartments. And at the same time they can shoot back undetected.

                Under conditions of serious air defense, stealth does not work because the problems of intercepting such targets, including low-flying ones, were solved by the work of intercepting cruise missiles (which MiG-31 specialized in even before modernization). Air defense systems have the ability to intercept more serious and complex targets.

                As for the option that the electronic warfare of both sides will not allow the effective use of the explosive weapons. Actually, who can 100% deny such a development? Why are guns on f22 f35? then.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 8 February 2016 00: 11
                  0
                  Quote: gvozdan
                  2) AVAKS is a large, unobtrusive target - one (old) P-37 or (new) RVV database will drop the Avax at a distance from 250 to 300 km. (The most long-range RVV is US 180 km)

                  Only here the radius of target detection in Avaksov in 2 with hook more times
                  1. barbiturate
                    barbiturate 8 February 2016 15: 27
                    0
                    Theoretically, yes, but the AWACS attacking plane can also be invisible and use: the terrain, going on the attack against a complex underlying surface, a difficult tactical situation, will attack not one (which is logical), but in combination with a pair of EW aircraft, etc. d.
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 7 February 2016 20: 54
              -1
              Quote: gvozdan
              You are based on stealth that no one can confirm, there are only advertising statements, beautiful fairy tales about magic sensors. I can also tell a fairy tale:
              One Su-35С arrives with the Khibins, turns off your radars and slowly but surely cuts everyone out.


              Where did you read such heresy from?
              At least you yourself understand. what do the Khibiny do and what is their purpose?
              Khibiny is only self-defense !!!

              That's all.

              He has no suppression and cannot be!
              He cannot turn off any radars!
              Teach materiel!
              Nonsense, damn it ...

              D, B!
      2. Ramzaj99
        Ramzaj99 7 February 2016 11: 47
        +1
        Quote: d.antonov
        The fact that he was shot down 800 time out of 1+ sorties is only a pilot’s mistake.

        )) Or maybe he was shot down only once, because he was only shot at once ??
        The Americans NEVER climbed into any country with 100% certainty about the destruction of air defense.
        And they always acted from those heights and distances, from where their defeat by the available means would have been impossible.
        And the miracle with the downing of F117, not that it was shot down, but that the air defense station survived, which was able to produce just one shot.
  • Konstantin 121
    Konstantin 121 6 February 2016 17: 04
    0
    When I hear about the next problem F35, I remember the phrase "the patient is more likely dead than alive."
  • Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 6 February 2016 21: 03
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    Serious projects - this is not to piss under the bush. The design part of the T-50 began in the 2002 year. Americans are de facto developing three different aircraft. At the same time, ours will go to the series in 17, but no one says that in this very series everything will be completed to the perfect look. It is still not clear what is with engines, with weapons systems, etc. As a result, at the beginning there will be the same small series as the F-35. It's just that the Americans have it clearly indicated.

    So in fact, and the shifts on the T-50, that tests are ending on weapons systems and tests are going in parallel with other types of tests. This year they will be transferred for military tests, in the 17th there is already a series, but so far with the engines of the 1st stage. So, despite all the sticks being put into our wheels by the "democracies" of the West and our pro-Western liberal pseudo-economists, the T-50 is still not a stillborn child of the Russian aircraft industry! drinks
  • Budilnik
    Budilnik 7 February 2016 15: 49
    0
    All hope for tactical nuclear weapons. Not yes, God will begin to reduce it.
  • mvg
    mvg 7 February 2016 16: 55
    -1
    Quote: gvozdan
    As soon as the hatches are opened, then all invisibility will end. In general, the whole trouble with f35 is that they expected that powerful radars and electronic warfare systems would only be with them. But it turned out that both of them will also be with us at least. But on normal planes. The main thing on the plane is the glider, and everything else is attached. Americans are ruined by their "exceptionalism" and "impunity"; they want domination and superiority at any cost. Hence the ideas such as invisibility, inaccessibility, etc. This is evident in everything from the first atomic bomb to the present day. They want to keep the whole world in fear, but not to fight with anyone, and if they fight, then with a deliberately weak enemy both in number and in quality. This is the essence of the nation of hucksters: to cheat, cheat, weights, hit from around the corner, because fighting is stupid.

    Ours proceed from reasonable sufficiency, and manage to make breakthroughs for much less money. Our focus is more on basic research giving a new quality.
    1) Americans have not mastered the fuselage, and since the 4th generation they have been stably losing in speed and range
    2) The maximum overload for amers is 7-8 for our 9 G
    3) The controlled thrust vector is only for f22 and then on the same plane (because they wanted it so or because it didn’t work out ???)
    4) On equal radar, on electronic warfare perhaps we are already ahead.
    5) Long-range missiles at least at the R-37 level did not appear among the amers.

    Two main concepts of f35 stealth and vertical take-off for option B are Soviet developments recognized by our leadership as unpromising. Because besides airplanes, we also have air defense, which already then saw these invisibles. VTOL (Yak-141 compare with F35, surprisingly even the ancient Yak has a maximum speed of 100 km / h more than that of the f35) with existing engines it loses by its main characteristics much more than benefits from vertical take-off. And with new engines (type 30) and UVT, our aircraft will be able to take off from a short run and a springboard no worse than vertical flyers.

    And we must take into account that the United States got a head start at 15 and cheated on endless money, while Russia at that time lost half the population, one third of its territory, two civilians in the Caucasus, and to this day has been entangled by the CIA under the guise of funds from NGOs and other traitors and saboteurs.

    And against the background of all this, the USA gave birth to such a miscarriage as the F35 whose invincibility is explained by some kind of magic sensors, they would also say that each F-35 has a full-time magic wand, which at the right moment turns this flying pumpkin into a normal plane.

    When you draw nonsense, ears do not burn? urapatriotism also has borders .. after the rubicon, uraidiotism begins
    1. gvozdan
      gvozdan 7 February 2016 19: 33
      +1
      What specifically does not suit you? what exactly should my ears burn from?
      And regardless of who I am, it is better to be a jingoistic patriot than an all-grave guard.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 7 February 2016 21: 59
        -1
        Quote: gvozdan
        What specifically does not suit you? what exactly should my ears burn from?
        And regardless of who I am, it is better to be a jingoistic patriot than an all-grave guard.


        A typical example of a stupid person.
        Those. one that has either red or white.
        And what can not be in the middle?
        Can't be rational?
        You can not soberly assess their real capabilities and the real capabilities of the adversary?
        And knowing. rather, aware of their weaknesses, eradicate them, and knowing the enemy’s strengths, either repeat them or do them better.
        Be honest with oneself.

        and not think that "mine" is simply by definition better than "someone else's."
        My hut is made of "shit and sticks", but it's better. than a neighbor's brick house.
        Here is a real-life example of what an ured patriot looks like. A lover of shit and sticks.

        When you have 30 aircraft of class 4 ++, and the enemy has 130 of class 5, then the realization that you are weaker is not "sentry-everything is lost" but a sober calculation.
        And those who say that we will defeat everyone in this situation look stupid.
        About them a bunch of videos on the Internet. Well, sort of like getting into a cage with a bear drunk.
        A typical example of a person. who has no sober calculation in his head. but there is only "self-grievance!"
        1. gvozdan
          gvozdan 8 February 2016 06: 40
          +1
          1) A typical example of a moronic person determines the number, quality and combat readiness of the US and Russian air forces from open sources.
          2) A typical example of idiots trying to reduce the country's defense ability to the number of 5th generation aircraft, without taking into account the air defense of the Strategic Missile Forces of the Navy and all other military branches, geography, logistics, and planning in general.
          3) Those who say everything disappears look pathetic, even look disgusting, a piece of spreading gov * but with an American flag stuck in the middle.
          4) Typical people who see their shortcomings exclusively in others.
          5) While people with looks like yours stood at the helm of the country, the armed forces fell apart and degraded.
          6) I do not see you have a sober calculation! you cannot squeeze out a single positive assessment of our weapons. You even construct sentences like this "And knowing. Rather, realizing your weaknesses to eradicate them, and knowing the strengths of the enemy, either repeat them or do better" that is, strengths are only with the enemy, weaknesses are only with us, and all that we can repeat is ... Is this a sober calculation in your opinion? This is a subtle hint - you better give up right away? Once we have already surrendered - it did not get better.

          Look at American ads for less. And love your homeland more, become at least just a patriot.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 8 February 2016 22: 35
            0
            Quote: gvozdan

            Look at American ads for less. And love your homeland more, become at least just a patriot.


            Well, what did he say ...
            Lavrov said everything for me. D, B!
            1. gvozdan
              gvozdan 22 February 2016 01: 19
              0
              Apparently there really is essentially nothing more to tell you. Lavrov said ABM you.
              1. Generalissimo
                Generalissimo 22 February 2016 02: 52
                0
                This he often repeats. It’s just that his homeland is different, and spring will soon be already writing in verse.
  • electrooleg
    electrooleg 7 February 2016 17: 58
    0
    I believe the mandula for vertical take-off will not allow this freak to have a sane payload, and even empty it will still fly like a log.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 7 February 2016 20: 57
      -1
      Quote: elektroleg
      I believe the mandula for vertical take-off will not allow this freak to have a sane payload, and even empty it will still fly like a log.


      Would you read about the subject you are writing about, huh?
      About versions, about the composition of weapons at least ...
      Well, what would a regular birch kindergarten not seem like ...
  • CRASH
    CRASH 7 February 2016 21: 01
    -1
    And if you check that out of everything presented "on the move and shoots", then we just do everything is deplorable, but we may, and "potential allies" have even more fun, dovecote in the ranks of some, and Arabs all over the country in others. They are afraid of such countries as Turkey and the UAE, some strict Muslims, while the latter keep the whole world in the oil market.
  • ametist415
    ametist415 8 February 2016 23: 36
    -1
    The Americans, too, the mafia saws the budget. I think they could quietly upgrade their F-15,16,18 on the sly. Judging because the F-16 can easily shoot down the SU-24, it would have shot down both the SU-27 and the 35th. The F-16 has even better visibility. Also, unfortunately, I have a doubt that our pilots can resist the "pilots". We have only a few of them, while the United States has hundreds. To be able to land an airplane on the deck of a ship is a great achievement, not everyone can do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfOD2y_AD_w
    1. nikolay_major
      nikolay_major 9 February 2016 14: 19
      0
      The SU-24 was shot down - because it is a bomber and it does not even have a normal radar. Therefore, he did not expect this, and the Su-27 and Su-35 are 2 heavy fighters (which despite their weight are very maneuverable) that have both radar and electronic warfare systems and short-range, medium or long-range air-to-air missiles. In addition, the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 are faster and more maneuverable than the F-16, so judging by the fact that the F-16 was shot down by a bomber, which means it can be shot down by a fighter.
      In addition, what does the battle have to do with whether the plane lands on deck or strip? It’s not at all clear.
      1. ametist415
        ametist415 10 February 2016 12: 49
        -1
        I am not an expert in aviation, but I am alarmed by the very dubious propaganda that Su is the best aircraft, because in general, Russians produce such rubbish that they themselves prefer imported goods. Even an ordinary screwdriver is worse in quality than, for example, a German one. People in factories work the same and the attitude to work is equally apathetic, maybe military acceptance gives a little better result. If we compare the assembly shops of the "F" and "SU" aircraft, it will be seen that we have a technological lag and quite a decent one. So I doubt our planes are better.
        1. ametist415
          ametist415 10 February 2016 12: 53
          -2
          The photo shows that the shop is old and the technology is outdated.
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 11 February 2016 15: 24
            -1
            Dear home-grown technologist, tell us how the F-35 frame milling technology differs from the same on the Su-35? Or maybe there are some of the latest top-secret aluminum alloys used? Probably somehow mithril? You, besides pictures on the internet, have not seen more aviation production and have no idea about technology at all. Let’s say I saw a workshop at VASO (Voronezh Aviation) on the full assembly cycle of a titanium pylon for Airbus aircraft. And this is laser cutting, molding, milling including five-axis and assembly of the finished unit. With driving bolts, what do you think. But, Europeans are satisfied with the quality for some reason.