Military Review

For F-35 in Britain will build large-scale hangars

76
In early April, the British Defense Ministry entered into contracts with Lockheed Martin to build the infrastructure for the base of the F-35B Lightning II fighter jets planned for entry, the blog reports bmpd with reference to the magazine "Jane's Defense Weekly".


Project image of one of the objects for the basing of the F-35B fighter jets to be built at the British Markham airbase

The cost of the agreements amounted to £ 142 million. The aircraft will be located at the Markham air base in Norfolk County.

It is noted that in Markham there should be built from scratch "three large complexes of facilities for the basing and maintenance of F-35B fighter jets and flight and ground training."

"Under the terms of the contract, Lockheed Martin will involve BAE Systems Corporation as the main subcontractor for the design and construction of these facilities, the latter will also manage the activities of the British construction company Balfour Beatty, which is directly involved in construction work," writes the magazine.

Construction of the facilities is planned to be completed in 2018, i. to the arrival of the first squadron F-35B.

Image of the basing and maintenance of F-35B fighter jets in one of the hangars to be built at the British Marham Air Base
Photos used:
BAE Systems (via Jane's)
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. MOTHER
    MOTHER April 11 2016 10: 58
    +7
    They will beautifully explode ....))))
    1. cniza
      cniza April 11 2016 11: 05
      +4
      Of course it looks beautiful, but how to fight? there they don’t pay for beauty, they have to plow and not in sterile cleanliness.
      1. Hon
        Hon April 11 2016 11: 09
        +3
        that is, following this logic, should planes be kept in a pigsty?
        1. Observer2014
          Observer2014 April 11 2016 11: 19
          +6
          Hon (4) RU Today, 11:09 ↑ New
          that is, following this logic, should planes be kept in a pigsty?
          I think that it’s not in the pigsty for sure. Although it will probably be too much for combat units. Think about it after such a sterile environment and at the alternate airfield! So this f 35 will catch some infection with blunt immunity. laughing
          Although if there are only ten of them in the air force at the cost of several lards, then the hangar must be made for their storage accordingly. A fashionable airplane, a fashionable hangar! laughing
          Not long ago, their general said that we should surrender at his sight with fright. We need to tell the British, let them arrange a hangar in the form of a horror room. Well there with hooks, chains.
          1. novobranets
            novobranets April 11 2016 12: 08
            +10
            Quote: Observer2014
            It is necessary for the British to prompt, let the hangar in the form of a room of horrors make out.

            And to drive frenzied grandmothers of tourists, to show a terrible plane.
        2. Panikovsky
          Panikovsky April 11 2016 12: 09
          +4
          Quote: Hon
          that is, following this logic, should planes be kept in a pigsty?

          no, following this logic, each commando should live in five-star apartments with a staff of footmen, prostitutes and packs of servants until they fulfill their functional duties. laughing
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 09
            +1
            following the logic, this is probably some kind of very large plane that for it it is necessary to build special hangars bully
            despite the fact that it is generally intended for basing outside airfields wassat if of course ... maybe laughing
      2. Leto
        Leto April 11 2016 11: 12
        +5
        Quote: cniza
        Of course it looks beautiful, but how to fight? there they don’t pay for beauty, they have to plow and not in sterile cleanliness.

        He will fight as it turns out, and a combat aircraft should only be operated in such a way that the inherent resource is not "killed" in the rain and snow.
        I hope that for our T-50 there are funds for normal hangars.
      3. Thronekeeper
        Thronekeeper April 11 2016 11: 47
        +2
        There the terrorist Dopil Otkatov undermines the economy of the United States and GB. Then this "Cinema" in the modern style, with a swimming pool, blackjack and teasers will be included in the price of the AIRCRAFT according to the class of service and maintenance.
        Generally - for "Caliber" with ODBCH, "Onyx", or "Zircon" with a cluster head - yacht-s. Brick walls and a glass roof, so that no one left offended, just a bunch. I hope at least Israel will think of reinforced concrete overlap to do it?
    2. Hon
      Hon April 11 2016 11: 10
      +1
      from bombing caps
      1. Michael67
        Michael67 April 11 2016 11: 23
        -1
        Am I correcting the title here?
        "Large-scale hangars will be built for the F-35 in Britain" - targets.
        1. Hon
          Hon April 11 2016 11: 27
          +4
          it’s so easy to bomb an object on a strange territory, which, as it were, doesn’t have the weakest army, but also has nuclear weapons
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 11 2016 12: 57
          +1
          Targets for whom? - Britain has air defense and nuclear weapons too.
      2. Gray brother
        Gray brother April 11 2016 11: 42
        +1
        Quote: Hon
        from bombing caps

        They take out Norfolk hats from the Black Sea - the "Caliber" style is called.
        1. Hon
          Hon April 11 2016 12: 03
          0
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Quote: Hon
          from bombing caps

          They take out Norfolk hats from the Black Sea - the "Caliber" style is called.

          Air defense overcome?
          1. Gray brother
            Gray brother April 11 2016 12: 19
            0
            Quote: Hon
            Air defense overcome?

            With a high probability. The target is small, the flight height above the ground is 50-150 meters, 20 meters above the sea.
          2. Ramzaj99
            Ramzaj99 April 11 2016 12: 44
            0
            Quote: Hon
            Air defense overcome?

            But is it there ???
            1. Hon
              Hon April 11 2016 13: 55
              -1
              Quote: Ramzaj99
              But is it there ???

              Indeed, where can a country with the fifth largest military budget in the world (Russia fourth place) come from?
              1. Ramzaj99
                Ramzaj99 April 11 2016 16: 25
                0
                Quote: Hon
                Indeed, where can a country with the fifth largest military budget in the world (Russia fourth place) come from?

                Well, if you are so smart, can you list what strategic objects, including civil ones)), besides the border, are air defense covered ??)) And what of this can even shoot down anything other than an airplane ?? As far as I know, the "Patriot" can shoot down the "Caliber" if it flies above 100m and knows in advance from which direction and at what time it will fly, with an ammunition consumption of 2: 1 and then without guarantees ...
              2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 11 2016 11: 31
      0
      For F-35 in Britain will build large-scale hangars

      Ltd! amerikozy, that did not get off the main drawback of the F-22 ??? (the need to check after each flight the anti-radar coverage, because of which the maximum daily rotation of one F-22 equals TWO flights). For this, F-22 special hangars and equipment are needed, apparently F-35 as well. Indoor American fighter jets, therefore, are intended for one-time intimidation actions against a weak enemy. request Americanoses continue in the same vein. It will not bring them to good. But to us it is a mess.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas April 11 2016 11: 43
        0
        And what is a civil hangar for a non-combatant aircraft.
        1. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 16
          +1
          when they are written off in speed as unjustified hopes, you can play basketball lol
          they are being built for F-35B, it will be impossible to put anything else there - low stretch ceilings laughing
      2. iliya87
        iliya87 April 11 2016 13: 11
        +2
        Any complex technique needs proper care.
      3. retardu
        retardu April 13 2016 05: 02
        0
        For a long time already there is no this problem with f22
    4. Deniska999
      Deniska999 April 11 2016 11: 37
      +1
      Who will blow up? Do not make me laugh.
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 26
        0
        yes there’s a head already being cut in the streets on white ...
    5. Portolan
      Portolan April 11 2016 12: 39
      0
      Build, Build, otherwise the sugar will melt under the dough.
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets April 11 2016 10: 58
    +9
    We would also not be prevented by such structures.
    1. Vovanfalcon
      Vovanfalcon April 11 2016 11: 08
      0
      If only in the form of ARZ, well, there may be a TEC (in large compounds). In other cases, that is, in the field, the aircraft must be operated and be maintainable.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets April 11 2016 11: 16
        +5
        Quote: VovanFalcon
        If only in the form of ARZ, well, there may be a TEC (in large compounds). In other cases, that is, in the field, the aircraft must be operated and be maintainable.

        Well, this is understandable, it’s just a pity when expensive equipment is worth it.
        1. Hon
          Hon April 11 2016 11: 22
          +2
          on the contrary, it’s good how much savings are on the hangar, and nothing that one plane costs like several hangars, the economy should be economical
        2. Nitarius
          Nitarius April 11 2016 11: 34
          +1
          and you look at WESTERN HANGARS ... WHERE THERE IS ANY element chippers for air nozzles .. this is nonsense and nothing more!
          If the equipment is designed for normal storage .. and aggressive air flows ... then nothing will happen to it under normal rainfall!
          And believe me .. SHOW AND NO MORE! Repair yes .. But storage clearly!
          1. Hon
            Hon April 11 2016 11: 36
            +2
            Quote: Nitarius
            and you look at WESTERN HANGARS ... WHERE THERE IS ANY element chippers for air nozzles .. this is nonsense and nothing more!
            If the equipment is designed for normal storage .. and aggressive air flows ... then nothing will happen to it under normal rainfall!
            And believe me .. SHOW AND NO MORE! Repair yes .. But storage clearly!

            yes fools in general. Well this is necessary, we thought carefully of the technique.
            1. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 20
              0
              were not fools - you would not buy into this, and did not give the USA their "loonies"
            2. The comment was deleted.
        3. GSH-18
          GSH-18 April 11 2016 11: 37
          +1
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Well, this is understandable, it’s just a pity when expensive equipment is worth it.

          This expensive equipment is made of materials that do not care: + 50C or -50C, whether it is raining or snowing.
          Hangars are needed for attendants. Aircraft fighters, like elite girls, after every prominade need the FULLEST. You can not say about our aircraft, originally adapted to the military situation.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets April 11 2016 11: 52
            +3
            Quote: GSH-18
            This expensive equipment is made of materials that do not care: + 50C or -50C, whether it is raining or snowing.

            There is not a single technique that would be "all the same", precipitation, sun, wind, sand, birds affect ANY unit, to a greater or lesser extent. I'm not saying that we, as Britons, need to build an entertainment and educational center with swimming pools, courts and cafeterias for 150 kilo-bucks. But, probably, the equipment can be driven under the roof, especially now there are a lot of options with pre-fabricated structures, look at how fast all sorts of super-hypermarkets are being built.
            Quote: GSH-18
            Hangars are needed for attendants.

            The techies will probably say thanks too. yes
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 April 11 2016 12: 23
              +2
              Quote: Vladimirets
              There is not a single technique that would be "all the same", precipitation, sun, wind, sand, birds affect ANY unit, to a greater or lesser extent. I'm not saying that we, like Britons, need to build for 150 kilobucks

              Quote: Vladimirets
              But, you can probably drive the equipment under the roof

              They drive her when necessary. Aircraft are operated in accordance with the statement of work for their production and operation.
              Quote: Vladimirets
              The techies will probably say thanks too. yes

              And that's what they do. Look, look, even on "Vostochny" a vertical pre-launch tower was made by servants for a rocket. Military equipment is military, which does not need excesses. But the necessary technical facilities must be according to the airfield regulations, and they ARE where it is needed.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 11 2016 13: 00
            -4
            No one has canceled the chemical rains and corrosion, well, our planes would have been made of metal materials, as well as aluminum and titanium alloys.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null April 11 2016 13: 07
              +4
              Quote: Vadim237
              Nobody canceled chemical rains and corrosion

              - how scary it is to live (my profile-producing department was "Corrosion and protection of metals", if anything)

              Quote: Vadim237
              well, our planes would be made of metal materials, as well as aluminum and titanium alloys

              - and what are "metomaterials"?
              - why are titanium alloys bad?

              Once upon a time I had practice at the marvelous enterprise GNIIHP (GosNIIHlorProekt, Moscow). So: the plant produced chlorine and chlorine derivatives (mainly explosives), the main reagent was hot hydrochloric acid (HCl), and the equipment was made from titanium.

              So, even in a hot hodgepodge, the equipment was guaranteed to "stand" for six months ..

              Somehow yes
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 57
                +1
                and what are "metomaterials"?

                oh don't even ask tin laughing
                their connection with "chemical rains" especially smiled.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 11 2016 14: 50
                -2
                So you have a 100% effective way to protect metals from corrosion. All metals are susceptible to this problem - a violation of the oxide film - and there greetings.
                1. Cat man null
                  Cat man null April 11 2016 15: 44
                  +2
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  So you have a 100% effective way to protect metals from corrosion

                  - there are many of them, and they are different .. about cathodic protection, as an example, you, naturally, have never heard
                  - a similar thing - tread protection. Talk to your car a piece of magnesium, and sleep peacefully .. while the magnesium is still there, there will be no rust on your car. At least on those parts that have electrical contact with this .. magnesium laughing

                  Quote: Vadim237
                  All metals are susceptible to this problem - a violation of the oxide film - and there hi

                  - oxide films are also different ..

                  Damn, Vadim .. that’s why I love you - this is your aplomb .. you are torn into battle where you don’t own the item .. like with Armata .. like with corrosion protection request
      2. Hon
        Hon April 11 2016 11: 17
        +1
        Quote: VovanFalcon
        If only in the form of ARZ, well, there may be a TEC (in large compounds). In other cases, that is, in the field, the aircraft must be operated and be maintainable.

        then something is stargazing due to equipment failure, but then the conditions of detention are field, we can say Spartan
    2. Vovanfalcon
      Vovanfalcon April 11 2016 11: 08
      0
      If only in the form of ARZ, well, there may be a TEC (in large compounds). In other cases, that is, in the field, the aircraft must be operated and be maintainable.
    3. DarkMatter
      DarkMatter April 11 2016 11: 22
      +2
      By the way, I don’t understand, do we have all planes, helicopters in the open air? Is it because of this that almost all Migi have become unusable?
      Why can not you build very simple hangars? And then all the time in the rain and snow, I think the construction of conventional hangars without bells and whistles will be much more profitable for the budget than the constant deterioration of the condition of aircraft, which will need to be repaired more often (but at least stupidly to install 4 wooden logs with a cardboard roof wassat ).
      Explain to the fool request
      1. your1970
        your1970 April 11 2016 12: 36
        +1
        There were underground caponiers of anti-aircraft defense in the Soviet times, if you think that they greatly increased the resource of airplanes, then there is none, the resource was exactly the same as that of those standing in the open wind.
        The only thing that spoils from open storage is tires. 10 years of storage until 6 years of operation or until the first cord (MI-8) - but at the same time it’s not a global cost, but the rest is plugs, put on covers and let the birds even if they die from diarrhea, this doesn’t have a serious effect on the condition of the equipment. Question of serviceability - Avia Tech is usually equipped with all the facilities necessary for normal maintenance.
    4. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 11 2016 11: 32
      0
      Quote: Vladimirets
      We would also not be prevented by such structures.

      Where necessary, they are.
    5. Gray brother
      Gray brother April 11 2016 13: 03
      +6
      Quote: Vladimirets
      We would also not be prevented by such structures.

      At least prefabricated.
    6. VIT101
      VIT101 April 12 2016 00: 03
      +1
      Quote: Vladimirets
      We would also not be prevented by such structures.


      What for? The local "smart guys" on the forum think that it is not necessary. True, these clever men saw a combat plane live only at MAKS, but they did not see how it was serviced in the cold, they dug out of the snow, a cover that was frozen to the planes was torn off in the frost.
      The culture of servicing equipment as well as the culture of production is an indicator of the technical level of the country. Creating normal conditions for servicing aircraft is the most important task. First of all, accident-free flight operation depends on it. Unfortunately, in our aviation this is considered a secondary problem. And so it goes. Closed-type concrete arched shelters were built in the Soviet Army in the event of a nuclear strike, but this was done only in the border districts. In the rest - only an embankment from three sides. Border districts remained abroad. Currently, all of our aircraft are in the open. Like a hundred years ago.
  3. vnedra
    vnedra April 11 2016 11: 00
    +1
    and dust off them, hangars are certainly good, but what about the field conditions, what they will do there!
    1. HAM
      HAM April 11 2016 11: 06
      0
      For "funny" planes, nothing is a pity ... What kind of "field" conditions are we talking about? If they are afraid of rain anyway ..
      1. Hon
        Hon April 11 2016 11: 15
        +2
        Quote: HAM
        For "funny" planes, nothing is a pity ...

        funny, no one came across these planes, their capabilities are judged by the yellow articles, and are absolutely sure that they are not combat-ready. Look in ukrsmi, they write that the tank has armata, the tower is cardboard
        1. HAM
          HAM April 11 2016 11: 20
          +1
          Maybe you’re right, but for some reason I’m sure that no one will encounter them. Expensive. Therefore, they teach us that we should be afraid of only one of their kind. (Recent statement by one of the US generals)
          1. Hon
            Hon April 11 2016 11: 24
            -1
            for Americans there is no concept expensive, they have a budget like all armies combined
            1. HAM
              HAM April 11 2016 11: 33
              -1
              Berezovsky also believed that he was immortal ..
              1. Hon
                Hon April 11 2016 11: 40
                -1
                where does Berezovsky? the United States has a very large military budget, and they can afford very expensive purchases, and not only them, equipment is becoming more expensive. Armat’s tank turned out to be not very cheap, I think the T-50 will also cost more than current fighters
                1. HAM
                  HAM April 11 2016 11: 46
                  +2
                  Just an analogy .... He was rich, omnipotent, and ended up on a scarf for a couple of dollars.
                2. your1970
                  your1970 April 11 2016 12: 43
                  +1
                  In the event of a serious conflict (I will make a reservation of a non-nuclear one: otherwise these planes are not needed by anyone for scrap) - the USA will receive a reset of its candy wrappers to itself from ALL sides. Next two ways: 1) to accept - and then mad inflation will gobble up these planes inside the USA, 2) refuse to accept, and then furious inflation on these pieces of paper OUTSIDE the USA will devour everything, including these aircraft from the US allies ..
                  In general, a similar story already happened - with battleships. Tirpitz, Yamato, etc. - stood frantically (including access to the sea) - and the actual combat action was zero point-ten hell ......
    2. Leto
      Leto April 11 2016 11: 15
      +3
      Quote: vnedra
      and dust off them

      no, it’s better to leave it outside in the rain and snow, so that you can write it off ahead of time ...
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 11 2016 11: 04
    +2
    So the builders will be delighted to take part in the tender, or is it like everywhere else, only for their own?
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets April 11 2016 11: 05
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      or is it like everywhere else, only for your own?

      "Lockheed Martin will engage BAE Systems as the main subcontractor for the design and construction of these facilities."

      One "kid" will be helped by another. wink
  5. Foresterer
    Foresterer April 11 2016 11: 07
    0
    Hangars, go, will also be invisible?
  6. Grbear
    Grbear April 11 2016 11: 08
    +3
    Beautiful, but somehow toy ...
    Others are seriously preparing for a possible "democratization".
    China

    Swedes
    SwedesSwedes


    And as with the British, one tactical nuclear weapon will get there and there are no three dozen lard. hi
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 48
      0
      Why TNW? Just shrapnel.
  7. iliya87
    iliya87 April 11 2016 11: 09
    -3
    And when they brought the plane to mind did not say? By 2020, by 2030, or will they even hit this paper plane?
    1. Hon
      Hon April 11 2016 11: 19
      0
      Quote: iliya87
      And when they brought the plane to mind did not say? By 2020, by 2030, or will they even hit this paper plane?

      you will be personally informed about this as a chief specialist
      1. iliya87
        iliya87 April 11 2016 13: 08
        0
        To begin with they would tell
    2. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 11 2016 14: 08
      0
      they will hammer on everything except F-35A (the article is not about him) which also has its own jambs, this one will be left so that the satellites are not offended
      F-22 will tear it all the same if some country of the free world rebels against the SGA
      F-15 will tear the rest
  8. Altona
    Altona April 11 2016 11: 13
    +2
    Apparently the hangars will be crammed with almost factory equipment. For the device has a considerable number of jambs, both in software and constructively. In addition, periodically needs to be updated radar absorbing coating. Such a tender device. A list of kosyachki? Annoy followers?
    1) Low bomb load, if used as stealth
    2) Dangerous bailout system for pilots lighter than 68 kg
    3) The high cost of flight, beyond
    4) Errors in target recognition
    5) Low maneuverability
    6) Speed ​​without afterburner not corresponding to generation 5, low thrust-to-weight ratio
    7) Weak landing gear
    Well, probably enough for trolling wink
    1. Leto
      Leto April 11 2016 11: 21
      -1
      Quote: Altona
      Well, probably enough for trolling

      That's right, for "trolling", not for serious analysis ...
      1. Altona
        Altona April 11 2016 11: 31
        +1
        Quote: Leto
        That's right, for "trolling", not for serious analysis ...

        ------------------------
        What kind of analysis could be for an aircraft with a flight hour of $ 50000? And trolling is that now adherents of "technological weapons" will come, which are simply unthinkable to use in modern warfare because of their high cost, and will argue how "the F-35 looks good in modern combat." What does he look like? What can he do? To gain air superiority? What, a pregnant belly? Overcome a modern air defense system? Well, well, what next to fire a couple of pathetic missiles and be spotted and shot down? Do not make me laugh.
        1. Hon
          Hon April 11 2016 11: 43
          +1
          and what modern equipment is cheap to purchase and operate? Maybe the S-400 is an inexpensive toy? if the plane really gives an advantage in the air. then do not care how much it costs an hour of his flight, since an enemy shot down aircraft is becoming more expensive early
          1. your1970
            your1970 April 11 2016 12: 49
            +1
            "it doesn't matter how much an hour of his flight costs, since the downed enemy plane is more expensive early on"
            if he’s ONE with the enemy, then don’t give a damn - and if there are a thousand? And if there are one thousand? 50 lyam bucks a day for 1 flight hours !!! How many hollowed about the relatively weak S. Hussein? Libya? Yugoslavia? days of the week, months .. I even I won’t take the calculator in hand — there will not be enough zeros for a combat operation lasting for example in 100 hours ..
            Or do they think that they will pile in bulk and everything will be decided in an hour?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh April 11 2016 14: 08
              -1
              "How much did they hammer the relatively weak S. Hussein?" ///

              Not for long.
              The offensive began on March 20, 2003, and the capital of Baghdad was taken on April 12. Iraq capitulated.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 11 2016 16: 51
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Not for long.

                What happened with Fallujah?
            2. Hon
              Hon April 11 2016 14: 08
              -1
              Quote: your1970
              "it doesn't matter how much an hour of his flight costs, since the downed enemy plane is more expensive early on"
              if he’s ONE with the enemy, then don’t give a damn - and if there are a thousand? And if there are one thousand? 50 lyam bucks a day for 1 flight hours !!! How many hollowed about the relatively weak S. Hussein? Libya? Yugoslavia? days of the week, months .. I even I won’t take the calculator in hand — there will not be enough zeros for a combat operation lasting for example in 100 hours ..
              Or do they think that they will pile in bulk and everything will be decided in an hour?

              almost five hundred billion dollars in their military budget. do not compete with them financially, the navel will untie
        2. Leto
          Leto April 11 2016 12: 07
          +2
          Quote: Altona
          What analysis can be for an airplane whose flight hour is $ 50000?

          Following your logic, you should obstruct the creators of the MiG-31 whose flight time is an order of magnitude more expensive than the Su-15 flight hour, not to mention the MiG-19.

          Quote: Altona
          Do not make me laugh.

          Your arguments apply equally to any combat vehicle, regardless of the country of manufacture.
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 45
            0
            Do not compare the MiG-31 with this cu ....
          2. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 45
            0
            Do not compare the MiG-31 with this cu ....
      2. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 11 2016 14: 11
        0
        Seriously, everything is much simpler and consists of three points, two of which are unremovable ...
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 11 2016 13: 00
      0
      "In addition, the radio-absorbing coverage periodically needs updating" ///

      The T-50 has the same radar absorbing coating - requiring careful inter-flight
      service. Otherwise, it deteriorates and the EPR grows. New reality ...
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 42
        0
        Was it the same on the F-117?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. retardu
      retardu April 13 2016 05: 04
      0
      Quite a normal load, even for stealth
      About pilots generally nonsense. There is the same percentage as on all aircraft. Just for some reason, for f35 the problem was inflated
      the cost of the flight as well as f22 eye 25 thousand. What is beyond? Well, the rest is far-fetched
  9. Mihalich17
    Mihalich17 April 11 2016 11: 13
    +1
    Yards have gone into the development of the F-35, yards will go to hangars!
    Let go! )))
    So far, the f-35 results are not impressive!
    It does not fly, IT ... as you want.
    Let the money of their "taxpayers" spend!
    But such Karasavtsy-hangars would not hurt us!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 11 2016 13: 03
      -1
      "It doesn't fly, IT ... the way you want." But on the contrary, the F 35 flies perfectly - it has problems only with electronic equipment.
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 40
        0
        What really chtol? bully And on the penagon website they write something else! laughing
        1. Hon
          Hon April 11 2016 14: 10
          0
          Quote: FooFighter
          What really chtol? And on the penagon website they write something else!

          and often do you read the Pentagon sites? or is it the media allegedly linking to the Pentagon website?
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 11 2016 14: 19
            0
            Yes, do you think you missed something? You can also write in the comments there. lol
      2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Cananecat
    Cananecat April 11 2016 11: 20
    0
    Not well, but cho ... a football field, a couple of concert venues, a dozen bars, well, there are 5 cinemas (a bath / sauna is with us) ... I almost forgot ... a complex of psychological rehabilitation for pilots who received psychological trauma after the meeting with planes of "Sukhoi" company there are ... dtsat beds, although not ... perhaps a hundred. Hmm ... have you forgotten anything? Not? ... and well, yes, and a couple more lard to cut. Now that's all. hi
  11. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 11 2016 11: 20
    0
    The cost of the agreements amounted to £ 142 million

    Plus the cost of aircraft, plus the cost of maintenance, etc. In short, it will cost the budget of a small country. And another question - will there be airplanes by 2018?
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 38
      0
      will only be brief
    2. The comment was deleted.
  12. mvg
    mvg April 11 2016 11: 22
    +1
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Quote: VovanFalcon
    If only in the form of ARZ, well, there may be a TEC (in large compounds). In other cases, that is, in the field, the aircraft must be operated and be maintainable.

    Well, this is understandable, it’s just a pity when expensive equipment is worth it.

    Moreover, the cost of hangars is not so great .. comparable to the cost of 2-3 aircraft .. And then yesterday I spoke about a special about Tu-22M3 that out of 25-27 aircraft in the base, in flight there were already 4 pieces .. queues and flew, so that the pilots did their 60-100 hours of flight.
  13. RuslanNN
    RuslanNN April 11 2016 11: 28
    -1
    This is certainly good for an exhibition, but hardly suitable for military operations. So in Afghanistan, our turntables fly after any bullet storms, and foreign ones have to disassemble and clean almost a screw. Same thing with airplanes.
  14. pts-m
    pts-m April 11 2016 11: 33
    0
    F-35, imposing sybarite and womanizer in NATO circles, demand privileges if only he could justify his ambitions. Russian planes pretend to be simpletons, but they know their service clearly and fulfill all the commanding whims of the command on time.
    1. Hon
      Hon April 11 2016 11: 45
      -1
      Quote: PTS-m
      F-35, imposing sybarite and womanizer in NATO circles, demand privileges if only he could justify his ambitions. Russian planes pretend to be simpletons, but they know their service clearly and fulfill all the commanding whims of the command on time.

      and when our planes pretended to be simpletons, they always demonstrated technologically parity with the enemy and often superiority.
  15. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 11 2016 11: 48
    +2
    Hangar storage in any way increases the resource of aircraft and preserves the health and strength of the technical staff. The aircraft has to withstand field service, but "garage storage" is better.
    As for the specific hangars for these aircraft, it comes to mind: "My eyes would not look at him." Hide out of sight. Some kind of plane that violates the aesthetic sense.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 32
      +1
      it is, and Senator McCain will be appointed chief fire safety officer
    2. The comment was deleted.
  16. iliitchitch
    iliitchitch April 11 2016 11: 57
    +1
    Oh how, suckers-martins will already be engaged in construction, YES SUCH A WAY! Sad of their affairs, it seems, the pepelats did not work. Also take a Boeing with you to the bottom and a general electrician, we do not mind.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 11 2016 13: 30
      0
      but they say that robots do not know how to think laughing
  17. cte-power
    cte-power April 11 2016 12: 04
    0
    construction companies also need to slice a piece of the budget
    design is also not the last thing - it costs money

    Well, the walls in rhinestones
  18. aviator1913
    aviator1913 April 11 2016 12: 19
    +3
    Good aircraft hangars. What is so here. In Russia, hangars are also being built, especially for Bombers and the like; in Crimea, hangars on Belbek and under fighter jets stand.

    I consider the laughter at a good engineering structure, which is being built for ease of operation, to increase the service life of the aircraft, to be a sign of a near mind.

    Such people in winter in -30 degrees, probably also laugh at people in hats.
  19. SIMM
    SIMM April 11 2016 12: 32
    0
    But what, this bullshit can’t even be found in the open air?!?)))
    Well, although that's right, all early "this" does not fly, so why take up space ...
  20. demiurg
    demiurg April 11 2016 12: 46
    +1
    Concrete hangars protect against bombing. Guided by a concrete bomb / rocket, the hangar is likely to break through, but break through only one and there will be no mass knocking out of planes by one bomber breaking through, which threw cluster iron. Mass drank Arab aviation in the war 72 years recall? What is shown in the picture is nonsense of some kind of artist.
    The question is, in which news do not stick, everything BAE does, from cartridges to hangars. Supercorporation is direct.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 11 2016 13: 11
      +1
      BAE Systems is one of the largest defense companies in the world with its weapons, space, materials and much more fields, it employs 120000 people and an annual turnover of 40 billion pounds.
  21. Verdun
    Verdun April 11 2016 14: 04
    -1
    I understand that 142 million pounds - is it for a start? And then it’s not good when the price of the hangar is behind the price of the plane.
  22. Russia
    Russia April 11 2016 14: 39
    0
    For F-35 in Britain will build large-scale hangars

    For the "most terrible" aircraft for the Russian Aerospace Forces - the largest hangars.

    Or rather, they continue to "milk the cow" named "F-35B" (to cut the budget).
  23. Alex von Dorn
    Alex von Dorn April 11 2016 17: 46
    0
    Let the British spend it ... A plane seems so-so. Let them buy it.