Norwegian F-35s against Russian MiG-31s: in a real battle, the victory would have been ours


In the camp of NATO, they are celebrating a victory over Russia, although for now, a virtual one. The Royal Norwegian Air Force announced a “historical event” with pathos: the fifth-generation fighter F-35 Lightning II were able to secretly fly three Russian aircraft, the Tu-142 and the MiG-31 fighter, and then accompany them.


How should you relate to this message?

First, a few words about the characters. Tu-142 is a Russian long-range anti-submarine aircraft. MiG-31 is a fourth generation long-range supersonic fighter-interceptor. And, finally, the main character of the plot is F-35 Lightning II, an inconspicuous fifth-generation fighter-bomber made in America.

Oslo attributes the increase in his defense capability to his appearance in the Norwegian Air Force, judging by the statement of the representative of the country's Ministry of Defense:

Now our Air Force can respond to emergency situations. This shows that we have taken serious and important steps towards obtaining operational benefits from the F-35.

So, the fifth-generation aircraft “outplayed” the fourth-generation aircraft, which is a reason for pride. This is how to be proud of the victory of the "terminator" T-1000 over the T-800. By the way, in that old film it didn’t work out either.

Studying the circumstances of the “historical event” also suggests that everything was not so unambiguous in one gate. F-35 Lightning II turned out to be an expensive car and with a huge number of problems. The specialized American publication Defense News noted that as of 2018, 111 shortcomings of the first category were identified in the fifth-generation aircraft. Subsequently, their number decreased to 63, and then to 13 as of 2019.

Despite assurances from the Pentagon that these problems are not dangerous to pilots, Defense News analysts disagree. Another publication, Business Insider, talks about 883 design flaws. Among them are the possibility of structural damage to the stealth coating at high speeds, increased turbulence and some “squinting” of the airborne gun. Add to this the high cost and complexity of aircraft maintenance. It is estimated that an hour of flight of the F-35 Lightning costs taxpayers $ 24 thousand.

All of these problems are across the throat of the manufacturer of Lockheed Martin Corporation and its customers. Nevertheless, Washington continues to palm out problematic, but very expensive planes to its NATO allies. For example, Norway ordered 52 such winged cars, receiving really 15. What does the manufacturer need to improve sales?

That's right, advertising, and preferably from an uninterested party. The main thing is that nothing breaks. And then it turns out that the American AWACS aircraft helped the Norwegians to "take advantage" of the Russian planes. And so it turns out the plot of the "historical event."


Aircraft AWACS Boeing E-3 Sentry, as well as fighters F-16, F-35 and F / A-18. Photo: Air Education and Training Command

The western f-16.net forum has long been discussing the problems of the F-35 Lightning II. The local professional audience came to the curious conclusion that without support from AWACS, American aircraft would not have a chance against an equal number of Russian MiG-31s. We will not even touch on the speed characteristics in which our plane simply surpasses the "American" by head. Of course, situations are different in a war, but forum users believe that if the Russians first hit an electronic reconnaissance and tracking plane (one of the MiG-31's destinations), then the F-35 pilots will instantly be “blinded” and will be forced to retreat.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

20 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Arkharov Offline
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 18 March 2020 15: 35
    -7
    • 1
    • 8
    Of course, situations are different in a war, but forum users believe that if the Russians first hit an electronic reconnaissance and tracking plane (one of the MiG-31's destinations), then the F-35 pilots will instantly be “blinded” and will be forced to retreat.

    And why? Even if the MIG-31 knocks AWACS (only who would let it in so easily?), It will be clearly losing with its huge reflective surface. Well, there would be a better weapon, but the R-33, probably for its time, had good missiles with a decent range. But they were intended, like MIG-31 itself, to intercept targets of something like B-52. What this “very fast flying in a straight iron” will do with a very poorly visible F-35, quite maneuverable, possessing AIM-120 missiles, if the last modification, then with a range of up to 200 km, one can only guess. Here, of course, excellent overclocking characteristics and significantly higher speed can help. F-35 is unlikely to catch up with him.
    1. akarfoxhound Offline
      akarfoxhound 18 March 2020 22: 03
      +1
      • 4
      • 3
      Wow! Connoisseur of the MiGar sofa !? Did the hosts tell you about the AIM-120D with a launch range of 200 km? Cool! And Che is not "stotyshpYasot" ??? And your version of the R-33 with the "maneuverability" of the 35th generally killed! laughing
      I was always touched by the pathos of absolute losers on the topic of aviation, but they have a “professional” opinion.
      laughing laughing laughing
      Find yourself a decent job, a NET daily hollow scoop that draws knowledge from a wiki - it looks rzhachno wink
      1. Arkharov Offline
        Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 19 March 2020 08: 11
        -5
        • 1
        • 6
        I have no owners, fortunately, or vice versa, no. This is the first. The second, in the course, that you really used the 31st. For this I respect. And by the way, I’m on you. Then, nevertheless, more specifically on points it is possible, but accessible to understanding by "losers", except for your general tantrum? What is really wrong?
        1. akarfoxhound Offline
          akarfoxhound 21 March 2020 01: 24
          +3
          • 3
          • 0
          I apologize for You, but apart from your "conclusions", I have not observed another tantrum.
          If the topic of aviation is of interest, go to the Aviaforum, there are uncles, trampled the sky, they are sitting, and most of them have already been agreed upon by professionals a million times. I am also there regularly. Explain to the outsider even the basics of aviation, but to make it clear - not a dozen pages will go away. Reading your thoughts is really ridiculous, but I don’t want to write the same thing in the explanations, and a lot, and laziness frankly. Well, about the EPR goals you already wrote here, the first and main task of the 31st is the destruction and interception of the Kyrgyz Republic and their carriers. Why carriers? Yes, it is easier and more profitable to bring it down with two full “revolvers”, until he dismissed them before the RBW. What, then chase each separately? Well, for good taste, "in secret" - our performance characteristics of the slabs are underestimated, I even worked better on the "simple" than on the "fence is written." The first time, "in practice", was pleasantly surprised. This, of course, is on the fully-trained equipment. Pindocs have the same problem, they have no less handshakes. If someone in nete writes real numbers to you like from the instructions for the combat use of MiGar - it means balabol, they are now under the stamp. And it is calculated who wrote where and from now, now by the services - without sweating.
          1. Arkharov Offline
            Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 21 March 2020 09: 05
            -1
            • 0
            • 1
            Why carriers? Yes, it is easier and more profitable to bring it down with two full “revolvers”, until he dismissed them before the RBW.

            - about this, by the way, I wrote about. But this is clear to every student.
    2. g1washntwn Offline
      g1washntwn (George Washington) 19 March 2020 09: 13
      +5
      • 5
      • 0
      As it were, the MIG was created not only for high-altitude interception, but also for the interception of cruise missiles, which are low-profile flights. And to find a target with an EPR even lower than the estimated F-35 against the background of the earth, you know, that is still a task. This is the question of stealth.
      About missiles: AIM-120D up to 180 km, with the last kilometers being an inertial flight with a limited maneuverability. For a confident defeat, it is necessary to launch much closer than the maximum range, so that the rocket maneuvers on the active rather than the passive site (MBA Meteor is more dangerous in this regard).
      "Analysts" on such virtual victories of the "penguin" in the internet in bulk, do not multiply it with assumptions.
      1. Arkharov Offline
        Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 19 March 2020 11: 41
        -5
        • 1
        • 6
        You are quite competent. But the main message of the article is absolutely illiterate:

        ...but forum users They believe that if the Russians first hit an electronic reconnaissance and tracking aircraft (one of the MiG-31 missions), then the F-35 pilots will instantly be “blinded” and will be forced to retreat.
        1. g1washntwn Offline
          g1washntwn (George Washington) 19 March 2020 11: 52
          +3
          • 5
          • 2
          Without a link from AWACS, stealth loses its main advantage. With the loss of stealth, he, of course, can go on the attack, but with a different alignment of chances. By and large, he is the sniper. There are not many rounds of ammunition (4 to the “rifle” and 2 to the “gun”, the cannon-knife without super-maneuverability can be ignored). As soon as the position is illuminated or the gunner is "opened up" - there is little sense in fighting, you need to crawl smartly.
    3. maidan.izrailovich (Maidan Izrailovich) 20 March 2020 13: 03
      +3
      • 4
      • 1
      Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov)
      Well, there would be a better weapon, but the P-33 ...

      The MiG-31 range includes the R-37 missile. Adopted in 2014.

      R-37 (according to NATO codification AA-13 “Arrow”, literally “Arrow”) - a Soviet-Russian air-to-air missile long range.
      Missile length: 4,20 m
      Fuselage Diameter: 0,38m
      Starting weight: 600 kg
      Warhead Weight: 60 kg
      Launch range: more than 300 km

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-37

      Breathe out, philosopher. lol
    4. master3 Offline
      master3 (Vitali) 31 March 2020 15: 16
      +1
      • 1
      • 0
      F-35 is unlikely to catch up with him.

      - This phrase is exactly the point. He simply has no choice but to flee, and the faster the better. Only there is doubt, the F-35 may not catch up (does he need it?), But the AIM-120 will catch up for sure.
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 March 2020 15: 42
    -1
    • 3
    • 4
    Yes! If they only caught up ... !!! Then we would show them ....
  3. Rus Offline
    Rus 18 March 2020 20: 11
    -2
    • 2
    • 4
    Undoubtedly! A dagger directly in the forehead!
  4. Binder Offline
    Binder (Miron) 19 March 2020 00: 20
    -9
    • 2
    • 11
    Fermented patriots again tell each other about the capabilities of Russian weapons and the complete worthlessness of the West - well, the lads will not be able to taste that a cart with a machine gun, even the fastest, does not channel against the tank. lol
  5. g1washntwn Offline
    g1washntwn (George Washington) 19 March 2020 08: 59
    +3
    • 4
    • 1
    What "victory" is absolutely incomprehensible. Airplanes flew with transponders, no AWACS needed. With the same success, one can "win" civilian air buses every day. From the point of view of inconspicuousness, the F-35 is in a better position, while it is "in the shadows" and its missiles receive target data from other sources. As soon as he has to turn on the active target acquisition of his own radar, his invisibility immediately turns off. The technologies used seem to be confusing to the enemy’s detection systems ... but this is not only known to them alone. Already around and everywhere, it has been analyzed up and down that the F-35 is only good as a camper sniper, it is precisely these "frags" that are given out as win.
  6. Tektor Offline
    Tektor (Tektor) 19 March 2020 12: 30
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    They could not beat ours in any way. We operate ZGRLS "Container", which "sees" any objects more than 4 m in the area of ​​responsibility.
    1. g1washntwn Offline
      g1washntwn (George Washington) 19 March 2020 12: 55
      +5
      • 5
      • 0
      The story was this:

      Mig-31: - Hello to the Norwegians.
      F-35: - Hello Russian.
      They missed each other. A little later, after landing:
      Mig-31: - I saw the Norwegians, they sent greetings.
      F-35: - I saw the Russians and would have won all.
  7. Dzafdet Offline
    Dzafdet (Sergei) 20 March 2020 07: 05
    +3
    • 3
    • 0
    EPR F-35 of the order of 0,4-0,5 square meters. meter. You can spot it and knock it down. That's just why the MIG-31 should do this? For this drying there is ...
    1. PSih2097 Offline
      PSih2097 (Alexander Latvian) 20 March 2020 12: 26
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Quote: Dzafdet
      EPR F-35 of the order of 0,4-0,5 square meters. meter.

      - this is until he opens the weapon hatches to launch the rocket. After, its EPR increases by 2 - 3 times ...

  8. Gadley Offline
    Gadley (Sergei) 20 March 2020 08: 32
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    You read these couch "experts" and understand how we are used to doing verbiage. On the other hand, with a tongue to grind (hit with your fingers on the keyboard) do not carry bags. And for couch "experts" I explain that each type of aircraft has its own advantages and disadvantages, and also very much depends on the gasket between the helm and the seat. And only a real battle can show who is right, who is to blame.
  9. Regis Offline
    Regis (Sergey Kopan) 20 March 2020 08: 37
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    As already got sofa warriors who do not know how to wind footcloths, and if they were on the airfield of the airfield, then only before flying to Turkey or Egypt. If we draw an analogy, then in 1941 some "strategists" also considered the number, caliber of guns, mm of armor and armor penetration .... A real battle showed somehow a completely different result, I would say unexpected, here the author and his opponents can in paragraphs give translations of American handouts and opinions of the same "couch experts" like themselves. In any case, they will be very, very far from the truth. Do your ego amuse.