As evidenced by the next crash of the F-35A Lightning II


Two days ago, another fifth-generation American fighter crashed in the United States. This was the third F-35A Lightning II, lost by no means in aerial combat, but in a peaceful sky. A week ago, another fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor, crashed at the same military air base in Florida.


Complex technique sometimes it fails, which should be remembered to those who previously gloated over the fall of the fifth-generation Russian fighter Su-57 last year. What conclusions can be drawn from a series of disasters?

The United States was the first to develop a fifth-generation fighter jet using stealth technologies to make them inconspicuous. The pioneer was the F-22 Raptor, which produced 195 units. They were followed by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II in three versions: ground, deck and in the version with a short take-off and vertical landing. As of May 2020, the manufacturer has sent over five hundred aircraft to customers.

According to the initial idea, the fighter was supposed to become the main one not only in the USA, but also in Great Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Australia. Given their cost, about $ 100 million apiece, depending on version, Lockheed Martin is a big commercial success. But in the future it became clear that the corporation produced a frankly "damp" plane, which has hundreds of shortcomings. Even American experts point out that, in the aggregate, these defects can adversely affect flight safety and the pilot's combat mission. The question is, how was this possible?

To disassemble the advantages and disadvantages of the F-35 "in the cog" does not make much sense. Perhaps the most honest will be to say that the whole story with an ultra-expensive aircraft is generally not so much about weapons as about business. The USA in every possible way publicized its fighter, pulled dozens of other states into this project, obliging them to supply components and buy at an inflated price. This is a story about money and the ability to advertise and “sell”, in which Americans are unparalleled. Is the F-35 so “prodigy”, the tenth question is very controversial.

With a stretch, you can draw a parallel with the American "iPhone", technically no superior to competitors, but insanely PR and overrated. If you look, then in the world there are already many analogues of the F-35. In Russia, this is the Su-57, which, albeit inferior in "invisibility", but more maneuverable. China has its fifth-generation fighter J-20, which is inferior in a number of parameters to both our aircraft and the American one, but it has never crashed. Japan, despite participating in the F-35 program, is simultaneously developing its own X-2 Shinshin. Germany and France are jointly engaged in the design of the fifth generation fighter as part of the FCAS project. What can I say, even Turkey, having burned herself in collaboration with the United States under the F-35 program, is trying to develop such an aircraft.

If you call a spade a spade, the American F-35 is such a “flying iPhone”: prestigious, very expensive, able to perform its functions, but in essence is no better than other analogues.
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 13: 33
    -3
    Is the F-35 so “prodigy”, the tenth question is very controversial.

    Did anyone call this plane a "wonder weapon"? A modern aircraft with a fundamentally new concept of warfare, largely experimental. Which, of course, entails certain shortcomings. Will they finalize? Undoubtedly.

    The F-35 program is also distinguished by its openness, unique to military equipment, which is why everyone knows about the shortcomings of this aircraft. As well as its merits.

    The USA in every possible way publicized its fighter, pulled dozens of other states into this project, obliging them to supply components and buy at an inflated price.

    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?
    1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 14: 12
      +3
      ... Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy? ..

      That's about it. The Americans put pressure on their partners in NATO, forcing them to buy equipment specifically made in America, and at the same time pose all sorts of obstacles to the development of their allies in the block.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 14: 14
        -2
        The Americans put pressure on NATO partners, forcing them to buy equipment specifically made in America

        Please tell me French and German American-made vehicles.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 14: 32
          0
          ... Please tell me French and German American-made equipment ..

          I will call, only a request, spare me your stupid requests. Half of all the questions you ask, you could answer yourself if you sometimes included the brain.

          Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept Of Target - aka Patriot.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 14: 34
            -2
            Wow, how much.

            Well, I’ll clarify the question. Why aren't NATO countries like Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada flying the F-35?
            1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 14: 53
              +1
              .. Well, I’ll clarify the question. Why such NATO countries as Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, do not operate the F-35 ..

              ..Spain is exploring the possibility of acquiring a fifth-generation F-35 fighter from the United States, reports El Mundo.

              https://ispani-ya.com/hot_news

              For the Germans: they are just now considering replacing the Tornado aircraft with the F-35, and the Eurofighter aircraft with the F-18.

              For France and Germany in the context of F35:
              https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/france-and-germany-want-stealth-fighter-better-f-35-88191

              Well, once again, my wish to you: try to use your own brain to search for information.
              This saves time, and in general - you will not look as stupid as you are now.
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 15
                -3
                Well, once again, my wish to you: try using your own brain to search for information

                I use it. So.

                For the Germans: they are just now considering replacing the Tornado aircraft with the F-35, and the Eurofighter aircraft with the F-18.

                https://tvzvezda.ru - Германия вон отказалась.

                .. Spain is exploring the possibility of acquiring a fifth-generation F-35 fighter from the United States, reports El Mundo. "

                Studying or already bought? These are somewhat different things, if that. India won, too, "studied" the Su-57, and something somehow did not grow together in the end.

                For France and Germany in the context of F-35:
                https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/france-and-germany-want-stealth-fighter-better-f-35-88191

                Thank you for giving me an example of how Germany and France are developing an alternative F-35. True, I asked about something else, but you even saved time for me)) True, thanks)

                It saves time, and in general - you will not look as stupid as you are now

                I look smarter than you - for now this is enough for me.
                1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 15: 31
                  0
                  https://tvzvezda.ru - Германия вон отказалась

                  According to representatives of Lockheed Martin, notifications of exclusion from the tender for the Luftwaffe have not yet been received.

                  - excerpt from your article)

                  Is studying or already bought?

                  Studying in order to buy. In Russian, it is being traded.

                  Thank you for giving me an example of how Germany and France are developing an alternative to the F-35. True, I asked about something else, but you even saved time for me)) True, thanks) ..

                  Yes, they are trying to find an alternative solution. This does not contradict what I said. And I personally only for to find. But how it ends, time will soon show.

                  ..I look smarter than you - for me this is enough for now ..

                  I did not oppose you. So your right to consider what you want.
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 59
                    -3
                    .. According to representatives of Lockheed Martin, no notification of exclusion from the tender for the Luftwaffe has yet been received ...
                    excerpt from your article)

                    As well as the concluded supply contract. In the meantime, there is no supply agreement — they are not in service. And you can consider anything and any number.

                    studies in order to buy. In Russian, it is being traded.

                    And what then is the "imposition"?) When you buy Pivchansky in the store, they also "impose" it on you?)

                    Yes, they are trying to find an alternative solution. This does not contradict what I said.

                    Contradicts. If the United States "imposed" the F-35 on its "vassals", they would not be looking for an alternative, but simply bought the "Lightning".

                    I did not oppose you.

                    You called me stupid - it automatically means that you consider yourself smarter than me. According to your argument, it is clear that this is not so.
                    1. isofat Offline isofat
                      isofat (isofat) 22 May 2020 16: 14
                      +2
                      Quote: Cyril
                      According to your argument, it is clear that this is not so.

                      Cyril, from the side it is more visible. smile
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 16: 15
                        -3
                        You would first read a textbook of logic.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 16: 57
                        -3
                        I’m saying that you didn’t read the textbook. It says that analogy is a method of proof.
                      4. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 22 May 2020 17: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril
                        ... analogy is a method of proof

                        smile http://mainrules.ru/dokazatelstvo-po-analogii-ne-dokazatelstvo/
                      5. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 14
                        -2
                        Again. Read the logic tutorial.

                        https://fil.wikireading.ru/18383
                      6. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 22 May 2020 20: 25
                        +3
                        Cyril, of course, you can use the analogy in your reasoning. It is possible that reasoning based on analogy will encourage you to put forward a hypothesis. You will put forward it, and it will be necessary to prove a hypothesis.

                        Then, when you will prove it, analogies do not apply. Analogies for reasoning, inferences, assumptions, but not for evidence.

                        PS You will begin to understand me when you have mastered at least the basic concepts of logic. Two with a minus - I got excited about it. You are 0.
                        You could not even understand the book, the link to which you bring.
                      7. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 21: 21
                        -2
                        Just because I know the basics of logic, I will never understand you.
                        Well you are so stubborn, well, you open the textbook of logic, well, look with your own eyes.

                        Here is a tutorial on logic:

                        https://books.google.ru/books?id=Gv2uDQAAQBAJ&dq=%hl=ru&source=gbs_navlinks_s

                        We look at the 83 page, the very bottom:

                        Proof by analogy - this is the rationale for the thesis that states the property of a single phenomenon with the help of arguments that contain information about another phenomenon similar to the first in essential features

                        Evidence by analogy is widely used in science - for example, when modeling any objects or phenomena. It is also used in historical science.

                        Is analogy an exhaustive argument? No, it is not, because it belongs to the class of inductive arguments. Therefore, the analogy is used in conjunction with other methods of proof. But the argument is unconditional.
                      8. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 10: 05
                        +1
                        Proof of Analogy ...

                        ... But, applying the proof by analogy, we must always remember that the conclusion obtained by analogy gives only probable knowledge. The analogy only suggests the characteristics of the object that have not yet been studied. But these conjectures, subject to complete analogy, have a certain evidentiary force.

                        (p. 162)
                        LOGIC Dictionary - a reference book. N.I. Kondakov, second edition, Nauka publishing house, Moscow 1975
                      9. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 10: 21
                        +1
                        The wave theory of light was developed primarily by examining the similarities between light and sound. Both light and sound have amplitude (brightness - volume), frequency (color - height) and other common properties. The comparison of the wave theories of sound and light turned out to be so productive that scientists spent a lot of effort trying to discover an environment that would spread light, just as air spreads sound. They even gave this medium a name - “ether”, but could not find it.
                        In this case, the analogy was so convincing that it led scientists astray.
                      10. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 15: 11
                        -2
                        Thank you for once again confirming my words with your own quote.

                        But these guesses are subject to a complete analogy have known evidentiary value.

                        What I was talking about.

                        Is analogy an exhaustive argument? No, it is not, because it belongs to the class of inductive arguments.
                      11. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 16: 16
                        +2
                        1.
                        Is analogy an exhaustive argument? Is analogy enough to prove the truth - the thesis?

                        No, it is not, because analogy gives only probable knowledge.

                        2.
                        Is analogy an exhaustive argument? No, it is not, because it belongs to the class of inductive arguments.

                        PS The above written confirms that only one analogy is not enough to prove the thesis. In other words, the analogy is not evidence.

                        You absolutely do not understand the meaning of your own quotes.
                      12. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 16: 28
                        -2
                        The above confirms that only one analogy is not enough to prove the thesis. In other words, analogy is not proof.

                        Definition of evidence:

                        Evidence - reasoning by certain logical rules, justifying the truth of any assumption, statement, hypothesis or theory.

                        Is an analogy a basis for verifying the truth? Is an. Therefore, it is a proof.

                        Is only one analogy enough to fully substantiate the thesis? No. And I didn’t say that.

                        In other words, the thesis about "insufficient probative power of analogy" is not identical with the thesis "analogy is not proof."

                        You look in the book and see a figure of 3 fingers. Everything is written in black and white for you - you continue to blunt. What for?
                      13. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 16: 36
                        +2
                        Quote: Cyril
                        Is an analogy a basis for verifying the truth? Is an. Therefore, it is a proof.

                        No, it is not, because analogy gives only probable knowledge.

                        We can say that on this planet, perhaps, there is life, because there is water and the atmosphere like on Earth.
                        We cannot claim the existence of life on this planet. smile
                      14. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 16: 41
                        -2
                        Knowledge that increases the likelihood of a thesis is true. And therefore, it is a method of proof.

                        For good reason this method is called proof by analogy.

                        How many times does this need to be repeated so that it reaches you?
                      15. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 16: 47
                        +1
                        Proof of Analogy ...

                        ... But, applying the proof by analogy, we must always remember that the conclusion obtained by analogy gives only probable knowledge. The analogy only suggests the characteristics of the object that have not yet been studied. But these conjectures, subject to complete analogy, have a certain evidentiary force.

                        This clarification of the term is ANALOGUE PROOF.
                        Even a complete analogy only increases reliability. It is impossible to say that the thesis is true. We can say - with a high degree of probability ... that's all! smile
                      16. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 16: 59
                        -2
                        This clarification of the term is ANALOGUE PROOF.

                        Just about, read the name of this term again. So many times to make sense of it.

                        Even a complete analogy only increases reliability. It is impossible to say that the thesis is true. We can say - with a high degree of probability ..., all!

                        All right. Nobody argues with this. The thesis, supported by a correct analogy, is more reliable than the thesis, not supported by anything. Therefore, analogy is a method of proof.

                        And I’ll tell you a secret - in logic and scientific theory, in general, there is not a single tool of proof that would make one or another thesis absolutely proven.
                      17. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 17: 07
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril
                        The thesis, supported by a correct analogy, is more reliable than the thesis, not supported by anything.

                        More reliable, but not proven, it must be proved (Thesis).

                        Credibility may fail. Once upon a time, people were sure that the Sun was moving, and the Earth ... How much more reliable every day to observe the sunrise and sunset. smile
                      18. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 17: 15
                        -2
                        More reliable, but not proven, it must be proved (Thesis).

                        Proof is the process of determining the truth of a thesis.

                        Credibility may fail.

                        Everything is true, therefore, to prove the thesis, as a rule, a complex of arguments is used - including an analogy.
                      19. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 23 May 2020 17: 29
                        +2
                        Cyril, the analogy is a wonderful thing. One of the reasons for creating models based on analogy is to increase the reliability of the conclusion, and ideally, to prove the thesis. I gave an example when a successful analogy hindered the development of science ("Ether").
                      20. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 17: 41
                        -2
                        I gave an example when a successful analogy hindered the development of science ("Ether").

                        It was just an unsuccessful (false) analogy. Light and sound have a lot of differences. In other words, we compared two very different phenomena with some common properties. Because lazhanuli.

                        And no one argues that the analogy should be supplemented by other methods of proof. I did not state the opposite.
  2. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 17: 37
    +1
    Are you tired of snarling right and left? It’s just sometimes useful to listen to the opinion “from the outside”.
  3. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 15
    -2
    To listen to the opinion of a smart person is certainly useful. But this is not the case.
  4. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 19: 23
    +2
    ..To listen to the opinion of a smart person - certainly useful. But this is not the case ..

    So listen to you, all around you are stupid.
  5. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 25
    -2
    Why so? Here is 123 - no, even though we are grabbing it.
  6. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 19: 31
    +2
    .. why? Here is 123 - no, even though we are grabbing it ..

    - why are you clawing?
  7. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 38
    -2
    So have fun. If I met him in reality, I would shake my hand.
  8. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 19: 43
    +1
    ..So have fun. If I met him in reality, I would shake my hand ..

    - and here is a little shake?
  9. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 55
    -2
    Shake a hand through the monitor screen? How do you imagine that?
  10. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 20: 19
    +1
    . So have fun. If I met him in reality, I would shake my hand ..

    - I agree, it’s difficult. It just always seemed to me that it was possible to exchange information more peacefully. It is possible to derive more benefit than to prove to each other - who has longer ...
  11. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 21: 31
    -2
    You can get more benefit than prove to each other - who has longer

    Why not show it? This is a good way to have fun, let off steam, practice the argument.
  • Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 17: 15
    +2
    .. Contradicts. If the United States "imposed" the F-35 on its "vassals", they would not be looking for an alternative, but simply bought "Lightning" ...

    It does not contradict when they make “an offer that is difficult to refuse”. You just hit into demagogy now, instead of admitting the obvious. The NATO scheme in the American interpretation is simple: the Americans “protect”, the rest of the members pay for it. No initiative by members of the alliance to change this scheme is suitable for Americans. Americans do not need a strong independent Europe with their own army. They want to have sole control, and are guided only by their own national interests. NATO is not an alliance of equal partners. Vassals are the right term.

    .. Contradicts. If the United States "imposed" the F-35 on its "vassals", they would not be looking for an alternative, but simply bought the "Lightning".

    - “..looking stupid ..” and being stupid - until this moment I thought it was different things. But under your pressure I have already begun to doubt).
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 20
      -4
      You just hit into demagogy now, instead of admitting the obvious. The scheme of NATO in the American interpretation is simple: the Americans are "roofing", other members they pay for it.

      I repeat the question - where are Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Portugal armed with the F-35?

      and are guided only by their own national interests.

      Of course - like any normal country.

      NATO is not an alliance of equal partners.

      Certainly.

      Vassals are the right term.

      No, not right though. Not every addiction is a vassalage. This term has a specific meaning.
    2. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 19: 41
      +1
      .. I repeat the question - where are Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Portugal armed with the F-35? ..

      What did you dig into with your worthless questions? If you need educational program - google yourself). Everything has its time. I see the development of events in my scenario, you - in your opinion. Let's wait until this happens, and I will remind you of this.

      ..No, not right though. Not every addiction is a vassalage. This term has a specific meaning ..

      Again, this is your demagogy, withdrawing from the essence. Why delve into the terminology, especially if the first you yourself have so designated so.)

      .. Contradicts. If the United States had "imposed" the F-35 on its "vassals", they would not have looked for an alternative, but simply bought the Lightning ..
    3. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 54
      -3
      What did you dig into with your worthless questions?

      I have a specific normal question.

      Let's wait until this happens, and I will remind you of this.

      Approx.

      Why delve into the terminology, especially if the first you yourself have so designated so.)

      You did not notice that I took it in quotation marks?

      And yes, the basis of correct reasoning is the observance of the meaning of terms.
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 22 May 2020 14: 44
    0
    Did anyone call this plane a "wonder weapon"? A modern aircraft with a fundamentally new concept of warfare, largely experimental. Which, of course, entails certain shortcomings. Will they finalize? Undoubtedly.

    The miracle of weapons - no, they call it, for example, "one of the greatest technological achievements."

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/americas-f-35-already-powerful-and-its-only-getting-better-120711

    The statement is quite controversial, by the way, like "a fundamentally new concept of warfare", there is nothing new in the calculation of surreptitiously hitting and dumping until you are seen and tapped on the ears.
    As for the flaws, when their number on a serially produced aircraft approaches 1, it is rather difficult to call them “flaws”.

    As of November 2019, according to the review, the aircraft had 873 software defects compared to 917 as of September 2018.

    These are only software defects. There are also problems with "stealth coating", it is impossible to fly at supersonic speed for a long time, because it leads to the destruction of the skin, and so on.

    https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/

    Only ardent fans of the "American engineering genius" can consider that they will be definitely finalized and this is a matter of the near future. The American military people are more pragmatic, for example, aircraft versions of the F-35B and F-35C will arrive much less than planned. In the course of reforming the Marine Corps, it is planned to reduce the number of F-35s from 18 to 10 units in the squadron. True, this is due to the fact that fewer planes are easier to fly, but why not then reduce the "population" to two? It will be even easier this way. yes
    Against the background of the F-22, a truly remarkable plane, "its younger brother is just a humpbacked horse, the mountain did not just give birth to a mouse, it is more of a miscarriage.

    The F-35 program is also distinguished by its openness, unique to military equipment, which is why everyone knows about the shortcomings of this aircraft. As well as its merits.

    When there are so many participants in the program, it is impossible to conceal the truth, therefore, flaws cannot be hidden, everyone knows about few advantages, Americans know how to advertise.

    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?

    They force me to buy not always with a gun at my temple, there are many other methods and leverage.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 01
      0
      The miracle of weapons - no, they call it, for example, "one of the greatest technological achievements"

      Since the F-35 is really a high-tech aircraft, this cannot be taken away from him.

      There is nothing new in calculating to sneak up and topple until you are seen and tapped on the ears.

      The concept of using the F-35 is not only a priority for ranged combat.

      American military people are more pragmatic, for example, aircraft of the F-35B and F-35C versions will arrive much less than they planned. The entrance to the reform of the Marine Corps provides for a reduction in the number of F-35s from 18 to 10 units in the squadron.

      So even taking into account this reduction, the Lightning will be in service with much more than machines of a similar generation from other countries.

      Against the background of the F-22, a truly remarkable plane, "its younger brother is just a humpbacked horse, the mountain did not just give birth to a mouse, it is more of a miscarriage.

      These are different aircraft for different missions. The Raptor, for example, is not designed to hit the ground.

      As for the flaws, when their number on a serially produced aircraft approaches 1, it is rather difficult to call them “flaws”.

      Are you sure that on other serial aircraft of the same level it is not so?)

      They force me to buy not always with a gun at my temple, there are many other methods and leverage.

      I will repeat the question - why the Lightnings are not in service with Canada, Spain, Germany, France, Portugal? They are also "vassals of the USA". Your cards don't break.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 22 May 2020 15: 21
        +2
        Since the F-35 is really a high-tech aircraft, this cannot be taken away from him.

        And no one is trying, but it’s extremely difficult to call it the greatest achievement.

        The concept of using the F-35 is not only a priority for ranged combat.

        Truth? What else? In the hope that no one will see you?

        So even taking into account this reduction, the Lightning will be in service with much more than machines of a similar generation from other countries

        The argument is extremely weak. All the same, they will have more aircraft carriers than other countries.

        These are different aircraft for different missions. The Raptor, for example, is not designed to hit the ground.

        Yes, this is a flaw in the designers, but the essence of the matter does not change, the F-35 is generally difficult to call a fighter.

        Are you sure that on other serial aircraft of the same level it is not so?)

        I am sure. The Su-57 is first brought to mind and only then launched into the series.

        I will repeat the question - why the Lightnings are not in service with Canada, Spain, Germany, France, Portugal? They are also "vassals of the USA". Your cards don't break.

        What does repeat mean? This question was not. Moreover, I did not say anything about "vassals", the degree of subordination is different, someone is trying to defend the remnants of sovereignty, someone, on the contrary, surrenders it, as, for example, Poland, Spain, Germany, France are developing their Future Combat Air System fighter ( FCAS).

        https://vpk.name/news/292867_ispaniya_franciya_i_germaniya

        Canada refused to purchase back in 2017.
        To whom Portugal belongs, look for yourself. In Montenegro and Albania, the F-35 armad seems not to be expected either.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 47
          -1
          it’s extremely difficult to call it the greatest achievement.

          Oh, well, some magazine named it that way, can you give an example of how our media call our technology?)

          Truth? What else? In the hope that no one will see you?

          Network centric, for example, control a swarm of unmanned vehicles. Which, by the way, are also being developed and even undergo test flights.

          The argument is extremely weak. All the same, they will have more aircraft carriers than other countries.

          AND? They will be equipped with Lightnings and Superhornets with gradual replacement of the latter.

          Yes, this is a flaw in the designers

          This is not a flaw in the designers, this is a specialization of the aircraft. It was not originally planned as multifunctional - it is a fighter for gaining air supremacy.

          F-35 is generally difficult to call a fighter.

          This is a fighter-bomber.

          The Su-57 is first brought to mind and only then launched into the series

          Well, first you have to wait for it in the series, then ask the MO for a list of errors and shortcomings on the serial machine, and then confirm whether they will be or not).

          What do you mean, repeat? This question was not

          Guilty, yes. Not addressed to you.

          someone is trying to defend the remnants of sovereignty, someone is turning it over

          I have always been interested in this "logic". If any Poland buys the American Lightning, it is a loss of sovereignty and "vassal". Okay, then if any of the UAEs buy Russian "Armor" - is it a loss of sovereignty?

          To whom Portugal belongs, look for yourself

          So it relates to NATO, it was adopted there as early as 1949.

          Spain, Germany, France develop their Future Combat Air System (FCAS) fighter

          https://vpk.name/news/292867_ispaniya_franciya_i_germaniya

          Canada refused to purchase back in 2017.

          So that's what we are talking about. That is, there is no "lightning imposition". Whoever wants and can - buys. Those who do not want but can (France, Germany, Canada, Spain), who want but cannot, who cannot and do not want, do not buy.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 22 May 2020 16: 24
            +2
            Network centric, for example, control a swarm of unmanned vehicles. Which, by the way, are also being developed and even undergo test flights.

            Elements of network-centric warfare were still used in Iraq, what is the innovation here and what about the F-35?
            A swarm of drones? Just great. good So was it created for this? They can also be controlled from the "corn plant". Believe it or not, you can bring a pin with beer in the bomb bay. Also good.

            AND? They will be equipped with Lightnings and Superhornets with gradual replacement of the latter.

            Does it not reach you or does "faith" interfere with reality? The number of incoming F-35s will be reduced by almost half. They're based on amphibious assault ships, what kind of Hornets are they?

            This is a fighter-bomber.

            You can call it whatever you want, the technical specifications will not improve.

            Well, first you wait for it in the series, then ask the MO for a list of errors and shortcomings on the serial machine, and then confirm whether they will be or not)

            Here we will wait for his arrival in the army of other countries, then we will compare. The idea to request a list of errors in the MO, is this, like, trying to joke? Try at the Pentagon first to request a similar list on F-22.
            As for the series, do not worry, wait. yes It is better to get a normal plane later than to release an unfinished "suitcase without a handle".

            I have always been interested in this "logic". If any Poland buys the American Lightning, it is a loss of sovereignty and "vassalism." Okay, then if any UAEs buy Russian "Armor" - is it a loss of sovereignty?

            It does not seem that the logic was interesting, in any case, I do not see the logical connection between Poland and the UAE.
            Poland "jumps out of his pants" in order to "please" and become dependent on the United States, this is not limited to F-35 purchases. They are ready to build and maintain a base for their own money, deploy troops, store nuclear weapons. Everything is not limited to weapons, gas purchases and so on. They base their policy on confrontation with Russia, relying on US assistance. The UAE just bought weapons and that's it. This has no political consequences.

            So it relates to NATO, it was adopted there as early as 1949.

            It doesn't matter to me where Portugal is admitted, look for the reasons why they don't buy the F-35. You like to be logical. I gave you a "tip" with Montenegro and Albania, I can also add Romania.

            So that's what we are talking about. That is, there is no "lightning imposition". Whoever wants and can - buys. Those who do not want but can (France, Germany, Canada, Spain), who want but cannot, who cannot and do not want, do not buy.

            It is not necessary to bring everything to the primitive "wants does not want", completely different factors influence the adoption of such decisions. For example, a banal solvency or the ability to defend your own decision.
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 16: 56
              -2
              Elements of network-centric warfare were still used in Iraq, what is the innovation here and what about the F-35?

              That's exactly what the elements are. On the 4th generation aircraft, the network centric was an additional function. In Lightning, it is realized at a qualitatively new level.

              A swarm of drones? Just great. good So it was created for this?

              Including for this. This is one of its functions.

              They can also be controlled from the "corn plant".

              If your corn mailer still is itself a full-fledged combat unit - go for it.

              They are based on landing ships, what kind of Hornets are there?

              So you said that about the aircraft carriers, not me. It’s not my fault that you confuse aircraft carriers with UDC.

              The number of incoming F-35 will be reduced by almost half.

              AND? Do potential U.S. adversaries have UDCs with airplanes? Not available. So even with a half-reduced number of F-35s, they still have an advantage. Moreover, the absolute.

              You can call it whatever you want, the technical characteristics of this do not improve.

              The F-35 has quite normal characteristics.

              Here we will wait for his entry into the army of other countries, then we will compare.

              That's it, wait first))

              The idea to request a list of errors in the MO, is it, like, trying to joke? Try at the Pentagon first to request a similar list on F-22.

              And I did not say anything about the F-22. He also has flaws, despite the fact that he is serial. In general, any high-tech serial technology can find a bunch of flaws.

              As for the episode, don't worry, we'll wait. yes It's better to get a normal plane later than to release an unfinished "suitcase without a handle".

              Wait First (2)

              It does not seem that the logic was interesting, in any case, I do not see the logical connection between Poland and the UAE.

              Of course, you don’t see - with logic you have always been a little taut.

              I explain. This is called an "analogy". There is such a technique in logic and theory of argumentation.

              Both Russia and the United States are arms suppliers. Both Poland and the UAE are arms buyers. If Poland's purchase of the F-35 from the United States is a "loss of sovereignty", then the purchase by the Emirates of the Shell from Russia is also.

              They build their policy on a confrontation with Russia, relying on US assistance.

              Well, finally, we got to the bottom. Poland, quite rationally realizing that it could not cope with Russia on its own in the event of war, relies on US assistance. Mutually beneficial cooperation - the USA gives Poland a military protectorate, Poland gives the Americans an outpost on countering Russia.

              And here the "loss of sovereignty" is not clear.

              The UAE just bought a weapon and that’s it. It has no political consequences.

              Well, convinced. Syria's purchase of weapons from Russia, consent to the deployment of bases, etc. etc. - Is this the loss of sovereignty by Syria? Is she a vassal of Russia? Did the same situation between the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries also mean that the allied countries were "vassals"?

              It doesn't matter to me where Portugal is admitted, look for the reasons why they don't buy the F-35. You like to be logical. I gave you a "tip" with Montenegro and Albania, I can also add Romania.

              So they just don’t have money.

              It is not necessary to bring everything to the primitive "wants does not want", completely different factors influence the adoption of such decisions. For instance, banal solvency or the opportunity to defend own decision

              That is why I used the words "wants" and "can" in that phrase. Read carefully.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 22 May 2020 17: 34
                +2
                That's exactly what the elements are. On the 4th generation aircraft, the network centric was an additional function. In Lightning, it is realized at a qualitatively new level.

                Really? belay And what is this expressed in?

                If your corn mailer still is itself a full-fledged combat unit - go for it.

                Well, the maize is not a combat aircraft, but you just need a control panel to control the drones. To say that the advantage of the F-35 is that you can install this remote on it, it's just ridiculous.

                So you said that about the aircraft carriers, not me. It’s not my fault that you confuse aircraft carriers with UDC.

                I don’t confuse, I just clarified, you didn’t understand the essence of the matter, therefore you started talking about replacing Hornets, I thought that you were aware of the placement of the F-35 on the UDC. The F-35 will not become any replacement for Hornets, someday later. So these are just excuses, the F-35 in the Marine Corps will be almost half the size and this is a fact.

                Wait first

                Do not worry, wait. yes

                Of course, you don’t see - with logic you have always been a little taut.
                I explain. This is called an "analogy". There is such a technique in logic and theory of argumentation.
                Both Russia and the United States are arms suppliers. Both Poland and the UAE are arms buyers. If Poland's purchase of the F-35 from the United States is a "loss of sovereignty", then the purchase by the Emirates of the Shell from Russia is also.

                Really? belay You are confusing causes and effects. Poland’s purchase of obviously excessive weapons for it is carried out as part of the chosen political course. For the UAE, this is just a commercial deal. The fact of the purchase of arms by Poland does not lead to the loss of sovereignty, it is carried out precisely because Poland is losing sovereignty, and not vice versa.

                I ask you to relieve me of your logical conclusions. Arguments in the style - a cockroach has legs, like a horse, which means that a cockroach is also a steed - look as funny as you think.

                Well, finally, we got to the bottom. Poland, quite rationally realizing that it could not cope with Russia on its own in the event of war, relies on US assistance. Mutually beneficial cooperation - the USA gives Poland a military protectorate, Poland gives the Americans an outpost on countering Russia.

                Do you think you’ve got to the bottom? The bottom line is that in the event of a war with Russia, Poland and with the help of the United States can not cope. In any case, Poland will not help. It will turn into ruins, and Americans will express concern and moral support from afar. And the likelihood that the United States will decide on a military conflict with Russia over Poland is extremely small.

                And here the "loss of sovereignty" is not clear.

                Still not clear? Decisions in this "union" will not be made in Poland. In my opinion, this is not overly difficult to understand. Or is it not so in your case?

                Well, convinced. Syria's purchase of weapons from Russia, consent to the deployment of bases, etc. etc. - Is this the loss of sovereignty by Syria? Is she a vassal of Russia? And the same situation between the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries also meant that the allied countries were "vassals"

                Yes, the deployment of bases and weapons is a partial loss of sovereignty. Syria in this case is no exception. The country is losing control over part of its territory, there is a dependence in decision-making on a number of issues.
                As for the Warsaw Treaty countries, yes, it was an addiction, the question is only in its degree.

                PS We are increasingly deviating from the topic and go into politics. On the F-35, are we still having contentious issues?
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 18: 56
                  -2
                  Truth? belay And what does this mean?

                  http://csef.ru/ru/oborona-i-bezopasnost/505/programmnoe-yadro-bortovoj-kiberinfrastruktury-unificzirovannogo-udarnogo-istrebitelya-f-35-8915

                  Well, the maize is not a combat aircraft, but for controlling drones you just need a control panel. Saying that the advantage of the F-35 is that you can install this remote on it is just ridiculous

                  That's how we have been developing our own drone for so long))

                  I don’t confuse, I just clarified

                  You first talked about the ILC, and then for some reason slapped about aircraft carriers - this is not a clarification, this is a mistake) And only after that I spoke about the placement of "Lightnings" with "Hornets". Don't blame your problems on me.

                  No replacement for Hornets, someday later "F-35 will not be

                  They will. On the aircraft carriers you talked about.

                  F-35 in the Marine Corps will be almost two times smaller and this is a fact.

                  But all the same, there will be their total advantage over potential opponents, because these same opponents of aircraft in the Marine Corps do not have any))

                  Do not worry, wait.

                  Freshly a tradition.

                  Poland’s purchase of obviously excessive weapons

                  Why is the F-35 "redundant" for Poland? Is that what you decided? Should Poland fly on antediluvian aircraft?

                  The mere fact of the purchase of arms by Poland does not lead to the loss of sovereignty, it is carried out precisely because Poland is losing sovereignty and not vice versa.

                  It is carried out because Poland has the opportunity to buy a modern aircraft. There are not so many manufacturers of modern aircraft in the world. This is Russia, USA, Europe.

                  Russia disappears immediately - no one in their right mind will buy weapons from a potential enemy.

                  Remains Europe (Rafali, Eurofighter, Gripen) and the USA (Lightning). These planes cost about the same, and even with all their flaws, the Lightning is still more abruptly than Raphael, Eurofighter and Gripen.

                  Buying the best for the same money is quite a normal rational act.

                  Arguments in style - a cockroach has legs, like a horse, which means that a cockroach is also a steed - do not look as funny as you think.

                  And your such reasoning does not seem funny to me. I don’t know why you inserted it here, it cannot be compared with my example, because "horse" is a kind of "horse", and not some separate concept.

                  The bottom line is that in the event of a war with Russia, Poland and with the help of the United States can not cope. In any case, Poland will not help. It will turn into ruins and Americans will express concern and moral support from afar. And the likelihood that the United States will decide on a military conflict with Russia over Poland is extremely small.

                  Poland and Russia will not cope with the USA, that without the USA, everything is right. It’s just not the fact that Russia is just as likely to attack Poland if the Americans are based there.

                  Decisions in this "union" will not be made in Poland.

                  Actually, I agree. I wanted to introduce you into a logical contradiction, but, given your answer to the situation in Syria and the ATS countries, you did not succumb.

                  I will explain. I am not at all against the fact that, in fact, small countries are partially dependent on the major powers with which they are in a military alliance. I was wondering if you would deny the same relationship between Russia / the USSR and its allies.

                  Quote: 123
                  We more and more deviate from the topic and go into politics.

                  That's right, back to the topic.

                  On the F-35, are we still having contentious issues?

                  Offended)) Of course)
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) 22 May 2020 19: 55
                    +2
                    Thanks for the links, read. But what does this have to the 5th generation and the advantages specifically to the F-35 - it is not clear.

                    An overview of the key components of the “Autonomous Logistics Information System” (ALIS) of the F-35 unified strike fighter. A detailed analysis of the "combat support unit" and its four key components:
                    1) human-system interface,
                    2) executive control system,
                    3) the onboard immune system
                    4) avionics system.
                    Some information on the firmware of the F-35 fighter and on the tools that are used for its on-board software. A comparison is made with earlier models of combat fighters, and prospects for the further development of army aviation are also indicated.

                    This software and computer can naturally be implemented on (since the maize is not happy), for example F-16. I don’t see any fundamental differences.

                    That's how we have been developing our own drone for so long))

                    You have a sense of humor, however, as well as arguments.
                    I still do not see any advantages of the F-35 just from the fact that it will have a "remote control" for drones, you can control it from anything, what difference does it make on what media it will be implemented? In this case, it's just a vehicle.

                    Why is the F-35 "redundant" for Poland? Is that what you decided? Should Poland fly on antediluvian aircraft?

                    At a minimum, Poland should buy weapons that are affordable. For a subsidized economy, this is an unreasonably expensive weapon. I’m not going to decide for them, but I can completely judge the correctness of the decisions made.
                    It is carried out because Poland has the opportunity to buy a modern aircraft. There are not so many manufacturers of modern aircraft in the world. This is Russia, USA, Europe.
                    Russia disappears immediately - no one in their right mind will buy weapons from a potential enemy.
                    Remains Europe (Rafali, Eurofighter, Gripen) and the USA (Lightning). These planes cost about the same, and even with all their flaws, the Lightning is still more abruptly than Raphael, Eurofighter and Gripen.

                    As far as I understand, we have no disagreements on the cost of the acquired weapons. Here are just the assertion that "Lightning is still cooler" is rather controversial. As for the "potential enemy", this is Poland's choice, no one pushed it to such a position.
                    Cost indeed, for Rafal and Typhoon they ask for a lot of money, about 120 million.

                    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

                    The appetites of the Swedes are much more modest, some miserable 48 million, by the way, they have one more advantage in terms of economy, this is the cost of operation.

                    An additional bonus for buyers of the new fighter - an hour of Gripen's flight now costs $ 7500 - compared to about $ 20.000-30.000 on the American F-16 and F-35 fighters. For JAS 39E, SAAB promises to reduce the cost by another 40% from this figure (Brazilians talk about $ 4000 per hour)

                    Buying the best for the same money is quite a normal rational act.

                    So in the rationality of the Polish leadership, I doubt and believe, not without reason.

                    Poland and Russia will not cope with the USA, that without the USA, everything is right. It’s just not the fact that Russia is just as likely to attack Poland if the Americans are based there.

                    But Russia is just waiting for the Americans to leave in order to immediately attack the poor defenseless Poland? Who needs them? Are we missing Polish apples? In addition, the risk of conflict in Poland is increasing. Russia and the United States are opponents, no one has doubts about that, inviting one of the opponents' troops to their territory means putting their own home at risk of war, and the decision will not be made by the Poles in this case.

                    In fact, I agree. I wanted to introduce you into a logical contradiction, but, given your answer to the situation in Syria and the ATS countries, you did not succumb.

                    I will explain. I am not at all against the fact that, in fact, small countries are partially dependent on the major powers with which they are in a military alliance. I was wondering if you would deny the same relationship between Russia / the USSR and its allies.

                    You misunderstand the situation a little. I am not a "political officer", but rather a realist, and besides, I practically do not lie, therefore, introducing a complex and unpromising occupation into logical contradictions. Naturally, like everyone else, I can be wrong, I listen to arguments, of course, to reasonable ones, not "propaganda".
                    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 20: 24
                      -2
                      But what does this have to the 5th generation and the advantages specifically to the F-35, it is not clear.

                      Because network-centricity was achieved to such an extent in the 5th generation aircraft and, at the moment, it is most complete in Lightning.

                      for example F-16.

                      But it is implemented specifically on the F-35.

                      you can manage it with anything, what difference does it make, on what medium?

                      But it was implemented on the F-35. In addition, the F-35 implements not only man-to-machine control, but also machine-to-machine control.

                      You have a sense of humor

                      Such is your humor)

                      At a minimum, Poland should buy weapons that are affordable.

                      Well, it’s not for you to count their money)) If you bought it, it means that money was found. Where this money comes from is the second thing.

                      The appetites of the Swedes are much more modest, some miserable 48 million, by the way, they have one more advantage in terms of economy, this is the cost of operation.

                      Yes, here I went, I admit.

                      As for the "potential enemy" - this is Poland's choice, no one pushed it to such a position.

                      We have no argument about this.

                      So in the rationality of the Polish leadership, I doubt and believe, not without reason.

                      As for the Flu - maybe.

                      Although I searched here, and in an article on Vick about flu, I found data on a tender for Switzerland:

                      However, the main indicator in the choice was not technical specifications, but cost. According to experts, 22 gripen will cost the Swiss 2,5-2,8 billion francs (2,7-3,0 billion dollars).

                      3 billion for 22 aircraft, and a contract for 32 F-35 aircraft for Poland cost 4,2 billion.
                      And the figures of 48 million dollars apiece is a tender for India.
                      Maybe it depends on the conditions of a particular contract?

                      But Russia is just waiting for the Americans to leave in order to immediately attack the poor defenseless Poland?

                      In 1939, they were needed. Who said it won’t happen again?

                      I am not a "political officer", but rather a realist, and besides, I practically do not lie, therefore, introducing a complex and unpromising occupation into logical contradictions. Naturally, like everyone else, I can be wrong, I listen to arguments, of course, to reasonable ones, not "propaganda".

                      Uzhamba hi
                    2. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 22 May 2020 21: 14
                      +3
                      Because network-centricity was achieved to such an extent in the 5th generation aircraft and, at the moment, it is most complete in Lightning.

                      Well, okay, let's wait now for the creation of a swarm of drones and return to discussing this issue. In the end, it's up to them where to put the "computer" on a limousine or a pickup truck. After all, the system can be tested on anything, and then installed on any aircraft.

                      But it was implemented on the F-35. In addition, the F-35 implements not only man-to-machine control, but also machine-to-machine control.

                      This is their decision, as far as it is justified, life will show.

                      Although I searched here, and in an article on Vick about flu, I found data on a tender for Switzerland:

                      However, the main indicator in the choice was not technical specifications, but cost. According to experts, 22 Gripen will cost the Swiss 2,5-2,8 billion francs (2,7-3,0 billion dollars).

                      I recommend also to compare with Brazil, also indicative, because prices everywhere are different. I found a convenient tablet where everything is brought together.

                      3 billion for 22 aircraft, and a contract for 32 F-35 aircraft for Poland cost 4,2 billion.
                      And the figures of 48 million dollars apiece is a tender for India.
                      Maybe it depends on the conditions of a particular contract?

                      Naturally, it depends on the conditions, there are a lot of differences. Completeness, spare parts supply, simulators, training, ammunition and so on. All individually, just dividing the total amount of the contract by the number of aircraft does not work.
                      Indian tenders are a different story altogether, after the Rafals bought "cheaply", you can not look at their numbers at all.

                      In 1939, they were needed. Who said it won’t happen again?

                      Don't you think that everything has changed a little since then?
                      And what about the year 1612? And the 1812th? And 1920? Who said it won’t happen again?
                      The history of the confrontation is long, making a poor sheep from Poland is not a thankful task, because it has no real justification.
                      Besides the "horror stories" from the past, what are the real preconditions for attacking them?
                    3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 21: 26
                      -2
                      Don't you think that everything has changed a little since then?

                      Why can't change back?

                      And what about the year 1612? And the 1812th? And 1920? Who said it won’t happen again?

                      So I don’t argue.

                      The history of the confrontation is long, making a poor sheep from Poland an activity not grateful, because it has no real justification.

                      And who makes a poor sheep from Poland?

                      You understand, I am by no means saying that Poland is such a misery, etc. The fact is that Russia’s relations with it are not simple. There was aggression both on their part and on ours. And if so, then we have the right to consider Poland a potential enemy, but Poland does too.

                      Besides the "horror stories" from the past, what are the real preconditions for attacking them?

                      This is a topic for another discussion, we are not arguing about that.
                    4. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 22 May 2020 23: 18
                      +3
                      You understand, I am by no means saying that Poland is such a misery, etc. The fact is that Russia’s relations with it are not simple. There was aggression both on their part and on ours. And if so, then we have the right to consider Poland a potential enemy, but Poland does too.

                      Well, let him consider it by anyone, can they not think of anything else? Finland has fewer grounds for fear of invasion than Poland? They live somehow.

                      This is a topic for another discussion, we are not arguing about that.

                      And in my opinion, this is exactly what we are discussing, why Poland is afraid of Russian aggression, but is there any real reason for this? We leave it out of the picture. As far as I understand, this is not just paranoia of the Polish leadership, their policy is built on this.
                    5. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 23 May 2020 00: 14
                      +2
                      In addition, the article got caught, where the price of the F-35 is indicated, according to their assumptions, by 90 million, and the reason for the recent F-35B accident is indicated - manufacturing defect. For reasons of a fall in the sea near Japan, nothing is still reported (this is a question of quality).

                      https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/not-so-stealth-why-did-f-22-raptor-and-f-35-jsf-crash-week-156576
                    6. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 16: 34
                      -2
                      and the cause of the recent accident F-35V indicate - manufacturing defect. For reasons of a fall in the sea near Japan, nothing is still reported (this is a question of quality).

                      1 out of 500 defective aircraft? This is a very good indicator.
                    7. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 23 May 2020 18: 48
                      +2
                      1 out of 500 defective aircraft? This is a very good indicator.

                      This is an indicator of the quality of products, as well as mass production.
                      In addition, the conclusion about 1 defective aircraft is not correct. This is only confirmation that one of the crashed fell due to a factory defect. Until now, nothing is known about the "Japanese" fall. It turns out that there is no information on the rest of the accidents, as well as on the presence of a similar marriage in other aircraft. By the way, what exactly is the "marriage" is not disclosed, it is to the question of the "unprecedented" openness of the program.
                    8. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 19: 10
                      -2
                      This is an indicator of the quality of products, as well as mass production.

                      All right. Compare it with the performance of other aircraft in other countries) And not just the number of accidents. Compare, take into account the number of aircraft produced, the total raid for all F-35 aircraft and for those that were lost.

                      Let's compare with the honored veteran - Su-27.

                      A total of 809 aircraft of this type were produced. From Wikipedia:

                      The exact number of accidents and catastrophes with aircraft such as the Su-27 is unknown. For the period 1988-1992, the air forces of the USSR and Russia lost 22 aircraft of this type.

                      Let me remind you that the year the Su-27 was adopted for service was 1985. That is, over 7 years of operating this aircraft as a serial, 22 aircraft of this type were lost (that is, completely lost, excluding minor accidents).

                      About marriage. Compare, again, with the Su-27. Here are some examples:

                      May 23, 1996 at 22:52 local time, a Su-27P Belorussian Air Force fighter with tail number 29, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Vladimir Nikolayevich Karvat at an altitude of 600 meters at a speed of 440 km / h, consistently refused a number of vital systems.

                      The cause of the disaster was a fire in the compartment of the left side fairing of the rear of the fuselage, previously considered fireproof.

                      On May 17, 2001, near the village of Staraya Vasilyevka (Tambov Region), the Su-27 (tail number 64) of the 968th mixed-flight instrumental research regiment crashed due to a power system failure and a right engine fire.

                      March 26, 2002, 40 km north of Vladivostok near the village of Solovey Klyuch, Primorsky Territory, due to a control system failure, the Su-27 of the 22nd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment fell.

                      July 29, 2008, near the Vozdvizhenka airfield, 12 km north of Ussuriysk, shortly after take-off due to a failure of the control system the Su-27UB aircraft crashed, performing a test flight after routine repairs at the aircraft factory.

                      Until now, nothing is known about the "Japanese" fall. It turns out that there is no information on the rest of the accidents, as well as on the presence of a similar defect in other aircraft.

                      Who told you that in the fall of the Japanese plane was the cause of factory defects? There, as far as I know, the pilot’s mistake was officially announced.
                    9. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 23 May 2020 20: 40
                      +2
                      All right. Compare it with the performance of other aircraft in other countries) And do not just compare the number of accidents, but take into account the number of aircraft produced, the total raid for all F-35 aircraft and for those that were lost.
                      Let's compare with the honored veteran - Su-27.
                      A total of 809 aircraft of this type were produced.

                      Let's compare. yes
                      If I am not mistaken, the Su-27 aircraft were produced in 680, and 809 is taking into account the Su-30, Su-35. I don’t know how important this is, I just specified.

                      Indeed, there are no exact data on the number of accidents, I doubt that the "exact" figures will differ several times. How many of them happened due to a factory defect is also not known, in the examples you cited, the last case (the Vozdvizhenka airfield) is more likely the result of unqualified repairs.
                      Found the maximum number on Wikipedia - 32 crashes (for 2018).
                      A lot or a little, let's compare it with a "classmate". F-15, 1 units were produced, according to official data, 500 aircraft were lost, according to unofficial ones - 117.
                      As for the F-35, in operation (in the Marine Corps) since 2015, since 2012 it has been used only for training. Not only did he fly up for a correct comparison.
                      What conclusion can be drawn? what Yes, no. request There is no exact data, the number of accidents is not known, as is the total raid.

                      Who told you that in the fall of the Japanese plane was the cause of factory defects? There, as far as I know, the pilot’s mistake was officially announced.

                      Firstly, I did not say that it fell due to a factory defect, "the reason is not established."
                      Secondly, a very interesting statement about pilot error. How did they determine this? Have you modeled the "black box" data? The plane simply disappeared from the radar. If there is data, I would be grateful for the link, the opportunity to familiarize myself with this "official statement". I wonder how they "wang". hi
                    10. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 21: 12
                      -2
                      how many of them happened due to factory defects is also not known; in the examples you cited, the last case (Vozdvizhenka airfield) is more likely the result of an unskilled repair.

                      In all the examples I cited (I recall - these are just a few of many cases), the reason was the failure of the equipment. Failure of equipment can be caused either by marriage, or design errors, or improper maintenance. In one example, the cause was the ignition of a tank, which was previously considered fireproof. Marriage or design error?

                      A lot or a little, let's compare it with a "classmate". F-15, 1 units produced, 500 aircraft were lost according to official figures.

                      From the same Wikipedia - 1 accident per 50 flight hours. F-000 is considered one of the most reliable aircraft of the US Air Force).
                      I gave you an example of the Su-27 not to show - they say, look, and our equipment is of poor quality. On the contrary, I brought it to you as an example to show that even with high-quality accident technology for technical reasons (including due to marriage), this is normal. The only question is the percentage.

                      in the examples you cited, the last case (Vozdvizhenka aerodrome) is more likely the result of an unskilled repair.

                      Repair is the replacement of faulty parts with serviceable ones. In addition, this repair was factory - that is, it was done (in theory) by trained qualified personnel at the factory.

                      In other words, this particular aircraft was damaged either due to poor-quality parts (factory defects), or due to an error of one of the plant employees.

                      This is a word about the quality of service.

                      As for the F-35, in operation (in the Marine Corps) since 2015, since 2012 it has been used only for training. Not only did he fly up for a correct comparison.

                      True, full operation - 5 years. Incidents - 9 (moreover, only a part of them led to the loss of the aircraft)

                      And now again about the Su-27

                      For the period 1988-1992, the Air Force of the USSR and Russia lost 22 aircraft of this type

                      The same 5 years of operation, 22 aircraft were lost (this is without taking into account "minor" accidents.

                      About the fall of the Japanese "Lightning"

                      The cause of the disaster of the fifth generation fighter F-35 Lightning II Japanese Air Force was the loss of its pilot orientation in space.

                      “The plane crash investigation committee concluded that the plane crashed into the sea not because of a technical malfunction, but because of the loss of orientation by the pilot,” said Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya, quoted by Kyodo as saying.

                      https://rg.ru/2019/06/10/nazvana-prichina-gibeli-istrebitelia-f-35-u-iaponii.html
                    11. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 23 May 2020 21: 31
                      +2
                      In all the examples I cited (I recall - these are just a few of many cases), the reason was the failure of the equipment. Failure of equipment can be caused either by marriage, or design errors, or improper maintenance. In one example, the cause was the ignition of a tank, which was previously considered fireproof. Marriage or design error?

                      That we do not know. What will we compare?

                      From the same Wikipedia - 1 accident per 50 flight hours. F-000 is considered one of the most reliable aircraft of the US Air Force)

                      What does this tell us? About nothing. request There weren't that many planes in the USA, they are all "some of the most reliable in the US Air Force." As if there were 300 different models of them produced. And, mind you, in the USA, not in the world.
                      Are you looking for confirmation that they are the "coolest"?

                      I gave you an example of the Su-27 not to show - they say, look, and our equipment is of poor quality. On the contrary, I gave you an example. to show - even with high-quality accident equipment for technical reasons (including due to marriage) - this is normal. The only question is the percentage.

                      That's right. How will we compare the percentage?

                      True, full operation - 5 years. Incidents - 9 (moreover, only a part of them led to the loss of the aircraft)

                      You will not believe it, but for all aircraft only part of the accident leads to an accident.

                      The same 5 years of operation, 22 aircraft were lost (this is without taking into account "minor" accidents.

                      What does this tell us? About nothing. request Compare how much was lost over the same five years F-15. Time passes, the technical level, the culture of production and a host of other factors are changing.

                      “The plane crash investigation committee concluded that the plane crashed into the sea not because of a technical malfunction, but because of the loss of orientation by the pilot,” said Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya, quoted by Kyodo as saying.

                      You are not interested in how they came to this conclusion? Did the coffee grounds help?
                    12. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 22: 26
                      -2
                      That we do not know. What will we compare?

                      We know that in this case, the production aircraft crashed due to the ignited tank, which earlier It was considered fireproof.

                      This means that it was not manufactured according to technical regulations - which speaks of marriage. Or there was an error in the technical regulation itself - and then it’s worth talking about a serious design flaw on a production car.

                      You reproached (more precisely, hinted with a rebuke) F-35 in a low production culture on the basis of 1 accident case due to factory defects. I brought you the Su-27 as an analogy. You have 2 ways - either to agree that 1 accident due to marriage is not an indicator of a low production culture, or to recognize the Su-27 as a low production culture. Little fork)

                      There weren't that many planes in the USA, they are all "some of the most reliable in the US Air Force." As if there were 300 different models produced there.

                      Their over there dofiga released so-and-so. No less (even more) than in the USSR. Because, unlike the USSR, in the United States aircraft were made not only for the Air Force, but also for the Navy. And these were different planes.

                      Are you looking for confirmation that they are "the most delicious"?

                      No, not at all. I just indicated the numbers and description.

                      That's right. How will we compare the percentage?

                      Well, we will)) Su-27 - 33 accidents with 809 airplanes released, F-35 - 9 accidents with 520 airplanes released. Where is the greater percentage?

                      But this is not quite an objective figure - nevertheless, the Su-27 is an old man, the wear and tear of equipment, etc., also affects.

                      Therefore, it would be more objective to compare the Su-27 and F-35 at the beginning of operation, moreover, at the same time interval. Which I did in the previous comment.

                      You will not believe it, but for all aircraft only part of the accident leads to an accident.

                      True, therefore, to the indicated 22 lost Su-27 for 1988-92 add a few more accidents that did not end with the loss of aircraft. And compare this number with all 9 incidents (this number includes those cases that did not lead to the loss of the aircraft) in the F-35 for the same 5 years of operation.

                      What does this tell us? About nothing. request. Compare how much was lost over the same five years F-15. Time passes, the technical level, the culture of production and a host of other factors are changing.

                      Here I have nothing to cover, you are right.

                      You are not interested in how they came to this conclusion? Did the coffee grounds help?

                      Analysis of the negotiations between the pilot and the controller and the actions of the pilot, as far as I know. I did not ask representatives of the Japanese Air Force) You can ask them.
                    13. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 23 May 2020 23: 46
                      +1
                      We know that in this case, the production aircraft crashed due to a fire in a tank that was previously considered fireproof.

                      This means that it was not manufactured according to technical regulations - which speaks of marriage. Or there was an error in the technical regulation itself - and then it’s worth talking about a serious design flaw on a production car.

                      Will we continue to guess on the coffee grounds?

                      You reproached (more precisely, hinted with a rebuke) F-35 in a low production culture on the basis of 1 accident case due to factory defects. I brought you the Su-27 as an analogy. You have 2 ways - either to agree that 1 accident due to marriage is not an indicator of a low production culture, or to recognize the Su-27 as a low production culture. Little fork)

                      Are you sure? belay You too closely perceive even apparent hints nor possible flaws. Do not even think that the production culture may not be up to par? Are they a priori infallible?

                      Compare how much was lost over the same five years F-15. Time passes, the technical level, the culture of production and a host of other factors are changing.

                      Where is a hint of a low production culture? I say - the comparison of the Su-27 with the F-15 is correct, with the F-35 is no longer there. These are completely different planes made at another time, using other technologies and so on.

                      Well, we will)) Su-27 - 33 accidents with 809 airplanes released, F-35 - 9 accidents with 520 airplanes released. Where is the greater percentage?

                      What does such a comparison give you? You are not objective and just trying to fit the numbers to the desired result. laughing
                      Try to compare with the F-15, 180 lost aircraft with 1500 fired, presumably, there were even more accidents. Where is the larger percentage?
                      It only says that it is more reasonable to compare the F-15 and Su-27. These are aircraft manufactured at the same time, using similar technologies and so on. Comparing them with the F-35 will not give us absolutely nothing. You can at least compare with Messerschmitt.
                      I repeat, the comparison is not correct.

                      It is true, therefore, to the indicated 22 lost Su-27s for 1988-92, add a certain number of accidents that did not end with the loss of aircraft. And compare this number with all 9 accidents (this number includes those cases that did not lead to the loss of the aircraft) in the F-35 for the same 5 years of operation.

                      Again the same thing? Add some morelet's divide by some number medium plaque and so on. How much can you repeat? It's just fortune telling. How many planes have flown in these five years? Did they have similar operating conditions? And how did you grab onto the Su-27, let's compare with the F-15. 9 incidents and at least more than 180. What does this tell us? As you put it, one of the most reliable aircraft of the US Air Force "has much worse performance. By the way, much worse than the Su-27. Does it bother you that the F-15 and Su-27 have much worse performance? It was a different time, The same Su-27 and Su-35 have a lower accident rate after the indicated 5 years. Comparisons will give absolutely nothing. request

                      Analysis of the negotiations between the pilot and the controller and the actions of the pilot, as far as I know. I did not ask representatives of the Japanese Air Force) You can ask them.

                      As far as I remember, it was reported that the pilot was just doing the mission, then reported an "emergency termination", that's all. Have you even tried to figure out what could have happened? There was a message and okay?

                      According to the Ministry of Defense, a few minutes before the crash, the pilot gave a signal about the emergency completion of the mission. Now the pilot is reported missing.

                      https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-47877458

                      As far as I know, they could not learn anything new.
                      How on the basis of such data it can be concluded that the pilot made a mistake is a mystery to me. If the pilot stops the mission, it must be assumed that he has reason to do so. Logic suggests that he has problems, he should just return to the airfield. What could be his mistake in this situation? Get lost and stupidly fall into the water when the fuel ran out? But he did not ask to help him orient. Confused top and bottom? An experienced pilot who just returns home?
  • reminin Offline reminin
    reminin (Yuri) 19 June 2020 11: 01
    0
    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?

    Yes - everything is exactly as - as indicated!
  • Dmitry S. Offline Dmitry S.
    Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 22 May 2020 13: 42
    +3
    This does not mean and does not testify. Only that which does not fly does not fall, and even that which is static, if desired, can be dropped into the pit.
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 22 May 2020 13: 59
    +1
    If you look, then in the world there are already many analogues of the F-35. In Russia, this is the Su-57, which, albeit inferior in "invisibility", but more maneuverable.

    The comparison is incorrect, rather even offensive. It is not worth comparing the Su-57 with a low-speed bomb carrier. A closer analogue of the F-22. The statement - "inferior in invisibility" is rather controversial. No.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 14: 24
    -2
    Quote: Cyril
    Is the F-35 so “prodigy”, the tenth question is very controversial.

    Did anyone call this plane a "wonder weapon"? A modern aircraft with a fundamentally new concept of warfare, largely experimental. Which, of course, entails certain shortcomings. Will they finalize? Undoubtedly.

    The F-35 program is also distinguished by its openness, unique to military equipment, which is why everyone knows about the shortcomings of this aircraft. As well as its merits.

    The USA in every possible way publicized its fighter, pulled dozens of other states into this project, obliging them to supply components and buy at an inflated price.

    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?

    How did the CONCEPT of combat use affect the volatility of an airplane? Super-speeds, over-loads, over-maneuverability, and, hence, over-forced control modes and impact on the body. Totally NO. The new concept of this under-plane is to hit from afar without getting involved in a fight at short distances. Group application through network-centric management. And does it affect? Are you out of your mind repeating the stupidities of the sellers of this museum exhibit?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 14: 46
      0
      How did the CONCEPT of combat use affect the volatility of an airplane?

      One of the innovations of the F-35 is the open software architecture, due precisely to its network-centricity. Some of the incidents related to this aircraft were caused by just bugs in the software.

      Do you need to explain that a bug in software that manages, including flight, can lead to an accident or disaster? Or do you have all modern planes still exclusively controlled by a pilot?

      This is the time. Secondly, in the F-35 implemented new solutions that relate directly to the hardware. For example - the same system of short take-off and vertical landing. Estimate, she too can refuse.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 14: 31
    -2
    Quote: Cyril
    The Americans put pressure on NATO partners, forcing them to buy equipment specifically made in America

    Please tell me French and German American-made vehicles.

    NATO standards are US standards. Management structure, the accumulation of US military equipment in long-term storage in NATO countries. Atomic bombs (is there any German production?). In Germany. Abrams, F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35. I wonder if you are pretending to be, or is it really that?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 14: 47
      0
      I asked to call me French and German American-made equipment, and not American equipment located in France or Germany.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 14: 39
    -2
    Quote: Cyril
    Is the F-35 so “prodigy”, the tenth question is very controversial.

    Did anyone call this plane a "wonder weapon"? A modern aircraft with a fundamentally new concept of warfare, largely experimental. Which, of course, entails certain shortcomings. Will they finalize? Undoubtedly.

    The F-35 program is also distinguished by its openness, unique to military equipment, which is why everyone knows about the shortcomings of this aircraft. As well as its merits.

    The USA in every possible way publicized its fighter, pulled dozens of other states into this project, obliging them to supply components and buy at an inflated price.

    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?

    By putting it on "invisibility", they just ruined him. Moreover, the invisibility disappears as soon as he turns on the radio signal, be it a locator, or a radio station.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 22
      -2
      By putting it on "invisibility", they just ruined him.

      Something is not visible yet ditched.

      Moreover, the invisibility disappears, he only needs to turn on the radio signal, whether it is a locator, or a radio station.

      The F-35, let it be known to you, has not only a locator and a radio station.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 14: 42
    -1
    Quote: Cyril
    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?

    Look at an example of a relationship with Turkey. The Turks played the unreasonable loot in joint production. But got a muzzle. This is what real scouts do.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 25
      -2
      Look at an example of a relationship with Turkey.

      What about this example? How does he confirm "imposition"?
      1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 17: 48
        0
        .. What about this example? How does he confirm "imposition"? ..

        .. Erdogan also clarified his attitude to persistent proposals to acquire the Patriot air defense system, which the Americans are forcing on the Turks. “We are not slaves and can choose freely. We are not destined to come to an agreement with the Americans on the purchase of their air defense missiles, because the United States refuses to give us the "key to the system." And with the Russians, we agreed on a joint production. Perhaps after the S-400 we will get the S-500 as well, ”summed up Erdogan.

        https://rossaprimavera.ru/news/4ea5a817
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 09
          -4
          So. That is, the Turks chose the latter between the Patriot and the S-400.

          I still don't see where the "imposition" is.
          1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 19: 18
            +2
            ... I still don't see where the "imposition" is here ..

            Well, tell Erdogan this: I’m like this - Cyril, didn’t smoke anything, but I still don’t see what the redhead glues to you. )
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 24
              -5
              Well, tell it to Erdogan

              But you never know what Erdogan says? He is a politician. Today he will talk about "imposing", tomorrow - about "mutually beneficial cooperation." They also found me credibility.
              1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 19: 27
                +2
                .. But you never know what Erdogan says? He is a politician. Today he will talk about "imposing", tomorrow - about "mutually beneficial cooperation." They also found me credibility ..

                Strange you. That is, if we are talking about Turkey, then the words of the president of this country are not an argument? And whose then? Who is your authority?
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 19: 36
                  -3
                  And whose then? Who is your authority?

                  In politics? Nobody, naturally. For you, the American presidents are not authorities? Why should Turkish be like that for me?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. boriz Offline boriz
        boriz (boriz) 22 May 2020 23: 01
        +4
        By refusing supplies of F-35, the USA tried to impose Turkey and Patriot and F-35 (given that the Turks invested well in the production of F-35). But the Patriots proved themselves so that Erdogan still preferred the S-400. And, in the end, it will take the Su-35 or MiG-35, and the production will be loaded with those parts and assemblies for them that ours deem possible to give it to production.
        At the same time, the United States has acquired problems for itself. If I'm not mistaken, something for the F-35 is done only in Turkey. International integration of production.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 16: 37
          -4
          By refusing supplies of F-35, the USA tried to impose Turkey and Patriot and F-35 (given that the Turks invested well in the production of F-35).

          Now that seems to be true.

          But the Patriots proved themselves so that Erdogan still preferred the S-400

          Preferred the S-400, which did not prove itself at all, because it had never been used?

          And in the end, will take the Su-35 or MiG-35, and the production will load with those parts and assemblies to them that ours deem possible to give it to production.

          Did Erdogan personally report this to you?

          At the same time, the United States has acquired problems for itself. If I'm not mistaken, something for the F-35 is done only in Turkey. International production integration

          It's hard to argue, that's right.
          1. boriz Offline boriz
            boriz (boriz) 23 May 2020 17: 06
            +3
            Preferred the S-400, which did not prove itself at all, because it had never been used?

            In any case, he was not disgraced, like Patriot in KSA and not only.

            Did Erdogan personally report this to you?

            Well, of course! Life will tell if you lied ...
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 17: 18
              -2
              In any case, I’m not disgraced, like Patriot in KSA and not only

              But the Patriot, along with failures, has cases of successful combat use (by the way, there are more of them), while the S-400 does not.

              Well, of course! Life will tell if you lied ..

              Exactly.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2020 14: 45
    +1
    In fact, it's all garbage, like an owl on a globe. There are about 500 aircraft released, they fly often, and that 3 crashed is an argument for blonde housewives.

    Just like a finger sucked, mostly defects.

    You will go to V. sites, there once a week someone will be sure to beat .... And somewhere there are even articles with a ratio of released / crashed ...
    And if you count not only the Air Force .... Just now online:

    Airplane Pakistan Airbus A320 crashes .....

    And there’s only one iPhone in our country, and we don’t have others, God forbid ....
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 14: 49
    -2
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    Aircraft released about 500

    With 5000 release plans for this time, isn't it a failure? And the flaws are widening and multiplying. Their number is growing faster than elimination.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 19: 43
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    Look at an example of a relationship with Turkey.

    What about this example? How does he confirm "imposition"?

    I mean the attitude of the hegemon to the slave.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 19: 47
    +2
    Quote: Cyril
    So. That is, the Turks chose the latter between the Patriot and the S-400.

    I still don't see where the "imposition" is.

    The result is evaluated. So far, he's just wonderful. The Turk was kicked out of his position on an invisible airplane. Next are the threats of announcing full sanctions. Not to see is not to be shortsighted. It means being stupid.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 22 May 2020 19: 52
    +2
    Quote: Cyril
    By putting it on "invisibility", they just ruined him.

    Something is not visible yet ditched.

    Moreover, the invisibility disappears, he only needs to turn on the radio signal, whether it is a locator, or a radio station.

    The F-35, let it be known to you, has not only a locator and a radio station.

    You see how bad it is not to shake the chaff. Considerations are not a penny.
    Armaments - the cat cried, only in the belly. And there is not much to put. You can’t take a lot of gasoline. Ugly forms do not allow you to quickly dodge and quickly catch up (run away). It costs 100 lemons, more expensive than a cast-iron bridge. Service only in the factory. Turnover is not for every aerodrome. A bunch of problems with the electronics.
    Well, and what, besides the locator and the radio, does he have that?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 19: 59
      -4
      You see how bad it is not to shake the chaff. Considerations are not a penny.

      Yes, with considerations you are really sad.

      Armaments - the cat cried, only in the belly. And there is not much to put

      The maximum combat load of the F-35 (taking into account the external suspension) is 9100 kg. A similar indicator for the Su-35 - 8000 kg. The Su-57 has a maximum of 10 kg. Although both of these aircraft are twin-engine, and Lightning is single-engine. In addition, both of them are superior in size.

      You can’t take a lot of gasoline.

      The F-35S (deck version) has a flight range of 2520 km. The Su-57 has 4300. But I will remind you of the difference in size.

      Ugly forms

      This is the subjectivity of pure water.

      don't let you dodge quickly

      F-35 is designed for maneuvering with 9g overloads. This is enough for the eyes.

      and quickly catch up (run away).

      This is perhaps the only serious flaw in front of Russian aircraft.

      It costs 100 lemons, more expensive than a cast-iron bridge

      However, their already issued and purchased 500 pieces, and the "cheap" Su-57 was purchased in a batch of 76 aircraft with delivery calculation right up to 2025.

      Service only in the factory.

      F-35 service is carried out at airfields and aircraft carriers, as in the Su-57 (at airfields). Repair of both aircraft is carried out in factories. Expensive service? Expensive, of course. Any high-tech product requires expensive maintenance.

      Well, and what, besides the locator and the radio, does he have that?

      It reads:

      AN / AAQ-37 is a Distributed Aperture Electron Optical System (EOS) (DAS), consisting of 6 IR sensors located on the fuselage with a 360-degree field of view [87] [88]. The system allows you to:
      Identify group launches of ballistic missiles at ranges up to 1300 km, accompany these targets and issue target designation for each of them in automatic mode [89] [90].
      Detect other ground and air targets
      Navigate during day / night flight

      F-35 optical locating stations with Fresnel germanium lenses:
      Warn about the rocket attack of the aircraft
      Detect rocket launch points, operating anti-aircraft artillery positions
      Launch an air-to-air missile against a target flying behind an airplane

      AAQ-40 is a high-resolution omnidirectional infrared CCD-TV camera for viewing and target designation. It provides capture and tracking of any ground, surface and air targets. Completely passive, it is able to detect and track targets in automatic mode and at long distances, as well as report laser irradiation of an aircraft
  • bear040 Offline bear040
    bear040 22 May 2020 22: 43
    +5
    I would correct Mr. Marzhetsky somewhat. You can compare with the iPhone F-22 Raptor - too expensive, but it works relatively well, although it has a number of significant drawbacks ... where without them ... F-35 is something very expensive and almost useless ... it's some Barbie doll, not iPhone ...
    1. shadow Offline shadow
      shadow 23 May 2020 19: 28
      +1
      Actually, it does. If you look in YouTube, you can find videos where the pilots themselves say that they are suffocating in the cockpit of this aircraft. And after the death of the captain in this aircraft in 2010, he was discontinued. A good car is not removed from production.
  • boriz Offline boriz
    boriz (boriz) 22 May 2020 22: 46
    +5
    Why is this aircraft generally considered a 5th generation fighter? In the officially declared characteristics, initially there is no afterburning supersonic. Already not the 5th generation.
    The maximum speed - 1930 km / h (Mach 1,6) - does not even pull on the generally accepted indicator of the 3rd generation.
    Even Australian experts back in 2009. rated him as a 3rd generation fighter with some elements of the 5th.

    http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/5784/

    And when, a month ago, the Pentagon banned supersonic flights in general for modifications B and C (like, the skin will fall off, the tail will fall off, the rear antennas will deform), then these planes passed into the 1 +++ generation. This is in the 21st century.

    Those countries that can afford it, refuse the F-35. Those that are smaller and stronger depend on the United States - they still buy. Israel, for their sake (and help from the USA, where to go) refused the program of its fighter. Now they are asking the US for permission to install additional options, to make a new modification of the F-35I. The US agrees, in exchange for an increase in shipments.
    American marketing.
    The Japanese, evaluating the F-35 in practice, are slowly reanimating plans to create their fifth generation fighter.
    And there was no need to make a single fighter based on the GDP aircraft. The plane turned out to be "pregnant", with low speed and maneuverability. Well, in general, over the years of confidence in their own hegemony, they relaxed a little, they forgot how to work.
  • Netyn Offline Netyn
    Netyn (Netyn) 23 May 2020 03: 54
    +5
    Quote: Cyril
    A modern aircraft with a fundamentally new concept of warfare, largely experimental

    The Yak-141 made its first flight on March 9, 1987. And even the fact that a bunch of electronics was stuffed into it does not make it modern. Oh yeah, also super soft super stealth coverage. Having 90% of the Yakovlev technical documentation on hand, they did not even reach the level of an aircraft that is more than 30 years old. Serdyukov cries with envy.

    Quote: Cyril
    Which, of course, entails certain flaws. Will finalize? Undoubtedly.

    Of course, they’ll finish it, it's the sacred golden cow and it will be milked for decades. Cut the Pentagon budget and roll back the right people. Capitalism in all its glory. Read Lockheed reports. In total, 1100 shortcomings were discovered, of which 800 require additional funding from the budget.

    Quote: Cyril
    Just like that and took it? They put the barrel to the temple and forced to buy?

    That is, in your cozy and vacuum of vacuum there is no political, economic and military pressure on countries that dare to hint at buying products from a non-US military-industrial complex.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 23 May 2020 18: 11
      +4
      Netyn (Netyn), all the flaws of the F-35 cannot be finalized. If only in Cyril’s dreams.
      In any case, those defects that led to the prohibition of flights of modifications B and C at speeds above 1M are not going to be corrected. For it is unrealistic. There is no time and, alas, there will no longer be such bad money with which they are used to working.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 23 May 2020 20: 37
    +1
    Cyril

    Well yes. Pendants. Then for what reason to fence the garden, since for invisibility you need to take half. Tell me, how does this outfit work - a distributed locator that observes 1300 km behind a target? And at what distance can this beast bite if it is crushed at a distance twice its capacity?
    1. aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
      aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 23 May 2020 20: 46
      0
      Are you a more savvy specialist, since the developers themselves call their miracle not a means of gaining air supremacy (air combat), but a means of suppressing anti-aircraft defense, in other words, an attack aircraft? Agree your words with them, and do not lie to them anymore.
    2. Netyn Offline Netyn
      Netyn (Netyn) 24 May 2020 00: 04
      -1
      Do not forget about the software. 8 million lines of code - bugs and errors are still caught and not very successfully.
  • aleksandrmakedo Offline aleksandrmakedo
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 24 May 2020 00: 06
    +1
    Quote: Netyn
    Do not forget about the software. 8 million lines of code - bugs and errors are still caught and not very successfully

    Any errors, including in programs, are well caught at their manifestations. While they sleep, they cannot be found. But the manifestations are often paid for by the lives of the pilots.