The new Russian fighter Su-75 has "American roots"

31

The new Russian Su-21 Checkmate fighter was shown at the MAKS-20 air show, which started in Zhukovsky on July 75. According to Air Force Magazine experts, the Su-75 has many similarities with the American combat aircraft that participated in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) tender in the 90s of the last century.

Journalists believe that the "American roots" of the Su-75 are visible in the large air intake under the fuselage (as in the Boeing X-32 project), as well as in the cut wings that do not reach the tail. Instead of stabilizers and elevators, the fighter is equipped with two inclined elevons - here Air Force Magazine saw similarities with the Boeing X-32, as well as with the McDonnell Douglas and YF-23 aircraft.



United Aircraft Corporation previously demonstrated sighting system of the new aircraft, which is similar to that installed on the F-35. Other photos show a sawtooth edge similar to the F135 engine.

31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cyril
    Cyril
    -10
    21 July 2021 16: 36
    Well, the United States has its own "especially gifted" like 123, who, based on external similarities, conclude about "American roots" :)

    Let's see how our turbopatriots react to this. The struggle between the turbopatriots of the two countries has begun :)
  2. Cyril
    Cyril
    -11
    21 July 2021 16: 59
    Although, in all fairness, the "abdominal" air intake located close to the nose is really not characteristic of Russian aviation, but it is a feature of the American - they have several aircraft made according to this scheme.
  3. 123
    123
    +10
    21 July 2021 18: 02
    As expected, normal people reacted calmly to the fantasy of envious imported scribblers with reduced social responsibility, only one strange subject on duty threw a fan on the fan and it disappeared laughing
    All the other lackeys have long been on the broadcast of the launch of the "Science" module, judging by the comments, they have blood there, along with clumps of nails, flying off the keyboard lol Liberda and svidomity are raging in the chat.

    1. Just a cat
      Just a cat
      +9
      21 July 2021 20: 45

      let them spawn eggplant caviar further laughing
      1. 123
        123
        +6
        21 July 2021 22: 30
        This is a masterpiece of Svidomo creativity good
    2. Cyril
      Cyril
      -6
      22 July 2021 01: 50
      normal people to the fantasy of envious imported scribblers with reduced social responsibility

      And you, therefore, are an envious domestic scribbler with reduced social responsibility? :)
  4. Dmitry S.
    Dmitry S.
    +7
    21 July 2021 20: 00
    And in the American "penguin" Yak roots are not visible?
    1. guleg
      guleg
      0
      24 July 2021 08: 13
      Quote: Dmitry S.
      And in the American "penguin" Yak roots are not visible?

      no, not really. And what are they, roots? Is the nozzle of the main motor rotatable? So, you know, the solution is well-known, tested back in the 70s by the Americans (Pratt & Whitney JTF22A-30A motor)
  5. AND
    AND
    +5
    21 July 2021 20: 30
    Quote: Cyril
    Well, the United States has its own "especially gifted" like 123, who, based on external similarities, conclude about "American roots" :)

    Let's see how our turbopatriots react to this. The struggle between the turbopatriots of the two countries has begun :)

    How you love yourself. Such are the wives. As in that joke ...

    Sit grandfather and grandmother on the sabrani at the dyareun, mustache people get tired and act ... Grandma tell grandfather, tell me something. Grandfather ustau and speak, gaspadin chairman say pazhaluysta chamu bread bread and chamu just bread. The old beat the old man at the side and say sit down, it would be better if you mauchai chim gavaryu.

    So are you. Lizh would blurt out anyhow it was, albeit cons. +100500.
    1. Cyril
      Cyril
      -5
      22 July 2021 01: 44
      How you love yourself.

      It's true. I treat myself well. Do you need to hate yourself?

      Lizh would blurt out anyhow it was, albeit cons

      Do you leave your comments in order to be given plus signs?) Oh, you really do not love yourself ...
  6. Georgievic
    Georgievic
    +7
    21 July 2021 21: 01
    There is no need to look for roots there! Aerodynamics has its own laws dictating the optimal combination of form and content.
    1. Just a cat
      Just a cat
      +5
      21 July 2021 21: 17
      you haven't seen the chassis, but there are roots too laughing who invented the wheel? ...

    2. 123
      123
      +4
      21 July 2021 22: 33
      Don't fucking look for some roots there! Aerodynamics has its own laws dictating the optimal combination of form and content.

      Golden words good This is what explains the similarities, for example, Concorde and Tu-144, but the "bisovo tribe" will constantly look for roots Yes
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        -2
        22 July 2021 01: 48
        This is what explains the similarities, for example, Concorde and Tu-144, but the "bisovo tribe" will constantly look for roots

        Oh, 123, a couple of days ago you spoke in a completely different way when it came to the Yak-141 and F-35 :)

        I quote you. Quote one:

        The F-35 could not fail to win because in it copied Russian developments.

        Second quote;

        It looks like the Yak-141 and that's it. The breed is felt, only transatlantic genetics spoiled it, it turned out to be a mule.
        1. 123
          123
          +3
          22 July 2021 10: 07
          Oh, 123, a couple of days ago, you crucified in a completely different way when it came to the Yak-141 and F-35

          In my opinion, here only you crucify. lol Why are you so nervous? Everyone knows that only light-faced Anglo-Saxons can come up with something fellow , and the insidious Russians only copy from them sad Vaughn and hypersonic missiles say stolen ... winked Isn't that what they teach you in the sect?
          If you would go on digging roots ... Look for someone who paints a carrot under the ground. laughing
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            -5
            22 July 2021 10: 46
            Everyone knows that only light-faced Anglo-Saxons can come up with something

            You again ascribe your idle speculations to some abstract "everyone" :)

            but insidious Russians only copy from them

            And again...

            Vaughn and hypersonic missiles say stolen ...

            And again...))

            If you would go on digging roots ... Look for someone who paints a carrot under the ground.

            That is, as I understand it, you do not deny that you judge the "origin of aircraft" only by appearance?) And, therefore, you are an ordinary hypocrite and a liar

            Ok, it suits me)

            Look for someone who paints a carrot underground.

            This is exclusively your prerogative :)
      2. guleg
        guleg
        0
        23 July 2021 19: 48
        Quote: 123
        This is what explains the similarities, for example, Concorde and Tu-144

        and. Probably, this explains the similarity of Tu-4 and B-29?
        1. 123
          123
          0
          23 July 2021 23: 12
          and. Probably, this explains the similarity of Tu-4 and B-29?

          This can explain a lot, for example, the similarity between Dream Chase and the Spiral (is it worse than your example?), There would be a desire to explain. I understand that you are hinting at something? Do not hesitate, continue.
          In fact, a lot is explained by this, but naturally not everything.
          Nobody canceled industrial espionage, everyone is dragging secrets, ideas, technologies, successful technical solutions.
          Do you prefer to focus only on the facts of copying the USSR from the United States?
          1. guleg
            guleg
            0
            24 July 2021 08: 07
            Quote: 123
            for example the similarity between Dream Chase and Spiral

            The Americans do not deny that Dream Chaser was created based on the BOR-4 series devices. According to the developer, he would "... put the names of the Russian team next to the names of the American team" that participated in the creation of Dream Chaser. Actually, as no one has ever denied that the Tu-4 is a seamless copy of the B-29 Superfortress. And there are a lot of similar examples. But not about that

            Quote: 123
            Do you prefer to sharpen your attention

            on the fact that your common statements such as "Aerodynamics has its own laws dictating the optimal combination of form and content" do not always work. There are many devices of the same class, but not similar in appearance. Why, when it comes to the F-35, any gopher considers it his duty to remember the Yak-141 (although there is nothing from it in the American car), and when there are hints that the new Russian plane looks like a couple of US prototypes, you stand on its hind legs ? Borrowing - what is wrong with borrowing if you are borrowing working, well-established solutions? Do not use them just because someone has already managed (according to the principle "to spite my mother, I will frostbite my ears, but I will not wear a hat")?
            1. 123
              123
              0
              24 July 2021 10: 51
              The Americans do not deny that Dream Chaser was created based on the BOR-4 series devices. According to the developer, he would "... put the names of the Russian team next to the names of the American team" that participated in the creation of Dream Chaser. Actually, as no one has ever denied that the Tu-4 is a seamless copy of the B-29 Superfortress. And there are a lot of similar examples. But not about that

              What about? How and why Tu was made is far from a secret, no one denies this. Everyone is copying, spying on, not only Russians and Americans.

              on the fact that your common statements such as "Aerodynamics has its own laws dictating the optimal combination of form and content" do not always work.

              Why are they so common? Isn't that so? This is not always the case, by the way, this is what I wrote:

              In fact, a lot is explained by this, but of course not all.

              There are many devices of the same class, but not similar in appearance. Why, when it comes to the F-35, any gopher considers it his duty to remember the Yak-141 (although there is nothing from it in the American car), and when there are hints that the new Russian plane looks like a couple of US prototypes, you stand on its hind legs ?

              For others I will not say, I "consider it my duty" to remember and "stand on my hind legs", because at the mention of Russian technology, every odorous ferret begins to remember Tu-4, carry nonsense about the German AK-47, and so on. I hope everything is clear with my motives? What are yours? Why are you rearing up? Are you offended for America?
              By the way, about "there is nothing from him in the American car" I would not be so categorical. How do you know this? Did you participate in the creation of the plane or just believe?

              Borrowing - what is wrong with borrowing if you are borrowing working, well-proven solutions? Do not use them just because someone has already managed (according to the principle "to spite my mother, I will frostbite my ears, but I will not wear a hat")?

              I completely agree with you on this. Yes But for some reason, the smelling fur-bearing animals screech that only light-faced Americans can think of this, and the Russians only copy everything from them.
              Considering this particular case, with the placement of the air intakes at the bottom and quite close to the cockpit, they experimented, this is nothing new. It's just that in this case the task was to reduce the visibility for the locators, and in this case it was lengthened.
              Meet the experienced fighter - the E-8 interceptor.

              1. guleg
                guleg
                -2
                24 July 2021 20: 55
                Quote: 123
                Why are they so common? Isn't that so?

                history knows many more opposite examples than out of the blue "two from the casket, the same from the face." Why is the Su-24 similar to its overseas counterpart, the F-111? If you are familiar with the history of this aircraft, then you know that the overseas airplane aroused great interest, and our designers at the exhibitions carefully filmed almost every square millimeter of this aircraft. Actually, the cabin of the 24th was made based on the "Advark". Yes, in other respects there are enough differences, but outwardly the airplanes turned out to be similar. But the European "Tornado", having the same tasks and obeying the same "laws", looks different. The MiG-29 and F-16 look different, although they were created at the same time and to solve similar problems.

                Quote: 123
                How do you know this? Did you participate in the creation of the plane or just believe?

                Aren't you afraid that a similar question may come to your address? No, I did not participate in the creation of airplanes, but I am a little familiar with the history of their creation and with the design. So much so that you know that the "father" of the F-35 is a completely different plane. And also about why the shtatovtsy "trod the path" to the Yakovlev design bureau and what they got from that. And what helped them create Lightning and what didn't. You conclude that the Americans copied something, since they were running around in the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Not knowing exactly what came of it all.

                Quote: 123
                carry nonsense about the German AK-47

                Here Sturmgewer is completely out of place. It's not about copying, but about external similarity. By the way, the STG44 looks very similar to the AK. Until you disassemble both machines.

                Quote: 123
                Considering this particular case, with the placement of the air intakes at the bottom and quite close to the cockpit, they experimented, this is nothing new.

                nothing new. But this is "not our scheme", we did not make such planes, but the same state employees had a lot of them. We didn’t do taillessness either - again, this is not ours. Actually, this is precisely why the airplane is compared with Western aircraft - because there is simply no domestic analogue.
                In addition, the similarity with the JSF program is added by some more features: the absence of a built-in cannon (which is again uncharacteristic for domestic fighters), an OLS similar to the American AAQ-40 EOTS, an automated logistic support system "matryoshka", which has no analogues in domestic practice. It was. But there is ALIS and ODIN for the F-35.

                And the last thing. It is worthwhile to qualitatively separate and understand what people are talking about. The sane and the sane are simply noticing obvious similarities. The latter shout that they "stole all the polymers" again, trying to belittle one side and exalt the other. By the way, the example with the Yak-141 and STG is just from the second part of the ballet.
                1. 123
                  123
                  0
                  25 July 2021 01: 27
                  history knows many more opposite examples than out of the blue "two from the casket, the same from the face." Why is the Su-24 similar to its overseas counterpart, the F-111? If you are familiar with the history of this aircraft, then you know that the overseas airplane aroused great interest, and our designers at the exhibitions carefully filmed almost every square millimeter of this aircraft. Actually, the cabin of the 24th was made based on the "Advark". Yes, in other respects there are enough differences, but outwardly the airplanes turned out to be similar. But the European "Tornado", having the same tasks and obeying the same "laws", looks different. The MiG-29 and F-16 look different, although they were created at the same time and to solve similar problems.

                  What do many more examples mean? Did you consider them or what? And again, an example of copying the USSR from the United States. They copy everything and everyone, but for some reason you stubbornly pretend that only ours do this. What's the difference? We were able to copy, well done. It just seems simple. Someone else's technology is created using other standards and technologies, it is not a trivial task to adapt everything for yourself. Naturally, someone else's technique is carefully studied, because they create their own to counteract it, they may be encountered on the battlefield.

                  Aren't you afraid that a similar question may come to your address?

                  No, I am not afraid. The Americans "managed" after visiting the design bureau, as they had no insight before, they did not advance further than the prototypes and were content with English imports. Worked for decades. In my opinion this is an argument. It is not so difficult to argue that this is not so difficult without the opinion of specialists. And he has not yet fallen into their "tenacious" hands. Americans will naturally argue otherwise.

                  No, I did not participate in the creation of airplanes, but I am a little familiar with the history of their creation and with the design. So much so that you know that the "father" of the F-35 is a completely different plane. And also about why the shtatovtsy "trod the path" to the Yakovlev design bureau and what they got from that. And what helped them create Lightning and what didn't.

                  Do you know where? Have you read the stories of the Americans?

                  You conclude that the Americans copied something, since they were running around in the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Not knowing exactly what came of it all.

                  You conclude that you did not copy anything. Why is my conclusion worse? They studied there according to your bust of Lenin? Where are you from thoroughly you know

                  Here Sturmgewer is completely out of place. It's not about copying, but about external similarity. By the way, the STG44 looks very similar to the AK. Until you disassemble both machines.

                  By the way, there are clowns who claim that this is not a small copy and all on the basis of external similarity. You are absolutely right about the different designs.

                  nothing new. But this is "not our scheme", we did not make such planes, but the same state employees had a lot of them. We didn’t do taillessness either - again, this is not ours. Actually, this is precisely why the airplane is compared with Western aircraft - because there is simply no domestic analogue.

                  There is photo E-8 above, look again. You can and on this compare, others argue that they are only capable of copying. Should I show you the photo of "Hunter" or not? Yes, this is a drone, but the difference is not great, the new fighter is also planned in an unmanned version.

                  In addition, the similarity with the JSF program is added by some more features: the absence of a built-in cannon (which is again uncharacteristic for domestic fighters), an OLS similar to the American AAQ-40 EOTS, an automated logistic support system "matryoshka", which has no analogues in domestic practice. It was. But there is ALIS and ODIN for the F-35.

                  Pay attention to the photo, what's under the wing .. It looks like the new equipment is being brought to mind and on the new fighter it will be integrated into the fuselage. Is that what you mean? Can't the Russians manage to move it from the container to the nose of the plane?


                  Logistics automation, of course. Probably, they should count on the accounts and write everything down in the journal by hand, so that it doesn't look like others.
                  About the lack of a gun, I would not be so categorical. The fact that they did not focus on her does not mean that she is not there. Dig deeper, look at the slides.

                  cannon armament (its name and type are not indicated in the slides)

                  https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/60f7084f9a79471c8ac657de

                  And the last thing. It is worthwhile to qualitatively separate and understand what people are talking about. The sane and the sane are simply noticing obvious similarities. The latter shout that they "stole all the polymers" again, trying to belittle one side and exalt the other.
                  By the way, the example with the Yak-141 and STG is just from the second part of the ballet.

                  Tellingly, all the examples you have given relate to cases of borrowing from Americans. Well, you are stubbornly looking for what you took from them in the new fighter and what we supposedly did not have. What part of "Marlezonskoye" are they from? From the third?
                  1. guleg
                    guleg
                    0
                    25 July 2021 07: 51
                    Quote: 123
                    The Americans "managed" after visiting the design bureau, as before they had no insight

                    three times Ha)) They didn't make sense to copy anything. Because there were developments on "Harrier" and own verticals (of which there were not one or two - but all experienced). Does the Pratt & Whitney JTF22A-30A motor tell you nothing? In fact, the Yak-141 and the F-35 have only one thing in common - the rotary nozzle. So, it was just on the aforementioned engine. If you are interested - you will find information on it, and on which machine you wanted to use it. You will be surprised to find that this airplane is almost a copy of the Yak-141 in terms of its power plant. The JTF22A-30A was created in the mid 1970s. Do not you think that the time frame somehow does not match? They visited the design bureau and received documentation with only one purpose: to get acquainted with the real results of flight tests of a nozzle of a similar design on a real machine in order to avoid "childish surprises" on their plane. They already had enough risk under the JSF program. A single plane for the Air Force, the ILC and the Navy, simple, cheap, and even vertical is a non-trivial task, you know. No wonder they studied all the available documentation.

                    Quote: 123
                    It is not so difficult to argue that this is not so difficult without the opinion of specialists. And he has not yet fallen into their "tenacious" hands.

                    the designs of the power plant Yak-141 and F-35 are not secret. And they are quite different. On the "penguin" there is a lift-march with a fan, on the Yak-141 - lift-march and two lift. Completely different designs. For the rotary nozzle of the main motor, it is written above. Sorry, but you have the logic of a "teapot".





                    Quote: 123
                    Logistics automation, of course. Probably, they should count on the accounts and write everything down in the journal by hand, so that it doesn't look like others.
                    About the lack of a gun, I would not be so categorical. The fact that they did not focus on her does not mean that she is not there.

                    you were given examples of what the similarity of design and concept is based on, which gives you the right to compare at all, so as not to be unfounded. Instead of thinking about this, you turn into a porcupine. I repeat: absence built-in cannon and the aerodynamic layout of the LTS is not at all typical for domestic aircraft. And there are no analogues of ALIS and ODIN systems at all. If there is - correct me, show me? no, you can only bring one photo to the experimental car and burst into a tirade about the abacus. And there is no need to shove a photo of the experimental car. If I begin to cite experienced and experimental ones, it turns out that there are overseas and KOS, and super-maneuverable fighters, and speeds for Mach 3, etc. First of all, production cars are interesting, don't you think? They are in service, not cartoons and pictures.

                    Quote: 123
                    Well, you are stubbornly looking for what you took from them in the new fighter and what we supposedly did not have

                    I am not looking for, but citing facts. To confirm your own words, so as not to be a gibberish. Or is it more pleasant for you to communicate with a person who does not argue his words? If so, do not judge by yourself. Well, since you don’t perceive the words of your counterpart and, most importantly, you don’t want to, I will not do anything here. If a patient is terminally ill, this is his problem. All the best)
                    1. 123
                      123
                      0
                      25 July 2021 15: 13
                      You are an interesting person laughing
                      If you are talking about American technology, then:

                      three times Ha)) They didn't make sense to copy anything. Because there were developments on "Harrier" and own verticals (of which there were not one or two - but all experienced). Does the Pratt & Whitney JTF22A-30A motor tell you nothing?

                      If it comes to Russian, then:

                      no, you can only bring one photo to the experimental car and burst into a tirade about the abacus. And there is no need to shove a photo of the experimental car. If I begin to cite experienced and experimental ones, it turns out that there are overseas and KOS, and super-maneuverable fighters, and speeds for Mach 3, etc. First of all, production cars are interesting, don't you think? They are in service, not cartoons and pictures.

                      Don't you find dissonance? This is exactly what you are doing, "bustling experienced and experimental" imported ones and refuse to consider similar Russian ones. Is it different? winked
                      Yes, work on "Harrier" lol You are not even embarrassed by the fact that you write down the developments on the British fighter into their "asset".
                      By the way, we are talking about a prototype of a new fighter, which is still far from the series. Well, of course, you can only compare it with serial ones, it's so logical, isn't it? smile

                      You will be surprised to find that this airplane is almost a copy of the Yak-141 in terms of its power plant. The JTF22A-30A was created in the mid 1970s. Do not you think that the time frame somehow does not match? They visited the design bureau and received documentation with only one purpose: to get acquainted with the real results of flight tests of a nozzle of a similar design on a real machine in order to avoid "childish surprises" on their plane. They already had enough risk under the JSF program.

                      Of course, almost a copy made half a century ago. And what prevented them from launching their own in the series and instead flying on imported ones? Modesty?
                      But then they visited Yakovlev's design bureau, received documentation (of course, solely for the purpose of satisfying curiosity and not repeating the mistakes of the Russians winked ) and lo and behold good everything worked out. laughing Sounds very convincing. Yes The whole world knows that the legions of the Petrovs and Bashirovs keep secrets and copy everything, and the Americans simply satisfy curiosity and learn from the mistakes of others. winked

                      A single plane for the Air Force, ILC and the Navy, simple, cheap, and even vertical is a non-trivial task, you know. No wonder they studied all the available documentation.

                      And it looks like they did not cope with it. After all, the aircraft has become neither simple nor reliable. Probably they showed little diligence in studying the available documentation. feel

                      the designs of the power plant Yak-141 and F-35 are not secret. And they are quite different. On the "penguin" there is a lift-march with a fan, on the Yak-141 - lift-march and two lift. Completely different designs. For the rotary nozzle of the main motor, it is written above. Sorry, but you have the logic of a "teapot".

                      Maybe a respected non-teapot will explain why they needed to study a completely different design? Oh yes, well, of course, there is one engine in front, but the Americans have more and the Russians have two but smaller ones, this radically changes the matter. Nothing in common request There is nothing to even talk about laughing

                      you were given examples of what the similarity of the design and concept is based on, which gives you the right to compare at all, so as not to be unfounded. Instead of thinking about this, you turn into a porcupine. I repeat: the absence of a built-in cannon and the aerodynamic layout of the LTS is not at all typical for domestic aircraft.

                      You continue to seek out, and precisely to seek out, the influence of Western "trendsetters" in the aircraft industry, which you copied from nothing, even where they are not.
                      Who told you that the new fighter will not have cannon armament?
                      I gave a reference there, there are similar ones. Journalists write about the presence of a gun.
                      It looks like they just did not focus on it, apparently it will be the most ordinary, standard one. Dig deeper, see the presentation slides.
                      As for the aerodynamic design, how would you rate the Hunter? Is this scheme traditional for Russian aviation?

                      And there are no analogues of ALIS and ODIN systems at all. If there is - correct me, show me?

                      1) If you are convinced that there are no analogues of ALIS at all, why write about it? You cannot install existing equipment on a new fighter.
                      2) It seems we can say that the Americans do not have this system either. I quote from the American press ...

                      ALIS remains ineffective and cumbersome to use, still requires many workarounds, persists in data accuracy and integrity issues, and takes inordinate time from the help desk staff. As a result, it is not possible to efficiently generate departures and ensure aircraft availability as intended. Users still do not believe in the functionality and stability of ALIS.

                      The decision to ditch ALIS came after the Pentagon spent years trying to convince the American people that the $ 16,7 billion network would work. The leaders said they will be migrating to a new cloud-based system called Operational Data Integrated Network, or ODIN. This means that after Lockheed Martin failed to create a workable system on the first try with ALIS, the Pentagon will again pay the company to help build ODIN.

                      https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/03/uncorrected-design-flaws-cyber-vulnerabilities-and-unreliability-plague-the-f-35-program/

                      I am not looking for, but citing facts. To confirm your own words, so as not to be a gibberish.

                      Am I so beckoning this hint that I'm doing something completely different? Regarding the lack of a gun, will you provide a link to the source? smile

                      Or is it more pleasant for you to communicate with a person who does not argue his words? If so, do not judge by yourself. Well, since you don’t perceive the words of your counterpart and, most importantly, you don’t want to, I will not do anything here. If a patient is terminally ill, this is his problem. All the best)

                      I would have been fully tripled if the argumentation was supported by facts, and not blind faith in an overseas genius. Well, it is desirable that there was a unified approach, not double standards. Goodbye, solve your problems. I wish you health and all the best drinks
  7. Oleg Gorshkov
    Oleg Gorshkov
    +3
    22 July 2021 08: 30
    Indeed, it looks like an airplane and not like a brick!
  8. Brother
    Brother
    -1
    22 July 2021 09: 30
    In the USSR ... planes were NEVER called any foreign words, especially in the language of "potential enemy". It was the enemy who gave them ... their ... names.
    Hmm ... it happened for yourrashi. WHAT FOR! "threaten" not yet created!
    Ponty are clumsy! Amuse not clever patsreots!
    1. GRF
      GRF
      +3
      22 July 2021 10: 14
      Su 57 aka PAK FA, aka T57 vrazhzhina called for herself felon, which in our opinion means "criminal, criminal", so it's better to "checkmate" in a foreign language, we ourselves will voice that this is their "sentence", and let them PR there ...
      They are already PR and already bzdat, judging by their comments, that they are afraid to see him in the Washington sky ...
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        -3
        22 July 2021 14: 18
        so it's better to "checkmate" on a foreign language, we ourselves will voice that this is their "sentence", and let them PR there ...

        In the NATO catalog, it will still be listed under a different name, which will begin with "F" (from the English fighter - fighter).
        1. GRF
          GRF
          +1
          22 July 2021 17: 26
          Well, I would not be so confident in the Anglo-Saxon rules, knowing about the renaming in their catalog, and about the black woman queen, and adjusting their other age-old traditions ...
          It does not matter how it will be listed in the NATO catalog, it is much more important how it will be listed in our media.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. sgrabik
      sgrabik
      +3
      22 July 2021 12: 09
      Quote: Breard
      WHAT FOR! "threaten" not yet created!
      Ponty are clumsy! Amuse not clever patsreots!

      No, this is to excite not smart idiots for another spray of poisonous saliva and throwing it on the fan !!!
  9. Alsur
    Alsur
    0
    22 July 2021 10: 10
    Quote: Breard
    In the USSR ... planes were NEVER called any foreign words, especially in the language of "potential enemy". It was the enemy who gave them ... their ... names.
    Hmm ... it happened for yourrashi. WHAT FOR! "threaten" not yet created!
    Ponty are clumsy! Amuse not clever patsreots!

    Read by concept - PR. PR - PR) - technologies for creating and introducing, in socio-economic and political systems of competition, the image of an object (idea, product, service, personality, organization - firm, brand) into the value range of a social group, in order to consolidate this image as an ideal and necessary in life.