Military Review

About weapons for the PAK FA fighter

89
Work on the project “Perspective Frontline Aviation Complex aviation»Approaching completion. Representatives of the military department and the aviation industry already name the time of the appearance of the first production equipment and the timing of the start of its development in the troops. In parallel with the refinement of the PAK FA / T-50 aircraft of domestic industry, it is necessary to create weapons for it. Unlike a carrier aircraft, promising aviation weapons may not attract much attention, but they are an essential component of ongoing combat aviation development programs.


According to various reports of recent years, the T-50 aircraft will have to carry and use a variety of weapons of many classes and types. The project of the fifth generation fighter provides for the possibility of attacking ground targets and combat enemy aircraft, for which controlled and unguided weapons must be used. According to reports, to date, some progress has been made in the field of weapons for the PAK FA. In the foreseeable future, the promising aircraft will be able to get a new weapon.


Experienced T-50 with weapon mockups. Photo by Alex S / Russianplanes.net


Perhaps the loudest in every sense news about arming the PAK FA fighter appeared in mid-September. As part of informing the public about the progress of ongoing work, the United Aircraft Corporation published a video recording of tests of the built-in cannon installation. Inspections of the layout of the nose of the aircraft with a gun installation NNPU-50 were carried out at the test site of the State government scientific test site of aviation systems in the city of Faustovo. The armament check was carried out by the most obvious method: target shooting.

According to UAC, the fifth-generation fighter receives a gun mount NNPU-50, the main element of which is the automatic gun 9-А1-4071К. This 30-mm gun is a further development of the existing GSH-30-1, but it has some differences that directly affect the main characteristics. It is reported that the product 9-A1-4071K is one of the lightest members of its class. The T-50 gun mount will consist of 150 projectiles.

In the officially published video, the process of mounting a gun on a model aircraft, preparing ammunition and shooting at a target were shown. Technical details of the project and accurate information about the new gun, for obvious reasons, were not reported. According to some data, the gun of the new model differs from the previous similar systems in increased operational characteristics and reduced weight. There are no significant differences in combat qualities.


The gun 9-А1-4071К on the test bench. Shot from UAC video


Nevertheless, the cannon armament of modern combat aircraft is only an auxiliary system. The main weapon of T-50 should be missiles and bombs of existing and new types. To transport them, the aircraft must receive a large number of suspension units, both on the outer surface of the fuselage and the wing, and in the internal cargo hold. According to various sources, the promising fighter will receive up to eight knots for hanging the weapon under the wing and fuselage, as well as the same number of internal knots. All this will allow using the capabilities of the aircraft with maximum efficiency, which, according to various estimates, will be able to take on board up to 10 tons of weapons.

The development of promising missile weapons for the PAK FA fighter began a long time ago. To date, such projects have led to some tests, but a significant number of new weapons are still not ready for the start of operation. The last time at the moment the subject of the development of missile weapons for the fifth-generation fighter aircraft was touched by officials in late October. On the last day of last month, the TASS news agency published an interview with Boris Obnosov, general director of the Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation (KTRV). The head of the corporation spoke about several ongoing projects, including work on missiles for the T-50.

B. Obnosov recalled that for the new aircraft will be created mainly new aviation means of destruction. Also, some additional technical solutions were needed, the need for which was related to the deployment of missiles in the internal cargo compartments. Nevertheless, the work continues and gives certain results. The first stage of the creation of new weapons is scheduled for completion next year.


Installing NNPU-50 is firing. Shot from UAC video


The CEO of KTRV spoke about some of the difficulties associated with the need for import substitution. In the production of some of the missiles created in the Vympel GosMKB, imported components were used. To solve this problem, an air-to-air RVV-MD product was developed, built only from domestic assemblies and assemblies. Due to problems in the international arena, the release of the X-35E anti-ship missile was in doubt. With the participation of the company "Saturn" was created X-35UE rocket with enhanced characteristics.

One of the main tasks in the development of weapons for the PAK FA was to ensure the use of missiles with internal fighter suspension. Such use of weapons has led to the need to develop foldable planes, as well as to change start-up procedures. This complicated the work on the creation of weapons, but the main tasks have already been solved, which led to real results.

Earlier, representatives of the defense industry mentioned that by the 2017, the promising fighter would have to receive six radically new missiles. Until the end of the decade, as many new projects will be completed. It was also alleged that, to date, four projects of missiles intended for use with an internal suspension have already been developed and are being tested. For example, in April of this year, photographs of one of the experienced T-50 with mock-up missile weapons under the wing appeared.

According to different sources, the main armament of the T-50 aircraft, designed to combat enemy aircraft, will be missiles RVV-BD, RVV-SD and RVV-MD, as well as some other products based on existing developments. Missiles suitable for transportation in the internal cargo box and on the external load should be used. There is reason to believe that air-to-air missiles will be transported on the internal compartments, the requirements for which make it possible to bring the dimensions to acceptable limits. It was mentioned that such weapons would be tested with the assistance of the PAK FA aircraft, while other samples could be tested with other carriers.


Exhibition model of the air-to-air missile RVV-MD. Photo Bastion-karpenko.narod.ru


In accordance with the requirements of the project, the PAK FA fighter should be able to attack not only air, but also ground or surface targets. To this end, missile and bomb weapons of various types are introduced into the nomenclature of aircraft armaments. There is information about the possibility of using existing products of the “air surface” class of various modifications. Different sources mention the possibility of using X-31, X-35 and X-38 missiles of various modifications.

Especially for T-50, the X-58USHKE controlled missile was designed to destroy enemy radar stations. The result of a deep modernization of the existing product X-58 was the appearance of a rocket with a fuselage of a modified section and with updated on-board equipment. Such a rocket is intended to be transported in the fighter’s internal cargo compartments, due to which the project provides for obtaining target designation from the carrier, before going beyond its fuselage. The X-58USHKE rocket model was first presented to the general public last year at the MAKS-2015 exhibition.

Next year, the air-launched cruise missile BrahMos II will be released for testing. This weapon is created by the joint efforts of the Russian and Indian defense industries. It is expected that the rocket will develop hypersonic speed, providing for overcoming the enemy air defense assets. According to previously published data, the promising FGFA fighter, planned for development in the interests of the Indian Air Force, will be able to carry two BrahMos II missiles. Whether the Russian T-50 will carry such a weapon is not yet specified. Nevertheless, the emergence of such weapons could significantly increase the combat potential of the aircraft.


Exhibition model rocket X-XNUMHUSHKE. Photo by Saidpvo.livejournal.com


It was reported about the possibility of using a PAK FA fighter guided bombs of domestic production of caliber up to 500 kg. The dimensions of such products will make it possible to transport them both on the external hanger and on the internal nodes. Existing avionics will have to ensure the use of adjustable bombs of all existing types.

Apparently, the fifth generation fighter will retain the possibility of using unguided weapons. It will be possible to install free-falling bombs or blocks of unguided rockets on the external or internal suspension. A modern sighting and navigation system will provide an opportunity to obtain acceptable accuracy characteristics. The capabilities of the aircraft in theory will allow to carry and use the vast majority of unmanaged weapons in service. At the same time, the specifics of using the T-50 will not contribute to the frequent use of such weapons.

According to the official reports of the military department and defense industry, to date, within the framework of the project “Advanced Aviation Complex of Frontal Aviation”, several prototypes have been built and brought to the test. This technique has already been seen with mock-ups of aircraft weapons on the external sling. By appearance, the air-to-air missile RVV-MD and the air-to-surface X-31 were identified in the mock-ups. The continuation of the tests suggests that so far prototype aircraft have completed at least part of the inspection program with dummy and full armament suspension.


Experienced T-50 with weapon mockups. Photo by Alex S / Russianplanes.net


New models of guided missile weapons developed specifically for the T-50 fighter will have to appear soon. In total, by the end of the decade, it is planned to create more than a dozen missiles of various types and different purposes. In addition, the integration of existing weapons and the development of a promising automatic cannon should be completed soon. After completion of all such works, the PAK FA aircraft will be able to fully solve all the combat missions set.

In early July of this year, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov announced current plans for the completion of the PAK FA project. Deliveries of production aircraft of the new type are planned for 2018 year. A little earlier, unconfirmed data from unnamed sources appeared, according to which T-50 is already ready for mass production, and in the near future a contract for the supply of the first 12 machines should appear. According to several recent statements, by the end of the year, the Aerospace Forces will have to receive about fifty new aircraft.

Along with the completion of preparations for the full-scale production of new aircraft, the armament work for advanced fighters will have to come to an end. Especially for the new aircraft developed a large number of weapons for various purposes with different characteristics. Part of the weapons projects will be completed in the near future, which will be an important achievement in the framework of a larger and more important program.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://rueconomics.ru/
http://aviaport.ru/
http://vpk.name/
http://uacrussia.ru/
http://ktrv.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/
Author:
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tibidokh
    Tibidokh 3 November 2016 07: 08 New
    +3
    In parallel with the refinement of the aircraft PAK DA / T-50

    PAK FA ... sad
    Especially for the T-50, the Kh-58UShKE guided missile was created

    And it seemed to me that the letter E stands for "export."
    The X-58USHKE missile model was first presented to the general public last year at the MAKS-2015 exhibition.

    At MAKS-2007, a full-size prototype of the Kh-58UShKE missile with a folding wing was demonstrated.
    1. Tibidokh
      Tibidokh 3 November 2016 07: 51 New
      +8
      According to several recent statements, by the end of the year the aerospace forces will have to receive about fifty new aircraft.

      Someone did not understand ... by the end of what year? 2018? It would be great, but hard to believe. recourse
      Apparently, the fifth generation fighter will retain the ability to use unguided weapons.

      This statement from the category - an absolutely healthy person, having bought a car, retained the ability to walk.
      At the same time, the specifics of using the T-50 will not contribute to the frequent use of such weapons.

      Perhaps ... But I would like the author of the article to substantiate his opinion, citing at least something.
      In general, the article is uninformative. Four with a minus.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 9 November 2016 11: 09 New
        0
        You will laugh, but they told me in the summer, about 15 ready-made planes undergoing state tests. Then I considered this an exaggeration, but if the rumors did not lie, then it is quite possible to put 50 ready-made PAKFAs into the troops in 2017.
        1. Tibidokh
          Tibidokh 9 November 2016 12: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: Ka-52
          You will laugh

          Do not consider it disrespectful, but I probably really laugh. smile
          Quote: Ka-52
          Then I thought it was an exaggeration

          And they did it right. In October 2016, the ninth flight prototype (also known as the fourth of the second stage) began testing, plus three prototypes for statistical tests. Here is a TASS link to Borisov’s deputy defense minister:
          http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3720873
          In the manufacturing process, the tenth and eleventh.
          Thus, the tests, although in the final stages, are not yet complete. After the test, the unification and standardization of component parts of the prototypes from T-50-1 to T-50-11 will be evaluated (after all, the prototypes are somewhat different from each other). Then state. the commission will give recommendations on the suitability of both the complex and its individual units, having formed the technical specifications for launching into the series.
          Those. until the serial appearance of the T-50 is formed, talking about launching into the series is premature.
          Do you think I do not want the speedy adoption of the T-50 for service and the launch of mass production? Really want to. Just remember how we were fed breakfast from the beginning of the 2000s. 2010th, 2011th, 2014th, 2016th.
          My personal opinion is that the first serial Dryers will appear closer to the end of 2017. And by 2018 they will produce 12 serial ones. (with engines of the first stage) and will wait for the completion of testing and launching into serial production of product 30 (second stage).
          Quote: Ka-52
          it is possible to put 50 ready-made PAFFAs into the troops in 2017.

          With this, even the USSR could not cope. T-50 is not a Su-27 and MiG-29.
          In addition, I read about the conclusion of a contract for the supply of 96 AL-41F1S engines (14000 kgf) for the Su-35 until 2020. But the AL-41F1 engines (15000 kgf) for the T-50 have not yet been ordered in bulk.
          With respect! hi
    2. Navigator Basov
      Navigator Basov 3 November 2016 19: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: Tibidokh
      And it seemed to me that the letter E stands for "export."
      And no one claimed that the X-58USHKE is not an export option: unified, with a broadband GOS, ejection launch (from the inside of the suspension point), export. As you can see, it is the news about export options and their performance characteristics that are distributed much earlier and more willingly (including at exhibitions), since the option for adopting own aircraft is generally still classified (and may be kept secret for a long time after adoption and military admission). Often in the media (and even the manufacturers themselves) the export version of the military system is presented as if as the main one, either without seeing the difference, or not wanting to understand the intricacies. As I understand it, in such cases the following is meant: here we can offer such an export rocket (to the Indians), well, there will be something similar on our planes (only a little better). For example, the manufacturer himself - KTRV - on the site mentions only the X-58UKSHE, and does not mention the hypothetical rocket X-58UKSH. Also on the KPB website are mentioned “Quartet”, “Quartet-M”, “Metis-M1” (apparently, they are not offered for export), but “Cornet-E” and “Cornet-EM”, although it is reliably known about those accepted at armament "Cornet" and "Cornet-D". It is clear that manufacturers' websites, that exhibitions, are aimed primarily at the commercial area, and not at the military, that’s all.
      1. Tibidokh
        Tibidokh 4 November 2016 04: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: Bass Navigator
        And no one claimed that the X-58USHKE is not an export option:

        You write the right things about the lack of information on the sites of KTRV, KPB. But please explain why the author actually claims that an export version was specially created for the T-50? After all, this is not true.
        Although you have already answered this question
        Quote: Bass Navigator
        either not seeing the difference, or not wanting to understand the intricacies.

        With respect! hi
  2. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 3 November 2016 07: 44 New
    +3
    Installing weapons on an external sling significantly increases the EPR of the aircraft. Although if a high combat load is needed and there is no anti-aircraft defense, this is the way out ..
  3. FID
    FID 3 November 2016 09: 04 New
    11
    Most importantly, this aircraft is either PAK FA or a fighter! Front-line aviation and fighter, you must admit, these are somewhat different things. Yes, front-line aviation, this is support aviation, yes, fighter aviation, it allows front-line aviation to fulfill its functions ... Yes, you can combine these functions (example: Yak-9 in the Second World War), but for God's sake, then you don’t have to mess with these EPR and other, and other! Front-line aviation carries a bomb load, including on the EXTERNAL suspension! If the T-50 is designed to gain superiority, then the EPR is important, if as an attack aircraft .. ??? After all, a fighter with MANPADS does not care about EPR ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 3 November 2016 10: 04 New
      +1
      T-50, as well as Su-35С, are fundamentally multifunctional aircraft.

      They are equally the best in their generations in the classes of fighters and attack aircraft (fighter-bombers). In addition to armament, the T-50 in internal compartments weighing up to 600 kg and length up to 4 meters allows you to hang any bombs and missiles weighing up to 2 tons under the wings. The Su-35C, which has the same under-wing suspension capabilities, is also a missile carrier, which allows it to suspend one heavy Caliber-A, P-270 / X-41 or X-33 missile under the fuselage.

      The only function that is not implemented in the T-50 and Su-35С is the assault, since these aircraft are not designed for contact work on ground targets in the anti-aircraft artillery range. Direct air support of the ground forces is carried out remotely by them using guided ammunition and external target designation from the UAV.

      The time of the use of ground attack aircraft, free-fall bombs and NURS in combined-arms operations has completely sunk into oblivion.
      1. FID
        FID 3 November 2016 11: 30 New
        +9
        Yes you what! Then why a 30mm gun? And why are our sworn going to "Warthog" to revive? And in general, what is PAK FA? Decrypt, please!
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 3 November 2016 11: 49 New
          +4
          "Then why a 30mm gun?" ////

          For close air combat.

          "Front-line aviation and fighter, you must admit, these are somewhat different things." ////

          T-50, like most Russian and world
          major aircraft of the Air Force, belongs to the class: fighter-bomber.
          1. FID
            FID 3 November 2016 12: 13 New
            +4
            Quote: voyaka uh
            like most Russian and world
            major aircraft of the Air Force, belongs to the class: fighter-bomber.

            Kindly, MiG-29 is who ?, Su-27 - ?, MiG-31 -? Mig-27 - I completely agree with you, well, there is no doubt, but the rest ... Well, and then, just out of curiosity, what do you have to do with aviation? You easily classify planes for what reason? Global classification or what?
            1. Niccola Mack
              Niccola Mack 3 November 2016 14: 26 New
              +3
              A person simply dumped the concepts of “genus” and “type” of aviation into one basket (again, according to the existing classification).
              From your question, I’ll say I can confidently (for myself) say that the MiG 31 (MiG 25) is a strategic air defense interceptor.
              But when we see how they used it (or tried), I won’t say that.
              In general, it seems to me that the classification is already going a different way.
              Legislators and the government, seeing the figure for development and production costs, begin to convince the military - or maybe combine an air battle fighter with a bomber and attack aircraft.
              They will soon say - and maybe a strategic bomber can also be added here.
              Specialized scouts will soon be forgotten altogether.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 3 November 2016 14: 30 New
              +1
              "Global classification or what?" ///

              It is the global one. If the fighter has effective means
              to work on the ground and good bombs, he is a fighter-bomber.

              It often happened that the aircraft was developed for some purposes, but was used for others.
              For example, the Phantom F-4 was developed as a heavy fighter for conquest.
              dominance in the air. But it turned out that he was perfectly bombing, taking bombs almost to his
              weight, and puts them exactly. He turned into a fighter-bomber.
              The lightweight single-engine F-16 underwent the same transformation. Conceived as easy
              fighter. Not in Israel he was converted into a fighter-bomber. He does all the work on earth.
              Why are you so stubbornly clinging to the old Soviet classification?
              Time does not stand still. Front-line aviation ... and attached additional tanks,
              refuel in the air - became strategic. You need to be more flexible in type definitions.
              1. FID
                FID 3 November 2016 15: 23 New
                11
                Yes, much more flexible ... Fighter-bombers appear from hopelessness ... And the F-16 and F-14 are light and heavy fighters, they were designed like that. Simply, in the USA, besides strategists, there is no bomber aviation. They don’t fight on their land, and you won’t get into a bomber aircraft carrier, so they get out. And we have our own doctrine, each plane is sharpened for its own, but it's good ...
                1. 11 black
                  11 black April 28 2017 16: 17 New
                  0
                  Quote: SSI
                  Yes, much more flexible ... Fighter-bombers appear from hopelessness ... And the F-16 and F-14 are light and heavy fighters, they were designed like that. Simply, in the USA, besides strategists, there is no bomber aviation. They don’t fight on their land, and you won’t get into a bomber aircraft carrier, so they get out. And we have our own doctrine, each plane is sharpened for its own, but it's good ...

                  SSI - I respect you as a specialist, but still - here's the F / A-18 "Hornet" then what? ... Purebred fighter-bomber, isn't it?
                  Or our Su-34, it’s like a bomber, but its fighter is at the core, and for example, it would be interesting to see his battle, say with F-16 or F-14, and not the fact that they will win ...
                  PS - infographics
        2. Operator
          Operator 3 November 2016 11: 54 New
          0
          PAK FA - a promising aviation complex of functional aviation laughing

          Smoke "Blow" and you will be happy
          https://topwar.ru/102885-krupnoseriynoe-proizvods
          tvo-takticheskih-raket-apkws-vynuzhdaet-rossiyu-o
          tvetit-ugrozoy.html # comment-id-6346981

          Do you really think that the ammunition from the 150 30-mm rounds is intended to attack ground targets?

          As for the intentions of the sworn - this is directly to them.
          1. FID
            FID 3 November 2016 12: 08 New
            +6
            Quote: Operator
            advanced aviation complex of functional aviation

            Yes, not FUNCTIONAL, but FRONT, according to our superiors, just like PAK YES (promising .... long-range aviation), PAK TA - transport ...
            1. silver_roman
              silver_roman 3 November 2016 13: 22 New
              +1
              Sergei, whatever one may say, but now everything is moving towards unification.
              You are right about the EPR and front-line functions, but for example, the idea that B-B missiles will be hidden exclusively in the internal compartment means that the PAK FA will initially work, for example, with CABs or FABs ... not the point ... or missiles WZ, by goals, having released the external suspension points, and then, having reduced our EPR in this way, will be able to fulfill the functions of a fighter for gaining air supremacy.
              It is a reasonable approach. That and the times are gone when 3000-5000 aircraft were in service, classified according to different goals and directions. Of course, the global world war will bring its visions, but so far it is not practical. The link in 50-70 aircraft in Syria play the role of a local war. That and the main work is being done by the Su-24. 30th and 35th cover. There are not so many 34s, and in fact there are already about 100 of them in service. I don’t remember the exact number.
              1. FID
                FID 3 November 2016 13: 40 New
                +4
                Quote: silver_roman
                It is a reasonable approach. That and the times are gone when 3000-5000 aircraft were in service, classified according to different goals and directions.

                That is why our generals ordered (correct, if I am mistaken) as many as 24 aircraft, although it is rumored that they will correct this stunning figure. So what do we create? An expensive toy?
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 3 November 2016 16: 19 New
                  +3
                  it was about the first batch within 24 pieces (also not sure) until 2020.
                  Do you really think that after having swelled so much effort and money into the project, the order will be so scanty?
                  I am more optimistic about this.
                  If before, everything rested on false optimism, but now it is all-encompassing pessimism.
                  Remember the timeline for creating the engine for PAK FA. I will not even deny that I myself was a supporter of pessimistic ideas, but it seems like the process is going on. And guessing in this matter is not a thankful job!
                  1. FID
                    FID 3 November 2016 16: 41 New
                    +5
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    If before, everything rested on false optimism, but now it is all-encompassing pessimism.

                    When you cook in this cauldron, you will inevitably be a pessimist!
                    1. silver_roman
                      silver_roman 4 November 2016 10: 30 New
                      0
                      Sergey, I understand you. Given your experience and length of service, you have seen the Soviet Air Force, which of course were a cut above, and involuntarily draw parallels and comparisons. I am just talking about you making an amendment for 20 years of devastation.
                2. Octopus
                  Octopus 4 November 2016 06: 13 New
                  0
                  Quote: SSI
                  So what do we create? An expensive toy?

                  And were there doubts?

                  About the main topic. Recently there was an article on NAP partners, in relation to which F35 with its gun was considered. He looked rather comical in a row of planes like Scorpio or Tushkan. Free, it seems, for the US budget aircraft (in the sense of development).
                  So, IMHO, the common misfortune is to make a gold prodigy, and then find out that most tasks require a completely different plane. In the case of PAK FA, it is compounded by the desire to shut up Lightning, Raptor, and Su-34. As it seems to me personally, with such a statement of the problem, the course of events is not difficult to predict.
            2. Operator
              Operator 3 November 2016 13: 35 New
              0
              Actually, I put a smiley face at the end of the PAK FA decryption.

              The correct name for the class of aircraft to which the Su-35С and Т-50 belong is the multifunctional fighter (IFI). Fighter - since it is an aircraft of gaining superiority in air like F-15, Su-27 and F-22; multifunctional - because it is in no way inferior (at least) to strike aircraft like Rafal, F-18 and F-35, fighter-bombers like F-111 and Su-34 and interceptors like Mig-31.

              A Su-25 and A-10 attack aircraft is an outdated class of aircraft; therefore, its functions are not implemented in the Su-35С and Т-50.
              1. FID
                FID 3 November 2016 13: 50 New
                +4
                Quote: Operator
                Actually, I put a smiley at the end of the PAK FA decryption

                I took your emoticon. What will we do with the “right class” of these aircraft? Where will they be used? In Syria, all 24 (or less)? I understand a limited number of "strategists" or "long-range", but to gain superiority ... Well, judge for yourself - how many MiG-21s, MiG-27s were released - already less (and this is an attack plane), MiG-29, Su- 27 ... Yes, these are different weight machines, but they are used for CONQUEST ... And as for the attack aircraft ..., believe me, you are somewhat mistaken. They will be back! In what form, when ... Unfortunately, our aircraft industry is in a deep ... abyss, but what will happen the day after tomorrow (as the Cubans say - pasado mañana)!
                1. Operator
                  Operator 3 November 2016 14: 04 New
                  0
                  Now they will clear the production capacities from Su-30 and Su-34 and begin to stamp Su-35 with hundreds a year. And then for show-offs and T-50 in the amount of several tens stamp.

                  Su-35С is both a Schnitz and a Reaper and a Drum player (such as MBT for tankers), the only thing that it lacks is an integrated sighting system for working on the ground, but this is a gain.
                  1. FID
                    FID 3 November 2016 14: 20 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Operator
                    Now they will clear the production capacities from Su-30 and Su-34 and begin to stamp Su-35 with hundreds a year. And then for show-offs and T-50 in the amount of several tens stamp.

                    As for the Su-34, I think you are mistaken, but, in general, your approach to the topic is fair!
                  2. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 3 November 2016 14: 35 New
                    +1
                    "Now they will clear the production capacities from the Su-30 and Su-34 and begin
                    stamping Su-35S with hundreds per year "////

                    In this I agree with you. Su-35 replaces the Su-34, and Su-30, and MiG-35.
                    Having increased the number of Su-35 and getting rid of unnecessary types, the Russian Aerospace Forces
                    will become much stronger.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 3 November 2016 15: 18 New
                      0
                      So you, this - maybe, well, his “Penguin”, let it fly to itself within North America, and we will give you a customized price for your 2 lard of Russian virgin Su-35 (your electronics, no bazaar) laughing
                    2. Octopus
                      Octopus 4 November 2016 06: 40 New
                      +1
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Having increased the number of Su-35 and getting rid of unnecessary types, the Russian Aerospace Forces

                      You are theoretically right. Only 2 nuances.
                      1. In order to give one machine a month instead of 1, it is necessary, oddly enough, not to “clear the capacities”, but to do a lot of work that no one is doing and is not going to.
                      2. How much? Lyamov 90, it seems, a little thing? Mr. Siluanov was asked about the "hundreds"?
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 4 November 2016 09: 06 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        In order to give one car a month instead of 1, you need, oddly enough, not to “clear the capacities”, but to do a lot of work,

                        But I wonder what a lot of work, please explain?
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Octopus
                        Octopus 4 November 2016 14: 08 New
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        But I wonder what a lot of work, please explain?

                        What needs to be done for mass production of a new machine? This is a pretty long conversation. Take an interest in how they “cleared the production” for the MiG-29, so as not to go far.
                  3. Odysseus
                    Odysseus 3 November 2016 17: 17 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Operator
                    Now they will clear the production capacities from Su-30 and Su-34 and begin to stamp Su-35 with hundreds per year

                    Even the Enoch 10 did not write such a wildest heresy. Here honestly, I did not think that it could be surpassed, but you succeeded.
                    Bravo.
                    1. mav1971
                      mav1971 3 November 2016 22: 54 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      Quote: Operator
                      Now they will clear the production capacities from Su-30 and Su-34 and begin to stamp Su-35 with hundreds per year

                      Even the Enoch 10 did not write such a wildest heresy. Here honestly, I did not think that it could be surpassed, but you succeeded.
                      Bravo.


                      They are twin brothers!
                      The operator is just from an alternate universe ...
                      Go to his profile and read 3-4 a dozen of his posts - you will immediately realize that before you is a real reptiloid ... :)))
                      1. Bongo
                        Bongo 4 November 2016 05: 25 New
                        +4
                        Quote: mav1971
                        They are twin brothers!
                        The operator is just from an alternate universe ...
                        Go to his profile and read 3-4 a dozen of his posts - you will immediately realize that before you is a real reptiloid ... :)))

                        laughing Well, what are you, how can that be. The monk is a secret military specialist, at least to the direct question of where he served, he replied that it was a "military secret." And the operator positions itself as an "engineer". lol What only "cranks" in VO you will not meet. wassat
                    2. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 4 November 2016 09: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      Even the Enoch 10 did not write such a wildest heresy. Here honestly, I did not think that it could be surpassed, but you succeeded.
                      Bravo.

                      And what is such a wildest heresy? There was a time when MiG-29 was produced hundreds in a year.
                      1. Bongo
                        Bongo 4 November 2016 11: 20 New
                        +2
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        And what is such a wildest heresy? There was a time when MiG-29 was produced hundreds in a year.

                        It was, but not in the "new Russia". no You can also recall the MiG-15 and the MiG-21, who really impressed with the volume of production.
                      2. Odysseus
                        Odysseus 4 November 2016 14: 09 New
                        +2
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        And what is such a wildest heresy?

                        1) There are no plans to “clear up production capacities” from the Su-30, Su-34. For the Su-34, the contract is until 2020, and for the Su-30 until the end of 2018.
                        2) If the reorientation of Irkutsk to the Su-35 is still possible (although technically this is not an easy task), then the Su-34 is a front-line bomber, it does not correspond with the Su-35 and changes the Su-24. Unfortunately, it changes at a slow pace due to which The Su-24 will be part of the Air Force in the 2020s (before perestroika, it was planned to replace it in the 90s of the 20th century). So, after 2020, the Su-34 will be made in Novosibirsk.
                        3) Su-35s are making the start of production in 2010 in Komsomolsk, until 2020 a contract for 98 boards. That is, the rate is 10 aircraft per year. The production rates of Su-30 and Su-34 are 12-16 sides per year.
                        That is, even assuming that Novosibirsk and Irkutsk and Komsomolsk all begin to make the Su-35, then they will not make "hundreds" of aircraft per year. The likelihood of this is equal to the likelihood that tomorrow mankind will launch the ship to the alpha centauri. That yes, absolute zero.
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        There was a time when the MiG-29 was produced in the hundreds of years.

                        Indeed, in 9 years, 1200 MiG-29s were produced in the USSR, that is, more than 100 per year (but nevertheless they are not “hundreds”), however, Soviet economic opportunities are not comparable with the capabilities of the Russian Federation. In addition, the Su-35 is more difficult to manufacture than the MiG -29 of the 80s. So even the USSR would not have made "hundreds" of Su-35s a year.
                2. aviator65
                  aviator65 3 November 2016 22: 42 New
                  0
                  Quote: SSI
                  I understand a limited number of "strategists" or "long-range", but to gain superiority ...

                  I am also introduced into a stupor by such a stated amount. In general, what are we preparing for by implementing such expensive supernova developments? If the real goal is to ensure air superiority in the context of a large-scale clash with an enemy with a comparable potential, then the quantitative ratio of combat units should be somehow parity. Again, where to get the mobilization reserve? Simply put, how are we going to make up for combat losses? And they are inevitable in a serious conflict, no matter what the “super-duper” technique is. Su-35, and even more so T-50 - this is of course far from Yak-9 or IL-2, but I strongly doubt that our current plants can suddenly start working at the same pace as then, God forbid, what happen. Yes, and they are unlikely to be given it, that is, to continue to work in general.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 4 November 2016 11: 17 New
                    0
                    We have no problems building up approximate quantitative parity with the United States in modern tactical aviation models - the cost of the Su-35С is about 30 million dollars, F-35 - about 280 million dollars, which corresponds to the ratio of defense spending between the two countries.

                    The main thing at the same time is not to spray funds for the production of inefficient aircraft: Su-30, Su-34, MiG-35, Mi-28 and Ka-52.

                    It is necessary to conduct an audit, reduce many military programs (such as Boomerang, Kurganets, Yars, Barguzin, Mace, Zircon, X-101, AK-12, RTOs, frigates, SSBNs, etc.) and concentrate funds on a small number of areas: main battle tank, main tactical aircraft, main strike submarine, main corvette, heavy ICBM, ballistic RSD, unified line of air defense systems, etc.

                    It is necessary to focus on guided weapons, UAVs and MLRS.
                    1. Philip Staros
                      Philip Staros 5 November 2016 01: 28 New
                      +3
                      I believe one of the reasons why it is NOT possible to do ONE kind of technique in each topic is that then all the skills and developments of the OPPONENTS will be sharpened (and quite successfully) against ONE type of our aircraft. Those. will be SPECIALIZED "destroyers" namely, for example, Su-35S.
                      The balance is important.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 5 November 2016 21: 49 New
                        0
                        Tank troops of all countries are now equipped with only one type of equipment - MBT. And once upon a time there were light, medium, heavy, cruising, infantry, etc. tanks.
              2. silver_roman
                silver_roman 3 November 2016 16: 23 New
                +3
                Well, here you are too famously. For example, the characteristics of the MiG-31 are unattainable for the PAK FA, the Su-34 is also unique due to even such things as a mini-kitchen, a bathroom and the ability to just stand up to its full height. Of course, I am sure that this is not used every sortie, but it can come in handy at some point.
                F-22 if I’m not mistaken, then also had to be multifunctional. The very essence of the 5th generation is striving for this. Another thing is how they use it now.
                1. twviewer
                  twviewer 3 November 2016 18: 26 New
                  0
                  in this case, a 2-ton armored capsule is a useless excess, and you need to add fuel or payload?
                  1. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 4 November 2016 10: 29 New
                    0
                    Hard to tell. Personally, I believe that the armored capsule is useless there.
                    Now Su-34s operate from altitudes of 5+ km to avoid an SAM attack. It is difficult to imagine a situation where the 34th will act as an attack aircraft. Extremely expensive thing for a flying tank. That is why I believe that the Su-25 has not outlived itself.
                    And removing the armor, the centering will immediately change. Of course, I’m not sure how the offset of the center of mass is compensated, but I’ll obviously have to redo the design of the airframe, and there are rigidity and additional tests. Those. the procedure is quite complicated.
                    In general, I think subjectively that we need to proceed from statistics. What is the likelihood that the 34th will have to work as a ground attack aircraft and meet with anti-aircraft guns. And again, suppose that the armored capsule saves the life of the pilots, but it costs 23-30 with their rate of fire to wet the 34th, most likely the aircraft will be destroyed.
                    1. Philip Staros
                      Philip Staros 5 November 2016 01: 31 New
                      +1
                      It works with 5km + because:
                      1. on that theater there is no air defense system!
                      2. He still does not have a system of enveloping the terrain, as I recall (as on the Su-24).
                      When you have to hide from a missile launcher of decent altitude, then it is precisely that which will be pressed to the ground.

                      In general, I would not rush to conclusions.
                2. Operator
                  Operator 3 November 2016 18: 30 New
                  0
                  The MiG-31 surpasses the T-50 in a single indicator - maximum flight speed without missiles on the suspension. This MiG quality is absolutely not in demand in a combat situation.
                  1. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 4 November 2016 10: 24 New
                    0
                    In fact, yes, but this is an extremely important indicator.
                    Basically, the MiG-31BM now plays a role in the air defense link to intercept the Kyrgyz Republic.
                    And it’s also difficult to compare the AFL “Barrier” with the prospective AFAR at the PAK FA.
                    It seems like they want to upgrade the first.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 4 November 2016 11: 22 New
                      0
                      I did not understand your remark about the importance of the speed of the aircraft without rockets - to return to the airport, or what?

                      As soon as possible, it is necessary to install the AFAR on the Su-35С, including in the tail boom for rear viewing.
                      1. silver_roman
                        silver_roman 4 November 2016 17: 17 New
                        0
                        At the expense of speed "without rockets" I personally do not know ..
                        But its declared kind of like taken into account with the presence of missiles. Otherwise, what's the point of this speed at all?
                        It's like giving the maximum speed of a car equal to falling from a cliff!
                        In occasion of AFAR on the su-35s. What exactly do you see the main advantages of AFAR before PFAR? I read more than one article that in various situations the AFAR may even lose the PFAR.
                      2. mav1971
                        mav1971 5 November 2016 18: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: Operator

                        As soon as possible, it is necessary to install the AFAR on the Su-35С, including in the tail boom for rear viewing.


                        Why AFAR in the rear beam?
                    2. mav1971
                      mav1971 5 November 2016 18: 34 New
                      0
                      Quote: silver_roman
                      In fact, yes, but this is an extremely important indicator.
                      Basically, the MiG-31BM now plays a role in the air defense link to intercept the Kyrgyz Republic.


                      Interception of the Kyrgyz Republic as a task for MIG-31 is a complete zilch.
                      Rather, the prodigy of wunderwaffle.
                      For one departure, one MIG-31 is capable of shooting down only 1 KR as much as possible.
                      Provided that only one destroyer - 24 KR - is fired, and provided that all MIG-31 from Savatia are powerless - they are capable of destroying only 18-20 KR.
                      And if the launch of the Kyrgyz Republic will be with 2's destroyers? Or With destroyers and Virge? About the Nut with its missile ammunition of the Kyrgyz Republic - keep silent ...

                      MIG-31BM - already zilch.
                      As developed as an interceptor B-1 and B-52 - so he remained with them.
                      He did not receive any real improvement in combat missions and combat employment. Just improved as a B-1 and B-52 interceptor.
                      Only now the world has since changed beyond recognition ...
        3. INTA_VEGA
          INTA_VEGA 3 November 2016 13: 44 New
          +1
          SSI, Why are you clinging to the name of PAK? In the army, the name does not have to coincide with the content)
          A 30 mm cannon with 150 shots and, most likely, with an understated resource is the weapon of last chance in close air combat. It is very doubtful that a plane with a cruising supersonic sound and such an instrument could confidently hit at least something ground-based.

          Quote: Operator
          The time of the use of ground attack aircraft, free-fall bombs and NURS in combined-arms operations has completely sunk into oblivion.


          A rather categorical statement against the background of the truly massive use of free fall bombs and NURS in all wars and conflicts of the 21st century. It is clear that unguided weapons give way to controlled models, but it is still very far from "going down in history".
          1. FID
            FID 3 November 2016 14: 11 New
            +5
            Quote: INTA_VEGA
            in close air combat. It is very doubtful that a plane with a cruising supersonic sound and such an instrument could confidently hit at least something ground

            Cruising supersonic and close air combat ... Oh my god, yes, time, time as you fly fast ... I do not cling to the name, but people should have heads. A series of 24 cars does not bother anyone? All criticized Raptor and F-35 ... how many are there? And everyone around, in all seriousness, discussing the capabilities of the T-50 ...
          2. Nehist
            Nehist 3 November 2016 16: 29 New
            +2
            Then what the hell is super maneuverability for him? It is needed specifically for close combat
            1. Operator
              Operator 3 November 2016 18: 32 New
              0
              Super maneuverability is needed to evade missiles after the end of the active section of their trajectory.
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 3 November 2016 22: 58 New
                +7
                Quote: Operator
                Super maneuverability is needed to evade missiles after the end of the active section of their trajectory.


                Once again, how to deviate from a modern all-aspect rocket with a working overload in the 30-40G being in an airplane and limited by the human body and its adequacy to the perceived situation in 7G?
                The fact that the fuselage can withstand both 10 and 15G is not discussed, only the pilot can keep his mind in his head and control over the situation can only be done in 7G ...
                1. INTA_VEGA
                  INTA_VEGA 5 November 2016 22: 04 New
                  0
                  Reread a phrase
                  Quote: Operator
                  for missile evasion after the end of the active section of their trajectory.

                  When the engine worked, the rocket rapidly loses energy and, accordingly, begins to lose maneuverability.
    2. Tibidokh
      Tibidokh 3 November 2016 12: 32 New
      0
      Front-line aviation (tactical in the West) is designed to operate in operational depths. It includes fighter, bomber and assault.
      Next comes long-range aviation and strategic aviation (what you work with).
      Those. radius separation. There is no strategic fighter.
      But this is my point of view ... Essno, I could be wrong.
      1. FID
        FID 3 November 2016 13: 04 New
        +5
        Quote: Tibidokh
        Front-line aviation (tactical in the West) is designed to operate in operational depths. It includes fighter, bomber and assault.

        Here, with the bomber in more detail ... And the operational depth ... You can not be a specialist in the development of ground and air operations at the same time, well, it does not work! The groundmen are planning to capture something (God help them), but it turns out that they need air support! Which one? Either it is FRONT (attack aircraft, fighter-bomber) and the air support NECESSARY for them (which can also be provided by a fighter-bomber, BUT without burdensome bomb weapons, or fighters), or my beloved DBA or SBA. And do not mix eggs and fruits in one bowl.
        1. Tibidokh
          Tibidokh 3 November 2016 17: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: SSI
          Here, with the bomber in more detail ...

          I will try.
          The front-line bomber will not fly off to work off targets in North America. His destiny is to work some kind of km. 500 from the place of basing. Therefore, it is located near the front line, or near the front line there is a "jump" airfield. In this regard, it is called the front-line.
          Strategic is relatively unprincipled where the enemy is located.
          Quote: SSI
          You cannot be a specialist in the development of ground and at the same time air operations

          So now without it anywhere. The principle of network-centric warfare, as well as modern warfare, obliges different branches of the armed forces to act in collaboration with central planning.
          Quote: SSI
          And do not mix eggs and fruits in one bowl.

          And there is such a salad - shrimp with egg and pineapple ... wassat
          I'm sorry, to be honest, I tried to express my opinion about
          Quote: SSI
          Front-line aviation and fighter, you must admit, these are somewhat different things.

          Those. my opinion is that the name "frontline" does not go by the type of tasks performed, but by the range of action.
          1. Operator
            Operator 3 November 2016 18: 33 New
            0
            The Su-35 has a combat radius of 1500, not 500 km, the T-50 has 2000 km.
            1. Tibidokh
              Tibidokh 3 November 2016 20: 50 New
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              The Su-35 has a combat radius of 1500, not 500 km, the T-50 has 2000 km.

              The Su-35S has a ferry range (without PTB) of 3600 km. If you count with a load of at least 6 tons (on an external sling, which significantly reduces range), add the navigational reserve of fuel here, take into account the fact that the plane does not fly in a straight line, then 1500 - this will be at best a flight range.
              In addition, 500 km. I did not indicate for a specific aircraft (Su-35S and T-50), but the approximate value for front-line aviation.
              1. Operator
                Operator 3 November 2016 22: 27 New
                0
                Give the layout how, from 3600 km of flight range with fuel poured into internal tanks and with a rocket and bomb load of 6 tons on the external suspension, you have the combat radius of Su-35С in 750 km.
                1. Tibidokh
                  Tibidokh 4 November 2016 08: 22 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  Give the layout

                  I more or less wrote to you that from a ferry range of 3600 you will not get a combat radius of Su-35S of 1500 km.
                  Well, let me try to roughly calculate.
                  1) The KNAAZ website does not mention cruising supersonic anywhere. We consider Vavr. cruiser. = 1000 km / h
                  2) 3600 km. divide by 1000 km / h. = 3,6 hours at full refueling at a cruising speed with a mass of 19000 kg. empty + 11500 kg. fuel = 3,6 hours with a mass of 30500 kg. without external suspension.
                  3) 11500 l. divide by 3,6 hours = 3200 l / h with a mass of 30500 kg. without external suspension and without the whole reel working avionics.
                  4) We calculate the mass of fuel when armed with 6 tons.
                  34500 kg. (max) minus (19000 kg. + 6000 kg.) = 9000 kg. fuel. We leave the navigation stock of 1350 kg. (according to the rules of 15%) we get 7650 kg.
                  5) Further, due to the presence of external suspension, as well as the fact that the aircraft will have to maneuver (including afterburner, etc.), the avionics will work fully, we calculate the consumption by a third (coefficient 1,33) higher than the distillation one. We consider 3600 liters. * 1,33 * (34500 kg. \ 30500 kg.) = 5400 l. in hour.
                  6) The fuel supply is divided by consumption, we get 7650 kg. \ 5400 l. = 1,41 hours.
                  7) 1, 41 hours * 1000 km / h = 1400 km .; We will add 200 km here, because back the plane flies empty = 1600 km.
                  8) 1600 km. / 2 = 800 km. combat radius.

                  If you are able to calculate more accurately (recall, I thought very rudely), then give your "layout".
                  With respect! smile
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 4 November 2016 11: 44 New
                    0
                    Standard flight characteristics of the Su-35С:
                    - empty weight 19000 kg
                    - fuel weight in internal tanks 11500 kg
                    - maximum take-off weight 34500 kg
                    - combat load weight 4000 kg
                    - range at cruising speed and high altitude 3600 km
                    - flight range in toll stock 600 km
                    - combat radius 1500 km

                    With 6 tons of combat load and a reduced amount of fuel, the maximum range / combat radius will be 3000 / 1200 km, with maximum 8 tons of combat load - 2400 / 900 km.

                    When flying at low altitude and fuel reserve for maneuvering, the combat radius decreases, but this is not a standard LTX, but the calculated value in a specific case of combat use.

                    For comparison, aircraft models use only standard LTX.
                    1. Tibidokh
                      Tibidokh 4 November 2016 12: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      With 6 tons of combat load and a reduced amount of fuel, the maximum range / combat radius will be 3000/1200 km

                      Excuse me, why did I count on fuel consumption per hour for you here ?! stop
                      Where are you from the numbers of 3000 and 1200 km. have taken? What is the formula calculated?
                      Quote: Operator
                      To compare aircraft models use only standard LTX.

                      My discussion with the SSI generally began about front-line bombers. For some reason, you brought the Su-35S and T-50. Well, the Su-35S, okay, based on the actual data, I roughly calculated the flight range. But how are you going to say something about the T-50, I don’t understand at all.
                      Listen, we somehow calculated with Sergey VAF the Tu-22M3 flight range. So, beautiful official numbers in practice do not look so pretty. So to speak theory and practice. And you tell me about the "standard LTX".
                      A radius of 1200 km. moreover, with 6 tons ... Then tell me what the indicated combat radius of 1500 km is. How many weapons can the Su-35S carry? And I'll tell you, two RVV-AE and two P-73 = 560 kg. (and this is without taking into account maneuvering, navigational fuel and the inclusion of afterburner).
                      Now remember what I wrote above
                      Quote: Tibidokh
                      The front-line bomber will not fly off to work off targets in North America. His destiny is to work some kind of km. 500 from the place of basing.

                      I'm talking about a practical combat radius, and you tell me about a hypothetical radius of the Su-35S "in a vacuum."
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 4 November 2016 12: 54 New
                        +1
                        Calculation of the range of Su-35 with me was carried out based on its dependence on the volume of fuel in the internal tanks:
                        at 11500 kg (4 t combat load) 3600 km
                        at 9500 kg (6 t combat load) 3000 km
                        at 7500 kg (8 t combat load) 2400 km

                        The combat radius is calculated by subtracting from the 600 range km corresponding to the navigational fuel supply.

                        The weight of the combat load within 4 tons has little effect on range, since with increasing load the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft increases due to an increase in the specific load on the wing. To a greater extent, the range does not depend on the weight of the load on the external suspension, but on its aerodynamics, while two 2 tons of bombs each have better aerodynamics than two RVV-AE missiles and two P-73 missiles.

                        PS And the MFI Su-35С is the same front-line bomber about which you were having a dispute with the SSI.
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 3 November 2016 23: 00 New
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              The Su-35 has a combat radius of 1500, not 500 km, the T-50 has 2000 km.


              To be smarter, learn simple arithmetic.
              divide the ferry range by 4 - get a real combat radius with half the load ...
              1. Tibidokh
                Tibidokh 4 November 2016 08: 26 New
                +1
                Quote: mav1971
                divide the ferry range by 4 - get a real combat radius with half the load ...

                drinks
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 November 2016 14: 44 New
        +1
        "There is no strategic fighter" ////

        It happens. F-22 - a strategic fighter. He is conceived
        for strategic tasks. Therefore, he did not find a place
        in local conflicts. And now he is being remade into a tactical
        by replacing communications.

        As I noted, additional tanks, refueling in the air
        and high-thrust engines that allow you to take a lot of bombs or CDs,
        moved the standard classifications.
        Tactical (front-line) aviation can be converted into
        strategic.
        1. FID
          FID 3 November 2016 15: 30 New
          +7
          Quote: voyaka uh
          As I noted, additional tanks, refueling in the air
          and high-thrust engines that allow you to take a lot of bombs or CDs,
          moved the standard classifications.

          Excuse me, nonsense, what are many bombs - 100 50 kilograms, or one five-ton? How many cruise missiles are there? Melee or long-range missiles? Additional tanks - an increase in all praised EPR, you can’t cram a lot into internal volumes ... Yes, and I'm sorry, but what about the comfort of the pilot? How long will he sit in an armchair? Therefore, let's better think about laser swords and the Death Star ...
          1. Tibidokh
            Tibidokh 3 November 2016 17: 55 New
            +4
            Quote: SSI
            Yes, and I'm sorry, but what about the comfort of the pilot?

            Well, that's like in that bearded joke.

            A military transport plane flies, next to two of its "fighter".
            Fighters flutter on the connection:
            -And I can do a reverse loop
            -And here I am "cobra"
            -And I .....
            -And I .....
            The transport pilot is tired of the bazaar, he intervenes:
            - Hey, skaters, I bet I'll do something that none of you can do.
            - Come on...
            It takes about ten minutes. There are no changes with the transporter, as he flew straight and flies. Fighters are interested in communication:
            -Well, what have you done?
            Transporter:
            - Yes, I went for $ ral, I smoked. tongue
        2. Tibidokh
          Tibidokh 3 November 2016 17: 50 New
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It happens. F-22 - a strategic fighter.

          I have never encountered such an approach.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Tactical (front-line) aviation can be converted into
          strategic.

          Well, the fact that the IFI can perform the function of any subdivision of tactical aviation is undeniable. For this (unification) MFI was created.
          But here is the fact that a fighter can fulfill strategic tasks ... Please give an example when not armed with nuclear weapons, it can successfully fulfill such a strategic task as carrying out combat duty with a significant load at a considerable distance from the base.
  4. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 3 November 2016 09: 49 New
    +2
    Another study of the next "specialist" .... The entire line of weapons for the T-50 has already been developed and is being tested, in the future (during operation) everything will be licked, refined .... we can safely be proud of our fifth generation aircraft in the future! !!
  5. Ustrushan
    Ustrushan 3 November 2016 10: 29 New
    0
    I would like to hear the opinions of pilots: do you need a cannon with ammunition for a couple of seconds of fire on a modern fighter with its speeds?
    1. INTA_VEGA
      INTA_VEGA 3 November 2016 13: 47 New
      0
      I think the answer of the pilots will be the same as the question "does the pilot need ACSU after bailout, if there are still a lot of evil rams around?"
  6. Landing Station6
    Landing Station6 3 November 2016 14: 01 New
    0
    the product 9-A1-4071K is one of the lightest representatives of its class.


    Do not compare with this =))
    American A-10 gun
    1. Niccola Mack
      Niccola Mack 3 November 2016 15: 53 New
      +1
      There are two design options!
      They design a plane, and then put a gun on it.
      With the Thunderbolt, it turned out the other way around - they took a cannon and designed an airplane around.
  7. Olena
    Olena 3 November 2016 14: 16 New
    +3
    -No guns, no missiles, no developed engine, no domestic avionics, electronic warfare and AFAR ... -and suddenly ...- "Deliveries of new-type serial aircraft are scheduled for 2018 .." -Another "Mace" .., with all the ensuing consequences ...
    -It would be better if all the forces and means were thrown into the development and creation of our own drones and drones .. that could not only conduct reconnaissance and transmit data (whom you will now be surprised by), but also actually deliver bomb and missile attacks to fight in the air with all sorts of F -22, F-35 and all sorts of Chinese "air crafts" of all stripes ... -This would solve the problem of a shortage of military pilots (and indeed ... -Why substitute people ... -Air drones are fighting) -That would be a real breakthrough forward ...
    1. raf
      raf 3 November 2016 20: 40 New
      0
      drones are fighting
      At one time, the Iranians planted an "Amer" drone, they say that not without the help of our electronic warfare equipment. And how can you fight with drones ?!
  8. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 3 November 2016 19: 46 New
    +3
    All this is fine ... but all so far in the future tense ... And when they begin to write articles they will not "take them into service", but "will be armed with another regiment."
  9. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 3 November 2016 20: 56 New
    +1
    All this is good, the article is somewhat crude, a lot of different advertising husks, but pulls on a solid four. A small remark: there is no city of Faustovo in nature, there is a small station.
  10. Operator
    Operator 4 November 2016 18: 32 New
    0
    silver_roman,
    VFAR is better than AFAR only in terms of radiation power (with an equal antenna area) - the central large-sized metal emitter can withstand higher currents than small-sized semiconductor transceiver modules, but they are working on this problem.

    In this regard, the radar with PFAR so far sees farther than with AFAR, but only in the absence of electronic warfare. In this case, the situation changes to the opposite - the spatial resolution of the AFAR (consisting of hundreds of mini-antennas-APMs) allows you to "cut" the source of interference from the radar's field of view.
    1. Philip Staros
      Philip Staros 5 November 2016 01: 35 New
      0
      And also for specific models of radars, for example, in the possibility of changing the focus of the "focus" of the radar = Larger width of the sector of maximum detection range - we must remember that in addition to the maximum range of "as such" there is also an indicator of the beam width at which it is reached, etc. .
  11. Philip Staros
    Philip Staros 5 November 2016 01: 32 New
    0
    silver_roman,
    "beautiful nameplate" ... "More cores." "Megahertz more."
    In general, marketing is prettier ... :)
  12. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 10 November 2016 08: 36 New
    0
    About the gun test video: however, the barrel is close to the cockpit. There, from the queue, it’s not sickly so hoops smoked. Or in flight from free air, everything will be very pleasant?
  13. max2215
    max2215 April 8 2017 12: 12 New
    0
    Odysseus,
    .
    So even the USSR would not have made “hundreds” of Su-35s a year.
    Note that the 91-year coup was not justified by the effectiveness of the socialist model of state development, which we have today: what the USSR traded and fed the USSR, the CMEA countries, as well as the sex of Africa and Asia, almost everything remained in Russia (dill we will not count)
    If you follow the logic of money, you should have enough money for defense and a decent life for the country's population, but then you need to return the OBXSS (with confiscation). GDP, of course, is a very worthy president, but someone holds it tightly by the balls, otherwise why keep such a company around him ..