Military Review

Under the wing of an aircraft, a tanker is yelling about something over the sea of ​​taiga

104
Under the wing of an aircraft, a tanker is yelling about something over the sea of ​​taiga



This is the law of the airways:
Rising to the heights, we look down.
And day after day it bothers us
Steel turbines are a hot whistle.


Those who are observing flights from the earth are worried about other issues. For example, how long a combat mission of a fighter can last. Note, we focus on tactical (front-line) aviation, because everything is clear with strategic. Bombers and scouts are able to fly around the clock. The current record belongs to the "stealth" B-2, which continuously circled in the air for two days (44,3 hours).

The fighters of the fourth generation, to surprise, show no less impressive results. Despite its “front-line” mission, a close cockpit and a modest, by the standards of strategic bombers, fuel reserves, the duration of the flights exceeds all expectations. The record flight of the F-15E Four from the 391 Squadron of the US Air Force, which stayed in the air for 15,5 hours, was a record one!

The record was not an educational setting. It was a routine sortie, during which the aircraft "lingered a little" over the combat area. An air-to-air and air-to-surface combat patrol flew from a / b in Kuwait to be over Afghan in three hours. There the fighters spent nine hours, periodically attacking targets that reconnaissance "opened". And, came back to Kuwait.


F-15E over the Hindu Kush range. The sighting containers of the LANTIRN system, air-to-air missiles, a pair of suspended tanks, guided bombs with GPS and laser guided type GBU-12 are visible on the suspension of the multipurpose fighter.

It may seem suspicious that the “Eagles” had to refuel 12 times, but, from the aviation point of view, this looks like the right decision. Aviators love it when the fuel needle hovers around MAX. And they use every opportunity to maintain this holy and obvious tradition.

For combat conditions there must be a strict fuel standard, for example, at least 50 or even 75%. Pilots are trying to prevent the arrow from dropping below this value. And as often as possible, they "pump up" kerosene, as soon as they have such an opportunity. And if it is not there, they will be able to hold out for a long time in the air until the end of the battle or the arrival of a new tanker. In this case, and keep full tanks.

As practice shows, they always have the opportunity. Tanks of the KS-10 tanker (based on the passenger DC-10) are designed for 160 tons of fuel. And let a part of this reserve be spent on the journey of the tanker from an air base on the other continent, but the balance is enough to “fill up to the neck” with a lot of fighters.

The United States Air Force has in its active service and in reserve the order of 450 air tankers, not counting the suspension kits to turn part of the fighter jets into tankers (war is unpredictable).

In peacetime, it is too expensive to pay salaries for military pilots, because the Yankees leased KC-10 to private firms. For example, Omega Aerial Refueling Services. Tankers with civilian crews constantly “hang out” in the areas of hot spots and places for conducting exercises of NATO countries.


Private company tanker fueled drone X-47

And you say - aircraft carrier. Required airfield in the ocean. Ha ha ha, in what century do these people live?

Modern fighters have proven the technical ability to carry out combat missions lasting 15 + hours.

It is clear that this is already overkill. If you need to fly for days on end 365 days a year, it would be worthwhile to think about finding a closer air base.

But this happens only occasionally. And the domestic HQ did not take a single time at all - the Hmeimim airbase was found in Syria. And in Afghanistan - airfields Kandahar, Shindand, Bagram. However, if ours and the Americans are required, they will fly thousands of kilometers.

15 hours - a record. And how many departures lasted for 8-9-10 hours? According to the participants themselves - routine.

There is no reason to argue here, 70 years ago, armada of the “Fortresses” under cover of hundreds of Mustangs with PTB flew to Berlin, moreover, the fighters had a supply of fuel (15-20 minutes) for an air battle with the Messerschmitts, after which all returned to the airfields of Albion. The route is a thousand km long in 3.

One can imagine what the modern “Drying” and “Efki” are capable of, having twice the cruising speed, the normal combat radius in 1000 km and, in addition, in-flight refueling systems!

Already - the fifth generation with its formless supersonic, even more adapted to long flights.

Mechanics

The turbine is spinning - the technician is standing, the turbine is standing - the technician is spinning.

Skeptics will certainly point to the impossibility of constantly patrolling at a great distance even by the forces of the whole air regiment. Despite the seeming simplicity of the task, all the equipment, flight and technical staff will not know peace.

In the air - the carousel. Two couples arrived in a given area, those whom they changed laid on the opposite course, and at the aerodrome they are already on the rise of the new four. Plus, another group expects in constant readiness - in case of unforeseen situations.

It looks like this combat work. The problem is that a modern aircraft passes a large THU before departure, in terms of dozens of man-hours per flight hour 1. Some fighters, as a rule, are not capable due to serious problems identified. As a result, even a whole regiment may have problems solving the above task.

Or maybe they will not. Exact standards and coefficients are unknown to us, therefore, let us turn to known facts.

In 2001, the aircraft wings of the aircraft carriers Vinson and Enterprise ensured that three pairs of fighters were constantly in the airspace of Afghanistan to launch operational strikes at the request of the ground forces.

The irony of the situation was that the Americans did not manage to bring aircraft carriers closer to the shores of Afghanistan than on the 1000 km. And the deck of the "Hornet" had to overcome a narrower distance than ground-based aircraft from air bases in the United Arab Emirates (Al-Dafra).

So what's the moral? With the help of two air bases (even if floating - essentially does not change), it was possible to ensure long-term (for months) constant patrols at a distance of 1000-1300 km, with many hours of hanging of the six “Hornets” over the mountainous regions of Afghanistan.

This was possible due to the fact that the fighters did not have to replace each other every hour. Sometimes they were airborne for 10 hours. Five refueling. The six sent to the mission "hung" over Afghan for long hours, until they were replaced by a new group. At this very time, the rest of the aircraft and flight personnel calmly sunbathed in the sun in the Arabian Sea. For 30-35 sorties per day from each aircraft carrier, for such an air group - a warm-up, baby-talk.

The Yankees themselves say that they could fly more often, if the barmalei had more bases, caches, and other targets suitable for aviation. And instead of aircraft carriers - be a normal coastal air base, with powerful F-15, capable of surfing the sky for 10-15 hours, the intensity of patrols could increase even times!

As for the combat readiness of aviation compounds, many facts are known when it approached 100%. Even for the most complex aviation systems of the fourth generation.

Thus, in the middle of the 1980-s, the 36th TFW air wing, located at Bitburg Air Base (FRG), had an operational readiness of 92%, and, thanks to the convenience of the infrastructure of the German airfield and the preparation of those. personnel fighter fighter and suspension arms before the new departure of the F-15 took only 12 minutes. The minimum take-off time for the alarm attendant was equally minimal, the record was 3,5 minutes (with the standard 5 minutes).

Also, according to open sources, at the "Tim Spirit-82" exercise, a group of 24 "Needles" made 233 training flights a day. It is clear that those flights were carried out under a simplified program and planes flew nearby. But all this gives us confidence that modern airplanes are not a pile of unfit trash that lies sprawled in a repair hangar for days.

There would be a normal base and a team of experienced, trained techies.

The experience of civil aviation also indicates the same thing, where planes do not stand still, regularly making transcontinental and transoceanic flights.


Daily routes of civil airlines


In this situation, the author feels some awkwardness and guilt in front of readers for so often mentioning foreign aircraft. But understand correctly: the review is purely educational in nature, and similar data on the number of combat missions and combat readiness of the Su-27 in open sources are not available.

American Efki were given as an example. And I do not see a single reason for the Russian VKS not to be able to do what the Americans are doing. Just look at the combat work of the group on the a / b Hamim. Work well, like a clock!

The saga of a tired pilot

Tired of what? What time in my life I sat at the helm for two shifts?

In 1937, Colonel Gromov 62 hours spent hours his plane, not letting the rudder out of his hands and freezing in the cabin above the North Pole.

And now, of course, the pilots are not the same. Comfortably lounging in a warm chair, having a full set of automation systems, a urinal and autopilot, and in some cases also a partner operator, of course, 10 will not be able to fly for hours.

Although there is nothing to argue about. In the first part of the article, a lot of REAL cases were described when modern fighters spent in the air for 10-15 hours. Q.E.D.

PS If you can not find the pilots, contact your truckers. Those almost without stopping lead their wagons for 11 hours per day (restriction by law, which is desperately violated). Not having autopilot, but having a dense stream of vehicles and multi-stage "mechanics". Going And offer them a pilot s / n - fly.


The cabin of the Su-34 has unprecedented measures of comfort: a bed, a toilet and a kitchenette with a fridge and microwave. It is designed for long-haul flights.


Epilogue

Briefly. The listed cases allow to draw the following conclusions.

1. Modern tactical aviation is capable of covering up (i.e., organizing round-the-clock patrols with the possibility of rapid amplification) to any selected area on any continent of the Earth.

2. From the point of view of the Russian Aerospace Forces, there are all possibilities for covering the inland seas (the Baltic, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the Black Sea) - aviation tightly blocks these “puddles”. There would be at least a handful of fighters and tankers available.

There is no doubt about the technical feasibility of such an idea (see the examples above).

3. There is the possibility of a solid cover of the coastal zone of the seas and oceans at a distance of 1000-1500 km from the coast. However, the combination of "coastal zone" is already incorrect. These are already open sea areas.

4. Russian VKS flying from air bases in the Far East, guaranteed not to be able to cover the Philippines and Easter Island. But they do not need this.

5. Percussion operations on the principle of “flight there - flight back” without prolonged locking in the air take even less time and can be successfully carried out on another continent, at a distance of THOUSAND kilometers from the base. Without the help of aircraft carriers and airfields jump.

Do not forget, we are not talking about strategic aviation, but about "ordinary" multi-purpose fighters.

In the 1982 year, with only five combat-ready Super Etandars (max. Takeoff weight of all 12 tons) and the only piston tanker, Argentine aviation took out British ships in the Atlantic, at a distance of about 1000 km from the airfield on Tierra del Fuego.



In 1986, a group of American F-111 bombed the capital of Libya from the territory of Great Britain (flight over the Bay of Biscay - turn over Gibraltar - flight along the entire coast of North Africa, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria - hook over the desert, turnaround and exit to the rear of the Libyan air defense system - and return on the same route). Returned before dawn.



6. This material was a detailed answer to the debate about the prospects of deck aircraft. The facts show that with the development of jet thrust, increasing speeds and the emergence of new technologies to increase the duration of flights, the age of aircraft carriers has come to an end. Just as the cruisers and battleships with artillery weapons became obsolete in their time.

Airplanes no longer need to constantly carry an airfield behind them, while suffering many adversities and hardships associated with increased accident rate, less combat load and inadequately high cost of the most "floating airfield" with a crew of thousands of sailors.

7. As you know, 71% of the surface occupies the ocean, but do not forget that the solid surface is evenly distributed throughout the globe.

Six large continents have connecting “bridges” in the form of entire archipelagoes. And in the open ocean, literally at every turn, there are islands and atolls. Even in the equatorial part of the Atlantic, where there is supposedly nothing, there are two pieces of land - oh. St. Helena and Fr. Ascension (by the way, the British-American air base).

About Pacific Polynesia-Micronesia is not even worth talking about. Where do the Yankees keep their stealth? That's right, at the Anderson airfield on Fr. Guam. In the same place, during inter-wing flights, guests are flying fighter wings.

And where are the B-1B "Lancer." Air Base Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

So it turns out that the above “coastal zone 1000-1500 km” gives almost complete coverage of the oceans of the globe.
Author:
104 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Titsen
    Titsen 13 December 2016 06: 52
    +17
    Good article against aircraft carriers. +

    It’s much easier to rivet more tankers, combat aircraft and drones, prepare pilots and technicians than all the same plus building aircraft carriers with bases for them!

    And, most importantly, much cheaper.
    1. dauria
      dauria 13 December 2016 10: 40
      +11
      Good article against aircraft carriers. +


      Of course. I started to read, the thought "Author - Kaptsov" wink
      He has already raised this topic recently.
      But the trouble is, he did not answer the question - why are we going to destroy the AUG? It was a headache in the days of the USSR. Well, not us, so even the Chinese. The answer is simple . An aircraft carrier in the ocean can be guaranteed to clap TWO AUG. To do this, they are built - to fight with aircraft carriers and gain supremacy at sea. All other methods (quite controversial) are defense with loss of initiative. Don't need the Philippines? Well yes .... Just admit that the US owns the oceans sickeningly. So let's say, not needed. Or just clean the face if we stick around?
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 13 December 2016 11: 43
        0
        Quote: dauria
        Of course

        Quote: author
        The record was the combat flight of the four F-15E from the composition of the 391-th squadron of the US Air Force, held in the air 15,5 hours!

        ... go in the diapers were the Yankees? :)

        The author did not mention a record flight for the Russian Aerospace Forces along Western Europe -
        "The media reported on the flight of the Su-35 fighter from the Baltic States to the south of Spain"
        The Russian Su-35 fighter flew along the coast of NATO countries from the Baltic to southern Spain. On Tuesday, November 22, the Spanish newspaper Diario de Sevilla reported.

        The car, accompanied by a refueling aircraft, flew to the base in the city of Rota in southern Spain, and then turned back. For testing, two F-18 fighters were lifted from the base in Zaragoza.

        The fighter was recorded on November 17 by NATO air defense radars in the Baltic, after which alliance aircraft accompanied him throughout the flight. Su-35 flew around Europe to Gibraltar, without invading the airspace of European countries, while it turned off the recognition system "friend or foe", which NATO regarded as a violation of flight rules.

        According to Diario de Sevilla, the purpose of the Russian fighter’s flight was to evaluate the effectiveness of air defense and NATO warning systems in Europe.

        Su-35, which is the most modern modification of the well-known T-10 platform, on the basis of which Su-27, Su-30 and several other aircraft are built, has an increased flight range compared to its predecessors. With outboard fuel tanks and using an economical flight profile, it can reach five thousand kilometers. In addition, the aircraft is equipped with a refueling system in the air.


        And at all, Oleg did not mention the topic of "Barge Haulers" of the Soviet Air Force. This is escorting by fighters on the coupling of atomic TU-4s to the "enemy shores" and covering the latter from the actions of Yanker air defense ...

        "Air trains" in flight. MiG-15bis coupled with Tu-4.
      2. Landing Station6
        Landing Station6 13 December 2016 12: 21
        +5
        and what will destroy AUG?

        If in the ocean, then he gave up. And if in the coastal zone, there are options
      3. JD1979
        JD1979 13 December 2016 17: 49
        +8
        Quote: dauria
        But the trouble is, he did not answer the question - why are we going to destroy the AUG? It was a headache in the days of the USSR. Well, not us, so even the Chinese. The answer is simple . An aircraft carrier in the ocean can be guaranteed to clap TWO AUG. To do this, they are built - to fight with aircraft carriers and gain supremacy at sea

        Hmm ... after this set of letters the phrase is spinning in my head: I’m standing on the pavement and I’m shod in skis, either I don’t go skiing, or ........
        After WWII, the only task of the ACG is to project military force onto states from which something is very necessary for the country that owns the ACG. And either the presence alone is enough, or we are democratizing someone to a state of complete agreement on everything. TWO AUG guaranteed to clap one !? You are our clear-faced, give me your picture, I will pray for it, because even God could not guarantee such a thing. In general, like all normal people, I thought before your statement that the main danger for AHP is nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles. But even according to your version, the cards can lie down so that one aircraft carrier can parse 2-3 AUGs to states that are not operational as a group. I think there is no need to explain what one Granite will do with AUG, from our only Kuznetsov, with special. Warhead if missed by an air defense group of a likely enemy.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 13 December 2016 19: 45
          +5
          Quote: JD1979
          like all normal people, I thought before your statement that the main danger for ACS is nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles.


          Sorry, but only abnormal people think that nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles are capable of causing damage to the ASG in a real combat situation.
          AUG has a "normal" coverage of the water area and airspace with the available AWACS aircraft from 500 to 1000 km, depending on the location of the sides.
          We have a pair of reconnaissance aircraft of the Tu-214P type and will not really help with target designation.
          Accordingly, there is no one to give the target designation of the nuclear submarines, respectively, forget about the old Soviet long-range anti-ship missiles. and their trajectory is high-altitude.
          Low altitude is only 100-130km.
          Besides.
          All available in the arsenal of the Russian fleet, anti-ship missiles have a fairly high launch site.
          From 300 to 500 meters when starting a rocket from any position (surface or underwater).
          Which is easily detected by the AWACS aircraft at a distance of two to three hundred kilometers.
          And then easily followed.
          The rockets are huge.
          In full view.

          And most importantly.
          The modern level of technology allows amers to launch missiles "over the horizon" and direct them through the NIF-CA channels from an AWACS aircraft, or F-35 / F-18 aircraft (it will be implemented in about a year).
          So all 24 missiles that the 949 project could launch will not reach the 10 or even 30-40 miles order, if from a maximum distance.
          Accordingly, all that is associated with RCC against combat-ready AUG is zilch and fiction.

          The real danger to AHU can only be a combination of circumstances. according to which the AUG course will be unplanned.
          With the planned course - along its entire route, their nuclear submarines will "ambush" 100-200-300 miles in passive search for our nuclear submarine-hunter advancing to intercept.
          Plus PLO aviation.
          With an unplanned course, there is a combination of probabilities to run into the focus on our boat. which has enough endurance not to launch missiles from afar, but to conduct a torpedo attack.
          Let their 4-6 torpedoes fired at point blank range, 2 will withdraw PTZ funds, but the remaining ones will be enough to at least take the aircraft carrier out of combat capability for a very long time, if not to sink it completely.
          But here we must understand that the nuclear submarine is a suicide bomber. And she has no chance of survival.
          But this option is a fairy tale.
          It's like "take ten times in a row to zero."
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 14 December 2016 01: 31
            +3
            Quote: mav1971
            But here we must understand that the nuclear submarine is a suicide bomber. And she has no chance of survival.

            Tactics of application and operational art, ... to thread these generals in the marine unit of the hollow grease with admirals ...)))
            Well painted koment, namesake.
            Hello to you from Tank Mazut.
            drinks
            Well, the task is still fulfilled. They taught us like that.
            And where to go? He doesn’t want to, but he has to win ...)))
            There are no options.
            wink
          2. demiurg
            demiurg 14 December 2016 03: 16
            0
            Why not at 400-500 or 1000 miles? Is that enough submarines? Either the submarine is hiding under the bottom of an aircraft carrier, rattling like a tin can, or does not keep up with it.
            Gotland calmly broke through the warrant PLO conditionally drowned AB and went unnoticed. What did he do wrong?
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 14 December 2016 16: 10
              +4
              Quote: demiurg
              Why not at 400-500 or 1000 miles? Is that enough submarines? Either the submarine is hiding under the bottom of an aircraft carrier, rattling like a tin can, or does not keep up with it.
              Gotland calmly broke through the warrant PLO conditionally drowned AB and went unnoticed. What did he do wrong?


              We do not know the conditions of the exercises from the Gotlands, except for the result. Fixing the launch of torpedoes.
              Where was he, what tactics, etc.
              Maybe he stupidly stood in a wedge in an ambush, on the path of the AUG?
              And he didn’t even have to twist his screws too much?
              Gotland is small, in electric motion, there is an order of magnitude less noise from it than from submarines at low and medium speed just because of the size.
              And we do not know the courses and speeds of AUG.
              If any submarine would have to go to a point at a speed of at least 20 nodes, then it would not be a fact that it would not be detected. Probably close to unity.
              1. demiurg
                demiurg 14 December 2016 17: 46
                +2
                In any case, to provide 300-400 miles at the AUG rate, the US does not have enough submarines.
                Yes, and we have enough Varshavyanka (I don’t know their noise level, above or below Gotland, this is the most terrible secret of all submarines, but even the second atomic generation of submarines in the USSR, which was noisy, sometimes still went undetected at a distance of a torpedo volley.
                Calculating where the aircraft carrier will go is not so difficult if you have a weather report. Either downwind, at launch, or against landing.
                And again, as an example, you give a comprehensive defense against one attacking submarine, and why not when attacking with a pack, with a simultaneous air raid and attack by anti-ship missiles? Yes, even to the pile of minefields.
                The sinking of an aircraft carrier is a 100% launch as a revenge on a non-peaceful atom. Therefore, you need to beat the first, and also the atom.
      4. Winnie76
        Winnie76 14 December 2016 00: 02
        +1
        Quote: dauria
        Yes, the trouble is, he did not answer the question - what will destroy the AUG?

        Why destroy them at all? Well, a trough hangs 1000 km from the coast - and let it hang.
        Quote: dauria
        Just admit that the US owns the oceans nauseously. So let's say, not needed. Or just clean the face if we stick around?

        One seventh is not enough for you - now give the ocean. The navel will be untied among the Americans - to control the world ocean, do you propose to us?
    2. Vz.58
      Vz.58 13 December 2016 14: 02
      +3
      "It is much easier to rivet more tankers, combat aircraft and drones, to train pilots and technicians, than all the same, plus the construction of aircraft carriers with bases for them!"
      1. A drone will remain for a long time an apparatus not ready for maneuverable combat against man-driven fighters. The result will be large losses or the complete destruction of drones in a serious conflict with a serious enemy. There is a question price.
      2. A pilot, a person, needs food, water and various physiological subtleties. 10 hours in a fighter, will a jar go to the toilet? In addition, the pilot's nervous tension and post-traumatic examination (treatment)
      3. Military engines are different from civilian ones. This is me for service.
      Do you think it will be cheaper to do, in your opinion, "riveting" everything, except for aircraft carriers, which, by me, eliminate the above problems? People, too, "rivet"?
  2. Iline
    Iline 13 December 2016 07: 07
    +9
    . And I do not see a single reason that the Russian air forces could not do what the Americans are doing.

    And such a statement is in vain.
    US Air Force has about 450 air tankers in active service and reserve

    And this is only in reserve. And we have one 203 apss in the whole country in Diaghilevo. He really isn’t enough for strategists, I’ll just keep silent about everyone else. The fact that we are sometimes shown refueling fighters in exercises, I can’t call it a window dress.
    1. FID
      FID 13 December 2016 08: 52
      +6
      Quote: Iline
      And we have one 203 apss in the whole country in Diaghilevo.

      And it is still unknown when 476 (478-e) will come to replace them ...
      1. Santa Fe
        13 December 2016 09: 01
        +15
        Quote: SSI
        And it is still unknown when 476 (478-e) will come to replace them ...

        That is a bunch of problems with the Air Force, and all the attention to the aircraft carrier.

        As if the appearance of three troughs (of which one will always be under repair) will save the Air Force from the shortage of aircraft

        It is necessary to be able to correctly prioritize

        The main idea of ​​the article is that in the XXI century there are much simpler and more effective ways to solve old problems, just allocate money for tankers. Notice much less money than required for the construction of aviamafel. And which will strengthen VKS everywhere, both above the land, and above the sea, and above the desert-mountains, and not only above the sea

        as if we were not in 2016, but somewhere near the midway atoll 70 years ago
        "generals are preparing for past wars" (c)
        1. Wild_grey_wolf
          Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 09: 34
          +5
          Calling no respect Koryt does not add any advantages to you. . . I think you just have a strange hatred for the aircraft carriers built in Russia.
          It is strange to focus on the principles of combat employment on predictability and reduction of tactical schemes, and to extol this. And to cite as an example those who have diverse tactics.
          1. Operator
            Operator 13 December 2016 10: 00
            +11
            For 40 billions of bucks (the cost of AUG with 1 aircraft carrier, 60 carrier-based aircraft, 10 escort destroyers, supply ships and basing centers) you can build:

            500 Su-35С, 250 Il-78М-90А, 10 first-class airfields and 10 air defense divisions S-400.

            AUG construction in modern conditions is a sabotage on an especially large scale.
            1. Wild_grey_wolf
              Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 10: 29
              +3
              Well, you do not need, and many countries believe that this is not a diversion and are building. . . or do you think they didn’t take all this into account? . . .
              1. Operator
                Operator 13 December 2016 10: 39
                +6
                The stagnation of thinking of admirals of many countries and the lobbyism of shipbuilders specializing in surface ships, has not yet been canceled.

                But this is not even the point - your call to take the position of a monkey with an eye on the neighbors is counterproductive. With such an approach in the field of strategic carriers of nuclear weapons, we would now still rivet the Soviet analogue of the B-52 instead of the Voevoda and Sineva.
                1. Wild_grey_wolf
                  Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 11: 04
                  +4
                  I wrote, you do not need to live without problems with your conviction. . . is the position of the monkey rude or do you think that your position is constant))). . . deeply respected strategist of universal scale.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 13 December 2016 11: 08
                    0
                    "I'm sorry for my homeland" (C)
            2. your1970
              your1970 13 December 2016 11: 59
              +4
              1) I don’t know for airplanes - helicopters have a non-depleted fuel residue (although you can draw some out of it) and a reserve (conditionally) - for a spent “carrot” reserve (the correct word does not pass!) Flies from Moscow in automatic mode to everyone and immediately, and very sickly ...
              2) the issue is controversial and very controversial with the duration of the flight — the problem is not human fatigue / lack of refueling — the problem is in the resource of the main units. For example
              "The Mi-24 helicopter with a TV3-117 series III engine was awarded the Lenin Prize.
              The main parameters of the first modifications of TV3-117 at Н = 0, V = 0, МСА
              Power, hp
              take-off mode
              2000 * / 2200 **
              cruise mode
              1500

              Specific consumption, g / h.p.
              take-off mode
              230
              The degree of increase in air pressure in the compressor
              take-off mode
              9.40
              Resource hour assigned 1000 overhaul 1500

              * for TV3-117M and TV3-117MT
              ** for TV3-117 III series and TV3-117KM "
              You can calculate how much TS-1 / TS (kerosene) 1 engine eats and how much it lasts .....
              engines 2, and also the main gearbox, tail, rotor blades, HB bush, etc., and ALL have different resources. That is. upon the expiration of the resource - the units must be immediately replaced and sent for repair / decommissioning .. and this time / money / inability to use ...
              And these iron numbers put the fence on the possibility of using any plane / helicopter for many hours in a row
            3. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 13 December 2016 12: 33
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              500 Su-35С, 250 Il-78М-90А, 10 first-class airfields and 10 air defense divisions S-400.

              Something you suffered: three tape recorders, three jackets ...
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 13 December 2016 10: 02
          +4
          Actually, due to the banal need to repair less than 3-4 aircraft carriers, it is almost equal to 0. The enemy will not wait until the only vessel is repaired, replenished and can go out to meet.
        3. FID
          FID 13 December 2016 11: 57
          +7
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The main idea from the article is that in the XNUMXst century there are much simpler and more effective ways to solve old problems,

          Oleg! I fully agree with you !!!! The article, as well as all other publications, + ... Except for ekranoplanes ... I’m ready to argue about them!
        4. demiurg
          demiurg 13 December 2016 14: 08
          +1
          Oleg, what about the rapid build-up of the group? If the base is at least 2000 km away, then it will be "very urgent" only in two hours.
          Bantustans can be bombed. There is no war with an equal opponent.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 13 December 2016 19: 51
            +1
            Quote: demiurg
            Oleg, what about the rapid build-up of the group? If the base is at least 2000 km away, then it will be "very urgent" only in two hours.
            Bantustans can be bombed. There is no war with an equal opponent.


            Excuse me. but what kind of quick response are we talking about?
            Or is our situation such that in 2 hours you can change something?
            Everything that happened "in the last 2 hours" was prepared in advance for days, weeks. months ...
            Always with normal scouts. analysts, the means of one or another type of intelligence - you can have an assumed scenario for the development of the situation and accordingly take your steps "in time."
            1. demiurg
              demiurg 14 December 2016 03: 09
              +2
              4 fighters cover ground forces.
              8-16 enemy flew in. Fight or throw ground forces to tear to pieces?
        5. sniper
          sniper 13 December 2016 19: 43
          +8
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          It is necessary to be able to correctly prioritize

          If you can’t find the pilots, contact truckers. Those practically without stops drive their wagons for 11 hours a day (restriction by law, which is desperately violated). Not having autopilots, but having a dense stream of vehicles and multi-stage "mechanics". They are coming. And offer them the salary of the pilot - will fly.

          Bravo, Oleg! You, as always sparkling and irresistible !!! Shoferyug - for helmsmen, furniture makers - to reform the army, waiters - to design warships, cooks - to manage the state ... You didn’t work as Vladimir Ilyich in a past life ??? wassat
        6. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 13 December 2016 22: 03
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The main idea from the article is that in the XNUMXst century there are much simpler and more effective ways to solve old problems, just allocate money for tankers. Note that much less money than is required for the construction of air wafers

          Why are you so, Oleg, you hate people. An engine over the central Atlantic accidentally fails and a pilot gurgles at sea. Who will save him? Or do you still have in the bins a fleet of rescue helicopters with flying tankers? But no, there are hundreds of submarines and they are on duty in each 1000 km square to save the pilot, whom the state has threatened hundreds of thousands of tugriks with presidents and taught to fly for days, not write, not poop (maybe not eat what ) And so any helicopter from an aircraft carrier can arrive in time if the aircraft performs tasks from this "floating airfield" (your words wink ) Already the hope of man repeat Really throw the poor fellow among Akiyan to feed sharks belay ? They didn’t think about it, huh? Or doesn’t fit into a harmonious system where airplanes never break and never fall ??? wink A strategist is at least understandable what is going on when making transoceanic flights, and why should tactics be driven to such marathons? No, Kaptsov, all the same, Russians are more humane, that's why we always win, we are PEOPLE wink
          1. sniper
            sniper 14 December 2016 00: 00
            +5
            Quote: Rurikovich
            An engine over the central Atlantic accidentally fails and a pilot gurgles at sea. Who will save him?

            And what for save him ??? The driver will be paid and let him fly, as the great and terrible Kaptsov bequeathed ... And the planes will be "riveted", disposable, one way ...
            Eh ... Lavrov doesn’t come to our site ... Well, he would say ....
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 14 December 2016 06: 47
              +1
              Quote: sniper
              Eh ... Lavrov doesn’t come to our site ... Well, he would say ....

              Lavrov is enough without us fool for work wassat . The Americans have their own jumps, the Gay Europeans have their own. Arabs are not a gift either ... yes
      2. iouris
        iouris 15 May 2017 10: 31
        0
        After a more or less noisy campaign, IL-96 tankers refused to build, therefore, the topic is not relevant. Article too.
  3. Wild_grey_wolf
    Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 07: 16
    +3
    Everything is beautifully written, but the countries that you have described have delivery methods by aviation and there are aircraft carriers. And so long as a state with a huge territory does not have at least 3 Aircraft carriers, then a dispute is not appropriate. They are needed for the possibility of operational tactical use.
    1. avt
      avt 13 December 2016 09: 56
      +7
      Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf
      Everything is beautifully written

      request And when Oleg wrote ugly ??
      Quote: cap
      . The discussion I feel will be emotional

      laughing laughing Discussion WHAT!? Hatred and Oleg’s personal vendetta for aircraft carriers ?? Or this
      The saga of a tired pilot
      Tired of what? What time in my life I sat at the helm for two shifts?
      In 1937, Colonel Gromov 62 hours spent hours his plane, not letting the rudder out of his hands and freezing in the cabin above the North Pole.
      bully Yes, there’s nothing to discuss. To sit a day in diapers in front of a computer with some kind of simulator and especially World of Tanshipsercraft - shit is a question! Yes, now, yes, even from visitors to the site we will form squadrons and regiments, for Oleg’s sect followers I don’t even say -
      Quote: Titsen
      It’s much easier to rivet more tankers, combat aircraft and drones, prepare pilots and technicians than all the same plus building aircraft carriers with bases for them!

      already recruitment announce. laughing Yes, in fact, in the USSR they tried to arrange even cooler and it seems Yakovlev the topic of "Barge Haulers", if memory serves to cover the strategists So as it was already then, empirically, not accessible to those who do not even want to work with a search engine in an apartment with a warm toilet, what
      Apparently simply because nothing ideal happens in the world.
      A combat fighter jet is still not a light glider (although it also has a certain mass). When towing it, the TU-4 experienced a noticeable braking effect (the speed fell from 15 km / h to 25 km / h with the same engine operating mode) and, if it was flying in a group, it could no longer fly as fast as other planes of the group. That is, it is clear that this fact cannot be an advantage.
      In addition, it is well known that normal, so to speak, living conditions in the aircraft cabin are created by a working engine (this is heating, ventilation, and electricity). And if he turned off in a towed fighter, and even at an altitude of the order of 6000-10000 meters, then you can imagine what the pilot felt and was unclear whether he would be able to carry out a combat mission after many hours of towing.
      Plus, of course, oxygen, whose reserves on the fighter for a long flight were clearly not enough. That is, the usual story for all these projects, both with us and with our “friends”.
      But of course, these are all reservations - Oleg was at the helm and flew for three days, so all this
      The saga of a tired pilot
      But these bastards simply sabotage a simple thought, like a lowing and the congeniality of thought
      1. Modern tactical aviation is capable of covering up (i.e., organizing round-the-clock patrols with the possibility of rapid amplification) to any selected area on any continent of the Earth.
      2. From the point of view of the Russian Aerospace Forces, there are all possibilities for covering the inland seas (the Baltic, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the Black Sea) - aviation tightly blocks these “puddles”. There would be at least a handful of fighters and tankers available.
      . Yes, if they had listened to Oleg in the Moscow Region, they would have bombed the very Palmyra right from Chkalovsk! wassat bully
      1. Lukich
        Lukich 13 December 2016 12: 27
        +8
        Quote: avt
        Yes, now, yes, even from visitors to the site we will form squadrons and regiments,

      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 December 2016 21: 50
        +3
        Quote: avt
        Hatred and Oleg’s personal vendetta for aircraft carriers ??

        Damn, but I think why he hates aircraft carriers so much? .... what
        Well, with their airplanes they sent battleships to the back of history !!!! fellow
        Evo it's like winked request lol It’s better to fly with flying tankers than swim in Akiyans, these planes ... laughing
  4. cap
    cap 13 December 2016 07: 20
    +6
    How did someone like me and I liked the article. Interesting. I feel the discussion will be emotional.
    I'm for the seeds laughing
  5. ImPerts
    ImPerts 13 December 2016 07: 38
    +7
    Interesting article. But aircraft carriers will not leave soon. Bombs and missiles via hoses have not yet learned how to deliver, and with TA ammunition is not dimensionless.
    1. BLOND
      BLOND 13 December 2016 08: 55
      +3
      Quote: ImPerts
      Interesting article. But aircraft carriers will not leave soon. Bombs and missiles via hoses have not yet learned how to deliver, and with TA ammunition is not dimensionless.

      + to you listed, in addition to kerosene, LA consumes a certain number of special liquids, oils and not only
      1. Santa Fe
        13 December 2016 09: 05
        +2
        Quote: BLOND
        to you listed, except kerosene LA consumes a certain amount of special liquids, oils and not only

        So, what is next

        On 10, the flight hours are guaranteed for him.

        Then the meaning of your comment, Blonde?
        1. BLOND
          BLOND 13 December 2016 10: 38
          +5
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: BLOND
          to you listed, except kerosene LA consumes a certain amount of special liquids, oils and not only

          So, what is next

          On 10, the flight hours are guaranteed for him.

          Then the meaning of your comment, Blonde?


          For those who "did not understand":
          The time spent by the aircraft in the air is limited:
          - the presence of fuel on board (refuel with the appropriate equipment on board and if there is a tanker with fuel in the area);
          - the presence of BC (and the meaning of it without BC hanging over the theater, after use);
          - on the consumption of special liquids and oils (hydraulic system of the aircraft and engine oil system), gases (oxygen, air, nitrogen);
          - crew fatigue;
          ... let me go on.
          Much depends on the type of aircraft (everything is in the technical documentation and in the flight manual for each type)
          And the more points we "put the device" on, the closer the crew will be to the kamikaze! (believe them, and it’s not sweet THERE)
          1. Operator
            Operator 13 December 2016 10: 49
            0
            What type of oil consumption is there in an airplane’s hydraulic system - a leak? laughing
            I’d better not say anything about electric drives instead of hydraulic drives.

            Engine oil is enough for 12-15 engine hours.

            Where did you see the consumed gases on board a modern tactical aircraft, except in the emergency landing gear system, which works no more than once per flight (during landing)?
            1. BLOND
              BLOND 13 December 2016 12: 35
              +1
              I did not write in particular about tactical aviation ...
              About the hydro and pneumatic system: look at the example of Tu 160 (the volume of systems and their consumers, I think they are available now on the Internet)
              From practice, the exhaustion of nitrogen in the pneumatic system and the rolling out of the Tu-160 GDP for this reason
              and 12-15 hours of flight has long been no longer problematic (the fact is that this is not enough even for tactical with a remote theater)
              1. Operator
                Operator 13 December 2016 13: 56
                +2
                The article is about tactical aircraft, and in my comments I narrowed the question even further to the Su-35С, whose engines either already have or will soon have a plasma ignition system when starting engines without oxygen.

                The maximum range of the Su-35С on internal tanks is 3600 km, with two 4500 hanging tanks (the latter equals 9 hours of barrage). Those. this aircraft with a bomb load of 4 tons is capable of flying with two air refueling 4500 km (10 hours of flight) round-trip and barrage for another 9 flight hours in a given area, taking into account the minimum fuel reserve to stay in the air for not 16 hours.

                The flight range of the Kalibr-A anti-ship missile system with special warheads and refueling with sintin is 3200 km. Now set aside 7000 km from the borders of Russia and you will get a domestic strip of control of the ocean water area without any aircraft carriers and military bases abroad.

                The use of tactical aircraft in ground conflicts is an even simpler thing. A specific country, Russia, with the help of the largest territory in the world and ground-based airfields in friendly countries, is keeping track of all of Eurasia and Africa - much more.
                And the example of Syria shows that in the vast majority of cases it will not be necessary to fly a bomb over 1000 km - there will always be a local airfield in a country subjected to aggression.
                1. Wild_grey_wolf
                  Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 14: 03
                  +4
                  You do not need to do not use aircraft carriers, use your scheme written. Others will use other tactical schemes. . . what problems.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 13 December 2016 14: 05
                    0
                    The problem is one - the cost / effectiveness of tactical schemes.
                    1. Wild_grey_wolf
                      Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 14: 19
                      +2
                      You wrote everything correctly and it fits all schemes. . . It is your personal opinion that one is more expensive than the other, for others it is acceptable.
                      What is the argument? . . .
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 13 December 2016 17: 32
                        0
                        The fact that the ACGs and the tactical aviation group of equal cost include 60 (sixty) and 500 (five hundred) Su-33 / Su-35С class aircraft, respectively.
            2. your1970
              your1970 13 December 2016 17: 25
              +1
              aggregate resource all amicably forgot ...
              1. Wild_grey_wolf
                Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 19: 07
                +2
                Quote: Operator
                The fact that the ACGs and the tactical aviation group of equal cost include 60 (sixty) and 500 (five hundred) Su-33 / Su-35С class aircraft, respectively.


                Do you plan that our actions be built on the same principle and work on the same predictable scheme, but economically correct according to your miscalculation?
                And at the same time, an adversary who has a bunch of tactical schemes and has a lot of economically unprofitable, but quite effective ways to retaliate SO?
              2. mav1971
                mav1971 13 December 2016 20: 17
                0
                Quote: your1970
                aggregate resource all amicably forgot ...


                What is the "death of the resource"?
                5 flights on patrol or 1 flights on a combat mission of paramount importance?
                Will 10 hours "immediately kill" a 3000 hour resource?
          2. mav1971
            mav1971 13 December 2016 20: 16
            +1
            Quote: BLOND

            For those who "did not understand":
            The time spent by the aircraft in the air is limited:
            - the presence of fuel on board (refuel with the appropriate equipment on board and if there is a tanker with fuel in the area);
            - the presence of BC (and the meaning of it without BC hanging over the theater, after use);
            - on the consumption of special liquids and oils (hydraulic system of the aircraft and engine oil system), gases (oxygen, air, nitrogen);
            - crew fatigue;
            ... let me go on.
            Much depends on the type of aircraft (everything is in the technical documentation and in the flight manual for each type)
            And the more points we "put the device" on, the closer the crew will be to the kamikaze! (believe them, and it’s not sweet THERE)


            For those who did not understand or did not know before.
            Oleg gave examples of the fact that the technique allows you to do combat operations at flight ranges of 5-6 thousand miles.
            There are tasks. who can’t afford strategists, if only because of their specific weapons.
            But the tacticians will cope with a bang.
            And they must be used.
            1. BLOND
              BLOND 15 December 2016 06: 05
              +4
              For those who did not understand or did not know before.
              Oleg gave examples of the fact that the technique allows you to do combat operations at flight ranges of 5-6 thousand miles.
              There are tasks. who can’t afford strategists, if only because of their specific weapons.
              But the tacticians will cope with a bang.
              And they must be used.

              Do you not understand that a strategist is a strategist, and the rest is not intended to drive him for 5-6 tons. Miles
              And they are not even used for a good life ...
              For those who did not understand or did not know before

              And what is routine maintenance on aircraft and its periodicity DO YOU KNOW?
              here they wrote about the resource 3000 t.ch.
              Tell me this resource to what ...? And are there any intermediate limitations? And they are! Specifically by the type of each aircraft!
              And in flight the ground crew will not send the plane into flight with unfulfilled work
              I don’t even know the level of who will give the green light to the flight ... (these time and raid restrictions are not just like that)
              When I was in the Air Force, there was a NIAS (Manual on the Engineering and Aviation Service) We said that it was written in blood (flight crew and very expensive, this is to whom human life is not important, not even a driver)
              Do not be weird, Sorry got it
        2. Nekarmadlen
          Nekarmadlen 14 December 2016 23: 36
          +2
          Well, dear Oleg loves to refer to the Anglo-Argentine conflict in the Falklands, but I completely forgot which British had to arrange a carousel of tankers, so that several bombers flew to bomb the Falklands and returned back to Ascension Island like ... Tankers refueled the bombers and each other , like one or two planes lost ((((
    2. avt
      avt 13 December 2016 10: 02
      +6
      Quote: ImPerts
      Bombs and missiles via hoses have not yet learned how to deliver, and with TA ammunition is not dimensionless.

      Yes you are, oooooo !!!! He clicked on the computer, the ammunition will appear. bully
      Quote: BLOND
      + to you listed, in addition to kerosene, LA consumes a certain number of special liquids, oils and not only

      Ugh! Another one with some trivia! Where do you, little believers, come from !! ?? wassat
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      On 10, the flight hours are guaranteed for him.
      Then the meaning of your comment, Blonde?

      That's it! He has only one one-way ticket, and let him fall there! What is he !? Worse than some Japanese kamikaze ?? So that
      Let the crazy idea - do not decide the heat,
      Answer us soon through the doc head doctor.
      With respect, date, signature. Answer us, and then,
      If you don’t respond, we will write to Sportloto.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 December 2016 23: 09
        +2
        Quote: avt
        I clicked on the computer, ammunition and appears

        And a medical kit, and even better, three lives in reserve and wings, to fly, if brought down over the ocean winked

        Quote: avt
        Another one with some trivia! Where do you, little believers, come from !! ??

        Oleg’s love potion doesn’t work on everyone fellow !!!
  6. The comment was deleted.
    1. Wild_grey_wolf
      Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 09: 43
      +2
      The importance of using different application patterns. This leads to the difficulty of calculating the tactics of the enemy. This is the whole point.
    2. Santa Fe
      13 December 2016 09: 49
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      who never fully replace a normal airfield with a shoulder action of aviation for one refueling.

      And you have to fight in conditions that are never perfect. And therefore they fight, without "the complexity of calculating tactics" and others, seemingly clever, but in fact meaningless phrases
      Quote: rudolff
      A pair of destroyed tankers

      Who are in the rear? Behind the fighters?

      To reach them, the enemy needs tankers himself))
      1. Wild_grey_wolf
        Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 09: 56
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: rudolff
        who never fully replace a normal airfield with a shoulder action of aviation for one refueling.

        And you have to fight in conditions that are never perfect. And therefore they fight, without "the complexity of calculating tactics" and others, seemingly clever, but in fact meaningless phrases
        Quote: rudolff
        A pair of destroyed tankers

        Which are in the rear?

        To reach them, the enemy needs tankers himself))


        You write everything correctly, but do not go in cycles.
        Everything should be. Better excess than lack and lack of grip.
        Management already sets priorities, but in order to constantly shout about being completely useless in this, you are wrong.
        What the Carriers are transforming into in the future is not known. . . but in some EXACTLY and it’s definitely not DIGGER.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Andy
        Andy 13 December 2016 11: 03
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: rudolffPair of destroyed tankers Which are in the rear? Behind the fighters? To get to them, the enemy himself needs tankers))


        quite a head poor lover of our battleships. Does it make sense for the tanker to spin over his base? in order to increase the flight range of fighters, he must advance towards the enemy. and if so, not only their planes will be able to reach the enemy and return to the tanker, but the enemy also has a chance. and it’s far from the fact that he needs tankers.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 13 December 2016 20: 27
          0
          Quote: Andy
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: rudolffPair of destroyed tankers Which are in the rear? Behind the fighters? To get to them, the enemy himself needs tankers))


          quite a head poor lover of our battleships. Does it make sense for the tanker to spin over his base? in order to increase the flight range of fighters, he must advance towards the enemy. and if so, not only their planes will be able to reach the enemy and return to the tanker, but the enemy also has a chance. and it’s far from the fact that he needs tankers.


          It’s exactly you who are bad.
          Well, sort through the bombing of Tripoli.
          With 1986, it was disassembled by bones in all military literature.
          Even in the journal ZVO there was a huge article at the same time.
          What and how was done.
          As planned and predicted.
          How logistics is built burenki ..
          Can't we have a similar situation?
          When it will be necessary, for example, to destroy the entire infrastructure of air defense, some of Qatar or Pakistan, for example.
          Strategists in no way.
          Ballistic missiles - nothing.
          Only tactical aircraft.
          Or do you only have awareness of the use of weapons, what to look at the experience of the Second World War?
          On this side of the street, ours are enemies on the other side of the street
          On a direct wall-to-wall confrontation ?.
          Do not provide for long-range operations?
          For nothing lasts forever under the moon.
          1. Andy
            Andy 14 December 2016 07: 49
            +3
            another one with a problem head ... do I propose to abandon refueling as a class? Where is that written? pointed out the author’s stupidity that if you have enough radius of reach to the enemy and return to the tanker, then the enemy can get your tanker ... and then you WILL FALL. and every time you drive a combat aircraft in conjunction with a tanker, ooh ... cost Departure will be wild. aah, well, save on aircraft carriers, why should our ships cover at sea ...
          2. Arikkhab
            Arikkhab 14 December 2016 16: 38
            +2
            then the Americans all the way to Tripoli and back went almost in the "line of sight" of American bases and the bases of their NATO allies
    3. Aviagr
      Aviagr 13 December 2016 10: 07
      0
      And complete supremacy in the sea - who will provide ?!
      In this context, I agree with the Author, because I myself came up with a means of dealing with AIRCRAFT on AIR CARRIERS - hundreds of thousands of missile-carrying gliders, which, practically without human intervention, can cause a lot of trouble for "carriers of useless trash" at sea. There is no need to Sink the aircraft carrier - you can periodically "sprinkle" its deck with HE missiles or shoot down planes taking off / landing (and helicopters) - when they are LOW and with LOW speed - i.e. Enough analogs of Arrows, Eagles and other milipusenkiy rackets.
      So the problem of aircraft carriers must be considered IN TOTAL WITH DEVELOPMENT OF WEAPONS, and not by the principle: I command Schaub Bulo!
      1. Andy
        Andy 13 December 2016 11: 27
        +3
        Quote: Aviagr
        There is no need to Sink the aircraft carrier - you can periodically "sprinkle" its deck with HE missiles or shoot down planes taking off / landing (and helicopters) - when they are LOW and with LOW speed - i.e. there will be enough analogs of Arrows, Eagles and other milipusenkiy rackets.

        and you are his slipper, slipper! it doesn’t matter that the MANPADS are short-range, but at the launch distance any target will be cut from automatic guns. we also do not take into account the escort of an aircraft carrier. How to solve the problem with target designation - use radars? munhausen is no longer just smoking, but beating his head on the core on which he flew
        1. Aviagr
          Aviagr 13 December 2016 12: 02
          +1
          Quote: Andy
          how to solve the problem with target designation-

          Within line of sight to 15km ?! I understand if I would ask: how the glider AI will distinguish between Goals and Deceptions - but this issue is also solved in the era of computer miniaturization.
          А
          Quote: Andy
          the target will be cut from automatic guns
          - More about sausage on deck: even the Shell cannot get into the UAV, not to mention an even smaller missile. The plane gains altitude (decreases on the glide path) not vertically onto the deck - although such can be fired, the radius of approach is just 5-10km - you will not hit my rocket with the aircraft carrier, the security ships themselves under fire - I don’t need either AUGs or Obukhov nor Varshavyanka - only an approximate FUTURE location of the enemy fleet - and I will mine its area with my gliders.
          Read the mosquito weapon trilogy on my profile!
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 14 December 2016 16: 45
      0
      Americans lay routes within the reach of American bases and the bases of their allies in NATO and also over the territory of the allies. they (in the described case with the F-15 over Afghanistan) did not try to fly to Iran, for example
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 13 December 2016 10: 00
    +2
    But understand this correctly: the review is purely informative, and there are no such data on the number of sorties and combat readiness of the Su-27 in open sources.


    EMNIP Tu-22M3 could well raise the alarm 90% of available cars.

    In Syria, Su-30SM and Su-35 are represented in insignificant quantities, but they fly regularly. => The reliability is extremely high, and those. the staff is trained.

    and in some cases also a partner operator


    Another reason for the huge sky cruisers. If the early MiG-29 had to remove the radar to accommodate the second pilot, then the Su-30 almost does not lose flight data from an additional cockpit with all its life support systems. Similar to F-15E and F / A-18F.
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 December 2016 10: 12
      0
      F / A-18 flies in one face. From next year, the Su-35S is planned to be equipped with an "weapons operator" - the "Okhotnik" automated system.

      The co-pilot on a tactical aircraft is an outdated solution.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 13 December 2016 15: 21
        +1
        Teach the materiel, maybe even in modifications F / A-18 You will not be confused.
        1. Operator
          Operator 13 December 2016 17: 42
          0
          Keep grazing pigs alone - learning how to distinguish F / A-18 from F / A-18E is for you how to overpower Newton’s bin.
  8. uskrabut
    uskrabut 13 December 2016 10: 41
    +2
    That's right, aircraft carriers live their lives. With the advent of jet aircraft, the use of aircraft carriers has become ineffective, too expensive and too emergency. In the article, the author quite reasonably pointed out the need to use conventional airfields based with refueling in the air. It’s cheaper and faster to build a hundred tankers than to build an aircraft carrier. Moreover, there is no guarantee that in the event of any accident, flights from an aircraft carrier will not be possible at all.
    I think Kuzya was sent on a military campaign in order to confirm or disprove the above, and to proceed from this combat experience in deciding on the construction / non-construction of aircraft carriers.
    1. Wild_grey_wolf
      Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 11: 08
      +1
      Kuzya is sitting at home and drinking tea.
      1. Wild_grey_wolf
        Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 12: 03
        +2
        Respectfully Heavy Carrier Missile Cruiser Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union N.G. Kuznetsov
    2. Andy
      Andy 13 December 2016 11: 08
      +3
      where are you ... take only? aircraft resource does not count? or the cost of fuel with a long shoulder? and the lost time on the round trip? etc...
    3. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 14 December 2016 16: 29
      +1
      after 15 hours of flight, with a numbed fifth point, the fighter pilot’s performance is of course off the charts. and a few refueling in the air only increase motivation
  9. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 13 December 2016 11: 57
    +5
    A combat patrol with mixed air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons flew from a / b in Kuwait to be over Afghanistan in three hours.

    We flew through Pakistan, where the United States had several military bases from which the tanker was most likely to rise, we kept silent about this.
    There would be a normal base and a team of experienced, trained techies.

    Even the United States lacks their 800 bases, climb into Ulyanovsk, Kyrgyzstan, etc. .. What can Russia say at its bases outside 1, in Syria.
    But all this gives confidence that modern airplanes are not a pile of unhealthy junk that lies for days on end, spread out in a repair hangar.

    Yes, no one argues.
    Modern tactical aviation is able to cover (i.e. organize round-the-clock patrols with the possibility of quick reinforcement) any selected area on any continent of the Earth.

    With 800 bases worldwide.
    Bombers and scouts are able to fly around the clock.
    So it turns out that the above “coastal zone 1000-1500 km” gives almost complete coverage of the oceans of the globe.

    And what about someone who does not have 800 bases around the world? How much is the maintenance of 800 bases around the world? Do they allow you to perform tasks at the maximum distance from the coast? If Argentine combat aircraft were able to fly to a maritime force 1000 km from the coast, would aircraft be able to fly to a tanker located at about the same distance? Is the maritime group more secure than an air tanker?
    Is there a hackney to fly for 1000 km to bomb the Basmachi over the territory of the union state where you have several military bases and fly over the hostile territory where the enemy has high-tech defense and attack facilities?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 13 December 2016 21: 41
      +3
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      A combat patrol with mixed air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons flew from a / b in Kuwait to be over Afghanistan in three hours.

      We flew through Pakistan, where the United States had several military bases from which the tanker was most likely to rise, we kept silent about this.

      So this is Oleg’s style - if you enter truthful data into his version, then the version will somehow crash right away, but you don’t have to agree on something or everything will turn out beautifully repeat
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Modern tactical aviation is able to cover (i.e. organize round-the-clock patrols with the possibility of quick reinforcement) any selected area on any continent of the Earth.

      With 800 bases worldwide.

      So Kaptsov flies under the American flag and argues as an American yes
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Is there a hackney to fly for 1000 km to bomb the Basmachi over the territory of the union state where you have several military bases and fly over the hostile territory where the enemy has high-tech defense and attack facilities?

      Well, where are we, near, to Kaptsov’s logic request winked wassat
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      How much is the maintenance of 800 bases around the world?

      If you had a printing press, then you would not have cost anything repeat
  10. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 13 December 2016 12: 14
    +8
    What I always liked about the articles of the AB opponents is that only one type of combat use is considered in detail for the ground aircraft "burying" them: hovering in the air over the positions of the barmalei without air defense. Or an adversary who is not taking any countermeasures. And on the basis of this particular case, global conclusions are drawn. smile
    Modern tactical aviation is able to cover (i.e. organize round-the-clock patrols with the possibility of quick reinforcement) any selected area on any continent of the Earth.

    Fast gain is how much specifically in grams? smile
    Typical situation: an hour later, from our ships, an enemy group was discovered. The question is - at what distance should the coastal airfield be located so that the gain raised from it comes before the cover of the percussion forces blows our duty forces? Or how much do you need to simultaneously keep on duty aircraft in the air?
    And if the task gets complicated: the coastal airfield in time raise forces superior to the enemy in advance, but after a while it suddenly turns out that the marks of the targets are divided - by 2-3 marks of single cars each?
    Everything, the "fast gain" is no longer in time. Thus, we either have to keep the defense only where there are airfields nearby. Or - to keep the entire regiment in the waiting area in the air, refueling it from a cloud of tankers. 4-6-8 hours in a cramped cockpit of a fighter, with several exhausting refuelings, is undoubtedly an extremely useful thing when meeting freshly rested deck pilots. smile
    And if not one AB, but 2-3 comes? And even with "old-style" strike groups of 60 vehicles?
    And most importantly - it is implicitly assumed that refuelers have IDDQD and IDKFA.

    In contrast to this refueling and fighter concept, we have an AB that always keeps half an hour of flight from the main forces and is able to raise aircraft on duty at a pace of 2-3 cars per minute.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. BAI
    BAI 13 December 2016 12: 48
    +3
    In a long flight, the main thing is the state of the pilot. If they give me an example of truckers, I walked 1500 km without getting out of the steering wheel in 23 hours. But anyway - breaks on the toilet, food, gas stations. In an airplane, this is all solved without leaving the cockpit, so a comparison with a car is incorrect. The ass is simply so sick that you can’t sit.
  13. Proton
    Proton 13 December 2016 13: 38
    +4
    Read here read comments laughing Well, all right now, put in leading positions and there will be a powerful empire.
    Carriers do not need, give tankers good
    Khrushchevism is straightforward, to hell with aviation and artillery, we make missiles like a sausage, we’ll fill up everyone laughing
  14. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 13 December 2016 14: 07
    +4
    The most correct would be to send the author of the article on a flight of 10-12 hours duration, even without performing any functions of controlling the aircraft, monitoring the air and ground conditions, etc. etc.
    I think that after this article would be somewhat different. It would be better if the author booked the ships.
    To at least introduce the problem:
    As the pilots of the latest fighters go to the toilet.


    The latest set of equipment for the pilot of the PAK-FA airplane developed by Zvezda Scientific Production Enterprise was combined with special shorts with a fluid receiver ПЖ-1, thanks to which the pilot, without unfastening the suspension system, flight suit and without distracting from the airplane control, can empty the bladder after bringing urine out of the plane. Swimming trunks will help pilots fly 10 – 12 hours without any health problems.


    “The pilot's equipment kit for the T-50 aircraft is now undergoing factory tests and will be transferred to the Sukhoi Design Bureau in the near future for installation on the T-50,” Nikolai Dergunov, deputy chief designer of Zvezda Research and Production Enterprise, told Izvestia.


    In the Russian Air Force, only Su-27 and Su-34 aircraft are now equipped with similar systems, but pilots have to give up control and unfasten equipment and jumpsuits in order to cope. This leads to the risk of losing control of the aircraft, so pilots prefer to endure the entire flight.

    Now Su-27 interceptors are equipped with hoses with funnels. Pilots have to unfasten their pants in order to cope, removing their hands from the aircraft’s control handle. In the cramped cockpit of a single-seat fighter, when the pilot, dressed in an anti-loading suit, is fastened to the seat, it is inconvenient to do this, but at high speeds it is generally impossible. PAK-FA will hang in the air with refueling up to 12 hours, perform sharp high-speed flights. The pilot will not be able to give up control and unfasten the equipment, and no one can stand the 12 watch with a full bladder. In order not to torture the pilots, we included the ПЖ-1 in the survival kit, ”an officer of the Air Force commander-in-chief explained to Izvestia.


    ПЖ-1 swimming trunks were developed at the beginning of the 1990-s for Mig-31М aircraft, which had to patrol in the air for more than 10 hours. According to Vladimir Ushinin, one of the designers of swimming trunks for pilots, chief specialist of Zvezda Research and Production Enterprise, ПЖ-1 are compatible with survival kits not only for Mig-31, Su-27 aircraft, but also for the latest Su-30.


    ПЖ-1 - ordinary cotton underpants. In the inguinal region, a special reservoir is fixed, where the fluid goes. “The tank is connected by a hose with a bypass valve to the on-board sewage system, which, when switched on by means of an ejector fed with hot air, ensures the discharge of urine overboard,” said Ushini.


    According to the interlocutor of Izvestia, the Russian Air Force stopped purchasing PZH-1 in the middle of the 1990's. At the same time, China showed interest in the product, having ordered 2000 swimming trunks in the middle of the 300's to complete with Su-27 aircraft.


    As the test pilot of the Russian hero Roman Taskaev, who tested the ПЖ-1 in 1990 at Mig-31, told Izvestia, the industry then suggested that the Air Force choose between special diapers that absorb moisture and discharge during 10 hours and swimming trunks with liquid outlet.

    As the pilots of the latest fighters go to the toilet history, facts
    - The diapers turned out to be very uncomfortable and uncomfortable. We immediately said that a military pilot would not fly in this. But in the ПЖ-1, my navigator Sergey Khazov and I met a small need without problems and discomfort. Sergey even managed at speed in Mach 2 (more than 2 thousand km / h - Izvestia), Taskaev said.


    An independent military expert, one of the authors of the book “The New Army of Russia” Anton Lavrov told Izvestia that now the problem of physiological support for fighter pilots, fighter-bombers, attack aircraft in the air forces of developed countries of the world is very acute in the air.


    “Modern tactical aviation spends 12 – 15 hours in the air due to refueling.” For example, the flights of the American F-15E in the 2001 year, during attacks on Afghanistan, lasted 15 – 20 hours. If transport aircraft, long-range or strategic bombers are equipped with a normal toilet, then tactical aviation is deprived of such luxury, ”Lavrov said.


    According to the expert, last year, by order of the US Air Force, several companies began developing a new life support system for tactical aviation, which also includes special swimming trunks for liquid removal.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 13 December 2016 19: 30
      +4
      Quote: Dekabrist
      The most correct would be to send the author of the article on a flight of 10-12 hours duration, even without performing any functions of controlling the aircraft, monitoring the air and ground conditions, etc. etc.
      I think that after this article would be somewhat different. It would be better if the author booked the ships.

      good drinks What for!
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 13 December 2016 20: 54
      +1
      Quote: Dekabrist
      The most correct would be to send the author of the article on a flight of 10-12 hours duration, even without performing any functions of controlling the aircraft, monitoring the air and ground conditions, etc. etc.
      I think that after this article would be somewhat different. It would be better if the author booked the ships.
      To at least introduce the problem:
      ...
      In the Russian Air Force, only Su-27 and Su-34 aircraft are now equipped with similar systems, but pilots have to give up control and unfasten equipment and jumpsuits in order to cope. This leads to the risk of losing control of the aircraft, so pilots prefer to endure the entire flight.


      Please tell me, are there really thousands of kilometers in flight on the 5-6-7-8. lasting in 6-7-9 hours does the pilot have no way to turn on the autopilot and piss?
      Does he not even have 5 calm minutes during 8 flight hours?
      Should he frantically hold all 8 hours for ORE and RU?

      Well, are you out of your mind?

      And no one says that pilot work should be like that. like office plankton.
      Wanted, went out to smoke?
      Ага.
      Let it fly by 8 hours and by 15.
      The state swelled millions of dollars in his training, gave planes for 100 millions of dollars, gives a considerable salary and pension.
      Let it work for the good of this state as much. how much the state needs.
      If it believes that such a pilot can handle it.

      The Israelis are training hard on long-distance flights.
      They fly to Gibraltar with enviable regularity.
      And this excuse almost 4tyka on one side ...
      That's all.
      Nothing to discuss.
      1. Dekabrist
        Dekabrist 13 December 2016 21: 07
        +2
        Do you read before writing?
        Where did you see objections to long flights?
        The comment was that a person undertook to illuminate a problem that he has no idea about.
        Excuse me, pilot?
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 13 December 2016 21: 54
          +2
          Quote: Dekabrist

          The comment was that a person undertook to illuminate a problem that he has no idea about.
          .
          Excuse me, pilot?


          Your commentary was that instead of so to speak global thinking, a person would go to the side of "where to direct his member in flight, to the left or to the right."

          Of course. You have written useful and interesting things, but you are taking away the topic.
          The discussion is at the level of the concept of the use of tactical aviation over long distances, and not about diapers.
          Americans have been flying tactics on 15 hours for thirty years now.
          The Israelis too.
          And our diapers interfere - they disdain to piss in them.
          Our pilots need to be sorry, they see you get tired. Too long to fly.
          Our pilots are some kind of caste.
          Decks are cooler than astronauts, terrible work. Heroes 15 people all over the country.
          True, in the same America, decks of 2000 operating people, plus 20 of thousands of retirees.
          And no one considers them heroes.
          Well, nobody at all.
          As if Vanya, working in a plastic foundry for 12 hours a day, deserves less respect than Vanya flying (50-100 hours a year) on an airplane that is built on taxes. what Vanya pays from the foundry. receives a much higher salary for foundry taxes, and in 35-40 years he will receive a much higher pension, which he is paid for taxes from the foundry.

          For 30 years, a very effective tactical operation was carried out at extremely long ranges.
          It was a demonstration of how you can and should do it.
          And all the excuses, the search for reasons why we are. Russians. we cannot do this - sorry. but akin to treason to the motherland.
          After Tripoli of 1986 of the year - all devices to piss, sleep - had to be tested and implemented. The entire pilot training system should already be changed during the 2-3 years.
          And not to Pak Fa.

          And yes, I'm not a pilot.
          I am an ordinary citizen of my country. who wants both protection and a hand of retribution - long.
          And I have every right to do so.
          And the one who believes that only pilots and constructors can - I can say one thing - you guys. money for their own education. for food. on planes when you start earning - then you will have "your own".
          Now everything is "ours" for you.

          Sorry for the confusion, maybe not so much claims against you, as for the attitude "professionals are only for professionals. The rest are second-class people."
          1. Dekabrist
            Dekabrist 13 December 2016 22: 20
            +2
            Yes, it would be impolite for me not to answer. But to answer as objectively as possible, I would like to know my profession and, if it's not a secret, age. If you are not interested in the answer, draw a line and you will remain with your opinion.
  15. Wild_grey_wolf
    Wild_grey_wolf 13 December 2016 19: 08
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    The fact that the ACGs and the tactical aviation group of equal cost include 60 (sixty) and 500 (five hundred) Su-33 / Su-35С class aircraft, respectively.


    Do you plan that our actions be built on the same principle and work on the same predictable scheme, but economically correct according to your miscalculation?
    And at the same time, an adversary who has a bunch of tactical schemes and has a lot of economically unprofitable, but quite effective ways to retaliate SO?
  16. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 13 December 2016 21: 32
    +5
    Oh, another Kaptsovsky three ... sorry hi masterpiece wassat
    All that will sound below is, of course, my personal opinion yes
    I am glad that I was smart enough to warn that all the calculations are exclusively informative winked Oleg, that the numbers were not enough for everything. And when non-digital comments are heard, what do we hear in response? Correctly "empty chatter". Well, is not this masterpiece chattering today? For me, yes.
    Kaptsov, you were driving a truck for 11 continuous hours in motion, as you point out ??? Something I doubt. But my classmate, who traveled to DAF half-geyropy will say that your insinuation is nonsense yes .Because Oleg, I want to ask you - still not tired of adjusting the necessary facts to the desired result ??? wink
    I still understand when the American Air Force pilots "smash" the Papuans without air defense, without countering the flying tankers (in Syria, the "skill" of American pilots is very noticeable laughing ) Suppose, it’s possible to iron another country of relatively small size ... But if you dream about such things, then dream that potential opponents will counteract. It’s just adequate opponents and not Papuans with bartenders. And it’s interesting, really our generals, knowing this state of things, will not work out the leveling of such flights. Or will there be refueling over thousands of kilometers in an area where the ability to lose a tanker is low? And how much time will the enemy hang over our territory if he still needs to get to it after refueling ??? belay what And what would our war be with NATO, would Westerners allow the flight of aircraft with tankers? Kaptsov, I’ll say for the millionth time - consider the problem from all angles, and not just from the ones you need.
    So the Su-34 is adapted to such sorties, even with refueling, because the designers finally realized that for normal people to perform the task (PEOPLE, Kaptsov, and not cyborgs with diapers in their pants), more or less human conditions are needed. Oh yeah, I almost forgot - super honest Americans flew to the moon in diapers, already 7-8 days, and then for some 15 hours without unbending laughing
    And what are the various assumptions and hypothetical tolerances? No Kaptsov, this does not paint a serious analyst negative
    And if "the entire solid surface is evenly distributed over the globe," then Kaptsov, here already smacks of open forgery (just in the American style good ) I don’t even know what you had in your geography school, if you had the mind laughing There’s nothing further to comment on - even modern victims of the USE will prove otherwise yes
    But in general, the beautiful marquise "everything is as always - a bunch of beautiful and pretentious epithets, playing with numbers and words to achieve the desired effect and, in addition to everything, an elementary ignorance of geography lol
    Two, Oleg hi
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 13 December 2016 22: 12
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Oh, another Kaptsovsky three ... sorry hi masterpiece wassat
      All that will sound below is, of course, my personal opinion yes :


      Read about the reasons for the operations:
      1. "Wooden leg"
      2. "Canyon of El Dorado"
      and their implementation.
      Thoughtfully and with layouts.
      Understand the most important thing yourself - why did they do it?

      Or are you also confined only to a comprehensive NATO war against the Russian Federation?
      There are no other options?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 December 2016 22: 50
        +4
        Quote: mav1971
        Or are you also confined only to a comprehensive NATO war against the Russian Federation?

        So after all, no one denies the possibility of such operations, which are described by the aftor! yes Americans can do this with refueling, and ours carry out such flights. The point is that something single (sensible and useful) is inflated to hypertrophied sizes! That is the point. The problem is again considered from one side, with the substitution of concepts or the usual flaws.
        Do you think that minds at headquarters did not think about such concepts? Thought more than once, and if it is not executed on the scale to which Kaptsov described, then analysts have found many flaws. request A single operation cannot be a proof of the correct conclusions as a whole. You can plan a raid or two for specific purposes, but build a concept for using the Air Force on such conclusions - fool
      2. Andy
        Andy 14 December 2016 07: 56
        +2
        No, there are other options - we need both tankers and aircraft carriers. this with a stubborn author rested on the concentration of "so stop". fig with two - Americans use both options at once Yugoslavia 1999
  17. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 13 December 2016 22: 27
    +7
    -Grandfather! And tell me how you shot down two planes in a war ?!
    - Well, let's say I didn’t bring it down, but I refueled it ...))) laughing
  18. exo
    exo 14 December 2016 14: 40
    +4
    This article is not bad. But there’s no point in opposing carrier aircraft versus land. Tankers are needed both there and there. If we had an analogue KA-6 Intruder, you would look and save the MiG-29 K. I would refuel it while the cable is being changed. Or I gave would have a chance to go to the coastal airfield. Yankees in Vietnam, saved a lot of decks, thanks to refueling.
    In general, more tankers, good and different! Based on the IL-76, IL-96. And aircraft carriers will take their place. Only, not in the form of pr.1143.5
    1. uskrabut
      uskrabut 14 December 2016 15: 58
      0
      The question here is not that the aircraft carriers are not needed at all, but that Russia is not affordable for them in the first place, and we have a lot of problems with the Navy and aviation, secondly. It will not be possible to quickly raise the level with the fleet due to the construction of aircraft carriers, but meanwhile combat aircraft should already be able to reach anywhere in the world today. Here the experience of long-term tactical aviation flights is very relevant, and in terms of costs it is quite acceptable, unlike the construction of an aircraft carrier. We will get rich, God will give and we will build aircraft carriers, but there is no such need for them as in WWII.
  19. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 14 December 2016 16: 14
    +1
    everything (sort of) is right, but ...
    1) let the author try to "sit" for at least 5 hours on a parachute in an ejection seat of a fighter pilot ....
    2) of course, there are not enough refueling tanks in the Russian Aerospace Forces, we need new IL-78s and refueling tanks based on the IL-96's. There are several IL-96 from Aeroflot in storage - why not convert?
    1. exo
      exo 14 December 2016 16: 21
      0
      That's what they are going to do: they will remake the existing IL-96 into a tanker for the Air Force. Based on the operation, they will have to decide on the release. At least, that was what the open press voiced.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 14 December 2016 19: 39
      +1
      Quote: ArikKhab
      everything (sort of) is right, but ...
      1) let the author try to "sit" for at least 5 hours on a parachute in an ejection seat of a fighter pilot ....


      That is, you are saying plainly that we Russians are second-class people!
      Why are our pilots so bad they can't fly the 8-10-12-15 hours, like the Americans and Israelis do?
      that is how I can interpret your tears: "let him sit for 5 hours on a parachute"?
      I understand you correctly?

      Or are you, according to Russian tradition, all the time trying to "cut away" from any business that is even a little more difficult than eating and sleeping?
  20. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 14 December 2016 17: 50
    +2
    And the domestic VKS was not needed at all even once - in Syria, Khmeimim air base was found.

    But our people supply it and get to it, including on military armed aircraft, through the airspace of Iran and Iraq. I am generally surprised at how this was agreed. It is strange that there is no discussion of this in the press. And if it does not agree?
  21. lukewarm
    lukewarm 2 February 2017 11: 41
    +1
    From the very beginning of the article, I was waiting for the ending against aircraft carriers. The fact that the capabilities of refuelers expand the capabilities of tactical aviation is a plus. Recently, the "Military Acceptance" was shown. And since we do not have aircraft carriers, we need to develop at least that. So after all, and with refuellers, we are sparse. What did not like in the article. All of these are colonial-type wars against the enemy without air defense. A tanker in a good war is vulnerable - a great target. And there was a rather interesting info allegedly of our pilot Su35 from Syria. F-22 when refueling from a tanker is by no means invisible. The tanker gives out all. And if the S-400 refuel the tanker, then all their hawks fall after the development of fuel. Smiled info author about civilian tankers staffers. You can’t argue with the fact, there is a photo. But explaining this by saving on the salary of a military pilot is the height of lack of information, comrade. Kaptsov. In the whole world, just the opposite is true - in civil aviation, salaries are almost higher. So the reason is something else. Disguise, and even more likely - so beloved by Serdyukov, "sucking." Across the ocean, too, dofig lovers of pilgrimage, just anal lesha does not shout about them. They pay him from that side.