Military Review

MiG-29 and Su-27: the history of service and competition. Part of 1

96



Recently, the Internet has intensified the controversy surrounding the current state of affairs in the field of equipping domestic air forces with combat aircraft. Particular emphasis is placed on the obvious advantage that the Sukhoi Design Bureau has, and the almost complete loss of the once strong positions of the MiG Design Bureau. Disputes are underway regarding the feasibility of equipping our air force exclusively with Su machines. The legitimate questions that are posed at the same time are why all orders are given to one firm, and the second one is degrading and undeservedly forgotten. The nature of the discussion comes to open accusations of the unscrupulousness of the Sukhoi company, and on the other hand, the MiG-29 and the vehicles based on it became known as obviously weak, unnecessary and unpromising. There is also the opposite opinion - the MiG-29 is a real masterpiece, which the “sukhovetsy” were deliberately crushed. It becomes a shame, and it is a shame for both sides at the same time, because Sukhoi's excellent vehicles are deservedly in demand, and the MiG-29 is no worse and deserves the most enthusiastic reviews. But why, in spite of all this, we do not see in the ranks of the new MiGs, and the old Soviet-built 29s are almost out of service? We will try to answer these questions by putting all the dots above the “AND” as far as possible.

PFI competition

In order to understand why MiG-29 and Su-27 have become exactly as we used to see them, you need to go to a distant history. The origins of the creation of both aircraft lie at the end of the 60-ies, when the Air Force launched the PFI program - a promising front-line fighter to replace the existing fleet.

Here it’s worth clarifying that in the USSR the Air Force was not the only one who exploited the military Aviation. An almost equal player was the air defense forces. The number of fighters in their composition even exceeded the number of those in the Air Force. But for obvious reasons, the air defense troops did not have bombers and attack aircraft - their task was to intercept the attacking enemy aircraft, and not to retaliate. Therefore, in the country there was a clear division into front-line fighters and interceptor fighters. The first went to the Air Force, the second to the air defense. The former were, as a rule, light, maneuverable and inexpensive aircraft, while the latter were more complex, more expensive, had a more powerful avionics, high altitude and speed.

Thus, the PFI program was originally launched by the Air Force. However, for the first time, quite complex tasks were set before the front-line fighter. The reason for this was the appearance in the United States of a powerful fighter F-15, capable of conducting long-range air combat. Intelligence reported that the plane was almost ready and would fly at the start of the 70's. An adequate response was needed, which was the TFI program. For the first time, a front-line fighter aircraft under this program was to acquire for the first time solid dimensions and powerful avionics, previously characteristic only of air defense fighters.

However, almost immediately, the TFI program began to be divided into two subspecies - LIFI (light front-line fighter), and TFI (heavy front-line fighter). The rationale for this approach was many. The fleet of two types of aircraft promised to be more flexible in use. In addition, there was information about a similar approach in the United States - a light F-16 was already preparing for flight. There were opponents of this concept, who believed that two types of aircraft complicate the operation, supply, training of personnel, etc. And most importantly - the construction of a large series of "light" fighter does not make sense - it is obviously weaker than the American F-15, as a result of which such a fighter will simply become a mass prey of an American.

Initially, the leader immediately stood out in the PFI competition - the Sukhoi Design Bureau, which presented the draft of an aircraft with an integral layout that looked promising. OKB MiG presented an aircraft close to the classic, similar to the MiG-25. OKB "Yakovlev" from the very beginning as a leader was not considered. When dividing the PFI into heavy and light, it is important to understand that initially, before the division, a single plane was seen as heavy, with an take-off weight of about 25-30 tons, so the competition of a light fighter became like an offshoot and complement of the main competition. Since Sukhoi was already in the lead in the heavy project, the light version quickly intercepted the MiG design bureau, also showing the new design of the integral assembly aircraft.

MiG-29 and Su-27: the history of service and competition. Part of 1

The initial project of the MiG-29 non-integral layout of the project PFI


Already in the course of the competition, the customers of the air defense forces were connected to it. They were interested only in the “heavy” version, as meeting the requirements of a long flight and powerful avionics. Thus, the heavy version became a universal project - both front-line and interceptor fighter. It was able to more or less link the conflicting demands of the two departments - the Air Force and the Air Defense.

The essence of the differences of light and heavy fighters

After dividing the program into light and hard for a long time, their differences were not clearly defined. Everyone seemed to understand what the essence was, but they could not formally define it. Modern analysts are also pursuing this problem in the same way - they hardly understand why there were two planes in general. In the course are far-fetched explanations about the fact that light is more maneuverable, twice cheaper, and so on. Heavy - far. All these definitions reflect only the consequences of adopting the concept of two fighters of different weight class, or they are completely false. For example, a lightweight fighter has never been twice as cheap as a heavy one.

However, an acceptable wording of the differences was found when designing aircraft. And it is key to understanding the differences between these planes. A light fighter (MiG-29) was supposed to act in its information field, at tactical depth, and a heavy (Su-27) fighter, in addition to this, should have been able to act outside the information field of its troops.

This meant that the MiG should not fly into the territory of the enemy more than 100 km, and its guidance and control of the battle is conducted from ground control posts. Due to this, it was possible to save on the composition of the avionics, maximally simplifying the aircraft, and at this expense improve flight performance and make the aircraft mass and inexpensive. The term “expensive” in those years was understood not as cost (money was given “as much as necessary”), but production mass (product complexity, laboriousness of assembly), the ability to assemble such planes quickly and a lot. In terms of the composition of their weapons, the main caliber was the P-60 (and later P-73) heat-guided missiles, which in some cases supplemented the P-27. The airborne radar had a stable detection range not greater than the range of the launch of the P-27 missiles, in essence, being a radar sight for these missiles. Difficult and expensive means of electronic warfare or communications were not provided.

Su-27, on the contrary, should be able to rely only on their own strength. Independently had to conduct reconnaissance, analyze the situation and attack. He had to go to the rear of the enemy and cover his bombers in deep raids and intercept the enemy’s targets over his territory, ensuring the isolation of the theater of operations. Its ground control posts and radar on the territory of the enemy was not expected. Therefore, a powerful on-board radar was immediately required, capable of seeing further and more than that of the “light” fellow. The flight range is two times higher than that of the MiG, and as the main armament, the P-27, complemented by the long arm P-27E (increased energy) and the P-73 melee missiles. The radar was not just a sight, but also a means of covering the air situation and intelligence. There should have been own EW and powerful communications. Ammunition - two times more than that of the lung, because to fight in isolation from their forces, may have a long and high voltage. At the same time, the aircraft was supposed to remain capable of conducting a maneuverable battle, just like a light fighter, since over the territory of the enemy, he could meet not only his “heavy” opponents in the form of F-15 and F-14, but also F-16, optimized for “dog dumps”.


Powerful radar with a large-diameter antenna gives the Su-27 very wide possibilities, which is unattainable for the MiG-29 with a smaller antenna diameter. Some advantage of the MiG in air combat with a heavy fighter is only slightly smaller EPR.


Briefly, the Su-27 was a plane of air superiority in the theater of operations in general, and the MiG-29 was solving the more private task of covering its troops from enemy air strikes over the line of contact.

Despite the fact that both planes were originally divorced in different weight categories, the competition between them began to appear almost immediately. Various scientific research institutes and specialists expressed a wide range of opinions on this matter. The system of two cars was regularly criticized. At the same time, some called for “tightening” the light to the level of the heavy, others - to give up the light, concentrating all forces on the more effective “heavy”.

The evaluation of the two-aircraft system was carried out on a financial basis. It turned out that LFI is not able to make half the price of PFI. This should be remembered, because in modern debates it is often argued in favor of the MiG as a cheap but efficient aircraft. This is not true. By Soviet standards, where they didn’t spare their money for defense, LFIs costing 0,75 from the PFI were quite inexpensive aircraft. Today, the concept of "inexpensive" looks very different.

The final decision in the fate of the two airplanes remained with the USSR Ministry of Defense - both cars are needed, each will occupy its own niche and will not interfere with each other. So it happened in the Soviet weapons system.

In the ranks

By 1991, both aircraft took place and stood firmly in the ranks. Of exceptional interest is how they were distributed in the states of the Air Force and Air Defense.

Air Force fighter aircraft consisted of 735 MiG-29, 190 Su-27 and 510 MiG-23. There was also about 600 MiG-21, but they were all concentrated in training shelves. In the most powerful and combat-ready mix of the Air Force - 16 of the Air Force in the GDR there were 249 MiG-29 and 36 MiG-23, and not a single Su-27. It was the MiGs that formed the basis of front-line aviation, becoming the main striking force of the Air Force. The southern flank of the Soviet grouping supported the 36-I VA in Hungary with its 66 MiG-29 and 20 MiG-23.


Just a beautiful MiG-29


It would seem that the existing state of affairs clearly demonstrates which aircraft the Soviet command considered the main and the best. There was not a single Su-27 in the advanced units. However, the situation is somewhat more complicated. MiG-29 was to become an expendable material of the outbreak of world war, reflecting the first blow. It was assumed that a significant number of these aircraft would die quickly, but would ensure the deployment and advance of the ground forces of the USSR and ATS.

In the back, the troops stationed in the GDR were breathing troops in Poland and Ukraine, which were to develop the initial success of the army. And now there was just Su-27 FA Air Force - two regiments in Poland (74 Su-27) and one regiment in Mirgorod (40 Su-27). In addition, it is obvious that the re-equipment of the Air Force on the Su-27 was far from complete, the 831 IAP in Mirgorod received the Su-27 in 1985, 159-IAP in 1987, 582-IAP in 1989. Those. The saturation of the air force FAs with the Su-27 fighter jets was quite measured, which cannot be said about air defense, where, over the same time period, 2 times more aircraft of this type were obtained.


Just beautiful Su-27


In the air defense forces there was practically no MiG-29 (in the combat units - none, but only in the air defense there were about 15 MiG-29, but they were concentrated in the Air Defense Command Training Center of the Air Defense Army) and around 360 Su-27 (and besides 430 MiG-25, 410 MiG-31, 355 Su-15, 1300 MiG-23). Those. at the beginning of serial production, MiGs went exclusively to front-line aviation, and the first thing they did was to get Air Defense troops to the Air Defense Forces - in 1984, they appeared in the 60 air defense IAP (Dzemgi airfield). This is logical, since the MiGs blocked the immediate need for 4 generation fighters of the Air Force. And in the air defense forces at that time, the bulk of the MiG-23 and Su-15 could only be replaced by the Su-27. MiG-31 stood alone and replaced primarily the outdated MiG-25.

In addition to the Air Force and Air Defense, the 4 fighter generation was also received by naval aviation - there were about 70 MiG-29 in it. However, as a promising deck option, the sailors chose the Su-27K option - as having a longer flight time and powerful avionics, which is important in sea conditions. MiG-29 in the Navy were due to the treaty on conventional weapons in Europe, providing for concessions in relation to naval aviation. So two regiments of 29-x in Moldova and Odessa region got to the sailors. They did not represent great value in the role of sea fighters.

An important point in understanding the role and place of the MiG-29 and Su-27 was export deliveries. There is an amazing picture - Su-27 was not supplied abroad during the Soviet era. But the MiG-29 began to actively enter the air forces of the Soviet allies. On the one hand, this was determined by the peculiarities of the geography of these countries - Su-27 there is simply nowhere to turn. On the other hand, the Su-27, as a more complex and expensive aircraft, was “secret”, and the MiG-29, being a simpler machine, was easily allowed to be released outside the home air force.

Thus, in the USSR Armed Forces two new generation aircraft did not compete with each other, each solving its own task. By the end of the USSR, the fighter armament system consisted of three types of promising aircraft - a light MiG-29 for the Air Force FA, a universal heavy Su-27 for both the Air Force FA and the AA air defense, and not a fighter-like "weight" classification of the MiG 31 - exclusively for IA air defense. But already in 1991, this slender system began to collapse along with the country, giving rise to a new round of internal competition between two great fighters.

On the issue of classification

So far, the controversy has not subsided, what kind of fighter actually turned out in the project MiG-29? Easy or not? It comes to the fact that ordinary people consider the MiG to be a kind of "middle" fighter, occupying an intermediate position between the light and the heavy.

In fact, the concepts of "light" and "heavy" were initially very conditional and relative. They existed together, in the framework of the DFI program, and their appearance was caused by the need to somehow separate the projects of two new fighters in one program. The LIFI, the future MiG-29, became light, and it was not light in itself, but in combination with the future Su-27. Without Su-27, the concept of "light" becomes insignificant.

As for the Air Force and Air Defense of the USSR, there was no weight classification. In the air defense there were fighter-interceptors, in the Air Force - front-line fighters. Just the needs of the Air Force were such that there were always mostly cars smaller, simpler and cheaper. And in the air defense was also the MiG-31, which was very, very heavy, even against the background of the Su-27. So a similar weight classification is very conditional.

Against the background of foreign analogues, the MiG-29 looked quite traditional. The competitors F-16, Rafale, EF-2000 had almost the same masses and dimensions. For most of the countries operating these planes, they are neither light nor any other. They are usually the only type of fighter in service with most countries. Nevertheless, in clear terms to the philistine, all these planes can be easily combined into a subclass of "light", against the background of clearly larger Su-27, F-15, F-22, PAK-FA. The only exception in this series will be the American F / A-18, which really is located almost exactly in the middle between the typical "light" and typical "heavy" fighters, but it should be remembered that this is a very specific machine, created by the special, maritime requirements based on aircraft carriers.

As for the MiG-31, it is, with its dimensions and weights, a unique exception that no longer exists anywhere. Formally, it is also "heavy", like the Su-27, even though the difference in maximum take-off weights is one and a half times.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
http://russianplanes.net/
96 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. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 25 January 2017 15: 31
    +9
    Thanks for the article, interesting opinion. I feel now a lot of controversy will begin again. How many people have so many opinions. In general, give the Navy 2 aircraft carriers and the PAK MB. In the meantime, 29 and SU look good on Kuznetsovo, although they fly because of our slovenliness
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 January 2017 16: 31
      +5
      Quote: Ustinov 055 055
      In general, give the Navy 2 aircraft carriers and the PAK MB.

      To do this, the Navy must first decide what it needs: a classic AB or TAVKR.
      And the industry should finally bring the "polidut", because without an escort, even a TAVKR is a floating target. There are the Chinese with what cover "Varyag" are being driven.
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 25 January 2017 15: 59
    +15
    I read it with pleasure! Taking off my hat... hi
    1. avt
      avt 25 January 2017 16: 33
      +8
      Quote: Bongo
      I read it with pleasure!

      Well, yes - it is written with love for the topic, plus of course. However, I would like to clarify it right away
      It comes to the point that the inhabitants consider the MiG a kind of "medium" fighter, occupying an intermediate place between light and heavy.
      wassat To the boss, mana. Everyman here by no means bully This trick came from the Mikoyanites, when after the SMT modification it seemed that they could not stay in the original "weight category" with an increase in performance characteristics!
      The fleet of two types of aircraft promised to be more flexible in application.
      Yes, in fact, Abram Solomonych Aviapark "did not promise anything to anyone. In fact, during the competition, especially when the integrated circuit was taken from the Sukhovites, the customer was looking exactly at us, said -" And we also need a long-range heavy and small for a maneuverable battle. "Actually, that's why the USSR hit on the MiG-29, and the new options .... well, actually cut off the Su, or, if you like, not beefy to its size. Because the migrants clearly understand - the chances then for sure No, but frankly, I did not understand why, having experience with the MiG-21/23/27, they persistently climb into the heavy weight category ??? Here are the Sukhov single-engine versions ... although ... I think the answer lies in MA and specifically aviation generals. As in the 90s I was told about the craving for twin-engine fighters - "What do you want! ?? Bombers rule, so they don't agree to less than two engines on an airplane." bully
      As for the MiG-31, it with its dimensions and weights is a unique exception, nowhere else to exist. Formally, it’s also “heavy”,
      Well, this is generally the author vainly mentioned No. This is a different story for everyone. Then he needs to prepare a cycle from "Anaconda" Lavochkin through adaptation to the interceptor of the Tupolev bomber project. I needlessly pulled up to this story. Well, and again
      Nevertheless, in terms that are understandable to the average person, all these aircraft can be combined into a subclass of "light"
      Professor, get off the pedestal, because you don’t notice how someone will call it a stool. bully For "the average man" it is a thrust in order to save "bourgeois Asia" to create a unified airplane for all tasks. Moreover, unsuccessful, since everything is one, even on one type of basic platform, they have modifications for specific tasks. This is in my philistine opinion, especially since one friend writes something like
      So such a weight classification is very arbitrary.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 January 2017 17: 41
        +6
        Quote: avt
        But frankly, I did not understand why, having the MiG-21/23/27 experience, they stubbornly climb into the heavy weight category ??? Here Sukhovsky single-engine version painted

        And who needs it - single-engine? The Russian Air Force will not take it - in the early 90s they threw even the excellent 23MLD and 27K into the landfill. And to offer for export a completely new car, which at least in the basic version was not purchased by its Air Force - this should be a great optimist. smile
        As a result, the MiG took a strange path: they persistently try to make a "medium" fighter in the dimensions of a "light" and just as regularly step on the same rake: the customer prefers to buy a full-fledged "medium" fighter than a slightly inferior one in price and not slightly - according to performance characteristics - "medium-easy".
        1. avt
          avt 25 January 2017 19: 19
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And who needs it - single-engine?

          Someone needs, someone even one of the two chose and named Fu-35 bully Well, in the end, yes
          Quote: Alexey RA
          As a result, the MiG took a strange path: they stubbornly try to make a "medium" fighter in the dimensions of a "light" and just as regularly step on the same rake:

          And different India, for example, are puffing at developing their own mass, and to no avail.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 25 January 2017 19: 32
            +2
            Quote: avt
            Someone needs, someone even one of the two chose and named Fu-35

            It’s good to be healthy and rich. And to have in the sun already 5 models of fighter-bombers. smile
            And to those who on clothes stretches legs, you have to choose one thing.
            Quote: avt
            And different India, for example, are puffing at developing their own mass, and to no avail.

            Duc ... Indian tender. Senseless and merciless. laughing
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 25 January 2017 19: 26
          +3
          So it was in the early 90s that they could not come up with better excuses. It turns out that for half a century the Air Force did not realize that one engine was bad (like the rest of the world) and it was only by the year 91 that it became clear that the twin-engine scheme was more reliable. Although, there are some questions about this, too.
        3. Alex_59
          25 January 2017 19: 42
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          As a result, the MiG took a strange path: they are persistently trying to make a "medium" fighter in the dimensions of a "light"

          People, yes, he is no average. Even the newest MiG-35 has dimensions and weights very close to the Rafal, F-16 and EF-2000. Are they all averages too? And the MiG-29SMT is also within the same limits. If we are already introducing the concept of "light", then they are all light - EF-2000, F-16, Rafale and all variants of the 29th from 9-12 to the very last 35th. You just need to clearly understand that this very concept of "light", it acts only when there is something heavy - as the antipode of the light. Those. in the USA, yes, the F-16 is light, because there is a heavy F-15. And in the Air Force of the Netherlands, the F-16 is the one and only. For the Dutch, he is not easy - he is just a "fighter" and that's it. In general, this classification depends on the point of view of the observer, like Schrödinger's cat.
          If from an international point of view, then only F-18 can conditionally be called average. There are no more fighters suitable for this conditional definition on planet Earth.
          There is truth and another deviation - Swedish Gripen, which is very, very light. But the Swedes - they are such Swedes, it is better not to recall this exotic.
          1. iouris
            iouris 28 January 2017 15: 52
            0
            It all depends on what industry produces it: light, medium or heavy. And there is still "light".
        4. Usher
          Usher 25 January 2017 23: 41
          +1
          The article says that the division into light and medium is just a convention, and does not have any binding. So that there are no medium, light and heavy. Just have a distant and near.
    2. KKND
      KKND 26 January 2017 08: 59
      +1
      Quote: Bongo
      I read it with pleasure! Taking off my hat...

      Yes, your "mafia" is strong and your tanks are fast hi
    3. lis-ik
      lis-ik 26 January 2017 22: 10
      0
      Excellent article, easy to read, a lot of interesting things outlined in accessible language. I look forward to continuing. Thank you so much!
  3. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 25 January 2017 16: 09
    +2
    As for the MiG-31, it with its dimensions and weights is a unique exception, nowhere else to exist.

    Supertomcat is close to it in empty weight. But in terms of maximum take-off weight, the MiG-31 is really out of competition among fighters.
  4. Odysseus
    Odysseus 25 January 2017 16: 42
    +5
    In general, everything is so. Thanks to the author.
    The Mig-29 is a massive fighter for the big war on the European theater of operations. Its main opponents at that time were Phantoms and F-16s of the first series (without medium-range missiles) .It was believed that due to better maneuverability and missiles, the Mig-29 will be able to gain dominance in air above the front line and cover your troops. Moreover, since the battles were supposed to be fought on the European theater of operations, and the probable losses were estimated as very high, issues of range and resource of the airframe were considered not priority. In addition, the Mig-29 could also be used as a carrier of nuclear weapons, although this was not his job.
    The Su-27 was primarily considered as a fighter-interceptor to replace various rarities (Su-9,11,15 and MiG-21) and as a fighter escorting bombers.
    In the future (according to the plans of the mid-80s) it was supposed to replace MiG-29 9-13 with Mi-29 9-15 (MiG-29 M) in production and produce at least 1500 sides, that is, completely replace MiG-21,23 . They would go to Europe, and 9-12, respectively, to the shelves of the second line.
    The development of the Su-27 was assumed through the installation of a refueling system for interceptors (Su-30) and a modernized aircraft for gaining air supremacy - the Su-27M.
  5. EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 January 2017 16: 52
    +3
    But for obvious reasons, the air defense troops did not have bombers and attack aircraft - their task was to intercept the attacking enemy aircraft, and not to retaliate. Therefore, in the country there was a clear division into front-line fighters and interceptor fighters.


    One simple thing to understand here is that no bureaucratic structure will disappear on its own and will invent for itself the most ridiculous differences from another structure that performs similar tasks until it is dispersed by force. In aviation, this in particular manifested itself in the United States, where the Air Force armed with the F-15 and F-16, and the fleet chose the F / A-18, well, the ILC on it, and now the ILC for itself requires a completely ridiculous modification of the F- 35B with a vertical take-off, but otherwise unified with the F-35A and C, although in the previous generation it turned out that the F-4 Phantom went well for sailors and land explorers.

    I don’t know the history of the Air Force and Air Defense of the USSR so well, and I will not judge for what reason such a division arose, but if it did, then this is serious and for a long time. At the same time, I have no questions about front-line aviation, direct control of a certain number of attack aircraft and helicopters shortens the chain of calling for air support. But there is no question of any special "self" in terms of the same materiel.

    The first went to the Air Force, the second to the air defense. The former were, as a rule, light, maneuverable and inexpensive aircraft, while the latter were more complex, more expensive, had a more powerful avionics, high altitude and speed.


    A rather controversial statement, the Su-15, which was a clean air defense and did not even export (just like Su-27 did not, the Chinese orders required the export of the then President of EBN to save the plant), but at a maximum speed it is noticeably inferior to MiG- 23. By empty weight they are the same. I can’t judge the perfection of the radar, although I don’t see any reason for blaming the MiG-23 for simplicity, it’s a logical result of the transition of the Soviet aircraft industry from the simplest MiG-21 machines (the first modification is generally pure cannon) to complex modern systems that can solve a wide circle of tasks. But Vicki tells me an interesting thing, with an empty weight of 10.9 tons, the Su-15TM carried 5550 kg of fuel, much more MiG-23, which like the MiG-29 carried about 3300 kg and had to receive no less complaints about the range.

    OKB "Yakovleva" from the very beginning as a leader was not considered.


    Well, they put up a monster with engines on the wing, a first-generation jet bomb carrier, or Me-262. Although it may "figure" and did not intend to. Fly in a straight line to the enemy bomb carrier, as the MiG-21 and any of its analogues were originally supposed to.

    The essence of the differences of light and heavy fighters


    But there isn’t it, just with an increase in empty weight the share of general aircraft systems decreases, and the share of fuel and payload increases, the price of the machine and its operation grows, but the range and the ability to supply some additional equipment also grow.

    The light fighter (MiG-29) had to operate in its information field, at tactical depth, and the heavy (Su-27) fighter, in addition, had to be able to operate outside the information field of its troops.


    In fact, all this still dates back to World War II. Long-range escort fighters for the allies (the USSR did not manage to build analogues, and then it was not before that, although the Americans quite shared the Thunderbolt with us) are simply huge in comparison with the Messers and Soviet machines. Once again, at least a pilot with a cockpit, both on a light aircraft and on a heavy one, are the same as a cannon, and much more remains for fuel or equipment, for example, 10 hours in the cockpit of a "Mustang" without a urinal somehow dumb, as without a long-range radio.
    1. Alex_59
      25 January 2017 19: 49
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      Well, so they put out a monster with engines on the wing, a direct first-generation bomb carrier, well, or Me-262

      Yak-28P with tuning. Also a mystery by the way. Yakovlev ran into this scheme and dragged it with truths and not truths. With scandals, when the Su-11 was turned in favor of this 28P, under Yakovlev’s promises to do it above all and cooler than all. But it did not fly. After that, simply no one believed the Yakovlev firm. And when they rolled out this monster to the PFI contest ... Everything immediately became clear to everyone.
      Quote: EvilLion
      But there isn’t, just with an increase in empty weight the share of general aircraft systems decreases, and the share of fuel and payload increases

      How not? And all of the above? In the article, the difference is precisely in the tactics of use in light and heavy. The design differences are clear as it were.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 January 2017 20: 01
        +3
        MiG-29 and Su-27 must do the same thing, destroy the enemy in close and long-range air combat, with the same weapons. Just like a Mustang and some Yak-3. Only the MiG-29 can do this at a distance of X km, and the Su-27 at a distance of X + Y km. This is their difference from the MiG-31, which does not know how in the BVB, but can see very far, fly very quickly and reach very far. A similar nonsense was stirred up with the F-16, which supposedly should carry a pair of AIM-9, and the DVB on the F-15. As a result, we came to the same functionality.
        1. Alex_59
          25 January 2017 20: 08
          +5
          Quote: EvilLion
          Only the MiG-29 can do this at a distance of X km, and the Su-27 at a distance of X + Y km.

          Well, this is also true. In my opinion, we say the same thing, only in different words, I do not see any field for controversy in this matter. What is written in the article (at least in this part, in the second there will be some personal "fictions") was not invented by me - about the "information field" this is quite an official formulation of the USSR Air Force. Well, that's how they put it. Or you can, of course. The second part will contain a list of literature.
          1. Usher
            Usher 25 January 2017 23: 46
            +1
            The information field is not a formulation, but a concept. It includes radar, observation points, air defense troops, EW troops, etc. Those. information comes from outside.
      2. tomket
        tomket 25 January 2017 23: 25
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        Yak-28P with tuning. Also a mystery by the way. Yakovlev ran into this scheme and dragged it with truths and not truths. With scandals, when the Su-11 was turned in favor of this 28P, under Yakovlev’s promises to do it above all and cooler than all. But it did not fly

        The main complaint to Yakovlev's scheme from the Air Force was how to fend off rotation in case of engine failure? Actually, after the first meeting of the commission, Yakovlev was sent to "think over this issue."
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 27 January 2017 08: 19
          0
          As there was in a joke: "Go Bull x .. and think hard."
          The truth is it’s not clear what the problem is, the rotation was feared before Sikorsky “Ilya Muromets” built it, and for airliners the circuit with 2-4 engines under the wing became the standard.
    2. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 25 January 2017 22: 35
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      The ILC is on it, but now the ILC for itself requires a completely ridiculous modification of the F-35B with vertical take-off, but otherwise unified with the F-35A and C

      Forgotten about the park "Harriers" KMP, which is intended to replace the F-35B. After all, they have a UDC of the Wasp type, on which verticals are quite capable of being based, while the classic ones are not.
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 January 2017 17: 07
    +3
    Under “expensive” in those years, it was understood not as cost (money was given “how much is needed”), but mass production (complexity of the product, laboriousness of assembly), the ability to assemble such aircraft quickly and much.


    Actually, this is also money.

    not only their “heavy” opponents in the form of F-15 and F-14, but also F-16, optimized for “dog dumps”


    Just F-16 here you can only sympathize. But the F-16 at least has a greater level of simplification compared to the F-15 than the MiG-29 compared to the Su-27.

    it seemed that the LFI could not be made twice as cheap as the PFI. This should be remembered, since in modern disputes the argument in favor of the MiG often sounds like a cheap but effective aircraft. This is not true. By Soviet standards, where they didn’t spare money on defense, 0,75 LFIs from PFIs were quite an inexpensive airplane. Today, the concept of "inexpensive" looks very different.


    During WWII, everything was relatively simple, there the plane is essentially wood or metal around the motor, which is the most difficult part of the car. All the radars, navigation systems and other technical wonders were added to the 70s. There is no reason to expect that a smaller radar will be much simpler and cheaper than a larger one, as it is naive to expect that a diesel engine on 240 l. with. It will be proportionally simpler and cheaper than diesel on 300 l. with. No, it is possible that there are fewer cylinders on a weaker engine, then the complexity drops noticeably, and if not? The F-16 saved on the motor, it is the same as on the F-15, but it is one, which means the cost of the power plant is really 2 times less and requires 2 times less maintenance time. Everything is sad with the MiG-29 in terms of engine maintenance, there is no reason to believe that the RD-33 requires less time, AL-31F.

    In general, the 0.75 price for a weak car that needs to be built in large quantities looks unattractive.

    By 1991, both planes had taken place and stood firmly in service.


    And here is the question, according to some data of the MiG-29 it turned out to be more complex and capricious. At least I came across such data.
    1. Alex_59
      25 January 2017 19: 57
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      Actually, this is also money.

      It depends on what is a key scarce resource for you. All over the world, this resource is really money. They will give a lot of money - we will build a lot. They will give little - we will build little. But in the Soviet system, the question was different. We will always give a lot of money. As much as necessary, we will give as much. And then what is the key scarce resource? The ability in a war to quickly replenish the fleet of aircraft killed in battles - i.e. the complexity of manufacturing. Yes, of course it is very closely connected with money, but these are not quite equal things. Under the conditions of World War II, workers cannot be paid in general, as in peacetime - this is the USSR. Those. the price in monetary terms will fall. And the complexity? No, she will not fall. If the manufacture of a turbine blade requires 5 hours of locksmith work, then during the war the same 5 hours must be spent. But in peacetime, a worker will receive money and a union ticket once a year in Sochi for these 5 hours. And in wartime - rations and a bed.
      Quote: EvilLion
      The F-16 saved on the motor, it is the same as on the F-15, but it is one, which means the cost of the power plant is really 2 times less and requires 2 times less maintenance time. Everything is sad with the MiG-29 in terms of engine maintenance, there is no reason to believe that the RD-33 requires less time, AL-31F.

      To the point.
      Quote: EvilLion
      And here is the question, according to some data of the MiG-29 it turned out to be more complex and capricious.

      Nevertheless, it took place. Series released. Bulk.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 25 January 2017 21: 01
        +4
        Quote: Alex_59
        We will always give a lot of money

        They won't even give much. The famous secret of the Soviet economy was that "our money is not money", that is, there was non-cash money in production that was not a tool for making a profit and did not come into contact with cash.
        In such conditions, production was limited only by the amount of labor and material resources and the availability of certain technologies.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 January 2017 22: 01
        0
        Nevertheless, it took place. Series released. Bulk.


        An order is signed to issue 1000 aircraft of type A and 200 of type B. Factories produce. In Soviet realities or American, in a matter of years. To the fact that after 10 years of operation it turns out that Type B turned out to be more reliable or it was brought to mind, and Type A is not, this has nothing to do.

        The ability in a war to quickly replenish the fleet of aircraft killed in battles - i.e. the complexity of manufacturing. Yes, of course it is very closely connected with money, but these are not quite equal things. Under the conditions of World War II, workers cannot be paid in general, as in peacetime - this is the USSR.


        But during the Second World War, they paid, moreover, how much in the factory canteen, or state. food in the store cost 22.06.1941 just as much as 09.05.1945, although the money supply increased by 6 times and this is simply ridiculous growth for such a war. That is, the key consumption points of the workers were superheated. If the turbine blade is conventionally made 5 hours, then it doesn’t matter that no one will go to the sanatorium in wartime. It is important that if there are 27 blades on the Su-400, for example, on the MiG-29, they will most likely need 300. As for the sanatorium, everything will be simple, in peacetime the plane, taking into account all expenses, including a kindergarten for the children of a plant employee, cost 1 million Soviet rubles, and it costs 700 thousand. Yes, given that the ruble in the state trade and in the bazaar, where they can ask for a bag of vegetables, as for a color TV, will differ significantly. And in general, how can things be without a military loan, etc.?
  7. Olezhek
    Olezhek 25 January 2017 17: 24
    0
    LFI value in 0,75 from PFI b


    Something like that .... a sad coefficient
    0,60 - it would make sense, but it’s not clear why all this jazz is ...
    1. venik
      venik 26 January 2017 09: 40
      +1
      Quote: Olezhek
      Something like this .... a sad coefficient of 0,60 would make sense, but it’s not clear why all this jazz is ...

      ====
      In particular, one of the requirements of LPFI was the ability to work from unpaved airfields. The MiGs coped with this task much better than Su-shek! Therefore, on the first and most massive modifications of the MiG-29, slotted air intakes were installed in the upper plane of the wing inflow. In addition, the maintenance of the MiG is much easier than that of Sushka (which is important in "frontal" conditions and not only.
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 26 January 2017 09: 43
        0
        ability to work with unpaved airfields
        MiG maintenance is much simpler than Drying



        Well, if so then yes.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 26 January 2017 14: 35
        0
        How is it easier? I have exactly the opposite information that it was somehow not very easy to set up the navigation system on the MiG.
  8. Sailor
    Sailor 25 January 2017 17: 52
    +3
    I really liked the article, and reflecting the real factors of two, in my opinion, equal (depending on the model) planes.
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 January 2017 18: 56
    +3
    Great, thank you so much! Didn't know much hi drinks
  10. 52
    52 25 January 2017 19: 02
    +2
    Good entry. I look forward to continuing, I hope it will be just as interesting.
  11. av58
    av58 25 January 2017 19: 59
    +2
    Quote: avt
    Really, during the competition, especially when the sp..slyamzi from the Sukhovites, an integrated "circuit

    With what fright did you decide that the MiG spied on the cracker scheme? :-))) Even before the Su-27, the Americans developed the same scheme, and indeed, did you look into Belyakov’s brain?
    Quote: avt
    But frankly, I did not understand why having the MiG-21/23/27 experience, they persistently climb into the heavy weight category

    For a second, the MiG-25 is significantly heavier, more powerful and faster than any version of the Su-27, so don't get it any further :-)
    1. Alex_59
      25 January 2017 20: 13
      +2
      Quote: av58
      With what fright did you decide that the MiG spied on the cracker scheme? :-))) Even before the Su-27, the Americans developed the same scheme, and indeed, did you look into Belyakov’s brain?

      It is a fact. But the wording "spied" is not suitable here - the design bureau helps to work out aerodynamic schemes and gives recommendations to TsAGI and SibNIIA, i.e. for both design bureaus this was not a secret. But initially it was Sukhoi who exhibited the plane with an integral layout. And the MiG is classic (there is a picture in the article). After the first stage of the competition, the MiG realized that Sukhoi took the lead, also thanks to the integral. As a result, they completely revised the sketch and already at the second stage showed an aircraft very similar in appearance to the current MiG-29. Those. also an integral, as Sukhoi initially showed. Nevertheless, Sukhoi had already taken the lead tightly, and the MiG was saved by the division of the competition - they won in the "easy" variant, although Sukhoi did not even try to climb there, focusing only on the hard variant.
  12. sailor52
    sailor52 25 January 2017 21: 09
    +1
    "... It was very easy to decide which aircraft has advantages - the MiG-29 or the Sy-27: in a training air battle. In addition, such a battle would make it possible to simulate the actions of your mixed aircraft fleet against a conventional opponent. To work out tactics of actions as an anti a single heavy fighter, and against the "bundle" F-15 - F-16. It was the Mikoyanites who initiated such a training battle. And many military and civilian institutes TsNII-30, GNIKI, LII, TsAGI, NIAS supported this idea. The only opponent was Mikhail Petrovich Simonov In his opinion, such aerial battles did not make sense, because it was allegedly even without them that it was clear that the Sy-27 was much better than the MiG-29. , at lower speeds (500-550 km / h) the Sy-27 had a small advantage, but at speeds over 550 km / h - and this is the main real combat range - our aircraft looked much stronger. the advantage of the Cy-27 was considered to be its powerful locator. But only a layman can evaluate a locator only by its power. Power in itself in battle does not mean very much, since the detection range and target acquisition range and its tracking depend not so much on the power of the locator, but on the size of the target, that is, its reflecting surface. And the Sy-27, among other things, is 1,5 times more than the MiG-29.
    No one wanted to go against Simonov’s opinion, so it seemed that the idea of ​​these air battles was not destined to exist. However, there was a person who was able to reach an agreement with Simonov; this was Sylambek Askanov, head of the Center for Combat Use in Lipetsk. And the battles were fought. More than a hundred battles showed that in 80 percentages, the advantage was on the MiG-29 side. Moreover, the MiG was won by both close and average, and even long-range maneuver battles, which were obviously considered to be the “ridge” of Cy-27. As suggested by the Mikoyans, the first plan was not the power of its locomotive, but the size of our “twenty-ninth”. This result has been an improvement for many, and he was encouraged not to advertise. From a natural-methodical point of view, these experiments were carried out quite correctly, and there was no reason to doubt the validity of their results.
    However, such a result could not satisfy Simonov. Mikhail Petrovich immediately flew to Lipetsk. Thanks to his activities, certain limitations for the MiG-29 have been achieved. These restrictions did not allow him to go to the mode of permissible angles, which were deliberately reduced, justifying this with insufficient lateral upprability. Naturally, these restrictions were flawed and fictitious. All aircraft of that time did not have the required level of lateral ability for such attack points. But, be that as it may, these restrictions for the MiG-29 applied. New fights have already conducted with them. What kind of experiment could be said about when MiG pilots were put in obviously unequal conditions? Firstly, the restrictions were imposed only on one plane, and secondly, to track the barred attack, any excess of which was made as a prerequisite to stalling, the pilot should visually, "by eye", which is completely inconceivable in combat. In this scenario, the advantage was already in the Su-27. Pilot of the Center A. Kharchevsky commented on the results of the battle in this way: “Now the picture is a little better. Finally, the advantage of Cy-27 appeared.
    Next, a pair of MiG-29 and Su-27 air battles were conducted. The twin was controlled by the chief pilot of the OKB im. Mikoyana Valery Evgenievich Menitsky. Here is how he describes the battle: “For the first one and a half minutes of the battle, we moved along the trajectory, going out to the place necessary for the attack by all possible means. We quite quickly managed to create an advantage for ourselves to attack the target, we sat on the "tail" of the Sy-27 and spent the rest of the battle without getting off it. We must pay tribute to the pilot of the Sy-27, he piloted well, but we all won the battle equally. True, Kharchevsky tried to convince me that the pilot was chosen unsuccessfully and that if he himself wages the battle, the result will be different. But the fact of the matter is that the result of the experiment should not depend on the qualifications of the pilot ... ".
    https://topwar.ru/64207-v-teni-bolshogo-brata-o-p
    rotivostoyanii-mig-29-i-su-27.html
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 January 2017 22: 07
      +1
      In real air combat, the MiG-29s remained heaps of scrap metal. 3: 0 in favor of "dryers".
    2. Alex_59
      25 January 2017 22: 12
      +1
      It was very easy to solve the question of which aircraft has advantages - MiG-29 or Sy-27: in a training air battle.
      In my article, I deliberately avoid similar collisions between the foreheads of two wonderful Russian aircraft. I do not want to do this. Because regardless of the results, both aircraft are great. But if the conversation has already begun ... as a counterargument we can cite the results of real, not training, air battles between Ethiopian and Eritrean pilots. The results, as you know, were devastating for the MiG. But the bottom line is that this is not an indicator. It would seem that I could joyfully jump on the wreckage of 29 — that’s supposedly a proof of the superiority of Drying. But one must be objective - these results do not speak in anyone's favor. As described training battles. Too many unequal conditions and factors. Such battles can give an assessment of the personal qualities of pilots and their skills rather than an assessment of materiel.
      But to evaluate a locator only by its power can only an amateur. The power itself in battle does not mean very much, since the detection range and the target capture range and its tracking depend not so much on the locator power, but on the size of the target, that is, its reflective surface.
      And here is a mistake, or a deliberate fraud. The basic radar equation says that the power of the received signal reflected from the target depends on both its (target) EPR and the size (effective area) and shape (gain) of the antenna and transmitter power. Equally! So the size of the antenna and the power of the emitted signal are of utmost importance.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%BD%
      D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%
      D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%80%D0%B0%
      D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D
      0% B8% D0% B8
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 January 2017 21: 46
    +3
    [quote] (and besides this, 430 MiG-25, 410 MiG-31, 355 Su-15, 1300 MiG-23) / quote]

    That is, no fundamental difference between the Su-15 interceptor and the conventional MiG-23 front-line fighter in the air defense itself could also be made and both used. Here, by the way, the question is, what happened to the Su-15, which was built around 1300 and production went on until the 1981 year? All cars before the Su-15TM decommissioned?

    [Quote] But the MiG-29 began to actively enter the Air Force of the Soviet allies. On the one hand, this was determined by the peculiarities of the geography of these countries - the Su-27 there simply has nowhere to deploy. On the other hand, the Su-27, as a more complex and expensive aircraft, was "secret", and the MiG-29, being a simpler machine, was easily allowed to be released outside the borders of the Air Force. [/ Quote]

    Only even on it a simplified avionics set. The monkeys will do it anyway, so much so that, that way, they throw weapons anyway in hundreds of copies. It is interesting that the United States for monkeys generally wanted to push F-20, but still decided not to bother, or rather got confused with the F-16 export model, but it did not go. However, the situation is approximately preserved now, the same Su-30MKI and its derivatives are trivial to buy money from dumb homeless people, for them some Su-30MK. Of course, our Su-30M2 is from the same series, but apparently it does not expect anything other than an operational replacement for the Su-27UB, for everyday flights there is no difference how perfect the radar is in detecting the bourgeois F-22.

    [quote] It’s just that the Air Force’s needs were such that there were always mostly smaller, simpler and cheaper cars. [/ quote]

    Che-go ??

    [quote] The only exception to this series will be the American F / A-18, which really is located almost exactly in the middle between typical “light” and typical “heavy” fighters, but it’s worth remembering that this is a very specific machine, created by a special, marine requirements based on aircraft carriers. [/ quote]

    Once again, what is it? The empty weight of the F / A-18 is 10.4 tons, even slightly less than that of the MiG-29, this "specific" aircraft was successfully supplied to a number of countries with no aircraft carriers and, according to flight data, surpasses the F-16, the success of which, in general, stems from prices, and not from any outstanding characteristics.

    In general, what can be learned from the article?
    That the cars were delivered to different departments, one knocked cars over the front lines, the other behind the front line. The method of shooting down, if we discard the MiG-25 and its derivatives, is one and the same. That the cost of the MiG-29 is 0.75 of the cost of the Su-27. Is this justified at all? On 3 Su-27 we can build 4 MiG-29. This clearly does not provide any decisive quantitative superiority, while:

    1) Every single plane is weaker. HZ how much, if a rocket hits, then even a light, even heavy, machine, as a rule, is lost. But on average, the Su-27 should suffer less loss. Better equipment, more fuel, better LTX, more likely to win, or at least avoid defeat. That is, more machines are needed to make up for losses. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20%, maybe 50%. We do not know.
    2) We need more machines for air defense, especially in some northern or Far Eastern regions, here the need is calculated in principle, and the headquarters should have been considered, but these numbers have not been published. More refueling will be needed.
    3) You need to invest resources in the development of 2 aircraft. That is, in any efficiency equation we always have some constant C. Before we even put the squadron on the database, we need to develop an airplane, develop guidelines for it in flight operation, maintenance, and application tactics.
    4) A lightweight machine does not fundamentally add anything functional. Consider a situation inverted from actual events, but well showing the alignment. Here we have an AL-31F motor. On it we can build quite a functional fighter with an empty weight of about 9 tons (well, the Chinese built the J-10 only later than the Su-27 appeared, which is why it was turned upside down). Well, it will fly on 2000 km without PTB, 9 suspensions, radar, short- and medium-range rackets, all things. But we can take 2 of such engines, build an aircraft with an empty weight of 16.5 tons on their base, it will fly without any PTBs at 4000 km, though the fuel for this will no longer be needed in 2 times, but in 2.5. We will put more powerful radar, other equipment, add a couple of pendants for missiles. It will cost, let's say one and a half times more expensive, the effectiveness in battle due to the best LTH and equipment will increase interest on 20. It seems to be sparse for such an increase in price, but there is still a huge bonus to range, and if we are faced with the task of striking at 1000 km, then our light aircraft will encounter difficulties, it can fly backward without such a load. At the optimum height. But the heavy guy will do all this without any problems. Well, they’ll grab PTB, but, for example, they completely got rid of the tanker. Suppose that we don’t need to fly further 500 km in 90% of cases, i.e., the ratio of the departures of light and heavy vehicles 1: 10, then, of course, you can build an air force based on light vehicles, there will be much less heavy loads, although abandoning them we can’t do it at all, because the remaining 10% of departures must be somehow fulfilled, or we refuse, but instead we get refuelers, for example, an 1 tanker on an 4 fighter, that is, there is no saving. And if the situation is such that the ratio of departures 50 / 50? Then the question is, is it even worth making a light car?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 January 2017 22: 16
      +1
      Moderators, please correct the quotation.
    2. Alex_59
      25 January 2017 22: 32
      0
      Here, by the way, the question is, what happened to the Su-15, which was built around 1300 and production went on until the 1981 year? All cars before the Su-15TM decommissioned?
      Su-15 without letters was made in 1966-1971 g - 564 aircraft. Not surprisingly, they were all written off by the 1991 year.
      Training Su-15UT 148 aircraft issued before the 1972 year - there too.
      Su-15T / TM made 1970-1975 years, only 441 aircraft. After 1975 to 1980 only UM did pairings. Total 560 T / TM / UM machines. At 1991, they are listed as 335. 560-335 = 225. Apparently 225 early T / TM also already written off by the 1991 year. In theory, these are cars up to 1973 built. No other explanation is visible.
      That is, no fundamental difference between the Su-15 interceptor and the conventional MiG-23 front-line fighter in the air defense itself could also be made and both used.
      There was some localization by geography. In central Siberia, in the Urals and in the Arctic, there were no 23's at all. Closer to the borders - 2 / 3 units on the 23's, the rest of the MiG-25, Su-15.
  14. tchoni
    tchoni 25 January 2017 22: 15
    +2
    The author in the article expresses a very interesting opinion about the division of fighters into melee vehicles and air superiority vehicles. It turns out, if we follow the logic that such a separation does not interfere with the fifth generation, which, in fact, our "partners" demonstrate, while simultaneously creating an expensive interceptor F-22 and a workhorse F-35. True, at the current sluggish moment, both vehicles are almost equal in cost, differing, at the same time, in combat capabilities. In connection with this, a bad thought arises: to bring the idea to the point of absurdity. Those. As part of the fifth-generation fighter project, to launch two aircraft at once:
    1) a flying s-500, hung with radars, like a tree with garlands, possessing an all-aspect commonality, carrying a dozen long arms and a dozen two self-defense missiles, plus a couple of operators to keep up with the pilot, so that it would not be awkward for him to drive this economy. Naturally, everything should be stealth! (the fifth generation is still). And, if I may put it that way, a "blind killer" in the yak-130 format. The same stealth, without radar at all, only with an OLS cannon and a pair of close-action missiles in conformal containers. The first will be the king of long-range aerial combat, and the second, will take on the role of a handyman. And the infantry will support lightly with fire, if anything, and as a training one, it will fit, and in its radar field it will be able to work as an interceptor. Well, how stealth 100 points ahead will give any lightning. Because it is small (and this is important in the meter range) and because without a radar (it is much more difficult for a bulet to be detected by Ri RTR stations).
    How are you delirious?
  15. eleronn
    eleronn 25 January 2017 22: 37
    +5
    From the article, I can say the following: the MiG-29 has never been in the Combat Training Center of the Air Defense IA (this is Savasleika). To us, in 611 IAP, to show the equipment to fat-bellied generals from the air defense headquarters, they drove the MiG-29 from Astrakhan, and not from Andreapol or Kubinka. More ... In 1991, ten Su-27Ps flew to Mary from the Lipetsk center. Based on the results of training air battles with the MiG-29, the dry ones lost on the dry! Even taking into account the fact that the "dryers" used the target designation of the A-50 (which flew in from Pechora). I don't even raise the issue of operation and maintenance! The MiG-29 in operation is as simple as gauze pants, for a ruble twenty! Su-27 is a fairy tale about a fox and a jug. I have operated both the MiG-29 and the Su-15tm and the Su-27p. And, by the way, in the exercises of our regiment (Bezhetsk, Su-15tm) and the regiment from Tunoshna (MiG-23p), we lost miserably.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 January 2017 23: 40
      +1
      If you worked in a combat training center, you would know that the process is continuous, and whoever lost or won there is no question. It is necessary to formulate the conditions of the battle, the adopted tactics, how it all ended, and which conclusions are based on this. And based on the findings, some changes follow. And so do you know Pokryshkin and Kozhedub flew on the same production cars as those who did not achieve anything.

      But it’s easier and more pleasant not to love Poghosyan.
    2. Alex_59
      26 January 2017 07: 29
      0
      Quote: eleronn
      The MiG-29 was never in the Air Defense Combat Training Center (this is Savasleyka).

      All is correct. At the 1991 year, the 15 MiG-29 were located at the 116-m Central Design Bureau of the Air Defense Agency in Astrakhan.
      Quote: eleronn
      According to the results of training air battles with the MiG-29, the dry ones lost in the dry!

      Yes, such air battles are not an indicator. We have to go into details. How they were carried out, what were the initial conditions, what the situation was, what pilots were in the cars, what they were trained for, how they were guided by ground services. And the purpose of such battles is not to declare some fighter to be defective, but to make the losing side understand its weaknesses in combat training and correct the jambs. And then, after all, if you draw conclusions that the Su-27 is a bad fighter based on the results of these battles, then why do you just stop there? More serious conclusions can be drawn from your description, for example, that the A-50 AWACS plane is also useless, and in general the whole air defense system is wasting bread in vain, since it drains front aviation into the "dry" one. Let's send them all together with the Su-27.

      There are a lot of rumors about these "training battles" and zero official information. The adherents of the MiG sect say that they defeated the MiGs, the adherents of the Sukhoi sect say the opposite. Better to ignore everything.
  16. sailor52
    sailor52 25 January 2017 22: 43
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    In my article, I deliberately avoid such clashes with the foreheads of two wonderful Russian planes. I don't want to do this. Because regardless of the results - both aircraft are great. But if the conversation has already come ... as a counter-argument, you can bring the results of real, and not training, air battles between Ethiopian and Eritrean pilots. The results were known to be devastating for the MiG. But the bottom line is that this is not an indicator.

    I agree!
    I also laid out material about air battles between Ethiopia and Eritria (maybe not just me).
    But you need to know all the materials. And the MiG-29 battle with the Su-27 was over the sands of Africa. It was? It was after all.
    And the episode with the training battle between these wonderful machines was.
    You have, I must admit, the most succinct, fascinating article that analyzes and summarizes everything. Thank!
    And I completely agree that there are a lot of conditions that can tip the scales in a real battle, and the preparation and condition (fatigue) of the pilots, and the character, the specifics of the theater, and the supply / logistics on this theater.
  17. KKND
    KKND 25 January 2017 23: 18
    +1
    People, have you completely collapsed from oak?
    The article is sucked from the finger, fantasies appearing in the author with complete ignorance of the materiel.
    And this is evident even to me, a jerk who did not serve in the army. And still laugh at Kaptsov.
    One Evil Lion suspected something was wrong.
    Let's go
    [quote] [This meant that the MiG should not fly deeper into the enemy’s territory for more than 100 km, and its guidance and control of the battle is conducted from ground control posts. Thanks to this, it was possible to save on the composition of avionics by simplifying the aircraft as much as possible, and due to this, improve flight performance and make the aircraft mass and inexpensive. / quote]
    The author teach the mat part! And MiG-29 and Su-27 of early modifications possessed almost the same SLA... Namely OLS, helmet-mounted target designation system and two similar in design ("Cassegrain") radar (N-019 for Mig and N-001 for Su). Yes, the diameter is different and the Su had a higher radar sensitivity. The target detection range was about 30% higher.
    [quote] The flight range is two times higher than that of the MiG, and the main weapon is the R-27, supplemented by a long arm R-27E (high energy) and melee missiles R-73. [/ quote]
    And did Miga R-27 fail?
    [quote] There should have been own means of electronic warfare and powerful communications. [/ quote]
    The MiG-29S active jamming station (SAP) Gardenia There was a built-in. Receiving and transmitting antennas are located on the wingtips.
    But the Su-27 (expensive and autonomous according to the author) did not have a built-in CAD station. It (Sorption) was installed on the wingtips, which reduced the number of missiles by two. For obvious reasons, I can’t say which one was more expensive or technically more difficult.
    [quote] The airborne radar had a stable detection range of no more than the launch range of R-27 missiles, in fact, being a radar sight for these missiles. [/ quote]
    "Brilliant" phrase in its meaninglessness wassat
    You can comb for a long time.
    There is only one question: why some authors from the local audience are in favor, and some pour a bucket of mud.
    It seems that because of this, Falcon has gone for example, if Kaptsov leaves altogether, the thought will come to the site.
    By the way, no one knows what Falcon happened?
    1. Usher
      Usher 25 January 2017 23: 55
      0
      Well, as it were, one must read first, and then write again without errors. Who said that the MiG-29 did not have a R-27? The article also says that the capture range and detection is not greater than the range of the P-27.
      1. KKND
        KKND 26 January 2017 00: 07
        0
        Quote: Usher
        Well, as it were, one must read first, and then write again without errors. Who said that the MiG-29 did not have a R-27? The article also says that the capture range and detection is not greater than the range of the P-27.

        And that the Su-27 of the first modifications had something beyond the R-27?
      2. KKND
        KKND 26 January 2017 00: 34
        0
        Quote: Usher
        The article also says that the capture range and detection is not greater than the range of the P-27.

        It remains only to find out for which EPR
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 26 January 2017 03: 17
        +1
        And if you let the P-27 catch up on a target with a large excess? In such a situation, the rocket will not be prevented by additional energy, the launch range is the same value as a cubic meter of gas, which makes sense only if the gas is under the definition. pressure and has a temperature. A missile with a direct range radar should not have

        And the R-27 itself seems to have different options, there are "energetic" options with a much longer range. than 50 km from the original.
    2. Alex_59
      26 January 2017 06: 53
      +2
      Quote: KKND
      The article is sucked from the finger, fantasies appearing in the author with complete ignorance of the materiel.

      90% of what is written is a compilation from the literature.
      Quote: KKND
      The author teach the mat part!

      Quote: KKND
      Yes, the diameter is different and Su had a higher radar sensitivity. At approximately 30%, the target detection range was higher.

      Well, as it were, this is also the question. Different radars - is it the same avionics? Where is the logic?
      Quote: KKND
      And the Su-27 (expensive and autonomous according to the author)

      According to the Ministry of Defense of the USSR.
      Quote: KKND
      And did Miga R-27 fail?

      And in the article somewhere it says "the MiG-29 did not have R-27"?
      Sometimes from the comments you might think that people have problems reading and understanding the text ...
      The MiG's main caliber was the P-60. Typical suspension - 4 rockets. R-27 - 2 missiles. Practically all navigational calculations in "Practical Aerodynamics" are made in this variant 4xR-60 and 2xR-27.
      1. KKND
        KKND 26 January 2017 07: 49
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        Well, as it were, this is also the question. Different radars - is it the same avionics? Where is the logic?

        The logic is simple, read the comments carefully, the article makes it clear that the Avionics MiG is much easier than Su. So I say no. OLS, NSC, and finally, the radar of the same complexity and very similar in construction (both cassegraines, not one SCHAR to the other HEADLIGHT, etc.) with only a smaller antenna diameter. Let it be cheaper the whole question is how many units of interest?
        Quote: Alex_59
        And in the article somewhere it says "the MiG-29 did not have R-27"?

        So what was Su longer than MiG? I recall that the Mig-29S also had the R-27E, and this is still a Soviet fighter.
        Quote: Alex_59
        According to the USSR Ministry of Defense

        What exactly was the Su-27 more autonomous than the MiG?
        Quote: Alex_59
        90% of what is written is a compilation from the literature.

        Do not read Soviet newspapers before bedtime No.
        1. Alex_59
          26 January 2017 09: 30
          +2
          Quote: KKND
          Let me remind you that Mig-29С also had P-27Е

          And when the MiG-29 appearedС?
          Quote: KKND
          What exactly was the Su-27 more autonomous than the MiG?

          I do not know. In my article, the word "more autonomous" never occurs. For the first time on this page it appeared in your comment.
          Quote: KKND
          Do not read Soviet newspapers before bedtime

          What to read?
          Quote: KKND
          Let it be cheaper the whole question is how many units of interest?

          The article has an answer to this question.
          1. KKND
            KKND 26 January 2017 09: 48
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            I do not know. In my article, the word "more autonomous" never occurs. For the first time on this page it appeared in your comment.

            We refused ... Ay-ah-yay ...
            Quote: Alex_59
            Su-27, on the contrary, was supposed to be able to rely only on its own forces. Independently had to conduct reconnaissance, analyze the situation and attack. He had to go behind enemy lines and cover his bombers in deep raids and intercept enemy targets over his territory, providing isolation of the theater of operations. Its ground control posts and radar in the territory of the enemy were not expected.

            To paraphrase: why is the Su-27 "more independent" of the MiG-29?
            Quote: Alex_59
            The article has an answer to this question.

            Do you want to say the locator added in the cost of 25% of the aircraft.? wassat
            Quote: Alex_59
            And when did the MiG-29S appear?

            Listen, stop kidding the R-27E not much further, especially for maneuvering targets (compare it with the R-33)
            1. Alex_59
              26 January 2017 10: 54
              +1
              Quote: KKND
              To paraphrase: why is the Su-27 "more independent" of the MiG-29?

              More powerful radar, longer-range main armament, twice the long range. This is in fact. And according to the idea, Sushka had to have an ACS for flights over long distances, but the MiG did not. Sushka was supposed to have electronic warfare, but the MiG didn't. Sushka was supposed to have an EMF, but the MiG didn't. But the MiG was supposed to be cheaper than Drying by 2 times. In fact, it began to cost 0,75 from Drying.
              Nevertheless, the tactics underlying the creation of the MiG-29 remained. We take the service book "Combat application of the MiG-29 - a pilot's manual" and read in the 2.1 section .: “The fighter takes off from an aerodrome remote from the front line at 100 km, from the standby position at the aerodrome (readiness No.1). The radar station is located at a distance of 10 ... 15 km from the front line and provides radar control over their aircraft and enemy aircraft at a range to 250 km behind the front line at heights greater than 10 km and 20 ... 40 km at small and extremely low altitudes.
              The aircraft conducts combat operations over its territory and over enemy territory to a depth of 100 km behind the front line. Guidance is from control points. "


              Quote: KKND
              Do you want to say the locator added in the cost of 25% of the aircraft.?

              Well, in fact, in addition to the radar (which MiG and Sushka are structurally very close to), there is something else. “Butcher” is larger at Drying. But it is all so color-metallic - not cheap.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 26 January 2017 14: 53
                +1
                That is, “drying should be, MiG doesn’t”, then there’s a long list, as a result, saving as much as 25%. X)

                But the MiG was supposed to be cheaper than Drying by 2 times. In fact, it began to cost 0,75 from Drying.


                Then the question is, can such a project be considered successful if the price is 1.5 times higher? And in principle, this was what we had to start with, what we wanted to get at all, this is a fundamental difference, without mentioning which the Soviet command looks really stupid, since it gets rubbish almost at the price of the best available, and only in Russian conditions, when you had to choose, did you change your mind . There was a lot of foolishness in the USSR, the tank saga with the T-64, T-72 and T-80 was a vivid example, but even in the USSR there were those who tried to cover up this nonsense, or somehow mitigate the negative consequences.

                What did they finally get? According to my data (yes, I also came across the Internet, and I agree to consider it for OBS, where the official technical documentation of the HZ may still be secret, although the RLE for the Su-27SK with the stamp "declassified" and the date for 2004 is the year in I found the network) the MiG-29 airframe resource is only 1200 hours, Su-27 seems to be up to 3000. If so, it is not surprising that the modernization projects for the MiG-29 simply did not go. A third of the EMNIP aircraft, even in the 2008, turned out to be unsuitable for flights according to the result of the verification after another disaster, because the cracks went.

                And it’s all so color-metallic - not cheap


                The share of the metal itself in the price, even for WWII machines, is negligible.
                1. Alex_59
                  26 January 2017 15: 55
                  +2
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  The share of the metal itself in the price, even for WWII machines, is negligible.

                  Well it is, among other things. Metal is certainly not the most expensive component.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Then the question is, can such a project be considered successful if the price is 1.5 times higher?

                  This is a key question for which I have no answer and I am not trying to give this answer. Only versions. In the understanding of the customer (USSR Ministry of Defense of the end of the 70-x model), the MiG-29 was considered successful, because still adopted. In modern realities (IMHO), such a luxury is already unacceptable. But it’s there I will be ranting in the second part - you will kick me there. laughing
                  "author - learn the materiel" (C) laughing
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 26 January 2017 16: 41
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    "author - learn the materiel" (C)

                    Respect and plus to you ...
      2. KKND
        KKND 26 January 2017 08: 13
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        The MiG's main caliber was the P-60. Typical suspension - 4 rockets. R-27 - 2 missiles. Practically all navigational calculations in "Practical Aerodynamics" are made in this variant 4xR-60 and 2xR-27.

        If you are so impressed by 6 R-27 missiles on the Su-27 compared to 2 on the MiG (9-12), then I have to point out to you that the radars of both fighters could carry 24 targets in the SNP mode, and only attack one. And for Su, this is only one of the weapons options. Not that much difference compared to the MiG-31 (it could attack 4 targets at the same time and missiles are more authentic repeat )
      3. KKND
        KKND 26 January 2017 08: 21
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        The MiG's main caliber was the P-60. Typical suspension - 4 rockets. R-27 - 2 missiles. Practically all navigational calculations in "Practical Aerodynamics" are made in this variant 4xR-60 and 2xR-27.


        There are many options in the picture, only the main ones
    3. KKND
      KKND 26 January 2017 08: 26
      0
      Quote: KKND
      The airborne radar had a stable detection range of no more than the launch range of R-27 missiles, in fact, being a radar sight for these missiles.

      "Brilliant" phrase in its meaninglessness

      I ask the author to comment on the pearl.
      Hint: F-22 will show up a bit closer than B-52 with the same radar laughing
      1. Alex_59
        26 January 2017 09: 45
        +2
        Quote: KKND
        I ask the author to comment on the pearl.

        It is impossible to describe all the details in the article, otherwise the book will turn out. We are talking about the detection of a typical target "fighter" in the PPS. For the MiG-29, it was accepted that the range of stable detection and capture of such a target should be close to the launch range of the R-27 missile. The customer considered that making a radar for the MiG capable of detecting this typical target at ranges significantly greater than the launch range of the R-27 was not advisable. The launch range, of course, is also a relative thing, depending on the speeds and courses of the target and the carrier aircraft, but visually there was some criterion. As a result, the detection range of a typical target for the MiG-29 radar is about 80 km, which is close to the launch range of the R-27 - about 60 km.
        The Su-27 was originally designed to have a much larger detection range for the same typical target. The Su-27 was supposed to operate outside the information field of its forces and obtain information about the enemy on its own. However, the next round was the question - why, if the Su-27 sees targets, it does not have the means to intercept these targets? As a result, they tried to register the P-27 on the Su-33, from which the Sukhovites fiercely fought back. its aerodynamics and weight greatly spoiled the performance characteristics of the aircraft. The R-33 has a significantly larger midsection area, and Cx is also higher than that of the thin R-27. As a result, it was decided to make the R-27 in the "E" version with a range of under 100 km. That is close to the detection range of a typical target "fighter" in PPS for the Su-27 radar - 110 km.
        Naturally, in reality, all targets have different EPRs, and from different viewing angles the EPRs of the same aircraft are far from constant and not the same. And prelaunch power for missiles is different depending on the speeds and courses of the carrier and target. This is all calculated data in typical conditions.
        This is not what I came up with. Maybe I do not accurately state, formulate. It’s not human nature to be perfect.
        1. KKND
          KKND 26 January 2017 10: 04
          0
          P-33 did not make much sense. She has a maximum overload of 8g. It is possible to intercept f-15 if only the STR on it broke. She was to intercept the bombers and the KR.
          Quote: Alex_59
          As a result, they tried to prescribe the R-27 on the Su-33, from which the Sukhovtsy fiercely fought back, because its aerodynamics and weight greatly spoiled the performance characteristics of the aircraft.

          It is unlikely. The FAB-500 has approximately the same dimensions. R-33 was about another ...
          Quote: Alex_59
          That is close to the detection range of a typical target "fighter" in PPS for the Su-27 radar - 110 km.

          Quote: Alex_59
          As a result, the detection range of a typical target at the MiG-29 radar is about 80 km, which is close to the launch range of the R-27 - about 60 km.

          I have almost the same data. Radar Su-27 100 km. MiG-29 70 radar km. Here we converge.
          But the conclusions in the article are strange. The type of radar difference (according to your data) is 30 km., And the MiG-29 whose blind kitten needs to be pointed from the ground, unlike the Su27 (independent).
          I exaggerate of course, but doesn’t it seem strange to you?
          1. Alex_59
            26 January 2017 10: 44
            +1
            Quote: KKND
            But the conclusions in the article are strange.

            The conclusions in the article in general are zero. The evolution of projects is described. The MiG was conceived as light and inexpensive, with a reduced avionics composition compared to Drying. However, in the end it turned out that when in practice they began to engage in implementation in hardware, I wanted both one and the other and the third. As a result, the MiG had both EW and ACS with the ability to unload the pilot, and the P-60 was eventually changed to the P-73, and the number of P-27 suspensions was doubled.
            But! The most important thing here is different - the price of such an aircraft, also originally conceived as 0,5 from heavy, climbed up and eventually sailed to 0,75 from heavy. About 0,75, this is a rough estimate, of course.
            Quote: KKND
            P-33 did not make much sense.

            Well, nevertheless, there was an attempt. During design. In iron, of course, no longer exists.
            Quote: KKND
            I have almost the same data. Radar Su-27 100 km. MiG-29 70 radar km. Here we converge.

            Well, there is only one source - RLE or "Methodical manual for combat use."
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 26 January 2017 15: 05
              +1
              And the pilots might have reasonable questions, why do such an aircraft even if even a MiG-21bis can take 6 missiles (2 pylons allow suspension immediately 2 pieces). Moreover, the MiG-21 can also make lateral air intakes, free up space in the nose under the add. equipment, now the Chinese are riveting such wonders of technology. Well, and so gradually you can even come to your J-10, as from the F-5, maintaining the same layout they came to the "superhornet". Yes, and the MiG-23 has long been. Moreover, the dynamics of the MiG-23, even the "needle" is respected.
            2. KKND
              KKND 26 January 2017 16: 35
              +2
              Quote: Alex_59
              The MiG was conceived as light and inexpensive, with a reduced avionics composition compared to Drying. However, in the end it turned out that when in practice they began to engage in implementation in hardware, I wanted both one and the other and the third. As a result, the MiG appeared both EW and ACS with the ability to unload the pilot, and the R-60 was eventually changed to R-73, and the number of R-27 suspensions was doubled.

              On this our collective "brain" and we will solve. drinks
              Article plus ...
  18. infantryman2020
    infantryman2020 26 January 2017 06: 09
    +1
    Very interesting article!

    "... As in the 90s I was told about the craving for twin-engine fighters -" What do you want! ?? Bombers rule, so they don't agree to less than two engines on an airplane. "

    About two engines on our "light" fighter.
    It is clear that a "light" fighter can be made much lighter in weight (and, to a large extent, in price) than its "heavy" counterpart only if it has one engine.
    On this occasion, I remember someone's interview from the 80s: "... when our engine reliability is like the F-100 (we meant the Pratt-Whitney engine on the F-16), then we will be able to supply one, not two ... "
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 26 January 2017 08: 18
      +1
      And at the same time the Americans have this main engine - 1pc-F16 and 2pc-F-15. Which reduces the cost of the engine and facilitates service.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 26 January 2017 13: 23
      0
      And this is quite ridiculous. Exit when they did the Mig-15, Mig-21 and Mig-23 with the reliability of the engines, everything was in order, but it stopped?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 26 January 2017 20: 21
        0
        And this too, but most likely, when everything they wanted was stuffed into the plane, the aircraft thrust ratio fell. But there was no new reliable engine with the required thrust ... and so they put two RD-33s (which then were the same far from perfect)
  19. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 26 January 2017 08: 17
    0
    It has long been a painful article. Thank! The MiG-29 is more likely the main fighter of the Air Force (neither light nor medium), but it also needs to be compared with Rafal, Eurofighter and Typhoon .... I hope there will be a new device based on T-50 technologies ...
  20. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 26 January 2017 08: 22
    0
    As I see it, the light (or near) class moves toward heavy impact UAVs. There are more pluses than minuses. For the BVB and the caliper of the front-line zone, it is more profitable to print almost one-time but nimble pseudo-intellectual hunters on a 3D printer than to chase living people to shoot means of the most diverse ground / air / sea air defense. In the frontal zone, in addition to radiation warning sensors, such stalkers need not so much a radar (they will transmit information to airborne warning systems and ground-based radars), but also protection against electronic warfare and the ability of the device to complete the task in case of communication failure, and not cowardly flee to the base.
  21. venik
    venik 26 January 2017 09: 23
    +2
    Thank you Alexey !! I liked the article very much. There is only one note: the F-18 was NEVER designed for the needs of the Navy! In the mid 60s and early 70s, the Pentagon held a competition to create a new light fighter. Two projects of General Dynamics and McDonnell-Douglas, designated YF-2 and YF-16, reached the "final". According to the results of long-term comparative tests (17-1974), the General Dynamics project was recognized as the best, and was put into service under the F-1976 index. But the "loser" YF-16 interested in the Navy, tk. had the best take-off and landing aircraft, a large payload, 17 engines (which is important when flying over the sea) and an "open architecture" control system, which allows you to quickly "convert" a fighter into an attack aircraft and a bomber. After some modifications, it was put into service under the designation F-2 "Hornet". Although evil tongues claimed that it was snatched by the sailors, so as not to introduce "McDonnell-Douglas" into losses. Nevertheless, the car came out great!
    1. Usher
      Usher 26 January 2017 12: 34
      0
      Why write what everyone already knows?
  22. 0255
    0255 26 January 2017 13: 11
    +2
    Are articles on technology gradually returning to VO, for which I registered on this site?
    1. KKND
      KKND 26 January 2017 17: 19
      0
      Quote: 0255
      Are articles on technology gradually returning to VO, for which I registered on this site?

      And don't hope tongue
      P.S. local administration spy. soldier
  23. Oriental express
    Oriental express 26 January 2017 18: 28
    0
    I will support those who advocate for Sukhoi Design Bureau fighters as a single plane for the Russian Aerospace Forces. Russia cannot afford to have a large number of modern fighter jets for economic reasons, which means that the machines that still come into service with the Russian Air Force should, in all respects, be no worse than the best Western models.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 27 January 2017 12: 49
      0
      It could be a MiG design bureau. but unification is needed ...
      1. Oriental express
        Oriental express 27 January 2017 13: 20
        +1
        And why be wise when there are already Sukhoi Design Bureau fighters that fully satisfy the needs of the Russian Air Force for this type of aircraft. As for the possible replacement of the old Su-34 Su-25, I would have thought and probably would not have abandoned the attack aircraft. However, the Su-25 and the more advanced Su-39 proposed to replace it, in my opinion, are more suitable for direct fire support of troops on the battlefield than the larger and more expensive Su-34s. Although, the Su-34 has its trump card - It has a longer flight range and more weapons on board, so it can hang over the enemy’s head longer and longer provide fire support without leaving the base, to replenish ammunition. There is something to think about. If it depended on me personally, I would probably not completely abandon the attack aircraft and order at least 50 units of the new Su-39 for the Russian Air Force to replace the Soviet Su-25.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 27 January 2017 13: 25
          0
          There is a specificity ... someone is better at doing sports cars (Ferrari) and someone is representative (RollsRoyce for example) you cannot immediately buy a design school. Therefore, if there are competencies in the design and manufacture of light and medium fighters, let them do it. But suppliers of engines and weapons and avionics need to be optimized
          1. Oriental express
            Oriental express 27 January 2017 13: 31
            +1
            I now do not see the need for light fighter jets. Why is that?! 1) Imagine an attack with cruise missiles on the Russian Federation. Here, “Dryers '' with their more advanced radars and longer flight range are more suitable for defense. 2) Imagine the start of battles for Kaliningrad, the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, or the Crimea. Here, too, you need a fighter with a good radar, long range and decent weapons. Again, here in front of the fighters ,, Su. '' 3) During the fighting in Africa between the Su-27 and MiG-29, the Su-27 won ... In general, I now do not see the need for MiG-29 type aircraft.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 27 January 2017 14: 42
              0
              Since you don’t see, we are stopping production .... and let’s tell the opponents to withdraw from production F-16/18/35 and Typhoon and Rafal ....
              1. Oriental express
                Oriental express 27 January 2017 14: 46
                +1
                Wait, Typhoon with Rafal is clearly not light fighters, and the F-18 is not light, it replaced the heavy F-14. As for the F-16 and F-35, the United States, basically, vparivayut them to its allies. In addition, the US budget is simply not comparable with the budget of the Russian Federation, so the former Soviet chic will have to be forgotten. Perhaps for the Russian Federation it makes sense to have a dozen two MiG-35s in service, but only for advertising purposes, with the aim of promoting them on the international market, nothing more.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 27 January 2017 14: 53
                  0
                  The F-16 and MiG-23 are light, and the MiG-29/35 and F-18/35 are medium, the F-15/22 are heavy
                  1. Oriental express
                    Oriental express 27 January 2017 14: 55
                    +1
                    The MiG-29 is not a full-fledged car compared to the Su-27, and the Russian Federation today is not so rich as to buy cheap things. ''
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 27 January 2017 15: 03
                      0
                      The fact of the matter is that the electric industry of the Russian Federation has only reached the necessary parameters and it will become full-fledged ... Although, at one time, it competed very well with both the F-16 and F-15. just missed 25 years and did nothing ...
                      1. Oriental express
                        Oriental express 27 January 2017 16: 48
                        +1
                        Sushki will always have more options than MiGs, and the MiG-29 has never been a competitor to the F-15, it is a heavy machine with good radar, for which MiG meat and the competitor to the F-15, there was only Su-27
                    2. Zheka40
                      Zheka40 28 January 2017 01: 33
                      0
                      you signed up for your non-competency is DIFFERENT in weight, and tasks performed.
                      1. Oriental express
                        Oriental express 28 January 2017 10: 27
                        +1
                        MiG is a cheap version of Su, with disabilities, and not full-fledged Russian aircraft
                  2. Zheka40
                    Zheka40 28 January 2017 01: 36
                    0
                    burn on !!!
  24. iouris
    iouris 28 January 2017 15: 58
    0
    The conversation is pointless. They did not compete, but complemented each other. Ethiopian Air Force "competed" with Eritrean Air Force.
    1. w70
      w70 April 12 2017 07: 07
      0
      Now there will be no competition
      The 2022nd scientific and practical conference "The main problems and trends in the development of the aircraft industry of the Russian Federation and the solution of issues of improving management and import substitution in the industry" in the division’s leadership held at the headquarters of the United Aircraft Corporation PJSC in Moscow UAC - Combat Aviation (Directorate of Combat Aviation Programs) report presented a five-year development plan for this division for the period until XNUMX.

      The main point of this plan is the actual liquidation of JSC "RSK" MiG "by joining JSC" Company "Sukhoi" with the subsequent formation of a single structure and a single design bureau based on "Sukhoi". According to the presented schedule, the absorption of MiG RSK by Sukhim should be realized during the 2017-2018 years.
  25. Arkady Kharitonov
    Arkady Kharitonov 27 June 2017 17: 12
    0
    Americans made a light aircraft with one engine and this gave real savings. Light aircraft had mostly shock functions. MIG and SU practically did not differ much in price and there was no sense in having 2 different aircraft. MIG just appeared a little earlier and production was already launched