Military Review

MiG-29 and Su-27: the history of service and competition. Part of 2

117



New Times

Since 1991, the process of degradation of the armed forces of the USSR, and then of Russia, began. All subsequent processes had a negative impact on all types of aircraft of the Air Force, Air Defense and the Navy, but it was the MiG-29 that received the most painful blows. Of course, with the exception of those types that were simply completely destroyed before the service life expired (Su-17М, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27).

Of the 4th generation fighters in the Soviet aviation MiG-29 was the most massive. However, after the division of the army between the Union republics in the Russian Air Force, the number of 29s actually equaled the number of Su-27s. A large number of MiGs, and quite fresh ones, remained in the Union republics. For example, almost all aircraft of this type of 1990 were sold to Belarus and Ukraine, because literally on the eve of the collapse of the Union they saturated the shelves in Starokonstantinov and Osovtsy. Aircraft from the "group of forces" mostly ended up in Russia - and these were not the newest aircraft from 1985-1988. Also in the Russian Federation there were also aircraft of the very first releases, received in 1982-1983 at the 4th Center for Combat Use.

The situation with the Su-27 turned out to be better mainly due to the fact that mass production of this type began later than the MiG-29, and the entire 27's fleet was generally newer. In addition, the bulk of the Su-27 stationed in the territory of the RSFSR and the loss on the "division" of the Soviet inheritance between the former fraternal republics did not undermine their numbers so much. Of particular interest is the following figure: the average age of the aircraft inherited by Russia for the 1995 year was 9,5 years for MiG-29 and 7 years for Su-27.

The initial balance of the system of two fighters was broken. Suddenly, the fleet of mass light fighter became almost less in size than the heavy fighter fleet. The very meaning of dividing into two types in this situation became rather absurd. Looking ahead, we can say that in the future the decline of the 29-x fleet occurred faster than the 27-x. Thus, in 2009, the United Air Force and Air Defense of the Russian Federation included 265 MiG-29 of old types, 326 Su-27 and 24 of newly built MiG-29СМТ (presumably intended for Algeria, which was abandoned in 2008 year). Naturally, in this number, far from all the aircraft were in a flying state, but the total number on the balance also suggests that the “heavy” fighter became more massive than the “light” one.

As mentioned above, several other qualities were sacrificed to the mass in the Soviet fighters. In particular, the assigned resource, which for the MiG-29 was installed in 2500 hours or 20 years. More is simply not required. The redundant resource was not needed by the front-line fighter, which at the beginning of a full-scale war will die without flying off, perhaps the 100 hours. On the other hand, the speed with which the military equipment was improved during the Cold War, required regular updates. The aircraft was aging over 20 years. In 1960, the MiG-21 seemed to be a guest from the future, and in 1980 against the background of the MiG-29 - quite the contrary, a guest from the past. Consequently, it is not profitable to make an airplane with a 40-50 resource for years - it will just need to be written off, without spending a reserve on 50%. However, in the 90-e years, the situation has changed dramatically. The rapid change of generations of technology slowed down, and the savings required the maximum support for existing machines in the ranks. In these circumstances, the key opportunity to extend the life of the aircraft was the extension of the resource. However, in the case of the MiG-29, such work was not actually carried out. In reality, the aircraft, withdrawn to Russia, gradually stopped flying, getting up for a long time funny. Under the open sky, without any conservation. All this led to the fact that already in 2010-e years, the design of a set of machines became useless.

The Su-27 initially had a resource approximately the same as that of the MiG-29 - 2000 watches and 20 years of service. The devastating consequences of the collapse of the USSR affected it, but air defense planes flew all the same a little more often. As for the MiG-31, it was saved by an initially robust design, designed for flying at high speeds and an abundance of titanium and steel alloys in the structure. Therefore, the park 29-x has undergone the most landslide cuts. When aviation again began to fly in the 2010, it was the 29 that appeared to be in the worst condition.


Su-30MKI Indian Air Force


The entire period of destruction and degradation in the 90-e and 00-e years, almost no equipment was purchased. KB had to survive as they could. And in these conditions, luck just smiled at the Sukhoi Design Bureau. One of the main customers of the Su-27 and the new Su-30 are China and India. The People's Republic of China has acquired a license for the assembly of the Su-27, and the total sales abroad have amounted to at least 200 Su-27 and 450 Su-30. The number of MiG-29 sold during the same period was much lower. There are various reasons for this. First, the largest customers experienced an acute need for an aircraft with the size and characteristics of the Su-27 / 30. This is primarily India and China. They had enough light fighters of their development in abundance. And the machine of the MiG-29 class was simply not needed (China) or was purchased in limited quantities (India). On the other hand, Russian exporters had obvious delight from sales of Dryers, and they began to pay less attention to the advancement of the MiG, realizing that once the demand for Dryers began, it was necessary to unwind it as much as possible. In terms of trade, it is quite logical and correct.

To the Sukhoi firm, foreign orders allowed us to keep production in tune (KnAAPO and Irkut), and to work on serious improvements in the Su-27. Anyway, this fact has to be considered. It was Sukhoi that received hard currency from abroad, and this became a serious trump card.

Combining Air Force and Air Defense

The next step in the destruction of the "peaceful" coexistence of the two fighters began scrapping the Soviet concept of the distribution of tasks between the Air Force and Air Defense. In 1998, the air defense forces are reorganized and merged with the Air Force. Frontal aviation, in fact, is also ceasing to exist - now we are talking about a single, universal form of the armed forces. The Soviet system with individual air defense forces was caused by the extraordinary importance of the task of protection of its territory, which is constantly violated reconnaissance aircraft of the NATO countries. There was a danger plaque massive strike aircraft with the nuclear weapons on key objects of the country.

But at the same time such an organization was extremely costly. All structures were parallelized - management, pilot training, supply, administrative apparatus. And this is despite the fact that there were no principal obstacles for the inclusion of air force front-line fighters in the air defense. Technical issues (the difference between communication frequencies, radar frequencies, guidance and control algorithms) were surmountable. The only consideration that can be taken as essential is the impossibility of the fighters of one regiment to simultaneously provide the country's air defense system and follow the moving front of the ground forces. In Soviet times it was important. Frontal aviation was supposed to support the ground forces, without any distraction. At the same time, the simultaneous commencement of hostilities by land armies and a massive raid on cities in the USSR was considered the norm. That is, the Air Defense and Air Forces had to act simultaneously in different places - in such a situation the distribution of duties was inevitable.

With the collapse of the USSR and the reduction of funding, it became impossible to maintain two structures - the air defense and the air force. The merger was a matter of time, and in a certain sense justified. Nowhere in the world, even in countries with a large area, are not allocated separately air defense forces. Minimizing costs leads to the creation of universal fighters. Currently, in fact, the tasks of air defense are relevant only in peacetime and in a period of threat. With the beginning of a full-scale conflict with NATO, Russia is unlikely to immediately begin an active offensive against the West, rather it is about the defense of its territory, i.e. about the classic air defense task, it will be easy to hide behind not only command and control centers, but also your troops. Aviation has become too expensive a resource to solve such highly specialized tasks. In addition, the invasion of masses of bombers is not expected - the payload in the form of cruise missiles occurs at frontiers unattainable for the air defense missile systems and fighters of the defending side. With a high probability after the reflection of the first massive raid, the country's air defense task will become not very relevant - either the nuclear end of the world will come, or the confrontation will shift to the plane of land army combat operations, without repeated massive raids on the cities of the country. The enemy will simply not have enough cruise missiles for several massive strikes, and the use of time-delayed use will not allow Russia in the short term to inflict decisive damage under conditions of surprise. Finally, the country's defended facilities cover not only fighters, but also air defense missile systems, which are not planned to be moved to the front-line lane with the outbreak of hostilities.

In addition, serious changes occurred in the nature of the front-line aviation. In particular, not every conflict today is accompanied by the existence of a well-defined front line, and aviation has to operate in a difficult situation, eliminating the steady presence of the rear and its air control system. Of course, the wars with the classical front also did not disappear anywhere - but there is an expansion of the tasks and their complication for aviation, which was considered frontline in the USSR.

In the united structure, called “Air Force and Air Defense”, and then “VKS”, the two fighters became crowded. MiG-29, although it was an excellent front-line fighter, was less well-adapted for air defense missions. It can be argued that the MiG-23, similar in TTX, solved the air defense tasks quite successfully. This is true, but the MiG-23 did it in the conditions of unlimited funding of the Soviet period. Then it was possible to afford to have a fleet of "heavy" fighter-interceptors (MiG-25, -31 and Su-15) and a fleet of light interceptors. Their dislocation depended on the spatial scope of the covered ones. In particular, there was no MiG-23 in the Urals and central Siberia at all. But in modern conditions, the maintenance of such a motley fleet has become impossible - something had to be sacrificed. And in the air defense forces at the time of unification in 1998, 23's almost did not remain (as well as Su-15 and MiG-25), but all Su-27 and MiG-31 remained. With the exception of the former Soviet republics.

When asked about reductions and savings, the military naturally wanted to give away something that has more modest combat capabilities — that is, light fighters. At first they went under the write-off of the MiG-21 and 23, and when they ran out, and the end and edge cuts were not visible, I had to start gradually giving back to the 29. In matters of procurement was the same, if we were given something to buy, then I wanted to get the most powerful weapons, i.e. Sukhoi aircraft. This is logical, because the Su-27 could solve problems inaccessible to the MiG-29. Initially, the “dual” assignment for Su-27 for Air Force FA and Air Defense Force became a significant advantage.

In addition, the universalization of tactical aviation around the world has also taken the form of shock missions throughout the world. The American F-16 and F-15 have learned how to work effectively on ground targets. Disadvantages of avionics are compensated for overhead sighting containers. Specialization is maintained only in highly specific areas, such as “attack”, where such aircraft as the A-10 are still in service. In Russia, work has also begun in this direction, both at MiG and at Sukhoi. However, here Drying looked preferable. The fact is that the suspension of the entire 29-x bombs caliber 4 kg became the limit of the combat shock load of the MiG-500. While the Su-27 could take twice as much. MiG-35 can take 6 FAB-500, but Su-30 - already 10, and Su-34 to 16 FAB-500. At the same time, our Air Forces failed to completely abandon the specialized bomber aircraft - the Su-34 went into the series, while nowhere in the world did anyone build such planes.

Due to foreign orders, Sukhoi aircraft were constantly ready for operation and production. They implemented measures to extend the resource to 3000 watches from Su-30 and to 6000 watches from Su-35. All of this could have been done for MiG-29, but the MiG company did not have such wide opportunities in view of much more modest financing - there were an order of magnitude less foreign orders. And there was no interest from the domestic customer. Not the last role was played by the image of the company Sukhoi, beautifully showing their cars at exhibitions. Well, the administrative resource - Sukhoi dragged himself and the entire meager flow of public funds. The latter is very annoying aviators of other companies, and there is some truth in this. However, in the new market conditions everyone is forced to survive as they can. Sukhoi did it successfully. It is always convenient to blame the state - they did not create conditions, did not support other manufacturers. This is of course all true, and there is a reason to criticize the state. But on the other hand, in conditions of limited means, the choice is very bad - either to give everyone a little bit, or to give one, but a lot. Both options have their pros and cons. In any case, a similar situation with the adoption of two combat helicopters (Ka-52 and Mi-28) for use at once does not look like the ideal solution.

As a result, the situation with the "main" fighter itself was oriented to its original position, when only one heavy fighter was considered when announcing the TFI competition in 70. The MiG-29 fleet died out faster than other Russian aircraft, and the replenishment began with a weak streamlet of Sukhoi-only machines.

Prospects

In 2007, the MiG introduced the “promising” MiG-35 fighter. The word “promising” is taken in quotation marks because the aircraft was based on the very same MiG-29, created at the end of 70's. If this is really our perspective, then, as stated in one funny movie, “your deeds are bad, comrade conscript.” And this is not at all a bias towards the aircraft of the MiG firm, because we are talking about the future, which actually is not, neither Su-35, nor Su-34, nor Su-30, nor MiG-35.


MiG-29М2 in Zhukovsky in August 2003 of the year



MiG-35 in Zhukovsky in August 2007 of the year



MiG-35 in Lukhovitsy in January 2017. Presentation of the newest fighter. Although comparing planes in appearance is not a thankful lesson - still, for interest, find the differences in these three photos.


The only promising fighter-bomber of our Air Force is the PAK-FA. The situation with modern supplies looks in this light rather absurd. Airplanes are being bought, the effectiveness of which against the background of foreign F-35, F-22 and domestic PAK-FA, to put it mildly, is controversial. The idea is shocking, especially for a patriotic public, but the essence is exactly that. To some extent, the current situation can be justified by the fact that you have to fly on something, you have to load industry with something. Until the last engineers, workers and pilots from the combat regiments ran away. All this had to be done at the end of 90's, but for obvious reasons we started only a couple of years ago.

Su-30 and Su-35 are good, but they were needed in the mass series 10 years ago. Nevertheless, the fact that in the interests of the Air Force they have been producing quite a lot for several years is still welcome. Let these planes be inferior in all characteristics to the promising PAK-FA - they have a key advantage - they are going to the combat units today, while the PAK-FA is still being tested. This also favorably distinguishes them against the background of highly experienced MiG vehicles.

Su-34 is produced in principle for the same reasons as Su-30 / 35 - you have to fly on something, because the Su-24 resource is not infinite, and they are slowly becoming a thing of the past. However, as mentioned above, today’s aviation is too expensive to have such highly specialized aircraft as the Su-34 bomber. Nowhere in the world, even in the rich, can the US afford it. Let fighters in the role of strike aircraft lose some of their effectiveness (all American fighters, while working on ground targets, are still less effective than the F-111 and F-117 written off earlier), but the savings are simply enormous. It would be much more logical to produce the same Su-34 instead of the 30 in an increased quantity. However, obviously, inertness of thinking impedes us in this matter. But the situation will become even less clear and logical when the serial PAC-FA appears. Shock missions due to powerful avionics, high speed and low visibility will solve many times more efficiently than the Su-34. What place and role will then be assigned to this bomber? Understand difficult. Unless PAK-FA will clear the corridor for him, mowing the air defense system in the enemy's air defense system. And then, in the resulting gaps, not covered by air defense, Su-34 will be introduced. Nevertheless, the Su-34 is again good because it has already been brought to mass production and more than a dozen cars are in service.

The MiG-31 survived in the 90 and 00, mainly due to its robust design, which survived a long downtime on earth without catastrophic consequences for power elements. However, the avionics of this aircraft, shaking the imagination in the 80-s, today does not look unique. The combat capabilities of the F-35, Rafale and EF-2000 smaller in size are no worse, and in a number of parameters even better than those of the 31. The speeds and heights of the MiG today are not claimed. And the cost of operation - just space. Obviously, the aircraft will last until the end of the resource and will not be replaced by anything “similar” in the new generation. The same PAK-FA solves all the tasks assigned to the MiG-31 more efficiently. A highly specialized high-altitude interceptor today is just as expensive as a bomber, and therefore an extinct species.

And what about the MiG-35? With him, as usual, the most difficult. He would have had every chance of playing the role of a light fighter of a transitional period, similarly to the Su-30 / 35, if in the 2007 year it was tested, brought to mass production and the question was only in its purchases. However, in the 2017 year there are only a few prototypes, the flight tests of which, although close to completion, are still not finished. The series is scheduled for 2018 year. And while this series is limited to symbolic 30-y machines. More like an attempt to prevent the “sick” from dying completely. There is a logical question - why? There is already a “transitional” aircraft in the form of Su-30 / 35, which has been supplied in significant quantities for several years. Starting production in the 2018 year, the MiG-35 will actually become the same age as the PAK-FA, in a situation where between them, despite all the “+” after the 4 digit in the generation designation, lies a gigantic abyss. And this is in conditions when our “potential friend” buys already the third hundred F-35 fighter jets. Sadly, the prospects for the MiG-35 is extremely small. It does not have a decisive advantage in terms of performance characteristics over Sukhoi’s machines, it is absolutely inferior to the PAK-FA and is still in the “experienced” stage, i.e. behind in terms of commissioning of the Su-30 / 35, and possibly even from the PAK-FA.

What kind of fighter does the air force need today?

The Russian air force needs, first of all, a heavy fighter-bomber with a long range and powerful air-borne equipment.

Heavy 90-e strongly reduced airfield network, which in the Soviet years did not cover the country completely. There is no hope for a full revival, and even in the case of the partial commissioning of closed airfields, the coverage will remain insufficient.

To control the vast expanses, you need an aircraft with a long flight time and the ability to quickly reach the intercept line. With regard to avionics, even in 80-s, the rule was derived that an increase in the mass of the equipment by 1 kg entails an increase in the weight of the glider by 9 kg. Since then, this ratio may have become less extreme, due to some decrease in the proportion of electronics, but the principle is unlikely to change dramatically. Have a powerful avionics can only be on a large plane. A heavy fighter will always win at the expense of a powerful avionics in long-range combat from a light fighter. In particular, the range of steady radar contact directly depends on the area of ​​the radar antenna, which is greater, the larger the aircraft on which it is located. In a duel duel, a group of heavy fighters has a chance to first detect the enemy and attack first, with all the ensuing consequences. The first losses, even before establishing visual contact, always inflict a heavy psychological blow on the enemy, reduce his strength before entering the melee, and thereby contribute to success.

A large supply of fuel on a heavy fighter can be converted not to a greater range, but to the possibility of longer for an enemy on a light fighter to retain the ability to maneuver during afterburner without fear of wasting fuel ahead of time. Or in the possibility of a long time to patrol in the area, waiting for the enemy or call for support of ground forces. The latter is especially important - the infantrymen will not have to wait until the attack aircraft or light fighter take off and reach them - the strike will follow many times faster.

With the universalization of tactical aviation, a heavy fighter effectively accomplishes percussion tasks, delivering a substantially larger mass of bombs to a target, or a load comparable to a light fighter, but at twice the long range. The pre-existing advantages of light fighters in a maneuverable melee are fully leveled by modern advances in wing mechanization, controlled thrust vectoring and aircraft control automation.

MiG-29 / 35, unfortunately, does not fit into the future needs of the Air Force. This does not mean that it is a bad plane - quite the opposite. The plane turned out great, and ideally corresponds to the technical task. He ideally suited the front-line aviation of the USSR Air Force. However, the problem is that there is no longer a front-line aviation of the USSR Air Force. Conditions have changed. Money for defense is no longer allocated "as much as necessary." Therefore, the choice will have to do.

In the US, too, have their wonderful aircraft - F-16, for example. But there no one betrays this fighter as promising. They are working on a brand new F-35. This work is not without difficulties. However, it is a difficult step, but a step into the future. What can be said about the MiG-35. Americans squeezed out of the design of the F-16 exactly as much as it was possible to squeeze, without harm and competition for the new generation. What are we doing? By the year 2020, when the Americans get their 400 F-35, we will only begin production of the aircraft, which was supposed to appear in the 90-e. Backlog in 30 years. The only argument in favor of the production of the MiG-35 is the desire to support the renowned MiG company, which you really don't want to lose.

***

A picky reader might think that the author has set a goal to throw mud at a wonderful plane - the MiG-29 and its descendants in the form of the MiG-35. Or offend the staff of the company MiG. Not at all. The situation is not the fault of the team, and the MiG aircraft are excellent. It was not their fault that the wonderful technical solutions and the beautiful aircraft fell out of the once-harmonious weapon system, and the upgrades were not implemented on time. The main question is to let it all be so, but is it not worthwhile today to concentrate on creating something new than to give out planes from the past (even if they are excellent planes), for the great achievement of the present and future.



Использованная литература:
P. Plunsky, V. Antonov, V. Zenkin, and others. “Su-27. Start stories, M., 2005.
S.Moroz “Front-line fighter MiG-29”, Exprint, M.
N. Yakubovich “MiG-29. Fighter of the Unknowns ”, Yauza, M., 2011.
Aviation and Cosmonautics magazine 2015-2016 A series of articles "There was such aircraft", S. Drozdov.
“Su-27SK aircraft. Flight manual.
“The combat use of the MiG-29. Methodological manual pilot "
“The technique of piloting and aircraft navigation aircraft MiG-29. Methodological manual pilot "
Airwar.ru
Russianplanes.net
Author:
Photos used:
http://russianplanes.net/
Articles from this series:
https://topwar.ru/107787-mig-29-i-su-27-istoriya-sluzhby-i-konkurencii-chast-1.html
117 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. then
    then 31 January 2017 06: 55
    +4
    MIG's problem is to find its niche. Can drones produce?
    1. Duisenbay Bankankulov
      Duisenbay Bankankulov 31 January 2017 07: 07
      +4
      In the event of war, drones can be turned off with the help of electronic warfare, then the first thing is airplanes and the rest ....
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 31 January 2017 09: 20
        +11
        I did not understand the author. Does he really want to replace all other planes? Who will bomb? If you look at Syria and others, where one side has a complete advantage, the planes only do that strike on the ground.
        I have such an opinion. More and more all kinds of electronics are appearing (up to devices for detecting enemy attacks). Then, take the Su-24, its range of weapons is huge. But for each type of ammunition you need to have your own sighting system. Therefore, at first there were several, which is naturally inconvenient. In short, if you make a station wagon, then there will be a lot of equipment for all occasions, but in the real task you will need only a part of it (the rest is just an extra load, which worsens the ability to solve the problem). So it turns out a dilemma with two opposite directions. To have a plane for all occasions, but at the same time naturally expensive. Or several specialized ones, some of which are much cheaper to operate. The author suggests having one, universal type. But it seems to me that it does not think about operation and costs. I personally have a different opinion. The Pentagon did not abandon the two types. Yes, they have a huge advantage, which the Russian Federation eliminates with its air defense, which is ahead of the United States. In Russia, there are a lot of different radars for monitoring, up to over-the-horizon radars around the country’s perimeter. And having such design bureaus (Sukhoi and Mikoyan) - why refuse competition that leads to progress? It is true that the Russian Federation supports KB Mil and Kamov. And it’s right that Mikoyanovtsy got their hands on it - the MiG will at least save on operating costs. hi
        The author also does not understand some aspects of the development of the aircraft industry. For example, that obsolete MiG-31 gave the USSR progress in electronics (the first headlamp, for example), the processing of titanium and its alloys - now Airbus and Boeing are buying titanium products from us. And without him this would not have happened. That is, the development of other sectors of the economy. GDP sets the goal that the military-industrial complex should give progress in the development of industry.
        1. Alex_59
          31 January 2017 09: 30
          +5
          Quote: Kasym
          The Pentagon did not abandon the two types.

          Because they profiled the production of F-22, and it is necessary to replace the numerous F-16 with something new. So they did the F-35. But they refused from highly specialized fighter-interceptors and bombers. In the USA, all pure “bombers” have been written off - there are no more F-111, F-117, A-6, AV-8 are leaving. Only the very specific A-10 remained, but they too gradually left. All net "interceptors" gained shock capabilities.
          Quote: Kasym
          And it’s right that Mikoyanovtsy got their hands on it - the MiG will at least save on operating costs.

          MiG-29 in operation is cheaper than Su-27 not in 2 times. About 30% only. But at the same time, the MiG-29 in operation is more expensive than the F-16 by about 2 times. No saving.
          1. andj61
            andj61 31 January 2017 09: 56
            +7
            Quote: Alex_59
            MiG-29 in operation is cheaper than Su-27 not in 2 times. About 30% only. But at the same time, the MiG-29 in operation is more expensive than the F-16 by about 2 times. No saving.

            If so, then why are all sorts of different Bulgaria, Slovakia and Poland over and over again extending the life of the old, still Soviet MiG-29? what
            After all, now it’s quite easy to get from the NATO allies the F-16 bu - and not to steam - unless, of course, its operation and maintenance are cheaper!
            But for some reason they exploit and modernize MiGs ... request Do not find it strange? wink
            1. Alex_59
              31 January 2017 10: 11
              +2
              Quote: andj61
              If so, then why are all sorts of different Bulgaria, Slovakia and Poland over and over again extending the life of the old, still Soviet MiG-29?

              What about Germany? smile
              Honestly - I don't know, it's hard to say. The Poles are gradually moving to F-16. The Germans have long refused. About the Bulgarians with the Slovaks I will not say. It is possible to get used 16-e also need some lump sum costs, and Bulgaria, for example, a country not as rich as Poland, or even less so Germany. Operation, after all, does not require simultaneous investments - here the costs are stretched over time. Maybe they think it’s cheaper for them, since the planes are already available. But this is only an assumption.
              1. andj61
                andj61 31 January 2017 20: 10
                +1
                F-16s will be given away to NATO allies for free, you just need to re-open it and carry out maintenance, and this is small money. That's just maintenance and parts are for some reason more expensive than Migovskie. This, of course, taking into account the fact that the Poles carry out the maintenance themselves, but for the Bulgarians they still managed to do it, and besides, the 29th resource was extended. How it is possible to do this without even turning to the manufacturer - I can’t imagine! bully hi
            2. dzvero
              dzvero 31 January 2017 11: 06
              +1
              "At the chief of the chieftain dumb gold reserve" for new carts ...
              In addition, both Bulgaria and Slovakia, as well as Serbia, are small countries. We had a MiG-25; so they could not deploy at speed over the territory of the country. Heavy vehicles in this case are simply redundant. In principle, for small states, the combination of "light fighter + light attack aircraft" is the most optimal.
            3. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 31 January 2017 14: 34
              +2
              At the expense of the cost of an F-16 flight hour and a comparison with the MiG, this is still written with a pitchfork on water.
            4. sivuch
              sivuch 31 January 2017 17: 15
              0
              And what’s strange. The planes themselves can be obtained at $ 1 apiece, but changing the entire infrastructure will fly into billions (dollars, of course, not of local tugriks)
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 31 January 2017 18: 22
                0
                Well, then calculate how much the MiG-29 / 35 will cost or the F-16. Or do you think that the difference in kerosene consumption is so big?
                1. Alex_59
                  31 January 2017 20: 46
                  +3
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Well, then calculate how much the MiG-29 / 35 will cost or the F-16. Or do you think that the difference in kerosene consumption is so big?

                  There, the matter is far not in kerosene, but in the assigned resources of units and assemblies.

                  F-16 from 19 to 22 thousand dollars
                  MiG-29 from 30 to 35 thousand dollars
                  F-15 from 40 to 45 thousand dollars.
                  There is no data on drying.
                  From the very beginning, Americans made airplanes with more resources. Not because their hands are growing from the right place, but we do not. It was just that in the USSR there was such an approach - to make a resource without surplus, if only 20 would serve for years, then for remelting, because there will be something newer. And in war, the plane does not live long. The basis was the experience of the Second World War and the experience of the wild development of aviation in the 50-60 years. Look at the MiG-17, for example - why does it need a resource of 40 years and 10 thousand hours? He was released in the 1955 year, he was the newest fighter, and in the 1975 year he was no good. Therefore, they did not make such resources. As a result, the unit price of one hour is higher. In theory, all that is needed is to extend the resource and reduce the frequency of maintenance. But for the MiG-29 with their corrosion, this question is closed forever. As for the MiG-35, its flight hour should be cheaper than that of the MiG-29, but it has hardly dropped to the F-16 level, since at least the same engine repairs and their replacement must be immediately multiplied by 2. This multiplication "by 2" in the price of F-15 and Su-27 is simply lost, and for a light fighter it is already critical.
        2. avt
          avt 31 January 2017 09: 45
          +8
          Quote: Kasym
          I did not understand the author.

          Well, that’s just that. The author thinks in terms of the USSR multiplied by a meager budget compared to the times of the USSR. The whole series of articles is quite solid. But with the conclusions you can argue
          A picky reader might think that the author set out to pour mud on a wonderful plane - the MiG-29 and its descendants in the form of a MiG-35.
          A picky reader would probably suggest that the author turn a thought - an attempt to sell for export the 35th pound has come up with a potential question and I’m not afraid to tell the Indian customer - ,, Why don’t you put such an excellent aircraft into service? "
          However, as mentioned above, today aviation is too expensive to have such highly specialized aircraft as the Su-34 bomber. Nowhere in the world, even in the wealthy USA, can not afford this.
          Hands off the saint! bully Actually, the Yankees ,, Strike Eagle "appeared a long time ago. Yes, and in general there is no replacement for the F-15, as well as the Fu-35 are in a hurry to introduce and even threaten," Hornet "is so promising and new. Why am I doing this? Besides the fact that the author himself mentioned in the article - airplanes are needed here and now in sufficient quantities, moreover, they are quite affordable and mastered by personnel. And the T-50 is a chicken in the nest only, only an army party is approaching in the size of regimental. Well, when will it really be added to the case? After how many refinements and changes ??? Again, as rightly pointed out
          Quote: Zaurbek
          serial engine

          is there for him? Yok request so until the 20th. Of course the eye is building up, as in Soviet times, a massive rearmament. But.....
          1. Alex_59
            31 January 2017 10: 03
            +2
            Quote: avt
            serial engine
            is there for him?

            Not new. At one time, the Su-15 had no engine or radar. They launched the series “without a letter” as an aircraft of the first stage at the old technical base. Then, when they brought the avionics, went "typhoon". It would be a desire. You can start the T-50 of the first stage with the old engine. Then - according to the situation, there will be money to bring to the 2-th stage by modernization.
            Quote: avt
            airplanes are needed here and now in sufficient quantities

            Yes, but do not make a "totem woman" from this principle and do not hit your forehead in front of her, please. Because I already wrote somewhere that you can get to the MiG-21 - it is so old-good-reliable-debugged-mastered. The question is in balance. On the "now" - there is Su-30 / 35 / 34 in abundance. But they will compete with Fu-22 / Fu-35 will be oh how hard. After all, pilots, living people, life and death - I don’t feel like it ... Therefore, you can’t fly far away on just one “airplane is needed here and now”. Need a future. And what do they offer us for the future? PAK FA! Fine! And the MiG-35 ... I'm at a loss ... The last one here is what side? After all, in the United States, no one is setting forth the next modernization of the F-16 as a breakthrough in the field of aviation technology with the demand to immediately put it on the conveyor? Strange, huh?
            1. avt
              avt 31 January 2017 10: 27
              +6
              Quote: Alex_59
              But they will compete with the Fu-22 / Fu-35 oh how hard. Indeed, the pilots, living people, life and death - do not want to ...

              ,, Sophistry pastor " bully At the moment, who and how did they simulate their opposition, well, except for the journalists in the brochures?
              Quote: Alex_59
              And the MiG-35 ... I'm at a loss ... The last one here is what side?

              Quote: avt
              the attempt to sell for export the 35th hundred pounds came up with a potential question and I’m not afraid to say to the Indian customer -, “Why don’t you put such an excellent aircraft into service?”

              The Indian contract is such a thing - you can order a regiment for yourself, if only the carriers of knowledge about flying vimanas buy a hundred and deck ones .. bully Again, taking into account the secrecy of the work on the T-50, no one was shooting tasks for the current tasks here and now. I fully believe that the deadlines for the delivery of 50 troops moved to the right and decided to play it safe. Again, it’s not worth sprinkling ash on your head ... at least for the same advertising PR publicly on TV. bully So considering your own
              Quote: Alex_59
              depends on a situation,

              The launch of the 35th series is quite understandable and justified, and if the customer abroad also pulls up, it’s also profitable. Notice those are the mirror situation with the strategist, but more ... hypertrophied or something — they’re doing a new type, and in fact they are completing the backlog of the USSR with modernization and the prospect of building new ones. BEFORE the appearance of a sane new model.
              1. Alex_59
                31 January 2017 10: 33
                +2
                Quote: avt
                The Indian contract is such a thing - you can order a regiment for yourself.

                Well, only maybe this. Plus, support the design bureau, which looks very pale against the background of Sukhoi.
            2. g1v2
              g1v2 31 January 2017 14: 22
              +2
              As for the moment 29, in principle, I agree, but about the fact that you need to drop everything and rivet only T50 - no. The main force of the US Air Force is not in three hundred f355, but in two thousand f15 and f16 and their stockpiles in storage in the same Nevada. World War II showed that the massive and relatively inexpensive T34 defeated the tricked out and steeper tiger. In my opinion, the PM is the main task just now in bulk to buy su30 cm, which can close the functions of both su27 and mig29, and mig35. But the su35s t50 will clearly replace after adoption.
              About the rejection of the bombers. Syria clearly shows that the capabilities of aircraft against ground targets are limited, and if you abandon the machines ground for work on the ground, then in my opinion they will decrease even more. So, su34 has its own niche. And even after the adoption of the T50, most likely they will create a separate modification on its basis. precisely for work on the earth. Is unification necessary? Naturally. If you can build cars using the same glider, for example, this will make them cheaper. But any sound thought can always be brought to senility. That is the question of whether attack aircraft are needed, in my opinion it’s open. In principle, their functions can well be divided between bombers, attack drones and helicopters. Why with this nomenclature also attack aircraft is a question. By the way, they did not issue an order for the development of a promising attack aircraft, most likely the question of the existence of all types of vehicles in the future is open.
              Well, instant 31 is a separate topic. The order for the new generation air defense interceptor has already been received by migrants and some work is already underway, though they are not particularly advertised.
          2. Kasym
            Kasym 31 January 2017 10: 14
            +3
            The Russian military-industrial complex takes 2-3rd place in the world in sales and abandoning the nomenclature from an economic point of view is not profitable. Even Obama recognized the great military power in the Russian Federation. MiG went to India on an aircraft carrier, now a new tender has been announced. Baku and Astana, African countries show interest in MiG. Somewhere on the website or in the "Military Materials" they write that the stuffed MiG-35 has what is not on the Su-30 and 35. I do not remember exactly, but there is something with ground capabilities. Well, the warning system about an attack by the enemy. And then, the MiG-35 is worse than classmates? After all, in those Europe they don’t make heavy loads at all - giving them such a niche is too much !!! If he was inferior or in price was not acceptable - but this is not close. If you start this direction, then come back ... it will cost like that Rafal. And then, as you see, for Kyrgyzstan or Belarus to fork out for the PAK FA - you will push the CSTO member into the hands of the PRC !? I think that even we the Russian PAK FA will not take it very soon.
            It's not me, Alex, but specialists write that the savings are significant, both in fuel and in operation. Rogozin, for example, spoke. The WAF wrote ... Let 30% - but this is significant, you see, there is no material return for the country. And the F-16 in the HSC of the Russian Federation - as you see it - stupidity, agree !? I’m writing about Russia.
            Thanks for the article!

            Alex, in the US Army, for example, there is no analogue of Pinocchio. This does not mean that it is not necessary for the army.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 31 January 2017 11: 49
              +1
              Quote: Kasym
              Rogozin, for example, spoke.

              Rogozin said a lot of things. For example, that for the "Mistral" in Russia there are no suitable fuels and lubricants. laughing
              It looked especially amusing against the background of the Mistral refueling station that had come to St. Petersburg. And the same Finnish diesels, quietly working on the ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Navy.
            2. demiurg
              demiurg 31 January 2017 15: 02
              +1
              The MiG-35 is equal in weight to the Rafal that you mentioned, but at the same time, the Frenchman frankly surpasses the MiG in universality, it is built in a series, but the infection is more expensive. KB is trying to survive on ideas thirty years ago at the expense of taxpayers. I understand that if they took one engine from the SU-35, and on its basis would make a cheap plane. F-16 / F-15 is an example of this.

              Pinocchio is only suitable for firing at partisans, 5 km maximum range.
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 31 January 2017 15: 45
                +1
                And air defense systems of various ranges? In the USA, Patriots for all occasions.
                Rafal has only recently received an AFAR, Eurofighter is only in the second series and is behind Rafal (not without reason half of Germany’s fleet is). Rafal against the MiG-35 (with the alleged avionics) is no worse in universality. Well, if Rafal has the PGO, I’m afraid of speed when the load loses the MiG-35. I don’t see the advantages of Rafal and I don’t believe what the French say on the performance characteristics.
                For a single engine, you first need a good engine, like on the F-35 for example. And he naturally loses in reliability. Not for nothing that after the MiG-21, and then the MiG-23 switched to two engines for 4 generations. The MiG-31 D-30F6 engine gives a thrust of 9,5 tons, 15,5 tons on the afterburner - it could well replace 2 RD-33. But the designer went to 2 engines.
                To increase the number of aircraft in the Air Force, a single-engine course has an economic advantage. But even two were put on the Makhanki Yak-130.
                GDP talked about 700 units. military aviation - apparently on a quality calculation. hi
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 1 February 2017 08: 44
                0
                We take the engine, spent several billion green, we get years through the 10 car with a slightly better economy and just gorgeous portions of the flight, for example, on some Barents Sea, the motor will die and cuckoo in the boat in the cold. Bad dumb.
                1. seos
                  seos 15 August 2017 10: 24
                  0
                  Amers F-16 single-engine - non-combat losses during the operation of 600 pieces ....
                  Moreover, 2 engines are not much more expensive than 1 with equal total power
          3. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 31 January 2017 14: 39
            0
            So if he was brought to the Test, well, by the year 20 will be. AL-41, may not be enough for some parameters, it gives traction more than 1 and over maneuverability. How many T-20s will be produced before 22-50? pieces 30 ... Along the way, aerobatics will also work. If they start to do easy, then it will be just in time. In short, the conveyor needs to be built to produce an engine of the second stage ...
  2. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 January 2017 07: 42
    +6
    It comes to a light fighter, after the serial launch of the T-50. T-50 is not an export and not a mass product ... you need a serial light AFAR, a serial engine. So far, all this is not.
    1. dauria
      dauria 31 January 2017 15: 03
      +3
      It comes to a light fighter, after the serial launch of the T-50


      No, it won’t. It should, but not according to Senka’s hat. And the author’s article is very competent, serious approach.
      And the conclusion is simple - a country with a weak economy (compare with the United States and China) can not afford this. Weak - I mean everything, from energy, heavy engineering, metallurgy, chemistry, electronics and the population. We are at the level of Germany, it must be admitted. Even if you harbor all the people, from the age of 14, start dividing vocational schools or universities according to their abilities (moreover, a state university with the practice of “where to send”) without the right to crumble for permanent residence abroad - it is necessary to change everything, the whole system. And we won’t get the result right away. Unreal.
      Under F-35 harnessed and financially and at the level of production a bunch of countries, not the most backward. Even the United States, it was harnessed. I’m afraid that our destiny in the coming decades is to keep the minimum for “unacceptable” damage and tolerate squeezing from all markets. Figures of the economy (and therefore available funds) unfortunately solve everything. And the MiG-35 is no longer destined to become mass, it is old for this. Yes, and expensive.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 31 January 2017 15: 57
        +3
        The Russian military-industrial complex is an important source of income for Russia. And how to make the economy strong if you do not rely on what gives income? Su for many countries is redundant in range - for example, Ukraine, the largest country in Europe. The EU does not do heavy at all. There are 15 countries in the world that make sense to have a heavy load - give the rest of the market to the Chinese and Europeans with the Americans !? MiG-29 (35) - a high-tech “product” with high added value, which can give work to many subcontractors. If you refuse this, then how do you develop industry in general? Draw conclusions. hi
        1. dauria
          dauria 31 January 2017 17: 40
          +2
          If you refuse this, then how do you develop industry in general?


          Without the Iron Curtain, a closed financial system isolated from the dollar, regulation and state planning - nothing. Capitalism needs a market. And our internal is very small, but they persistently push us out from the outside (Iraq, Libya, and they wanted to ask from Syria). What about
          There are 15 countries in the world that make sense to have a heavy load - give the rest of the market to the Chinese and Europeans with the Americans!
          then the rest do not need light, but cheap. Cheaper than the mass F-16 is not. At least used, at least new. The states no longer need it, they will also go to the localization of factories in the same India. All the more so, to “be friends” against China against them (the USA and India) is at hand.
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 31 January 2017 17: 57
            +1
            A MiG-29K contract has recently been completed in India and they are announcing a tender to equip a new aircraft carrier - the MiG-29K has good chances. At the demonstration were not only atache, but also ambassadors of the zar. countries. In vain you are so - it may be better for selling Su.
            F-16 is cheaper? For 70 mil .- contract for Taiwan (66 units for 4,9 billion) 2009. The truth is suspended. MiG-35 in the region of 40 million. for a foreign customer. The contract for the first 30 cars 30bn. ruble - it is clear that the “empty” ones - 16 mln. for one in a dollar .. At the end of the year there was an article for this not yet signed contract.
            India has a MiG-29 with a rembase, Rafal signed, they are developing their own F-16s - wassat - a madhouse full, do not find! Well, well, the flag in their hands! hi
            The goods are faced in their Air Force and then we will see how sales will go.
            1. dauria
              dauria 31 January 2017 18: 58
              0
              F-16 is cheaper? For 70 mil .- contract for Taiwan (66 units for 4,9 billion) 2009. The truth is suspended. MiG-35 in the region of 40 million. for a foreign customer.


              Well, explain, due to what can be MiG cheaper in production? Or do we have a magic wand? How can 2 small-series engines be cheaper than a single mass engine? 70 million for the F-16, which means they agree to take it, the cost-effectiveness suits the buyer. And we, in search of a currency, give back with a minimum profit, as "Zhiguli" used to go to Europe. And the whole "secret."
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 31 January 2017 19: 16
                +3
                Dear, I do not set prices. We need your Su-30SM for 27mln. get - 1,45 billion rubles. Well, with their lobbyists, I am not surprised at their prices. You better explain how China can interrupt your prices !?
                And why do you think that price-quality will not suit the buyer of the MiG-35, which is superior judging by the declared F-16? The MiG is old, and the F-16 is new. Although you have not answered what the competitors are better at. The MiG-29 was capable, like an automatic machine: take-off and landing - they created it for this (i.e., there are as many sorties as the pilots take out). F-35, Grippen, Rafal, Eurofighter will not be pulled like that. hi
                So developed and rich countries are all in NATO and Co. - it is necessary to conduct sales more flexibly in order to grab the market of other countries. And if there were minimal profits, then Su did not develop like that, and the Kremlin did not invest in the line (30,33,34,35).
                1. Kasym
                  Kasym 31 January 2017 19: 36
                  +2
                  Another important aspect. In the next 20 years, there will be no new offers on the market in this class. The Europeans did not really bring their own, and judging by the pace of the creation of that Eurofighter, there is no need to wait for a new one. F-35 - a little expensive and not everyone can afford it. The Chinese can, but there is no reputation. Therefore, there is a prospect for MiG. hi
              2. tomket
                tomket 2 February 2017 00: 52
                0
                Quote: dauria
                How can an 2 small batch engine be cheaper than a single mass engine?

                And why did you decide that they are small-scale? China and Pakistan sit tight on RD-33.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 31 January 2017 18: 27
        0
        Yes, that’s true, but Germany doesn’t release aviation, but buys it and pays for the service. And Germany has fewer dangers. The MiG-35 will not be massive - it will fill holes and wait for at least one or two modernizations with the installation of AFAR and OVT. It should be replaced by a modern tactical fighter.
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 31 January 2017 19: 47
          +1
          Zaurbek, one of the main shareholders of Airbus is Germany, and it participates in Eurofighter (taking into account production at home).
          The new one will be in 20 years, taking into account how the MiG is financed. 15 years for development + 5 adjustment of production and refinement. Previously, such new cars do not work. They say for 170 cars + export (I think about 300 in total), taking into account plans of 700 units. military aviation (25%), then normal. hi
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 1 February 2017 07: 59
            +1
            Not quite so, Will be made from existing components that were developed for other projects. Therefore, the process is accelerating.
            1. Kasym
              Kasym 1 February 2017 23: 23
              +1
              Zaurbek, designing a new one begins with the TTZ from the military, taking into account the capabilities of the proposed, new engine. RD-33 (I don’t know what designation, the last one was MK) for the MiG-35 to complete, as we see, can not yet - that's all. There would be a ready-made new engine - one could assume a reduction in the terms of the project. There is not even a new one on the T-50, and rather, its innovations will move to a new one for the lung. Statistics show that a period of more than 15 years for the release of a new aircraft makes it unprofitable. F-22, F-35 are "overripe" and therefore many specialists have a question of the profitability of this project - as we see, many customers reduce the number of their orders for it - this can completely finish it off. The good news is that Lockheed can decide on a further reduction in equipment to move in price. They already did this when flights showed poor thrust-to-weight ratio (it still does not shine). This of course will reduce the capabilities of the F-35. hi
  3. Odysseus
    Odysseus 31 January 2017 07: 56
    +8
    An excellent continuation of a good article. I will note a couple of controversial points.
    About the Su-30 and Su-34. The start of Su-34 production was caused primarily by the fact that by the time the NAPO was ready for it, the Su-30 in the variant that suits our Air Force was not ready yet, and there is still no sighting container for it. Without it, even the Su-30SM is clearly inferior in working on the Su-34 land with the built-in Plane. The second reason is the acute shortage of attack aircraft due to the elimination of information security aircraft and the large age of the Su-24, Su-25, Tu-22 fleets.
    And even after the adoption of the PAK FA, the work for the Su-34 will remain. For the simplest reason, there are many goals, and there are few planes. The Su-24 and Tu-22 are not eternal, and the PAK FA unfortunately is unlikely to be purchased in such large quantities to make from his main attack plane. The Su-34 can also be used as a carrier of tactical nuclear weapons as a "Euro-strategic" aircraft using its decent range and load and jump airfields in Belarus or Crimea. Although, of course, the idea to make a decent aiming container and not to suffer with the diversity of the fleet smoothed out quite logical, but what talk about it now.
    Regarding the uselessness of the long-range interceptor, this is also a moot point. A high-speed interceptor aimed at working against the Kyrgyz Republic and over its territory does not really need a low ESR, so using PAK FA as such is like hammering in nails. Besides, I'm not sure we have enough resources to release such an amount of PAK FA which would be enough to cover all borders and use it also as an interceptor.
    As for the main thesis of the article, that the Mig-35, unfortunately, for reasons beyond the control of the designers could not be born in time, then this, of course, is completely true. And now it is really not clear what role it will play in the Air Force, given the current situation affairs.
    1. Alex_59
      31 January 2017 09: 21
      +5
      Quote: Odyssey
      Su-34 can also be used as a carrier of tactical nuclear weapons as a "Euro-strategic" aircraft using its decent range

      All this is certainly good, but what is his “decent” range? Compared to what? I did the navigational calculation for him, roughly of course, with many assumptions, because there is no exact data on the aircraft, and it turned out that it has a combat radius without refueling with a load of 8 FAB-500 at a high altitude of only 1500 km. This of course is approximately 1,5 times larger than that of the Su-24M. But the "Euro strategy" does not pull. The fact is that the external suspension of bombs greatly spoils the aerodynamics. You can certainly hang a bunch of PTB. But the PTB also has dead weight and spoils aerodynamics. Tu-22 this car does not replace. Only Su-24.
      Quote: Odyssey
      Regarding the uselessness of the long-range interceptor, also a moot point. A high-speed interceptor aimed at working against the Kyrgyz Republic and over its territory does not really need a low ESR,
      The MiG-31 was not aimed at fighting against the Kyrgyz Republic, but at intercepting aircraft like the SR-71. It was also suitable for intercepting the Kyrgyz Republic, however, like any 4 generation fighter. But for intercepting the Kyrgyz Republic, a glider withstanding flight at 3M speed is not needed, as is such a speed itself. No flight altitude in 25 km needed. The Su-30 will cope with the task of combating the Kyrgyz Republic. A small EPR is really not needed, a decent range, good speed, the radar is already even better than the Barrier, two people in a carriage, debugged in production, mastered in parts - cheap and cheerful.

      Quote: Odyssey
      PAK FA unfortunately is unlikely to be purchased in such large quantities to make it the main attack aircraft

      Well, then drain the water, come. PAK-FA needs to be done and done a lot. 800 pieces no less.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 31 January 2017 11: 19
        +5
        "PAK-FA needs to be done and done a lot. 800 pieces no less." ////

        I already wrote that, in my opinion, Russia alone will not pull
        such an amount (financial). It would be wise to join forces with India,
        which has a lot of 1) "live money" and 2) developments in the field of software and electronics.
        And to make an absolutely identical plane for the air force of two countries at once. Two assembly
        factory - in Russia and India, but with the same equipment, comp. documentation
        details to make the build quality indistinguishable.
        Then you can reach the number 800.
        1. Alex_59
          31 January 2017 12: 03
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I already wrote that, in my opinion, Russia alone will not pull
          such amount (financially)

          This is a matter of prioritization. It will pull, it’s not at the same time, it’s years after 10-15 production. In fact, expenditures at the national budget are cheap. Another question is that they should be taken away from someone in order to build as much PAK-FA. Question - from whom? From my point of view, we have many projects that can be easily and naturally covered by giving money to flyers. Of course there will be screaming, noise, tears, snot and even fights. Not without it. For example, the 2018 World Cup alone will cost Russia 10 billion dollars. At a PAK-FA price of 100 million dollars (or maybe less?), This is an excuse for 100 aircraft. Sorry, football lovers, I understand your indignation, you love football - I'm aviation. smile
          And you can come up with such examples.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 31 January 2017 12: 20
            +3
            "At a PAK-FA price of $ 100 million (or maybe less?), This is already forgive 100 planes." ////

            Here the financial calculations are not so simple. The PAK-FA plant does not appear to be a large modern plant. Production is limited to single.
            It is necessary to build a new plant, designed for large-scale production.
            (Compare with the F-35 plant with a production line longer than 1,5 km).
            So saving on football will not help. Need a big net investment.
            Hindus will soon realize that they remain with the 4th generation against the Chinese 5th.
            And they will be ready to "tower". And it’s better for Russia, if it, and not America.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 31 January 2017 12: 27
              0
              Many systems for the T-50 put into series will still serve in the modernization of the Su-30/35, and maybe the same MiG-35 .... Piece 400-500 they definitely need to be built ...
            2. Alex_59
              31 January 2017 14: 44
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The PAK-FA plant does not appear to be a large modern plant.

              You were there? Have you been to KnAAPO? And I thought you were in Israel. smile
              I disagree about the new plant from scratch. Rich Americans, it's their business to build a new plant or not. And with us, capacities are already underutilized.
            3. EvilLion
              EvilLion 31 January 2017 15: 43
              0
              The factory doesn’t care about your impression. From the word in general.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 31 January 2017 15: 42
            0
            Football lovers also pay for the championship, as well as sponsors of all kinds, for example, advertising during the break is not free
          3. seos
            seos 15 August 2017 10: 31
            0
            Cut salaries Top managers and disperse the servants of the people .. and then there is enough money for everything)
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 49
        0
        By the 2025 year in Russia there will be about 700 fighters, however, it is not clear, this is with the naval ones, which the Su-30СМ take and have not yet drowned all the decks, or in general. The figure is actually quite real, and not to say that it is so small, the neighbors also do not have great thousands, and we still have hundreds of air defense systems. 800 PACK FA will simply not fit in here, and it is clear that no one will replace 2020 for years after 25. If there is no quantitative growth, then 2030 will probably be vacated by the places occupied by the last Su-27СМ (3?) And MiG-31, because after the 2025, the process of decommissioning of modernized Soviet-built cars should begin. In sum, probably, 150-200 cars. Already through 5, Algerian MiG-29СМТs in the amount of 28 units may thunder there too, if they do not even destroy 32 units new at the moment, the Su-27СМ3 and Su-30М2, which will simply thump in training flights. So the 800 PAK FA is real, but the year is like that for the 2050, when the new cars are now gone for wear.
      3. Odysseus
        Odysseus 31 January 2017 17: 55
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        All this is certainly good, but what is his “decent” range? Compared to what?

        Compared with the Su-30SM with a comparable load. We are just considering the alternative you proposed is not to produce the Su-34, but to focus on the Su-30.
        Quote: Alex_59
        But the "Euro strategy" does not pull.

        Enough for Eastern Europe, especially the NATO infrastructure is being transported there more and more. For purposes in Western Europe there are CDs with nuclear warheads launched from Tu-160, Tu-95. Again, we will consider the Su-30 alternative as a carrier of TNW will be worse, and In the future, the Su-34 can also be used to suspend the KR with nuclear warheads.
        Quote: Alex_59
        Tu-22, this machine does not replace. Only Su-24.

        Exactly so. But unfortunately we will not master the new bomber to replace the Tu-22.
        Quote: Alex_59
        The MiG-31 was aimed not at fighting against the Kyrgyz Republic, but at intercepting aircraft like the SR-71.

        And on that and on another, and on the fight against the B-52 before the launch of the Tomahawks if they fly through the Arctic.
        In general, I agree with you about the unnecessary nature of the new interceptor, but I have often heard from very authoritative people a different opinion on this issue. I repeat, this is a moot point, you need to calculate everything, knowing the real capabilities and the real number of all our fighters. I don’t ready peremptorily say something here.
        Quote: Alex_59
        PAK-FA needs to be done and done a lot. Pieces 800 no less.

        Here we are one with you. This, in general, could be your favorite thesis, "and besides everything else, the T-50 needs to be built in large numbers" smile
        In my opinion, the Falcon needs to be reorganized and build the T-50 in both Komsomolsk and the Falcon.
        But I'm afraid the current economy and production will not pull even 500 aircraft.
      4. tomket
        tomket 2 February 2017 00: 57
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        But for intercepting the Kyrgyz Republic, a glider withstanding flight at 3M speed is not needed, as is such a speed itself. No flight altitude in 25 km needed. The Su-30 will cope with the task of combating the Kyrgyz Republic. A small EPR is really not needed, a decent range, good speed, the radar is already even better than the Barrier, two people in a carriage, debugged in production, mastered in parts - cheaply and cheerfully.

        And with the "Raptor", which sits on 20 thousand m Su-30 stretches? And will the Su-31 provide a quick exit to the interception area, as the MiG-30 does? But what about the increased kinematics for the rocket?
        1. Alex_59
          2 February 2017 07: 12
          +1
          Quote: tomket
          And with the "Raptor", which sits on 20 thousand m Su-30 stretches?

          It is.
          Quote: tomket
          And will the Su-31 provide a quick exit to the interception area, as the MiG-30 does?
          Against cruise missiles, a "quick exit" to the intercept line will both be done at approximately equal speeds. MiG-31 at medium and low altitudes does not fly much faster than the Su-30. And on 25 km to climb and accelerate to 2,5 M ... not that task. From this height, the detection range of small-sized Raman flying in 100 meters from the ground at the MiG will be calculated in ridiculous numbers.

          Quote: tomket
          But what about the increased kinematics for the rocket?

          Energy probably? Again, when working on the Kyrgyz Republic, pre-launch conditions will be close, because the speed of the MiG-31 near the ground is almost equal to the speed of the Su-30. At high altitude, the MiG will have an advantage. But goals at high altitude are not expected. And by the way, the duration of a flight at speeds greater than 2,5M in the MiG-31 is calculated in several minutes.
  4. AID.S
    AID.S 31 January 2017 08: 03
    +3
    We stretch the legs along the clothes, the main thing is that they could not just stretch them. And the article is good.
  5. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 31 January 2017 08: 51
    +3
    The main question - let it all be so, but is it worth it to concentrate on creating something new today than to give out airplanes from the past (albeit excellent airplanes), for the great achievement of the present and the future ........... ...... So everything seems to be done ??? And without advertising, the engine of progress, little will come about with sales. So you need to advertise.
  6. venik
    venik 31 January 2017 09: 52
    +5
    Alexey, thanks! Great article! But let me discuss with you about some points with which I disagree.
    =============
    “With regard to avionics, back in the 80s, a rule was deduced that an increase in the mass of equipment by 1 kg entails an increase in the weight of the glider by 9 kg. Since then, this ratio may have become less extreme due to a slight decrease in the specific gravity of electronics, but the principle has hardly changed dramatically. ”
    ---
    Let me disagree! Changed and moreover - CARDINALLY!

    ============================
    “In particular, the range of stable radar contact directly depends on the area of ​​the radar antenna, which is greater, the larger the plane on which it is located.”
    ---
    Not only! All other things being equal (that is, the carrier frequency, antenna type, number of emitters and their power, etc. - YES! Dimensions are decisive. BUT, this is only under other “EQUAL!” Conditions. Modern technologies ( Including AFAR, ROFAR) allow you to create very, very compact and lightweight radars, with parameters that are MUCH superior to stations of previous generations!
    ==============
    “A large supply of fuel in a heavy fighter can be converted not to a longer flight range, but to be able to maneuver on the afterburner longer than the enemy in a light fighter, without fear of running out of fuel ahead of time.”
    -----
    Also not a fact - it all depends on the perfection of the engine!

    ========
    “The pre-existing advantages of light fighters in maneuverable close combat are completely leveled by modern achievements in the field of wing mechanization, controlled thrust vector and aircraft control automation.”
    ----
    At one time, the Americans, in order to improve the “horizontal” maneuverability of the Phantom (including the turning radius), went to strengthen the wing mechanization. They then reduced the turning radius (almost to the Mig-a level), but the design went up in price and noticeably heavier, which negatively affected the maintenance, as well as the already "not brilliant" ones - rate of climb and accelerating х-хах.
    In addition, as you know, the heavier the machine, the stronger it is affected by inertia during sharp evolutions, which means that the strength of the airframe should be higher and the thrust-weight ratio should also be. And the wing load is less. And the solution to these problems, in turn, leads to weight gain! Here is such a "vicious circle." The eternal problem of aviation. Already today, the "heavy" fighters have become excessively HEAVY. The way out is the search for a “golden mean.” That is why the desire of many countries to acquire "light" aircraft.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2017 16: 05
      +1
      Dimensions are crucial. BUT, this is only under other “EQUAL!” Conditions. Modern technologies (including AFAR, ROFAR) allow you to create very, very compact and lightweight radars, with parameters that are MUCH superior to stations of previous generations!


      I can’t understand, are you really stubborn or something. No one compares different generations.

      Also not a fact - it all depends on the perfection of the engine!


      Again, I didn’t understand a damn thing about what kind of perfection the engine is, we do not compare cars of different generations and especially of different purposes. Cars with engines of the same technical level are compared.

      In addition, as you know, the heavier the machine, the stronger it is affected by inertia during sharp evolutions, which means that the strength of the airframe should be higher and the thrust-weight ratio should also be. And the wing load is less. And the solution to these problems, in turn, leads to weight gain! Here is such a "vicious circle." The eternal problem of aviation.


      The eternal problem of aviation is such “experts” who don’t even know that thrust-to-weight ratio and wing load are specific parameters. But about the "force of inertia", this is generally 2 in physics right away. F = ma. He built the aircraft 2 times heavier and delivered engines with thrust 2 times higher, increasing the wing area by 2 times and it will turn out a car with approximately (some disproportionality is inevitable) with the same maneuverable characteristics. BUT, for the 158-th time I repeat, the mass of the cockpit, guns and a huge amount of other equipment are the same for a large aircraft and a small one. If a small one had all of this, for example, 20% of the maximum take-off weight, then if you increase by 2 times, only 10% will remain, you can increase the fuel share, put heavier equipment, or raise flight data.
      1. venik
        venik 31 January 2017 17: 49
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        I can’t understand, are you really stubborn or something. No one compares different generations.

        ===
        Or I didn’t formulate the idea correctly ... Or you didn’t understand a damn thing ... That is what I had in mind! Not the "size" thing!
        =======
        Quote: EvilLion
        Well, about the "force of inertia", this is generally 2 in physics immediately. F = ma. He built the plane 2 times heavier and delivered engines with thrust 2 times higher, increasing the wing area 2 times and you get a car with approximately (some disproportionality is inevitable) with the same maneuverable characteristics.

        ====
        And calculate how much load falls on wing spars with an area of ​​20 sq. M and 30 sq. M, during a combat turn with a fixed overload! Calculate what should be the area of ​​the control surfaces (at least stabilizers) and what effort will be required to rotate them ...
        At the same time, calculate the thrust-weight ratio needed to achieve the SAME acceleration characteristics (with the same aerodynamic quality (simplified version!)) For aircraft weighing 18 and 25 tons !!
        Is that you who put me in physics 2? Then - you - "count" - "1"
        1. Alex_59
          31 January 2017 20: 15
          +1
          Quote: venik
          Not the "size" thing!

          In size too. Google the "basic radar equation." The level of the reflected signal depends on the effective area of ​​the receiving antenna. Effective area depends on antenna design. And if the design is the same (both AFAR), then, respectively, only on the size is the dependence. All else being equal.
          For clarity, you can still give such an example - light, it is also an EM wave, like a radar. Which room will be better illuminated - one with a window measuring 1x1 meters or one with a window measuring 2x2 meters? I think the answer is obvious. Radar - this is the window through which the fighter is looking. The larger the window, the clearer his gaze.
          1. venik
            venik 1 February 2017 10: 33
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            And if the design is the same (both AFAR), then, respectively, only on the size is the dependence. All else being equal.

            ====
            That's it, that with other EQUAL!
            Here is the problem:
            We have 2 AFARs, both with an area of ​​1 sq.m. The operating frequency is the same.
            - AFAR (A) contains 10 emitters (each with an area of ​​000 square cm and a power of 1 watt).
            - AFAR (B) contains 12 emitters (each 500 sq. Cm and a power of 0.8 watts).
            Which target will detect before, with an EPR of 1 sq.m.?
          2. venik
            venik 1 February 2017 10: 48
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            For clarity, you can still give such an example - light, it is also an EM wave, like a radar. Which room will be better lit - one with a 1x1 meter window or one with a 2x2 meter window? I think the answer is obvious.

            ===
            Obviously obvious! Of course -TA, a room whose window faces the SUNNY SIDE! A joke of course! It's just that in my house, room - 2 windows (to the south side), and in the kitchen 2 exactly the same - but to the north .. So in the kitchen there is always twilight, and you can’t work at the computer in the room in sunny weather, the windows can be closed have to!
            Well, if jokes aside - then all this is correct BUT! For the receiving path! And in the radars there is also a transmitter! And it’s just the main dependence on him! There, a little lower, I left a second comment for you with a small but obvious task, which in my opinion clarifies part of what I wanted to say!
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 February 2017 08: 49
          0
          Hamite, kid. Once again, go teach Newton’s second law, like the equation of existence of an aircraft.
          1. venik
            venik 1 February 2017 10: 11
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            Hamite, kid. Once again, go teach Newton’s second law, like the equation of existence of an aircraft.

            =====
            Firstly! I’m not a “guy” for you! They didn’t seem to drink at Brudershaft ....
            Secondly! I have a habit of communicating with people - the language that they speak to me - if I intellectually object, then I also respond intelligently. Well, if you already began to be rude, then you will get "the same coin" !!!
            Thirdly, if you have already bothered to learn Newton’s Second Law, then maybe you’ll master the “sopromat” somehow? Then we'll talk!
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 1 February 2017 13: 11
              0
              Once again, study the equation of existence of an aircraft.
              1. venik
                venik 4 February 2017 20: 33
                0
                Quote: EvilLion
                Once again, study the equation of existence of an aircraft.

                ====
                "The equation of EXISTENCE of aircraft" ?????
                You physics, accidentally not on the "Wikipedia" studied ????
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 31 January 2017 10: 27
    +6
    Su-17M, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27


    The MiG-21 EMNIP was produced only for export until the 1986 year, the latest production version of the MiG-21bis was in the 1971. Maybe the MiG-23MLD could have written it off for the 1993 year, if the USSR had survived in the 2000 year, then it would be pointless to talk about the MiG-21 even about a resource, it’s just not done for that, and 15- year-olds were hardly suitable for anything other than a landfill, or an expensive repair with the replacement of the entire avionics, which, if there were newer machines, would have looked strange. MiG-27 is cool and could fly, only the attack planes are still in storage.

    Such "valuable" machines as Tu-128, Su-15 were also written off, maybe some Tu-16 and MiG-17 models still remained.

    In the open air, without any conservation. All this led to the fact that already in the 2010-ies the design of many machines fell into disrepair


    Su-Xnumx stood in the same conditions. However, fatigue cracks are hardly the result of storage without a roof. An airplane spends most of its life outside it in order to dramatize, if it does not fly, it covers itself.

    However, already in the 90-ies the situation has changed dramatically. The rapid change of generations of equipment slowed down, and the economy required the maximum support of existing machines in the ranks.


    But the existing equipment was built precisely on the ideology of the Cold War with its pace of change and the quantity of weapons. However, this applies in general to all arms manufacturers, which, suddenly, were left without orders. F-22 did not reach any noticeable share in the Air Force (even without taking into account the fleet) in the USA.

    In addition, the invasion of the masses of bombers is not expected - the payload in the form of cruise missiles is discharged at lines that are unattainable for air defense systems and fighters of the defending side


    Just in this regard, the Americans are in full ass, they have nothing to drop missiles, although in the USSR the idea from the 60s blossomed and smelled, and the Tu-160 with the Tu-95MS are just capable of launching a missile from ranges exceeding the interceptor range, B- 1B can only do bombs.

    and the reductions of the end and the edge were not visible, I had to start gradually giving away 29


    Show me these abbreviations when they were. The write-off of the old rubbish in the 93 was one-time, the next write-offs were already in the 2000 for the fact of banal wear, and the increase in plaque contributed to this.

    because we are talking about the future, which actually does not exist, neither the Su-35, nor the Su-34, nor the Su-30, nor the MiG-35


    To begin with, Su-34 generally lives its own life here, and PAK FA, in principle, cannot claim its niche in the coming years 30. The first reason is quantitative and cost-effective, Su-34, even against the background of Su-35, is very cheap, but it feels better at low altitudes, which it already carries on itself for hitting ground targets, and drive the scarce ones (well, it will give KnAAZ a squadron a year, maybe one and a half) PAK FA for the bombing of any bearded people no one will. Suspended containers will be brought sooner or later, and just the MiG-35 will become the main candidate to throw KAB-500 with 5-6 km onto someone.
    Su-30MKI car is stupidly not new. He doesn’t give a damn for the future, he has sold hundreds of pieces, he will also fulfill the task of saturating his native Air Force in the form of Su-30СМ. There is no reason to talk about him.

    Su-35 will clearly be superseded by PAK FA. The last flanker fulfilled its tasks, both the replacement of the old Su-27, and the laying of the road to the heir with whom he has a lot of common equipment.

    In general, any production aircraft of the future no longer exists, it has already become a present for him, and a replacement is already being made to it.

    But the fact is that the notorious 5 generation, in fact, has not yet been born properly. Not in our country, in the whole world, 184 built by F-22 do not matter in the US Air Force, their share there is a percentage of 10-12. And hundreds of “superhornets” in the fleet, by the way, they appeared in the 90, F-22 then cheerfully went to the series and bend everything and everything. PACK FA, if 2020 is launched and 2030 pieces are riveted to 150, it will be good. This is despite the fact that the Indians still want an option for themselves. F-35, although they are building, but everything built has to be modified. However, this is not new, the MiG-21bis for the 1971th year against the background of the already existing MiG-23 would hardly be promising, and the T-55 were released even at the end of the 1970s, well, then, it’s 2 times cheaper than the T- 72 was. To expect the same F-22 to be several times more efficient than Su-35 (which, by the way, has a newer element base) is somehow strange. PAK FA is even newer, and IMHO is the world's first correct multi-purpose stealth fighter, but it makes no sense to wait for it to completely dominate existing machines.

    But for the MiG-35, a certain window of opportunity just appears. With the departure of the Su-35, and it is inevitable, it is necessary to release the lines for the PAK FA, unless, of course, they close the first Su-30, there is a very large price gap between the light and heavy machine. In principle, it still exists, the first batch of Su-35 was 1.4 billion rubles, for some reason, the second for 2, if the MiG-35 is 1cc, the difference is twofold. With PAK FA it can be even bigger. Yes, the engines are simpler, there are no radars in each slot for different ranges, but at the absolute price of a unit and the price of service, superiority. Well, as for the F-22 with the F-35, only the USA has the first trick (in 15 years it will be filled with museum dust), the second, so of all the planned machines, 75% will also remain in the USA, and the rest of the world will be mainly on machines of the same class and features, like F-16, or even scrap metal like Gripen and Tejas, if it is ever finished.

    There is no breakthrough, there will not be, although the presentation delivered, the damned Yankees with their “penguin” were given in this regard, and the niche will be, as the niche for light and medium tanks with wheeled cannon machines is now beginning to hatch, because the main tanks went somewhere then to the laurels of "yagdtigr", Leo-2A7 by weight seems to have already caught up with the ancestors on which das ded'y fought.

    Obviously, the aircraft will last until the end of its life and will not be replaced with anything “similar” in the new generation. The same PAK-FA solves all the tasks assigned to the MiG-31 more efficiently.


    In general, yes, but just in speed. The main breakthrough of the PAK FA is that it is possible to fly much faster with the same engine power, and hence the Su-35 further. Equipment is pushed onto any aircraft of suitable sizes.

    Preexisting Light Fighter Benefits in Maneuverable Melee


    He was not there before. A very large "Mustang" is still one of the best flight machines.
    1. Alex_59
      31 January 2017 10: 46
      +3
      EvilLion, sensible criticism, revered with interest, I generally agree with the comments.
      In any case, ours decided to make the MiG-35, although I consider this a controversial decision, but as an aviation enthusiast, I am still happy about this.

      And one note:
      Quote: EvilLion
      To begin with, Su-34 generally lives its own life here, and PAK FA, in principle, cannot claim its niche in the coming years 30.

      If we understand mass as a niche, then probably PAK-FA and Su-34 do not intersect, but the strike version for PAK-FA is being worked out, as evidenced by flights with external suspensions of X-31 missiles, and the appearance of advertising mock-ups of promising air-to-surface URs with rectangular section of the body. Exactly in the dimensions of the payload compartments PAK-FA. So the option of "stealth-cleaner" air defense is apparently being worked out.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 11
        0
        PAK FA - this is primarily a strike aircraft for breaking through powerful air defense. Speed ​​and a large compartment where you can stick large TSAs. The F-117 was the same, and he was generally cooler than they think of him, but he only knew how to use 2 Bombs in 905 kg. And it is in this role that it will first of all be added. Well, along the way, you can also sit on duty.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 January 2017 11: 30
      +1
      "The Su-34, even compared to the Su-35, is very cheap, but it feels better at low altitudes,
      what is needed for strikes against ground targets already carries "///

      It seemed to me that the Su-34 was recalled from Syria precisely because of the expensive service,
      long inter-flight downtime for maintenance.
      In addition, without possessing particularly powerful motors, he drags the weight of his own armor,
      and on bombs - payload - little remains. (Single-engine F-16 raises more
      bombs). Su-34 is inefficient. Su-35 can do exactly the same, possessing more
      and the power of a fighter and interceptor.
      1. Alex_59
        31 January 2017 11: 46
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Single-engine F-16 raises more
        bombs

        belay Shaw, right? I understand that it’s natural to praise one’s own. But let us know the shores.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Su-34 is ineffective.
        No, do you honestly think so? We are both adults already uncles, as if it was time to stop believing in miracles. Well, not really, these Russians are so stupid that they made this Su-34, did it, then bam is ineffective. Very reminiscent of similar statements from the opposite side about the F-35. Junk, and the Americans - well, tuupyyyyyeeeeeee. Gentlemen, well, it’s not so simple and black and white.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 January 2017 12: 35
          +1
          “I understand that it’s natural to praise one’s own native. But let’s know the shores” ///

          Well, no more - he went too far - but as much. recourse

          On Sy-34 in Syria loaded, as noted, 8 CAB (or FAB) -500 = approximately 4 tons
          On F-16 in Israel they loaded 4 2000-pounds = the same 4 tons.

          The inefficiency of the Su-34 due to the reservation concept, which with modern
          bombing from above, completely redundant.
          1. PeaceByForce
            PeaceByForce 31 January 2017 13: 35
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The inefficiency of the Su-34 due to the reservation concept, which, with modern bombing from above, is completely redundant.
            Yes, but only until the Turkish "partner" at six does not go.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 15
            0
            If Israel doesn’t feel sorry for the glider’s resource and it’s not far to fly, then at least 10 tons of cargo, we’ll have what it takes.
            And so an air defense system with a range of kilometers of 400 will willingly fill up any plane in the clear sky before it enters the drop zone of its racquets. And on the ground, "shilka".
          3. Alex_59
            31 January 2017 14: 53
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            On Sy-34 in Syria loaded, as noted, 8 CAB (or FAB) -500 = approximately 4 tons
            On F-16 in Israel they loaded 4 2000-pounds = the same 4 tons.

            And the range? Far F-16 with such pins will fly away? These clusters love to eat Cx. laughing
            MK.84 difficult to compare, we do not have bombs of this caliber. But MK.83 is almost a complete analogue of our 500. And how many F-16 take them? 7 pieces. And this is the tensile strength of the suspension nodes, as I understand it. Su-34 on multi-lock holders can raise up to 16 FAB-500, i.e. twice as much. And I assume that the range of the Su-34 with such a load will be 1,5 times greater than that of the F-16. Another thing is that clinging 16 FAB-500 is such a rush for ground personnel. But there are not many tasks under such a load. It’s easier to hang 8 bombs without multi-castle holders. And pour fuel not under the cork, but half.
            At the same time, mind you, I'm not screaming that the F-16 is ineffective. In its own way - a normal plane.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 January 2017 15: 20
              +1
              "And the range? Far F-16 with such pins will fly away?" ////

              We do it this way: pins are hung on the ground, and refueling in tanks and extra. tanks
              in the air. Then you can fly far, even to Iran, even to Iraq.
              The glider at the F-16 is surprisingly strong.
              1. Alex_59
                31 January 2017 15: 54
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                We do it this way: pins are hung on the ground, and refueling in tanks and extra. tanks
                in the air.

                Well you see the rich too. You hope to add the cost of F-16 to the cost of tankers, their maintenance, salaries of pilots and techies?
                Or a different approach (starting from the fact that happiness is not in money) - what if the Su-34 is also refueled in the air?
                Nothing much to argue about. Su-34 is simply larger, therefore it drags more pins to a greater distance. And this does not mean that the F-16 is a bad plane.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 31 January 2017 16: 09
                  0
                  For him, the refueling machine is free, it is useless to argue with him, there will be a need to betray virtue.

                  Su-34 seems to be able to pull up to 12 tons at low altitude at 1000 km.
          4. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 31 January 2017 18: 32
            0
            Another disadvantage of the Su-34 is its incompatibility with the latest versions of the AL-31 and AL-41. Modern AFAR or PFAR negate the advantage of the Su-24 and Su34 radars for finding targets, enveloping the rails and mapping the terrain.
          5. tomket
            tomket 2 February 2017 01: 08
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            On Sy-34 in Syria loaded, as noted, 8 CAB (or FAB) -500 = approximately 4 tons
            On F-16 in Israel they loaded 4 2000-pounds = the same 4 tons.

            It turns out that in Syria, the same number of bombs were loaded on Su-34, how many in Israel on f-16, and, a little earlier, you stated that f-16 takes MORE bombs)))) Here it’s absolutely true, you lost coast )))) In addition, the combat load is determined by the combat mission, and not the maximum combat load of the aircraft. So you are wrong.
          6. Ardein
            Ardein 6 February 2017 15: 09
            0
            In fact, on the Su-34 fastened exactly as much as was required to perform a specific task. The maximum bomb load of the Su-34 is 8000 kg. (official. How much is it actually - FIG knows and clearly depends heavily on the geography of the theater).
            It also carries armor for a reason - it has an armored capsule to protect the crew (and not tank armor throughout the fuselage), the remaining booking activities are probably similar to those made on the Su-25 and Su-27 - such as multiple duplication of control paths and TB protection. + powerful electronic warfare equipment.
            The same Su-25 for current tasks - the fight against enemy mobile groups - is much better than the Su-34.
            Expediency is precisely the essence of it.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 13
          0
          Examples of outright stupidity are full of all. For example, we have an IT-1 missile tank. British armored cruisers in the battle of Jutland generally flew to pieces.
      2. uskrabut
        uskrabut 31 January 2017 14: 31
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It seemed to me that the Su-34 was recalled from Syria precisely because of the expensive service,
        long inter-flight downtime for maintenance.

        They revealed some flaws, it was reported, and here they recalled to eliminate the jambs, the plane is new, it did not fight before
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 January 2017 13: 43
      +1
      "PAK FA, if they launch it in 2020 and get 2030 pieces riveted by 150, it will be fine.
      F-35, although they are building, but everything built has to be modified "////

      But the F-35 by 2030 will already have 1000 pieces (200 per year, starting from 2019), only with the Americans.
      Not counting Europeans, Japanese, Australians. "Modification" mainly refers to software
      and auxiliary systems. So the 5th generation still has to be considered valid.
      If you do not start production of the 6th before 20130 ...
    4. Odysseus
      Odysseus 31 January 2017 18: 15
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      Such "valuable" machines as Tu-128, Su-15 were also written off, maybe some Tu-16 and MiG-17 models still remained.

      Tu-128, Su-15, and according to Soviet plans were written off, MiG-17 I don’t remember if they were in combat regiments in the early 90s. But Tu-16 is a pity. It could be upgraded. Especially with attack planes we became quite tight.
      Quote: EvilLion
      The MiG-27 is cool and could fly, only the attack planes are still in storage.

      The MiG-27 and Su-17M4 would have surely survived until 2000-2005. Now they are not in storage. Only Su-24 and Tu-22 with a small resource are in storage. I would not say that there are a lot of them.
      Quote: EvilLion
      But for the MiG-35 just a certain window of opportunity appears. With the departure of the Su-35, and it is inevitable, it is necessary to release the lines for the PAK FA, unless, of course, they close the Su-30 first, there is a very large price gap between the light and heavy aircraft

      It all depends on what kind of Mig-35 will go into the army. If with a radar slotted, then it makes no sense at all. If with AFAR and other gadgets, then the question of cost arises. For example, I’m not sure that the Mig-35 with full forcemeat will be much cheaper than Su-30SM. A sighting container can be put on the Su-30.
    5. venik
      venik 31 January 2017 18: 23
      0
      EvilLion (Answer)
      "Su-34, even compared to the Su-35 is very cheap"
      ====
      Or maybe you will promptly tell the cost ??? And then somehow unfounded!

      ----------------------------------
      Quote: EvilLion
      A very large "Mustang" is still one of the best flight machines.

      ====
      Well, about the "aerobatic" I do not know ... I will not judge. But about the "maneuverable" - then there are some questions! For example, the radius and time of the turn, rate of climb (although everything seems to be okay with this), accelerating x-ki and there it’s "little things" ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 1 February 2017 08: 52
        0
        Cost 1 lard. Once again, go learn Newton’s second law and the equation of existence of an aircraft, maybe then it will come why the Su-27 flies better than the MiG-29, and the F-16 is better than the F-16 in everything except the angular roll speed.
    6. venik
      venik 4 February 2017 20: 58
      0
      [quote = EvilLion] [quote]
      Just in this regard, the Americans are in full ass, they have nothing to drop missiles, although in the USSR the idea from the 60s blossomed and smelled, and the Tu-160 with the Tu-95MS are just capable of launching a missile from ranges exceeding the interceptor range, B- 1B can only do bombs.
      ========
      Oops! Gotcha !!
      And the B-52? Also just bombs ???
      =====

      [quote] The first reason is quantitative and cost, Su-34, even compared to the Su-35 is very cheap [/ quote]
      ======
      And what is the cost of the Su-34 and Su-35 ??? For such a statement, numbers must be operated on! Can you tell me the prices?
      ======
      [quote = EvilLion] [quote] In general, yes, but just in speed. The main breakthrough of the PAK FA is that it is possible to fly much faster with the same engine power, and hence further the Su-35. [quote]
      ------
      This is from what "hangover"? What is the Su-35 aerodynamic quality worse ?? Nuka, come on! From this place please in more detail !!!
      ====
      PS Conclusion: it looks like another “cool” “sofa” expert “drew”!
  8. igorra
    igorra 31 January 2017 11: 16
    0
    Unified planes are cool. Just why our military decided to use the interaction scheme: Ka52 and Su25, probably our author was not read.
    1. Alex_59
      31 January 2017 12: 16
      +2
      Quote: igorra
      Just why our military decided to use the interaction scheme: Ka52 and Su25, probably they did not read our author.

      The military’s inventions to the inventions of the Kamov Design Bureau (in an attempt to save the car from a complete loss of interest on the part of the customer) are irrelevant.
      And then in the article it is clearly stated that of the highly specialized attack aircraft, only the class of attack aircraft has survived. Attack aircraft operate lower, closer. Their actions are mainly carried out in the interests of the ground forces at the company-battalion-regiment level. And in the role of percussion aircraft, MiG-29, Su-27, F-16, F-22, F-35 planes are already working mainly at the division-army level or even higher. Their goals are larger and more significant. Su-34, of course, can also chase individual tanks, but in general this is not their task.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 17
        0
        In fact, the Ka-52 has already bypassed the Mi-28 by orders. Well, nefig, but they thought that since the Mi-8 had done, then the kings. Mi-24 for a good car I do not think more PR and creepy appearance.
        1. venik
          venik 31 January 2017 18: 47
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          In fact, the Ka-52 has already bypassed the Mi-28 by orders. Well, nefig, but they thought that since the Mi-8 had done, then the kings. Mi-24 for a good car I do not think more PR and creepy appearance.

          ====
          But why? Of course, the view of the “Night Hunter” is creepy (it looks like an Apache ..), BUT, in principle, it seems like a very good machine! (Although I personally would give the "palm" still to Kashke! I really like it. But it is purely "personal").
          As for the adoption of two types of vehicles at once (which the Milyov’s “lobby” is accused of, and probably not without reason), I believe that two factors worked here (apart from the aforementioned “lobby”):
          1) - Inertia of thinking (supposedly coaxial - they are only for the fleet and are good, but we always had "traditional");
          2) - Retraining on the "coaxial scheme" - still there is a problem. And although (according to rumors) the pilots retrained on Kashki in awe of the "coaxial scheme", there are problems with the ground personnel. If the “Hunter”, whatever one may say, is a deep (well, very deep!) Modernization of the good old Crocodile, then the coaxial circuit, whatever one may say, has its own specific features in service. God forbid, I’m not saying that it is worse or much more complicated, just for the technicians, it’s a little more difficult to adapt to it!
      2. venik
        venik 4 February 2017 21: 39
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        And in the role of percussion, aircraft of the MiG-29, Su-27, F-16, F-22, F-35 class are already working mainly at the division-army level or even higher.

        ====
        Alexei! In general, it is customary to name “shock” aircraft that have been adapted (including) for delivering attacks on GROUND targets! In this sense, neither the Su-27, nor the MiG-29, nor the early modifications of the F-16, nor, especially the F-22, are “shock”! These are “clean” fighters, with very limited capabilities for hitting ground targets (limited to unguided weapons: free-falling bombs, NURSs). Of all the above, only the F-35 meets the definition of a "shock" machine. Well, the latest modifications to the F-16 (and of course the Su-30, 35, MiG-35).
        =====
        Quote: Alex_59
        The military’s inventions to the inventions of the Kamov Design Bureau (in an attempt to save the car from a complete loss of interest on the part of the customer) are irrelevant.

        ----
        Well, in vain you are so, about the Ka-52! Great car! As for the loss of interest - well, all the more so in vain! Of course, there are certain “fears” (or rather “wariness”) about the coaxial scheme. But inertia of thinking rather works here ... Actually, interest in the coaxial scheme in the world is GROWING! It's just that this circuit is terribly complicated from the point of aerodynamics, which is not up to all of the well-known manufacturers! The "trick" of the Kamovites is that they are probably the ONLY who managed to bring it to the "mind".
        Well, as for the "bundle" attack helicopter ... This seems like a good idea!
  9. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 January 2017 12: 22
    +2
    Found an interesting article:
    It will be interesting enough to compare the export prospects of the modernized Russian MiG-35 fighter (top photo) with the Chinese J-10C (bottom photo), a Chinese source writes today.

    According to the source, the Russian aircraft may enter the world market after 2020. However, at the presentation, the aircraft was demonstrated with old R-73 and R-77 air combat missiles, and the localization of their production in Russia is not without difficulty - damaged relations with Ukraine, the manufacturer of these missiles, require serious expenses.

    Presented MiG-35 does not yet have a radar with a PAR, like the J-10C. The Chinese fighter is already equipped with a new generation of air combat missiles, such as short-range PL-10 (not inferior to the American AIM-9X) and medium-range PL-15 (according to its capabilities it matches the American AIM-120D). Thus, in terms of armament in air combat, the J-10C is superior to the Russian competitor both in short and long range. According to the nomenclature of aviation high-precision air-to-ground weapons, China also surpasses Russia.

    The MiG-35 was created on the basis of the MiG-29M2, which at one time was created for the Malaysian Air Force, but was defeated in competition with the Su-30MKM, which has a significantly longer flight range. Then the MiG-35 was offered at an Indian tender, and here he lost to the French Rafal. Potential customers are not satisfied with the range and radius of this aircraft.

    However, the Chinese aircraft to successfully combat the MiG-35 on the foreign market has one, but a very significant drawback - it still depends on the supply of Russian AL-31FN engines. Unfortunately, until now it has not been possible to localize the production of this engine in China, which does not seriously count on the conquest of foreign markets, the source writes. Chinese counterpart FWS-10 has not yet reached maturity
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 18
      0
      And what R-77 were produced in Ukraine ??
      However, the opinion of the Chinese issuing the next J-10 patch for something at the F-22 level is of no interest to anyone.
      1. venik
        venik 31 January 2017 19: 10
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        And what R-77 were produced in Ukraine ??

        ====
        No it was not made! This Commentator simply confused the R-77 (RVV-AE) with the R-27! The latter, although developed in Russia, but the main producer was the Artem State Chemical and Chemical Combine (Kiev).
        About the same applies to the P-73. The developer is the Moscow NGO Lightning, but the homing head was developed and produced at the Kiev Arsenal (the INFORMATION is accurate!). True, Arsenal itself has been for many years, as in decline and it is not at all clear what the last 15 years could have been producing there!
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2017 14: 37
      0
      By the way, as part of the Chinese achievements, the Chinese radar with AFAR on their J-11 thrust as if in the 2015. But at the same time, they still bought Su-35, which has only PFAR. And so the Chinese are hurt, of course, the J-31 is cosplaying the F-35 only it has engines from the MiG-29, the total thrust is less than that of the “penguin”.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 31 January 2017 18: 17
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        But at the same time, they still bought the Su-35, which has only PFAR.

        They don’t have an engine like on a Su-35. But they have a lot of money. I would also buy a small batch of Su-35 in their place. smile
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 February 2017 09: 01
          0
          Getting acquainted for a few green lards, when you can just send a couple of flyers and a dozen techies by paying for fact-finding flights, is somehow strange. And this opportunity is clearly provided to any potential customer, not according to the technical specifications in Wiki, or on the aviation website, planes take it.

          The Chinese do not have an engine, but from the fact that they will take it apart, they will not have more technology. Some decisive superiority from the fact that the motor is somewhat more powerful will not be either.
    3. Odysseus
      Odysseus 31 January 2017 18: 19
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It will be interesting enough to compare the export prospects of the modernized Russian MiG-35 fighter (top photo) with the Chinese J-10C (bottom photo), a Chinese source writes today.

      The J-10C is not yet in the PLA. They only just launched the production of the J-10B. So far it is impossible to say anything about it.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 31 January 2017 18: 35
        0
        So we have a MiG-35 - 2 pieces, without native radars with AFAR. But for the J-10, there is theoretically an AL-41 with OVT ...
  10. PeaceByForce
    PeaceByForce 31 January 2017 13: 11
    +1
    to have such highly specialized aircraft as the Su-34 bomber. Nowhere in the world, even in the wealthy USA, can not afford this.
    But what about the F-15E?
    The USA also has its own wonderful aircraft - the F-16, for example. But no one there gives this fighter as promising. They are working on a brand new F-35.
    And burned on it. Z.ch. it’s necessary to remove it from museum copies, and judging by the unceasing bouts of F35, customers have big complaints. IMHO the main problem of the MIG is 2 engines. The Americans in the 70s created an excellent pair of 2-engine "long-range" f15 and "middle" f16, but 2 times cheaper. Since most countries do not plan to bring democracy to other continents (only to their immediate neighbors =)) f16 has become a bestseller. IMHO now a promising topic is not 4 +++++, but to take the engine 2 stages from the pack, make a stealth glider without excess fat, with supersonic sound without afterburner.
    1. PeaceByForce
      PeaceByForce 31 January 2017 13: 17
      0

      Apparently the work is underway.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2017 16: 19
      0
      The load will be something like the 4-6 R-77 / P-73 missiles in the internal compartments, if the KAB-500 with a pair of self-defense missiles breaks in, it’s already good. The supercruise is very cool when you take off, gain altitude and in optimal mode fly on this supercourse for an hour or two. If you have 5000 range, then everything is fine, but if 2000, and for the entire flight, including takeoff, climb, when, most likely, you will concede the same Su-35, a possible battle, when you lose speed on maneuvering and landing , then the total supercruiting time can be very small. You can’t hang the PTB plus, otherwise it’s not stealth anymore, and it’s harder to ship with them, that is, we still come to a huge refueling, with F-35 it exceeds 8 tons, almost like Su-27, which is one third larger.

      But the dough for the development of a lot of money.
  11. the same doctor
    the same doctor 31 January 2017 13: 53
    0
    Automation and robotization of weapons will lead to the fact that the weight of the on-board electronics will tend to zero, there will be no pilot at all, but at least lightweight to go astray, although a heavy aircraft will be with an equal probability. In this situation, it is better to have two light aircraft than one heavy. In addition, a light aircraft is easier to make to land vertically, and take off with the help of a catapult. In principle, the MIG-35 today you can already try to facilitate by removing the chassis and variable sweep, and begin to learn how to land vertically ...
  12. uskrabut
    uskrabut 31 January 2017 14: 19
    +2
    It seems to me that it was not for nothing that they started talking about purchasing the MiG-35 after acquiring the Syrian experience. Someone smart calculated the costs of operating heavy Su and made appropriate conclusions about the effectiveness of the use of light fighters of the Mig-29 type (35). The next question is the advantage in conducting close maneuverable combat. A light fighter, in my opinion, and according to physical laws, has less inertia when performing a maneuver, i.e. it slows down faster and accelerates faster, carries out a turn faster and with a smaller radius, has a higher rate of climb, and it’s just a smaller target in terms of dimensions.
    Who like, but I'm for MiG-35.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 January 2017 16: 21
      0
      And for setting two for inertia.
  13. lukewarm
    lukewarm 31 January 2017 15: 19
    0
    He himself is never an expert (3 courses of the aviation engineering school in the early 90s do not count), but he is interested. The article seemed controversial. The author, "clever" uncovered all, brought to clean water and impartially sentenced. F-22 and PAK FA steers, everything else - from the dump of history. Remember. The Su-34 was rendered only so that the workers did not run away, we do not need a bomber. So I think maybe Serdyukov wrote under a pseudonym? Meanwhile, the F-22 release was discontinued. They did a certain amount and that’s it. Expensive. For us, according to the author, it turns out that the Su-34 is expensive, and the PAK FA is just right. And besides F-22, F-15, 16, 18 also fly and modernize. By the way, they are falling well. From old age, they write. So it’s too early to talk about the MiG-35 and Su-35 about their lack of a future.
  14. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 31 January 2017 15: 20
    0
    1) "Aircraft are being purchased whose effectiveness against the background of foreign F-35s, F-22s and domestic PAK-FAs is, to say the least, controversial." yes ... until you remember how many F-16s were produced and how many F-22s ... And in Syria, the MiG-23 is still quite a successful machine ...
    2) "A heavy fighter will always win due to the powerful avionics in long-range combat against a light fighter" ... Americans in Vietnam with a heavy F-4 also thought so. And it turned out (against MiG-21) as always
    I am not against heavy fighters, and there is even logic in your words, but history teaches us again and again that there is no “universal” aircraft. was not during the 2nd world war. was not in Vietnam, no now. The fact that the Americans are trying to assign all the functions (fighter-strike-reconnaissance-patrol, etc.) to assign to the same F-15? maybe it works in Iraq or Syria (where there is no air defense). but the trend is different in the world, and the demand for low-cost front-line fighters remains constant
    1. Alex_59
      31 January 2017 16: 04
      +1
      Quote: ArikKhab
      but the trend is different in the world, and the demand for low-cost front-line fighters remains constant

      In the "world" - where is this? This “in the world” simply has no choice heavy / light. Half will not be sold hard, because it is not allowed, the second half - no money. Heavy fighters are made only by those who stand a notch and are trying to command this world. Look at the list of countries that are armed with F-15 or Su-27 options and everything will immediately become clear. There, of course, there are random characters like Uganda and Ethiopia, but this exception only confirms the general rule.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 January 2017 16: 23
        0
        Uganda sold the cheapest option. And yes, they kind of found oil there, immediately somehow the question of substantiating rights in such cases arises.
  15. m.cempbell
    m.cempbell 31 January 2017 17: 36
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    you can get to the MiG-21 - it is so old-good-reliable-debugged-mastered

    But I will ask the MiG-21 not to offend - a good car now. If you put modern avionics (following the example of TU-160 M2), then a normal 4th-generation fighter of this kind will work out - no worse than the same mirage.
    In general, I believe that the future of front-line aviation is drones such as those that China is now building from the same MiG-21s.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 1 February 2017 09: 03
      0
      If you put modern avionics, you get the F-16, but in general the aerodynamics in the 60's froze ...
  16. m.cempbell
    m.cempbell 31 January 2017 17: 40
    +1
    Quote: PeaceByForce
    f16 has become a bestseller. IMHO now a promising topic is not 4 +++++, but to take the engine 2 stages from the pack, make a stealth glider without excess fat, with supersonic sound without afterburner.

    I agree. But the 2-engine version was chosen at one time for reasons of survivability. The MiG-29 and F-16 have a completely different concept, and we have no experience in the construction of this type of aircraft (technically) ...
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 31 January 2017 18: 38
      0
      Two engines were also installed because they wanted a lot from the MiG, and Soviet electronics did not save on weight. And even with two engines at the very beginning, the thrust-to-weight ratio was not at the highest level. F-16, by the way, at the beginning did not carry medium-range missile defense ...
  17. Denis Lebedev
    Denis Lebedev 1 February 2017 15: 21
    +1
    MiG-35 as Tu-160 - transitional link. They will be ordered to restore skills from manufacturers and develop new technologies for next-generation aircraft. Our MiG-35s will be actively promoted for export, so an order for the production of these aircraft is also an “advertisement”
  18. tomket
    tomket 2 February 2017 01: 21
    0
    Overall disappointed with the second part. Expected analysis of the combat use of the MiG and Su, as well as training battles. But in practice moralizing, we don’t need it ... it’s not promising ... it’s generally a stone age .... Well, the conclusions about what we can afford and what not. Conclusions, by the way, from the notions that we will continue to remain the Chubaysk patrimony, where there is no money for defense, but there will always be a new yacht.
  19. Ardein
    Ardein 6 February 2017 15: 18
    0
    Actually, according to the results of communication on working with one of the former combatant pilots, I want to convey a few points that I am inclined to agree with.
    1. A specific aircraft (as an aviation complex within which the aircraft was developed) reaches its maximum capabilities only at the end of operation. And in this sense, the MiG-35 with the new avionics is very useful at the moment as a fairly well-developed MiG-29 concept.
    2. Aircraft are needed now.
    3. For export, development and the possibility of finalizing the machine for a specific customer, as well as production capacity, are necessary.
  20. vasilev
    vasilev April 20 2017 08: 40
    0
    Throughout the history of domestic fighter jets, there has been competition between Mikoyan and Sukhoi, even accusing each other of plagiarism. It may be easier to unite into one concern, as helicopter manufacturers have done in our country and jointly develop new models.
  21. Lozovik
    Lozovik 30 December 2018 21: 56
    0
    The fact is that the limit of combat impact load of the MiG-29 was the suspension of only 4 bombs with a caliber of 500 kg.

    This is not so, the suspension of eight FAB-500M62 on four MBD3-U2 is possible. Refueling in this case is only partial. Oh, two years late, I hope the author reads. winked