Military Review

Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for the deck. H. 2

203
In the last article, we considered the reasons why the Su-33 won the race for the deck, and in this we will try to answer the other question - which fighter would be the most effective and best suited to the objectives of our TAKR?


Let’s refresh our memory and recall the main characteristics of the Yak-141, MiG-29K, Su-33, as well as the most advanced deck aircraft of foreign powers - the American F / A-18E “Super-Hornet”, the French “Rafal-M”. And at the same time, the MiG-29KR, the aircraft that was delivered to the Russian Navy in the 21st century as the basis of the TAKR Admiral air group fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov. "


Note: red highlighted questionable numbers. So, 1280 km for the "Super Hornet" is most likely not a practical range, but one of the options for the combat radius, and the 250 m / s rate of climb of the Yak-141 is taken from an unreliable source. There are other comments, which will be discussed below. The data on aircraft performance characteristics differ from different sources, therefore, for uniformity, the author took as the basis the performance characteristics on airvar.ru

The first thing I would like to draw your attention to is that the author deliberately simplified the comparison criteria, no “limit on disposable normal overloads”, “established reversal limits” and other “angular velocities” in the table presented. Not because these indicators are not needed - quite the contrary, they are precisely what is needed if we are going to compare the capabilities of airplanes seriously. But most readers do not have the necessary terminology and theory, so I would have to write a series of articles on the combat maneuvering features of the aircraft, and this is far from interesting for everyone (and, frankly, it’s not a fact that the author could do it correctly). So we will limit ourselves to much simpler comparisons.

On the other hand, the reader who is interested in will not find a number of usual indicators in the table offered to your attention. For example - there is no combat load. Why? The fact is that a number of aircraft indicators are extremely specific, and should be assessed only in conjunction with other indicators. For example, take the mass of an empty aircraft and the maximum take-off mass. Obviously, the first is the mass of the aircraft itself, without fuel and outboard armament, without a pilot and without any equipment, and the second is the maximum with which the aircraft is able to detach from the surface of the earth without violating the flight safety rules. Accordingly, the difference between these two quantities is the payload (including all of the above), which this or that aircraft can “carry away”. In the table, it is designated as “Payload, kg (difference between empty mass and max. Take-off)”. At the same time, it is of no less interest and that payload that an aircraft with full internal tanks or with a full supply of fuel (including PTB) can lift - so that the reader does not have to calculate in mind, these figures are calculated in the table.

Or, for example, the combat radius. Everything is very bad with him, because this indicator depends on the mass of parameters. The fact is that the combat radius of a multi-purpose fighter that performs a high-altitude flight and that took a full tank of fuel and hung off the PTB, and from the combat load took two medium-to-air missiles and the same short-range missiles - this is one value. And the combat radius of the same aircraft, which took several tons of bombs and flying towards the target along the low-altitude profile, is a completely different value.

As an example, we take Rafale-M, for which the combat radius of 1 800 km and the combat load in 8 000 kg are usually indicated. Many, alas, inattentive readers simply rejoice over the French aviation industry and sincerely believe that Rafale-M is capable of dumping 8 tons of ammunition at an object remote from the airfield on 1 800 km. In fact, this is certainly not the case.



It is quite possible, of course, that the Rafale-M combat radius will indeed amount to 1 800 km - but this if the plane has fully filled internal fuel tanks (these are 4 500 kg of fuel) and all the PTBs that it can carry (this is also 7 500 kg of fuel). But in this case, the margin for all other payloads (including the mass of the pilot and equipment) will be only 500 kg. That is, in fact, “Rafale-M” will have a combat radius in 1 800 km with weapons from a pair of light air-to-air missiles, no more. Of course, here we do not take into account the possibility of refueling in the air, but this is not necessary, because we evaluate the qualities of a particular aircraft, and another aircraft (refueling) is also needed for refueling. So let's not multiply entities beyond what is necessary.

But back to the "Rafal-M". Can he "take on board" 8 tons of combat load? Without a doubt - but only if he abandons the PTB, limiting himself only to fuel, which is placed in his internal fuel tanks. And, of course, in this case, the combat radius will be much less than the 1 800 km indicated in the press.

The same applies to the Super Hornet. Its maximum take-off weight exceeds that of “Rafale-M” by approximately 33%, the fuel supply (with PTB of both and the other aircraft) is approximately 30%, and it can be assumed that with such initial data, the combat radius of the “Super Hornet” with a maximum combat load, it will probably be a little less than that of the Rafale-M. However, in the reference books we read a truly furious difference, because for “Super Hornet” 760 km is usually indicated - that is, the entire 42,2% of Rafale-M!

Let's try to look at it a little bit from a different angle. Suppose we have some combat mission - to deliver 8 tons of bombs to a stronghold of world terrorism (who said Washington ?!). In this case, Rafale-M will take 8 tons for external hangers and 4500 kg of fuel into the internal tanks, and its take-off weight will be maximum and will be 22 500 kg. In this case, Rafale-M cannot take any PTB, of course. But the Super Hornet takes 8 000 kg of bombs, a full tank of fuel (6 531 kg) and, in addition, masters another outboard tank (1 816 kg) - total take-off weight of the American aircraft will be 29 734 kg (which is 32% more than the same indicator "Rafale-M"). But at the same time, the mass of fuel in the internal tanks and the only PTB Super Hornet will be 8 347 kg of fuel (85,5% more than Rafale-M)! Does anyone still believe that the combat radius of the French aircraft with such initial data will be greater than that of the American? In other words, it is most likely that 1 800 km of combat radius for Rafale-M is with a maximum of PTB and a pair of light air-to-air missiles, and 760 km of Super Hornet for its shock configuration, with God knows how many tons of combat load. And we still do not know anything about the flight profile!



But even if we seem to know the combat radius in comparable categories (say, in the version of a fighter with a PTB) from different countries, it is far from a fact that they are comparable. The fact is that the combat radius implies (if briefly) flying to the greatest possible distance, performing a combat mission and returning home with a small emergency supply of fuel for unforeseen needs. The combat mission for the fighter will obviously be air combat and the destruction of the enemy. So, different countries can have different things here - and the emergency reserve rate, and an understanding of how long the air combat will last, how much of this time the aircraft will use the afterburner mode of the engines (which requires a large over-expenditure of fuel relative to the unflow mode) and so on. d. It is unlikely that anyone can guarantee all these data from countries whose planes we compare are the same - and without this, alas, the comparison of the “bare figures” of combat radii is unlikely to be correct.

On the other hand, there is such an indicator as practical range. It is measured in kilometers and shows how much a plane can fly (one way) being fully loaded (PTBs are negotiated separately), but without a combat load, taking into account the fuel consumption for takeoff and landing operations and a small emergency reserve of fuel. In fact, this indicator for airplanes of different countries is undesirable to compare “head-on,” but it still has fewer errors with it than when comparing combat radii. At the same time, for airplanes of the same generation (in our case, it is important, for example, the absence of internal armament compartments for all types of compared machines), it can be assumed that the combat radius at the same combat load will be correlated approximately in the same way as the practical range of the aircraft. In other words, if the practical range of “Rafale-M” and MiG-29KR is the same and equal to 2 000 km, then with equal weight (and aerodynamics) combat load, the combat radii of these aircraft will also not be the same, then they are very close, regardless of the fact that they write reference books. Once again, reference books do not lie, but the conditions for which the combat radii of aircraft are considered can vary greatly, which makes the figures for the final values ​​incomparable.

In view of the above, instead of a combat load, we will compare various payload options and practical flight range instead of combat radii. But, besides this, it would be nice to somehow evaluate the capabilities of the aircraft in combat (for the time being, not touching their avionics, but taking into account only the maneuverability characteristics). Alas, as we said earlier, it is extremely difficult to do this according to all the rules (for example, try to find the frontal resistance of an aircraft!) And we will go in the most simplified way, comparing the thrust-weight of the aircraft for their normal and maximum take-off masses, rate of climb and specific wing load. Although there are many important nuances here, still, an aircraft with large thrust-to-weight ratio and rate of climb and less wing loading (the word “specific” is usually omitted, although this is implied) is more maneuverable in dogfight. Those readers who believe that the melee air battle is dead - please, instead of “catch up,” read “when doing an anti-missile maneuver.”

And what do we see in the end?

Yak-141 or horizontal take-off and landing aircraft?

At first glance, it is obvious that the Yak-141 loses in almost all indicators MiG-29K.

Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for the deck. H. 2


The MiG payload is 23,5% higher than that of the VTOL aircraft, while it is 12% and 27% faster at ground and at height, respectively. The practical range at high altitude with a PTB in the MiG-29K (that is, in fact, in a fighter configuration) is higher than that of the Yak-141 by 42,8%! In fact, it is this figure that characterizes the difference in the combat radii of the Yak-141 and MiG-29K when solving air defense tasks and, as we see, it is very much against the Yak-141. In addition, the load on the Yak-141 wing is significantly greater than that of the MiG-29K, the thrust-to-weight ratio in the “normal take-off” weight is on the contrary lower, and also the climb rate is lower. True, the thrust-to-weight ratio, calculated for maximum take-off weight, is still lower in the MiG-29K, and this is undoubtedly a plus of the Yak-141, but the aircraft’s effectiveness in air combat should still be assessed from the standpoint of normal take-off weight, because before engaging in combat , the plane will spend some time in the air, spending fuel on the exit to the patrol area and the patrol itself. So the fuel reserves will not be complete (in the end, the PTB can always be reset), and if the enemy is in dangerous proximity and you need to urgently lift the car into the air, there is no point in overloading the PTB aircraft at all.

The Yak-141 has less operational overload, fewer suspensions for armament, less practical ceiling ... it seems that the lag for each indicator individually does not look fatal, but VTOL is lagging behind in almost all indicators, and then, of course, quantity is already turning into quality. And as the only advantage of the Yak-141 - the possibility of vertical landing (all aircraft parameters are given under the condition of short take-off 120 m). If we compare the capabilities of the Yak-141 with the load during a vertical take-off ... then a comparison with the MiG-29K makes no sense at all for not even the obvious, but overwhelming advantage of the latter. Also, the Yak-141 did not have any special advantages in terms of the specifics of the deck aircraft. The need to provide a short take-off required a spacious flight deck. Yes, for the Yak-141 there was no need to equip the ship with arresting gear, since during vertical landing they were simply not needed, but the plane required special seats equipped with a special heat-resistant coating (it is required for the aircraft carrier’s flight deck, but for it is much higher, and the site itself must be stronger - downward exhausts are not a joke).

But, if everything described above is true, how could the Yak-141 generally participate in the “battle for the deck” described in the previous article, because its lag is so obvious? This and many other questions about the Yak-141 caused such a lively discussion in the comments that, in the opinion of the author, they should be raised again.

As we said earlier, according to the Government Decree adopted in 1977, the Yakovlev Design Bureau was obliged to create a supersonic fighter-VTOL aircraft and submit it to the state tests at 1982 in Yakovlevtsy rolled up their sleeves and ... began to develop an aircraft with a single up-and-down engine . That is, in fact, the Yakovlevs undertook to create a “Harrier, only better” - a single-engine VTOL aircraft capable of achieving the speed of the 2 mach. But it soon became clear that such a project was faced with a large number of difficulties and gradually the designers again bowed to the combined power plant. In the spring of 1979 g, they submitted to the MAP commission a draft design of an aircraft with a single P-79B-300 engine, as well as materials on an VTOL with a combined power train. According to the results of the analysis, the commission instructed the Yakovlev OKB to create a draft design of a fighter-VTOL aircraft with a combined power plant. At the same time, work on exploring the capabilities of the VTOL aircraft for short take-off (WRC) take-off in the country was just beginning - suffice it to say that for the first time the WRC from the ship's deck was made only in December 1979.

In other words, at the time of the decision to equip the fifth TAKR with a springboard, we still, in fact, did not have a very good idea of ​​what the Yak-141 would be (a single engine, or a combined installation), we did not work out a WRC for a VTOL with a combined installation, but they could only theorize about how a VTOL aircraft would behave with this or that type of power plant at the start of a springboard. And at that time it was assumed that the use of the springboard will significantly enhance the capabilities of the Yak-141. Accordingly, in November 1980 of the commander-in-chief of the Air Force and Navy approved a refinement to the tactical and technical requirements of the Yak-141, and the task was to ensure a shortened take-off with the takeoff of 120-130 m, take-off from the springboard and landing with a short mileage. What is interesting is that in a number of publications it is indicated that a springboard with a lifting angle 8,5 hail was made on the famous NITKA, designed for a simplified energy-saving launch of Yak-141 vertical take-off aircraft. But then, when it became clear that the horizontal take-off and landing aircraft were fully capable of mastering the springboard start, the elevation angle of the springboard was increased to 14,3 hail.

Interestingly, even in 1982-1983 years. the possibility of using the springboard for the Yak-141 was considered quite actively - during these years, MAP and Air Force specialists conducted theoretical studies of increasing the capabilities of the Yak-141 both with WRC and using the springboard. Interestingly, in the comments to the previous article of the cycle, the author has repeatedly pointed out that the combined installation of the Yak-141 does not represent any benefits at the springboard start compared to the WRC (that is, a short take-off from the horizontal surface). The author could not find either confirmation or refutation of this thesis, but the fact is that at the time of the decision to equip the fifth TAKR with a springboard, this feature of the Yak-141, if it existed, was in any case not yet known.

However ... work on the bugs! We have to admit that the thesis previously put forward by the author:

"At least in 1988 g the choice in favor of Su, MiG or Yak has not yet been made"


incorrect in the part that by 1988, Yak had already dropped out of the "race", and only MiG and Su were "arguing" with each other. As far as one can judge, the Yak-141 finally lost the “battle for the deck” of the fifth TAKR (the future “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”) somewhere between 1982-1984: in the eighty-second from the springboard (with a slope of 8,5 degrees) for the first time MiG-29 launched, thereby confirming the possibility of a springboard launch for aviation horizontal take-off and landing, and in 1984 flights were carried out (from a springboard at an angle of 14,3 degrees) and the MiG-29 and Su-27. In addition, in 1984 the most powerful supporter of the VTOL aircraft, D.F. Ustinov.

In other words, our fifth TAKR was originally created as the carrier ship of the VTOL, which was to become the basis of its air group. Springboard was supposed to be used to increase the capabilities based on it VTOL. Knowledge of how useful (or useless) the springboard for the Yak-141 at the time of the decision (1979 g) we have not yet had. It is possible that when deciding on the "springboarding" of the fifth TAKR, the conceptual diagram of the power unit of the Yak-a (single engine or combined) was not even determined. But from the moment when the possibility of basing horizontal take-off planes on TAKR (1982-84) with much better LTX than the VTOL aircraft was confirmed, the Yak-141 went into the shadows and was in demand mainly only as a new aircraft for four previously built TAKR-ah: "Kiev", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk" and "Baku", as well as, perhaps, "Moscow" and "Leningrad".

So, the Yak-141 from the race of deck fighters for the newest TAKR dropped out.

MiG-29K or Su-33?



It must be said that in the USSR there was never a clear answer to this question. On the one hand, in the second half of 80-s, the MAP commission was inclined towards the MiG-29K, including because it was smaller and, all other things being equal, made it possible to form an air group from more machines than was possible for Su-27 . At the same time, if we look at the plans for the formation of the Ulyanovsk ATAKR air group (the seventh TAKR of the USSR with a nuclear power plant and catapults), then there were two versions of its acquisition: 24 Su-33 and 24 MiG-29K, or 36 Su- 27K. That is, Su-33 was present in the air group on an ongoing basis.

Consider the data in the table above. The first thing that catches your eye is that, despite the fact that the Su-33 is heavier, it takes not so much more space than the MiG-29K, as it may seem. With the wings folded and the Su-33 plumage fits into a square with an area of ​​156,8 m2, while the MiG-29K is in a square with an area of ​​135,5 m2, that is, the difference is only 15,7%. In addition, in the hangar, the planes are not square, but something like this:



Yes, and by mass ... Nevertheless, the mass of the empty Su-33 is only 26% more than the mass of the empty MiG-29K. Therefore, the thesis about the lower capacity of the Su-33 in comparison with the MiG-29K needs further study - it is clear that the same hangar of the MiG-29K should enter more than the Su-33, but ... 1.5-2 times? If such restrictions really exist, they are apparently related not only to the geometric dimensions of the aircraft.

The next very interesting indicator is the mass of fuel. Domestic fuel tanks Su-33 on 65% more spacious than the MiG-29K - 9 400 kg against 5 670 kg. As a result, a heavier aircraft has a significantly greater practical range - at high altitude the Su-33 is able to overcome 3 000 km, and the MiG-29K only 1 650 km, that is, almost two times less.

However, the MiG-29K can carry PTB, but the construction of the Su-33 is, unfortunately, not provided. At the same time, the practical range of the MiG-29K with the PTB is all the same 3 000 km as the Su-33. And this, in turn, means that the combat radius of the MiG-29K with the PTB in the version for solving air defense tasks (say, with two medium-range anti-submarine missiles) and the same number of short-range missiles will be quite comparable to the Su-33 combat radius with that same load. Of course, the Su-33 will be able to take a larger number of missiles, but then its combat radius will decrease. Of course, if it were possible to hang up the PTB on the Su-33, then its practical range and combat radius would have been much higher than the MiG-29K, but the Su-33 PTB does not carry.

Su-33 seems to have a preference for maneuverable combat fighter. He has less load on the wing, but at the same time his thrust-weight ratio is higher than that of the MiG-29K. As for the rate of climb, the author could not find the data for the Su-33, but for different modifications of the Su-27 it was 285-300 m / s, and for the MiG-29K it was 300 m / s. Of course, the Su-33 was heavier than the Su-27, but it had GIP, which added to it a climb, so we can assume that on this indicator between the MiG-29K and the Su-33 there was an approximate parity. The speed of these two fighters is equal both at the ground and at the height. But in general, the Su-33 should have had an advantage in aerial combat.



However, this does not mean that the MiG-29K was somehow defective among the carrier-based aircraft of the world. If we compare the same figures for the MiG-29K, Super Hornet and Rafale-M, we see that the brainchild of the MiG Design Bureau has a significant superiority over the American deck fighter in literally all respects, and the French Rafale-M wins the load on the wing, losing in speed and thrust-weight with almost equal climb rate (the advantage of the “Frenchman” is only 1,7%).

And here it is necessary to make one extremely important reservation. The fact is that when compiling the table, the author made two big assumptions in favor of foreign fighters. The first of these is this: all the jet engines of modern fighters have two indicators of power (and thrust) - the maximum power that the engine develops in the afterburner mode and the maximum power during afterburner. However, for the domestic engines of deck aircraft, a third special operation mode was introduced, which is necessary to ensure takeoff or go-around when an unsuccessful landing attempt occurs. So, for example, the Su-33 maximum engine without exhausting gear was 7 670 kgf., The maximum afterburner - 12 500 kgf, and the special mode - 12 800 kgf. In the MiG-29K engine, this difference was even greater - the maximum afterburning thrust of 8 800 kgf, and in a special mode - up to 9 400 kgf.

Without a doubt, a special regime was intended precisely for providing takeoff and landing operations. But couldn’t the Su-33 or MiG-29K pilot be able to use the “special” mode at the key moment of the battle? As far as the author is aware, there were no technical limitations on this. Nevertheless, in the table above, the author calculated the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft precisely from the maximum afterburner regime, and not from the “special” one. Even in this case, we see the superiority of domestic fighters over foreign fighters in this parameter, and taking into account the “special” mode, this advantage would be even higher.

The second assumption is that the author considered the specific load on the wing independently according to the formula “normal (maximum) take-off weight of the aircraft divided by the wing area”. This is correct for foreign fighters, but not for domestic fighters. One of the many features of the design of the Su-27 and MiG-29 (and all aircraft of their families) was that the lifting force in it was generated not only by the wing, but also by the fuselage. And this means that on the wing, in the calculation, it would be necessary to attribute not all, but only a part of the aircraft mass (or, in the calculation, to add to the wing area, add on the area of ​​the “carrying” fuselage). In other words, the load on the wing of domestic fighters is less than in the table - although the author cannot say how much less.

Thus, the MiG-29K as an air defense aircraft was, of course, inferior to Su-33 in terms of its flight data. But at the same time, he was quite at the level of the French “Rafale-M” and surpassed the main US carrier-based fighter, the Super Hornet. The smaller combat radius of the MiG-29K was completely offset by the ability to carry the PTB. Thus, the MiG-29K was fully capable of solving air defense tasks, although with somewhat lower efficiency than Su-33.

Here the truth may be asked - what are the American and French designers so “dark” and create deliberately uncompetitive aircraft? In fact, this is certainly not the case. You just need to remember that the MiG-29K and the Super Hornet and Rafale-M are not pure fighters, but fighter-bombers. And if we carefully look at the table, we will see that the American and French aircraft are significantly superior to the MiG as shock machines. That is, the MiG-29K is more like a fighter than a bomber, but the “Super Hornet” is more like a bomber than a fighter. The French and American planes are not that much worse, but the accents on them are set differently, and this gave our planes, created “with a slant in air defense,” an advantage in air combat.

But back to our aircraft. The fact is that all our conclusions about the Su-33's advantage over the MiG-29K were made only on the basis of their flight data, but not onboard equipment, but here the MiG-29K had a noticeable advantage. On the one hand, the size and dimensions of the MiG-29K, of course, imposed great restrictions on the capabilities of the equipment installed on it. So, for example, on the Su-33 was placed the radar Н001К - the ship version Н001, which was installed on the ground-based Su-27. This radar was able to detect a fighter-type target with 3 m2 EPR at 100 km to the front, and 40 km - rear hemispheres, while the azimuth viewing sector was 60 degrees. The first MiG-29 radar of the first series could detect a similar target at a distance of 70 km, having a sector of review in azimuth 70 degree, i.e. slightly larger than the Su-27 radar. However, the MiG-29K was created on the basis of the MiG-29М, that is, upgraded, and it had to install a new radar H010, in which the detection range of the fighter in PPP was 80 km. This is still less than that provided by H001K, but the viewing sector in azimuth H010 was increased to 90 degrees, that is, the pilot of the MiG-29К could scan a much larger sector of space.

Thus, the onboard radioelectronic equipment of the MiG-29K was more perfect, and, although by some parameters it was still not as good as the Su-33 avionavigation system, it was “recouped” in other, perhaps, not so noticeable, but important areas. But there were extremely tangible benefits for the MiG-29K, such as the ability to use the latest at that time P-77 air-to-air missiles, the export version of which was called RVV-AE.

As you know, the Americans used Sparrow as a medium-range missile for a long time, but its effectiveness caused many complaints. As a result, the “gloomy American genius” created an extremely successful AMRAAM rocket, far superior to its predecessor. An analogue of the Sparrow in the USSR was the family of the P-27 missiles, which, alas, with the advent of AMRAAM turned out to be obsolete. In response, the designers of the USSR created the P-77 and there is no doubt that at the time of its appearance it was completely comparable with AMRAAM in terms of its combat capabilities. So, the MiG-29K sighting system was able to use the P-77, while the Su-33 was not, and had to be content with the old P-27. Of course, the ability to use the latest air combat ammunition significantly reduced the gap in the combat qualities of the Su-33 and MiG-29K.

It is well known that the MiG-29K, unlike the Su-33, was a “universal soldier” and could use a rather wide range of air-to-air weapons, while the capabilities of the Su-33 were limited to free-fall bombs and NUR. But there is some suspicion that the ability of the MiG-29K radar to see potential targets well against the underlying surface made it possible for the MiG-29K to detect and control targets such as low-flying anti-ship missiles above the sea than the Su-33 radar could do. However, the last statement is only the guesses of the author.

As for deck specificity, everything is quite interesting here. For example, in “Su-33. Ship's epic "A.V. Fomin, who was reviewed not only by VP Sukhoi Design Bureau General Designer. Simonov, but also Colonel-General V.G. Deinek, the following is indicated - that the creators of the Su-33 took into account the specifics of the deck when reworking an airplane glider, while the creators of the MiG-29K were forced to devote all their attention to the latest equipment and engines of their aircraft, and left the glider almost the same as the land MiG-a. As a result, the Su-33, despite its size, had a lower landing speed and was, according to A.V. Fomin, more convenient for pilots when performing take-off and landing operations.

It’s hard for the author to judge how fair this is, but in any case, if the MiG-29K was worse, it wasn’t enough to make it unsuitable for basing on the TAKR.

Su-33 is often blamed for the inability to take off at maximum load from the TAKR deck. This is not entirely true. In total, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov has three take-off positions: the first, the second (with a run of 105 m, according to other data - 90 m) and the "long" third - 195 (180) m. According to calculations, from the third position Su -33 could start with a full supply of fuel and air-to-air missiles on all 12 suspensions (it was assumed that its mass would be 32 t) and with a maximum take-off weight (33 t), and from the first two - with a take-off weight of 25 to 28 tons. Recall that the normal take-off weight of the Su-33 is equal to 22,5 t.



At the same time, tests showed that at the speed of TAKR in 7 nodes and on waves in 4-5, Su-33 balls confidently start from 1 and 2 positions with full fuel and 4 air-to-air missiles, i.e. . with a take-off mass of about 30 t. At the same time, from the third position at 15 speed, the Su-33 nodes started with a full supply of fuel and 12 UR air-to-air, the take-off weight was 32 200 kg. On the other hand, it is necessary to understand that the takeoff from “short” positions with the weight of Su-33 around 30 tons was made by real aces, highly skilled test pilots: A.Yu. Semkin and world-famous VG Pugachev. No doubt, deck pilots are a real elite, but the author doesn’t know if they are allowed to take off with such a mass of Su-33 from 1 and 2 positions.

As for the MiG-29K, everything is quite simple here - airplanes of this type can take off with a maximum take-off weight from the 3 position and in normal take-off weight - from the 1 and 2. It is possible that the MiG-29K is capable of even more, but it seems that no such tests have been carried out, or the author does not know anything about them.

On the other hand, there were reports that the Su-33 was too heavy for our TAKR, and during the long-term operation the flight deck underwent deformation. It is very difficult to say how correct this information is. The author did not find official confirmation of this. Perhaps the flight deck of TAKR was indeed deformed, but was it the fault of the Su-33? Yet the ship is experiencing a lot of stress on the hull even with a little excitement, and the deformation of the deck could be the result of some errors in the design of the ship. With all due respect to the Soviet shipbuilding school, such a “monster” with the continuous flight deck of the USSR was built for the first time and errors are quite possible here. In any case, it is impossible to say that the Su-33 was too heavy for the deck plane - after all, the American F-14 "Tomcat" had an even greater mass, but was based on American aircraft carriers without any problems.

Summing up, we see the following. Other things being equal, the same aircraft-carrying ship can be based on more MiG-29K than Su-33. Of course, the Su-33 surpassed the MiG-29K in combat radius and as an air fighter, but this superiority was largely offset by the ability of the MiG-29K to use PTB, the newest air combat ammunition, as well as more modern (though not always more powerful) Avionics. At the same time, the MiG-29K was a multi-purpose aircraft, but the Su-33 was not.

Was it possible to correct those annoying shortcomings of the Su-33, which prevented him from gaining unqualified superiority over the MiG in terms of fulfilling the tasks of air defense, and at the same time letting weapon "Air-to-surface"? Without a doubt - you can. For example, the upgraded Su-27CM are able to use RVV-SD. In essence, no one interfered with the time to turn the Su-33 from the 4 generation into the 4 ++ generation, the Sukhoi Design Bureau was going to do just that: the deck aircraft of the 4 generation at the first stage and its improvement in the subsequent ones.

And if we were talking now about the air group of some promising aircraft carrier, then it would be more correct to build it on the Su-33 modification, or on their Su-33 and MiG-29K mixed air group. However, we are talking about a very specific situation at the beginning of the 90-s - the USSR collapsed, and it was quite clear that the “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” would remain our only aircraft carrier capable of receiving horizontal take-off and landing aircraft for a long time.

In the conditions of the coming collapse of the Navy and naval rocket launchers, the question of the universality of the Kuznetsov aircraft was extremely important. In the USSR, enemy AUS could attack regiments of a Tu-22М3, an APL detachment, surface missile cruisers, etc. With so many means of destruction, it was really correct to “sharpen” the TAKR air group in the air defense system in order to provide air cover for the shock forces. But literally a decade passed, and the USSR naval power remained only in the memory of those who were not indifferent. Under these conditions, the ability of the MiG-29K to strike at surface targets could qualitatively improve the capabilities of the Russian Northern Fleet. And besides - since the collapse of the USSR, we (fortunately!) Have not entered the world "hot" war (although the times of the "cold" war have already returned). Conflicts have taken a different, creeping form - Russia defends its interests, giving repulse to numerous “bootype” who are trying to turn an entire Arab conglomerate into a mad and cave “caliphate”. For use in local conflicts, for the "projection of force" is more useful than a multi-purpose aircraft carrier, whose air group is capable of destroying air, ground and surface targets, and not just air.

Thus, in the specific conditions of the 1991, the MiG-29K was preferable to the Su-33. But the fine-tuning of the aircraft was simply not enough money. And if there were money, could the Mikoyan OKB be able to bring to serial production the MiG-29K within a reasonable time?

Without a doubt - could. In fact, they demonstrated this by creating the MiG-29K for the Indian Navy.

Продолжение следует ...

PS The author of the article expresses special gratitude to Alexei "Taoist" for pointing out the mistakes made in the previous article.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for deck
203 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mvg
    mvg April 26 2018 05: 58
    +6
    Cool. good There are many guesses, but most are justified.
    There are things that I learned for the first time. That the Su-27K can not R-77. It would be interesting to know the composition of avionics from the J-15 and the nomenclature of its weapons, from a series of how to bring to mind the Su-33.
    And some optimistic readers still suggested putting the Su-47 on deck, with its 40 tons. negative
    1. Cat
      Cat April 26 2018 06: 24
      +4
      It remains only to join the comment above!
      Andrew, thank you very much !!!
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich April 26 2018 07: 08
        +6
        The article is very interesting of course, and yes ... choosing an aircraft for our large aircraft carrier groups is not an easy task ... can it not be confused? one “aircraft carrier” to equip the Yak-141 (will we have them?) Another MiGami, the third SU, and the fourth and fifth, can be under the SS 57 ... then we definitely have a lot of them ... yes
      2. Sergey985
        Sergey985 April 26 2018 07: 32
        +2
        Very interesting article, plus definitely!
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN April 26 2018 18: 47
          +1
          Quote: Sergey985
          Very interesting article, plus definitely!

          Plus mine is there ... Only somehow everything is in suspension., Because the main criterion for choosing an aircraft for the deck (in this particular case, and even everywhere) is its ability to fulfill its tasks (by the way in different regions and conditions they will be different, i.e. to determine at the beginning of what and where we want). And here, this particular criterion is less of concern to me, because in a specific combat mission, the payload is only the one that contributes to this task .. In other words, I am not much interested in a plane with a payload of 100 tons if it is unable to break through to the target due to insufficient maneuverability or I’m not able to withstand counteraction or an insufficient combat radius .. And at the same time, I prefer a plane with a smaller "payload" that will fulfill the task .. like this, everything is not clear ...
    2. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 07: 28
      0
      Su-47 is landing better than Su-33, but its max speed is less
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich April 26 2018 08: 22
        +2
        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
        Su-47 is landing better than Su-33, but its max speed is less

        that is, his "tank" mass does not bother you?
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 08: 54
          0
          weighs as much as the dryer that flies now
      2. mvg
        mvg April 26 2018 09: 16
        +3
        I did not find reliable data on landing speed. Just talking about the best take-off and landing performance. But we must take into account that he flew without a radar and most of the equipment, so that you can safely plus another 3-4 tons. Flying laboratory and all, without prospects from the word "completely"
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 09: 42
          0
          not found - do not write, weights are boldly given given everything.
          1. mvg
            mvg April 26 2018 10: 52
            +3
            I could be wrong, or Oleg Kaptsov went on the warpath hi
            90 km / h he has a landing, but I doubt it, again.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 14: 03
              0
              yes and if you then add 3-4 tons, he will not bite his nose at all from the word? bully
              ordinary Su-27 with only other plumage and wing, and all equipment in it is ordinary.
          2. URAL72
            URAL72 April 26 2018 14: 09
            +4
            The author's qualifications are unambiguously higher than those of the elite, as are the sources. But I recommend both of them to Rise, from my point of view the best aviation publication in Russia and the CIS. There, every two years, a list of CIS aircraft is published. Plus to the author for an interesting article and for his work, but eloston, let him first write what he writes, but we will comment. I look forward to continuing.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 14: 21
              0
              and yours what? also the distillation range from the usual a little 1,5 times do not distinguish at all? to build such a multi-colored table with "n / a", yes ... the sources probably match lol
              or somewhere they found a radar with an extra 3-4 tons in weight? laughing
              1. URAL72
                URAL72 April 26 2018 16: 54
                +1
                About my qualifications: A&K of the 90s. Kharchevsky in America. The article mentions the difficulties of using American fuel in our aircraft. The density coefficient is 0,78 for us and 0,73 for them. And that 1000 liters. we have 50 kg heavier ... 6000 l. - 300 kg ... Our engines are a little gluttonous, so much depends on the aerodynamic qualities. It's just that dividing liters by the mass of the plane is the way to nowhere ... For accurate data, the machines are tested for years, and the technical staff receives documentation, where the language of numbers indicates in what configuration how many are span. After all, aerodynamic drag with one five-ton is much less than with drains of 5 tons. So the load is load-discord ...
                1. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker April 26 2018 16: 59
                  +2
                  Quote: URAL72
                  The density coefficient is 0,78 with us and 0,73 with them.

                  When determining the weight of a fuel through its density, the concepts of either "specific gravity" or "specific gravity" are used.
                  The concept of "Density Coefficient" in nature does not exist.
                  The difference in specific gravity 0,05 (0,78 - 0,73) can be obtained by measuring the volume of fuel at different temperatures (as an example, at a negative temperature or in the summer) and. And so it turns out that Amerov kerosene is the most kerosene kerosene in the world.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 17: 21
                    +1
                    yeah, and about 3-4 tons, too, did not answer
                    Kharchevsky simply put a pig in American style and then smiled
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 27 2018 12: 03
      +2
      Quote: mvg
      And some optimistic readers still suggested that the Su-47 be put on deck, with its 40 tons.

      Nah ... what? In 2MB B-25 "Mitchell" was "used" by aircraft carriers ....
      1. mvg
        mvg April 27 2018 17: 35
        +2
        From aircraft carriers, heavy, and only 1 time ... And here in the article it is mentioned that the Su-33 is too heavy for him. At the same time, the B-25 did not land on the aircraft carrier, but only took off.
        I'm afraid that the 40 ton carcass will land immediately in the hangar .. without the participation of the elevator.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 18: 51
          +1
          The dry weight of the Su-33 and Su-47 is the same, even a little lighter, landing speed is less.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 28 2018 01: 46
          +3
          Quote: mvg
          B-25 did not land on an aircraft carrier, but only take off

          Which is true. This is true ... Your truth ... hi Moreover, to relieve the bombers, they removed the defensive weapons and armor (if my memory serves me ...). My example is, as it were, in confirmation of the phrase: "If you can’t, but really want to ... then you can." wink
        3. tomket
          tomket April 28 2018 01: 55
          0
          Quote: mvg
          I'm afraid that the 40 ton carcass will land immediately in the hangar .. without the participation of the elevator.

          Hercules planted, and then took off. there are tons under 50.
  2. ICT
    ICT April 26 2018 06: 25
    +2


    they didn’t even remember
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 07: 30
      +1
      and why?
      different ranges are again confused in the table (for Yak, practical, for most others, distillation ranges) lol
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 26 2018 09: 17
        +4
        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
        different ranges are again confused in the table (for Yak, practical, for most others, distillation ranges)

        Argue with ayrvar.ru. Respected resource and data taken mainly from there. I understand that you have more accurate data? :))) Open them to the world. With links to sources :))) And yes, at the same time be kind, tell everyone how the practical range differs from the distillation :)))
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 10: 12
          +1
          Distillation is when the maximum number of PTBs and usually no weapons at all, is this a link? lol
          Yak she 3000 not 2100
          Hornet 3300 and only because the PTB is more suspended
          on the contrary, the combat radius is 740+ for Hornet versus 900+ for Yak
          data from russian and english wikipedia articles on these aircraft
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 10: 29
            0
            simple ranges in different radii are recalculated according to well-known formulas
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 10: 50
              0
              Practical range of Hornet 2017km versus 2100km for Yak
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 26 2018 10: 51
            +4
            Quote: YELLOWSTONE
            Distillation is when the maximum number of PTBs and usually no weapons at all, is this a link?

            Bingo! And now, please provide a definition of practical range :))) What are you shy of?
            Quote: YELLOWSTONE
            Yak she 3000 not 2100

            A source?
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 11: 03
              0
              everything has already been written
              practical range, or just range - Range
              Ferry Range - Ferry Range
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 26 2018 11: 11
                +5
                Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                everything has already been written

                I asked you to define the distillation range and practical range. You gave the distillation, but with a practical hitch. Well then, I will do it for you.
                Practical range - the distance that an aircraft can fly for a given state of the atmosphere, taking into account fuel consumption for starting and testing engines, taxiing before takeoff, takeoff, pre-landing maneuver, landing, taxiing after landing, and also taking into account the air navigation fuel reserve determined for the corresponding type of aircraft. Airworthiness.
                In other words, the difference between practical range and distillation is. that distillation is the maximum practical, that is, the same practical with a fair wind.
                And one more thing - the term practical range can also be used for an aircraft carrying a payload (in addition to fuel), but in this case its weight is always negotiated separately.
                In general, practical and distillation ranges differ very little.
                And yes, I’ll wait for sources that would confirm that for all aircraft except the Yak, the distillation was taken, and for the Yak - practical? And then the practical range of the Yak - 3 000 km? Or do you and here have sudden memory lapses? :)))
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 12: 11
                  0
                  laughing that is, all the possible weapons suspension units are engaged under the PTB and then the distillation is obtained, which here differs (very slightly) by one and a half times.

                  According to the MiG-29, and new, in the table of the article indicated 3000look
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K
                  Ferry range With 3 drop tanks: 3,000 km

                  For old Yak, the table indicates 2100look
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
                  Tidy: 2,100 km
                  Ferry range: 3,000 km

                  For the MiG-29K, the Ferry Range is indicated in the table of the article; for the Yak, the simple range
                  Yes, even with 3 PTB and not with one.
                  where else had memory lapses? in the first article, the same with ranges was with the Yak and F-18 Hornet
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 26 2018 12: 31
                    +4
                    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                    about there are all possible nodes of the suspension of weapons engaged in PTB

                    No need to fantasize - the aircraft has a finite amount of PTB, which it can take - it is with it that the range is indicated, which is practical, that is distillation. And the mass of fuel in these PTBs is shown in the table
                    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                    According to the MiG-29, and the new one, the table of the article indicates 3000, we look
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

                    That is, not only do you focus on Wikipedia on domestic technology, but also on English-language Wikipedia :)))
                    It is very good that you said this :))))) Without a doubt, dear readers will draw conclusions about the value and depth of your statements lol
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 12: 42
                      0
                      3000 distillation for the old Yak can be seen in Russian yes
                      and 2000 non-racing for the new MiG
                      so that without fantasies - tailwind for them will be the same lol
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 26 2018 12: 58
                        +6
                        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                        3000 distillation for the old Yak can be seen in Russian

                        What are we talking about. I consider your sources insignificant, and I see no reason to bicker further. And the rest of the readers will draw their own conclusions.
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 13: 44
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      What are we talking about. I consider your sources insignificant, and I see no reason to bicker further. And the rest of the readers will draw their own conclusions.

                      we see a strange ignorance of the terms and exactly the same tricks with the substitution of ferry and conventional ranges in the comparison of the Yak with the Hornet in the comments under the first article, and now the MiG-29 with the Yak in this, despite the fact that under the first corrected
                      both times, of course, not in the interests of Yak yes
                      coincidence? don't think
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 26 2018 14: 07
                        +3
                        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                        strange ignorance of terms is visible

                        You did not confuse yourself with me? :))))
                    3. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 14: 27
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You did not confuse yourself with me? :))))

                      no, and I can "a little" from 1,5 times laughing
            2. ICT
              ICT April 26 2018 11: 59
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              A source?

              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 26 2018 12: 03
                +3
                Forgive me, but I can’t identify by the screen the name of the article or its author. In addition, I could not see the practical range of 3 000 km at Yak.
                1. ICT
                  ICT April 26 2018 12: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Sorry

                  forgive wink
                  Technique - Youth 1993-04, Page 34
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  and could not see the practical range of 3 000 km at Yak.

                  the 2100 figure is just painted, but so cunningly that the 3000 figure is quite achievable

                  but there wasn’t one plane, then it’s in vain to break the bayonets.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 12: 44
                    0
                    because it is distillation and not practical
                    in the first article, in the same way with different ranges for Hornet and Yak, he confused the ordinary and the distillation request
                    Wikipedia these 3000 without tricks in both Russian and English indicates
                  2. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 13: 00
                    0
                    Quote: TIT
                    the 2100 figure is just painted, but so cunningly that the 3000 figure is quite achievable

                    write this 1 ton where in “TM” it says about 2100 in fuel, and raise the height closer to 15500 and get these distillation 3000
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 13: 16
                      0
                      even if it doesn’t all go into fuel (there isn’t so much PTB), an aircraft without additional load will experience less resistance
                      and about the fact that 2100 is with PTB neither TM nor Wikipedia have written anything in both languages
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 26 2018 14: 09
                        +5
                        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                        and about the fact that 2100 is with PTB neither TM nor Wikipedia have written anything in both languages

                        And once again I remind my source - airwar. Which, generally speaking, is more serious than TM and Wiki
                        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
                        Practical range with PTB at an altitude of 10-12 km - 2 100 km
                2. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 14: 32
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                  And once again I remind my source - airwar. Which, generally speaking, is more serious than TM and Wiki
                  http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
                  Practical range with PTB at an altitude of 10-12 km - 2 100 km


                  it's vryatli that he is more serious laughing

                  Ferry range, km
                  with GDP at land 650
                  with GDP at an altitude of 10-12 km 1400
                  Practical range, km
                  off the ground xnumx
                  at an altitude of 10-12 km 1400
                  at an altitude of 10-12 km with a PTB 2100

                  ferry range cannot be less than any practical love
                  given from there by link laughing
                  1. ICT
                    ICT April 26 2018 16: 04
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    more serious and TM

                    tm 88-91 years for seriousness can argue with anyone,
                    below source with distinction distillation and practical
                    http://www.navy.su/aviation/airplanes-after1945/y
                    ak141 / index.htm

                    if not open then manually remove the space i.e. % 20
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 16: 35
                      +1
                      so that 1750kg of fuel gave only 300km?
                      better airirv table look as it should lol
                      there about "distillation" is also something
                      I had to see right away laughing
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 06: 42
                      0
                      Quote: TIT
                      but there wasn’t one plane

                      did the FAI set any other records for him?
                      on the airvar from where there are firewood about the distillation, only that author indicated it on the airvar for some reason for GDP and without PTB yes
                      1. ICT
                        ICT April 28 2018 15: 30
                        +1
                        do we now have a su-xnumx or not? (i think if there is no combat aircraft, then it wasn’t worth picking it up so meticulously)
                    3. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 16: 54
                      0
                      Yes, since it’s not called the T-50.
                      Quote: TIT
                      if there is no combat aircraft, then it wasn’t worth picking it up so meticulously

                      why so? he was ready for serial production, which until now can be said about the “combat” F-35 (all pre-production tests pass). there were more than 38 Yak-XNUMXM combatant pilots from which this Yak would quickly transfer.
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 26 2018 06: 57
    +10
    All I can say is good hi
    One of the few authors that is really interesting to read on this resource. yes
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich April 26 2018 08: 23
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      All I can say is good hi
      One of the few authors that is really interesting to read on this resource. yes

      severe Chelyabinsk men, and write harshly. yes
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 09: 01
        0
        just wrong
        it was supposed to have all three types of aircraft on TAKR (four with Su-25), each for its own purposes
        if you leave any one on TAKR, it’s definitely Su-33, in the west of Sushki they are not afraid of the MiG-29 for nothing, and yaks could be used like harriers from other vessels.
  4. tchoni
    tchoni April 26 2018 09: 26
    +1
    But, besides this, it would be nice to somehow evaluate the capabilities of aircraft in battle (not touching their avionics yet, but taking into account only maneuverable characteristics).
    You can not read further, for a comparison is similar to a description of the influence of an endless electromagnetic wave propagating in an ideal vacuum on infinitely faithful colleagues.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 09: 36
      +6
      Quote: tchoni
      Then you can not read

      And who makes? :)))
    2. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 11: 00
      +2
      The increase in rate of climb from PGO was also pleased, probably because the maximum speed increased.
  5. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 26 2018 09: 53
    +2
    The second assumption is that the author calculated the specific load on the wing independently according to the formula “normal (maximum) take-off mass of the aircraft divided by the wing area”. This is correct for foreign fighters, but not for domestic fighters.

    For foreigners, such an assessment is also not entirely accurate. All the same, vortex aerodynamics.
    On the other hand, there was information that the Su-33 was too heavy for our TAKR, and during long-term operation the flight deck underwent deformation. It is very difficult to say how correct this information is. The author did not find official confirmation of this. Perhaps the TAKR flight deck was really deformed, but was the Su-33 to blame? Nevertheless, the ship experiences a lot of loads on the hull, even with little excitement, and the deformation of the deck could be the result of some errors in the design of the ship.

    The landing weight limit is 22,5 tons for deck strength. That allows landing "Drying" with external suspensions only when the remaining fuel is less than the navigational reserve.
    Both parties are essentially to blame. Aircraft designers (including those due to the fault of their own allies) exceeded the agreed weight, and shipbuilders forgot that aircraft carriers were constantly heavy throughout their history, and did not lay down the safety margin of the deck.
    In fact, no one bothered to turn the Su-33 from a 4th generation aircraft into the 4 ++ generation over time, Sukhoi Design Bureau was just about to do this: a 4th generation decked aircraft at the first stage and its improvement at subsequent stages.

    And the Su-33M project was ruined by the same weight restrictions. The plane was still heavier, even the removal of an onboard gun from it was discussed.
    Thus, in the specific conditions of the 1991, the MiG-29K was preferable to the Su-33. But the fine-tuning of the aircraft was simply not enough money. And if there were money, could the Mikoyan OKB be able to bring to serial production the MiG-29K within a reasonable time?

    The factor of engine reliability is not taken into account. RD-33 was only acceptable for two thousandths. For example, in the Indian Navy for 7 years, 60% of the engines were changed due to defects.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 10: 52
      +3
      Quote: Snakebyte
      The factor of engine reliability is not taken into account. RD-33 only acceptable to the two thousandth.

      Su-33 adopted by the 1998 r
      Quote: Snakebyte
      For foreigners, such an assessment is also not entirely accurate. All the same, vortex aerodynamics.

      To a lesser extent than for ours
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 26 2018 11: 33
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Su-33 adopted by the 1998 r

        But the series began already in 1989, in the 88th there was already a ready-made flight prototype with a PGO with a folding wing.
        And the Indians mentioned problems with the engines after 2010. What came before this, no data.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 26 2018 11: 50
          +2
          Quote: Snakebyte
          But the series began already in the 1989, in the 88 there was already a ready-made flight prototype with a folding wing

          So the MiG prototypes were ready
          Quote: Snakebyte
          And the Indians mentioned problems with the engines after 2010 of the year.

          You must admit that 90 is not the best time for tuning engines. If there was money, they would be brought in, but there was no money, but from the Indians, in general, there was no golden rain either
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 26 2018 13: 07
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You must admit that 90 is not the best time for tuning engines. If there was money, they would be brought in, but there was no money, but from the Indians, in general, there was no golden rain either

            Perhaps, but not a fact.
            AL-31F was brought up for several years during the union, when there were no problems with financing.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 26 2018 14: 10
              0
              Quote: Snakebyte
              AL-31F was brought up for several years during the union, when there were no problems with financing.

              So it was time to fine-tune the MiG engines - from 1991.
      2. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 12: 25
        +1
        But why is the Su-33 landing with a navigational reserve if it has already found corbal? lol
        excess fuel is drained even before landing on the airfield
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte April 26 2018 13: 04
          +4
          These are the same ignoramuses, only with epaulets, with the same clever reasoning, and they killed two decks in Middle-earth.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 13: 36
            0
            such without shoulder straps do not fill him in airliners so that the airport does not have to be drained, and then hundreds of people are destroyed in them
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte April 26 2018 14: 47
              +2
              And ignoramuses are not aware that airliners calmly land with the required navigation margin of 15%, since there are no limitations on the strength of the deck for them? And the surplus fuel is discharged only in emergency cases.
              And if your colleagues in education do not fill up fuel for the sake of economy, they do not give a damn about the safety rules written in blood, then they have a direct road to the state house.
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 14: 58
                0
                they don’t know that airliners have their own strength limitations yes
                therefore it is rather your colleagues
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 15: 37
                  0
                  and so in order to fly safely it is better to have 40% due to bad weather and headwinds.
                  1. Snakebyte
                    Snakebyte April 26 2018 16: 46
                    +3
                    Literacy credit accepted.
                    The navigation reserve is also designed to take into account bad weather and headwinds.
                    With 40% offered by ignoramuses, a medium-range airliner can fly to Murmansk when flying from Sochi to Moscow. What, there are no closer airfields? Yes, with such sizes, bad weather areas will simply cancel flights.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 16: 59
                      0
                      in Siberia, sometimes it’s not, in Europe, too, it would seem, why make risky landings in the crosswind?
                      or circling for hours producing fuel
                      Su-33 is not needed, since it was definitely about to land, like an airliner at the airport
                      hand it over to someone
                      primers from Lockheed and MAN Turbo do not forget lol
                      I never heard how passengers caved in from "underfilling", no? google too.
                      1. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte April 27 2018 07: 46
                        +1
                        On 13.11.16/29/XNUMX, the MiG-XNUMXK was also definitely about to board the deck. And then bam - the finisher broke. The stock is not needed, yes. Although, he had that MiG, but your ignorant brothers did not send him to land.
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 08: 06
                      0
                      Well, go and teach them, adept Lockheed, at the same time as ladders, landing hooks and nozzles for aircraft to do lol
                      1. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte April 27 2018 09: 55
                        +2
                        Lockheed is not necessary, they themselves are perfectly able to do everything.
                        Unlike your colleagues in misfortune from the military-industrial complex, capable of only cheap self-PR.
                    3. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 10: 39
                      0
                      so the lockhide has to travel to Russia, then like a Rolls-Royce to Germany
                      it seems only to stupidly shit on the Russian military-industrial complex, and get your answer in return, you are capable of it.
                      1. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte April 27 2018 13: 24
                        +2
                        In response, I have so far received only, to put it mildly, fantasies, absolutely not supported by anything. In addition to frankly illiterate statements.
                        And the evidence of their ability to do quite material, in hundreds of copies.
                        Lockheed is not so ignorant as to develop a project without ready-made components, hoping only for the good Russians, who in a few years will agree to sell something. Because, if you suddenly disagree - the loss of the order, plus heavy fines and penalties (pseudo patrons should be aware of this, they sucked that Lockheed fine for a long and joyful time, describing it as almost the collapse of the entire program).
                        This is not a domestic military-industrial complex, where "objective circumstances" are always found on any jamb of the program and no one bears responsibility.
                    4. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 16: 03
                      0
                      like everywhere in America, but you surpassed them
                      in response to the nozzles you have already been explained Where is the X-32 and XFV-12? I ask for the seventh time?
                      you forgot about ladders and landing hooks (also components),
                      the last F-35 was supposed to be commissioned in 2008 laughing
                      1. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte April 28 2018 09: 21
                        +1
                        I chose two verticals from many projects, which use a different principle for lifting, and you wave like a flag.
                        Where such, you have already been shown - Convair Model 200, for example.
                    5. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 09: 58
                      0
                      laughing you are brandishing two links to this paper project of Lokhidov’s “model 200” 1972 passing it as an X-35, and to the German nozzle MAN Turbo 1964 passing it as a Rolls-Royce
                      both unsuccessful
                      another principle was used in XFV-12 later in 1973-76 (also unsuccessfully) and in X-32 (which could only partially be dismantled) in 1996 precisely because those two were unsuccessful.
                      and there were no other projects, except for the British who borrowed the Boeing for the X-32 in England, just like Lockheed borrowed his X-35 in Russia
                      And before that, McDonnell Douglas borrowed BAE Harrier in England
                      and the Statue of Liberty for the country of your dreams was presented by the French. lol
                2. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte April 26 2018 16: 39
                  +2
                  Yeah, the navigation margin is included in the strength limits at the design stage. But how do ignoramuses know this?
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 16: 54
                    0
                    how do they know what stock should really be?
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 27 2018 07: 48
                      +1
                      Of the long-standing safety regulations.
                      To lay down at the design stage the possibility of landing with 15% of the total fuel supply does not interfere with anything.
                  2. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 08: 04
                    0
                    you don’t read what you are answering, so he should not be there.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 11: 10
                      0
                      strong headwind can increase consumption by 20-25% + bad weather in the landing area and departure to another airfield
                      1. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte April 27 2018 13: 17
                        +1
                        From the first time it didn’t reach what exactly for such cases the navigation reserve is intended?
                  3. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 16: 05
                    0
                    how many times has it been written that 15% is not enough for this? there is not only a navigational reserve
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 1 May 2018 07: 10
      0
      Yeah. I had a chance to talk with the Germans from Airbus. They said about Mig-29: the plane is good, only very poorly made and the engines are shise. Such is the information from the side.
      They got Mig-29 from the GDR.
  6. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher April 26 2018 10: 14
    +2
    With all due respect to the Soviet school of shipbuilding - such a "monster" with a continuous flight deck of the USSR built for the first time and mistakes here are quite possible. In any case, it cannot be said that the Su-33 was too heavy for a carrier-based aircraft - after all, the American F-14 Tomcat had an even greater mass, but without any problems it was based on American aircraft carriers.

    Everything is quite simple. When designing a ship, the performer asks specific questions to the customer, such as the number of gun turrets, the number and caliber of the barrels in them, the thickness of the armored belt. Many parameters on which the appearance of the designed ship depends. In aggregate, all this should plow the sea-oceans with such a scale, the guns must shoot, the armor must withstand the hit of shells of certain calibers from a certain distance, BUT do not exceed the restrictions on size and displacement. The designer is constrained by these restrictions and depends on his skill whether he fits into them or not. Therefore, having calculated that armored steel of such a grade, thickness, and handling will withstand a shell of such a caliber from a minimum of such a distance, he will not reserve twice as much thickness just in case, because in this case the other parameters of the TTZ will not be fulfilled.
    And when the designers of the ship of project 1143.5 received the terms of reference, they designed the landing deck for the given requirements, landing weight X, landing speed Y. That is, when landing on an aircraft deck with such parameters, the ship’s deck will retain its structural integrity and will not be damaged. Make a reserve for the operation of heavier machines without sacrificing displacement, speed, autonomy, etc. IMPOSSIBLE. The Soviet shipbuilders did everything right, they simply did not expect the tricks of the Sukhoi Design Bureau to climb on Kuznetsov due to intrigues and connections.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 10: 53
      +2
      Quote: Puncher
      The Soviet shipbuilders did everything right, they simply did not expect the tricks of the Sukhoi Design Bureau to climb on Kuznetsov due to intrigues and connections

      As I said, the Su-27 were considered the fleet the basis of carrier-based air groups with 1973 g
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher April 26 2018 18: 26
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As I said, the Su-27 were considered the fleet the basis of carrier-based air groups with 1973 g

        Andrei, this does not mean absolutely anything, TTZ decides everything and if the placement of the Su-27 was not spelled out in it, then all the previous drafts and notes remain with them. I already wrote earlier that work on Project 1143.5 began in 1978, at the same time Design Bureau Yakovleva and Mikoyan received missions for the Yak141 and MiG-29 K, Sukhoi Design Bureau began work on the T10K only in 1984, and in 1978 they figuratively expressed tearing the hair on the ass due to the complete failure of T10 and under those circumstances no one in their right mind would register Su27 aboard pr. 1143.5. And the fact that after the historiographers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau wrote ... they are very happy to lie. One story how Simonov personally hacked T10 for the sake of T10C can cause nothing but ironic laughter.
    2. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 12: 27
      0
      Quote: Puncher
      The Soviet shipbuilders did everything right, they simply did not expect the tricks of the Sukhoi Design Bureau to climb on Kuznetsov due to intrigues and connections.

      yes thanks to a better folding wing. and folding keels,
      you have already explained this in the first article
  7. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 26 2018 12: 11
    +2
    They explained the difference in loads and ranges very intelligibly ... And then people are zealously arguing about the advantages of the F-16 and Rafaley over the MiG-35 and over the Su-27/30/35.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 26 2018 13: 15
      +3
      Recently there was a good illustration of the Rafaley range. With a heavy load from France to Syria and back. When refueling in the air is exhausted, the capacity of the tanks fades into the background.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 26 2018 14: 11
        0
        Quote: Snakebyte
        When air refueling has been completed,

        You can refuel Rafal, and MiG, and Su-33, here everything depends only on the physical capabilities of the pilot
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher April 26 2018 19: 04
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You can refuel Rafal, and MiG, and Su-33, here everything depends only on the physical capabilities of the pilot

          No, in the ability to refuel in the air. Generally, combat pilots do not know how to do this, I'm talking about the Russian Air Force
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 26 2018 14: 46
        +2
        The traditional practice of NATO countries is that a loaded plane takes off with empty tanks and refuel in the air. This is the most effective way to increase range. It is also necessary to separate the mission: a bomb carrier and a fighter.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 18: 58
          0
          did they tell you about this? laughing
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 26 2018 13: 15
    +1
    Su-33 is preferable.
    But he needs a more authentic landing deck than
    on Kuznetsovo.
    1. Lucy
      Lucy April 27 2018 21: 47
      +1
      Are you familiar with the glide paths of the deck Su and MiG? They are different.
    2. Lucy
      Lucy April 27 2018 22: 20
      +2
      Whoever needs it, - decides the PRP "on the brakes", depending on the landing weight of the aircraft.
      The Yak-44rd should be heavier and larger, but it also had enough deck length.
  9. Taoist
    Taoist April 26 2018 14: 26
    +4
    Well, thanks for the gratitude ... I am glad that it turned out to be useful. Well, with your permission, I’ll walk a little along the current calculations:
    - Andrey, on the one hand, everything is very well stated and within the framework of this presentation your conclusions can take place. The problem is different - if there is an initially incorrect message, the whole structure falls apart.

    1) where did you get the idea that when determining the composition of an air wing, there was initially a bet on one universal aircraft? Yes, when the “perestroika” struck and they started sawing through a living one type of choice was the only possible way out ... But initially it wasn’t even discussed ... In fact, as soon as the fundamental possibility of providing a launch from the deck and both of them became clear They simply began to project the idea of ​​the joint work of a “heavy and light” fighter onto the deck.
    2) You compare the drying and the moment in terms of air combat. But (see p. 1) - initially they were bred for tasks. And it was precisely the MiGs that they planned to use primarily as air defense machines. Despite the absence of emfs, they were superior to drying in the BVB, but they could not carry heavy anti-ship missiles in principle. Tactically, the scheme should have looked like Sushki attacked ASGs as attack aircraft and MiGs ensured their withdrawal to the launch line and cover of the warrant.
    3) Well, pay attention to how sharply the mass ratios of Hornet are knocked out of the general series. This can speak of course about the higher weight culture of this aircraft ... But since the difference is very large and all other planes in the table have close correlations, this most likely indicates that the data is very distorted. (in principle, this is typical of the "advertising" characteristics of American cars).

    It is unfortunate that I can’t post here the materials (or rather albums) on which we once studied the technique of the "probable adversary" - there were very interesting documents from the point of view of analytics.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 14: 41
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      where did you get that when determining the composition of an air wing, there was initially a bet on one universal aircraft?

      Dear Taoist, let's do it again. This article answers the question of which aircraft would be preferable for Kuznetsov in the conditions if there were funds to fine-tune any of them. At the same time, to complete a single ship with two types of fighters would be a little strange.
      If we take the times of the USSR, then, as I understand it, there’s not a mole to come to a conclusion, either to stop at Su, or to do the MiG and Su tandem for atomic Ulyanovsk
      Quote: Taoist
      And it was precisely the MiGs that they planned to use primarily as air defense machines. Despite the absence of emfs, they were superior to drying in the BVB

      Alas for me, but how many people, so many opinions. Practitioner pilots told me that in the BVB just the same Su is stronger. I do not dispute your authority, but those people, as it were, too ...
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, pay attention to how sharply the mass ratios of Hornet are knocked out of the general series. This can speak of course about the higher weight culture of this aircraft ...

      I can not know. Theoretically, it can be explained by the fact that Hornet in many respects (thrust-weight ratio, rate of climb) loses much to the rest and due to this he has such a positive mass load, but I really don’t know how
      Quote: Taoist
      It’s a pity that I can’t post those materials here

      Really a pity.
      1. tomket
        tomket April 28 2018 02: 05
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        that in BVB it’s stronger than Su.

        And what is preferable? How many watched the flights, MiGs look more dynamic. Su can be seen that it is heavier and more imposing in flight.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 06: 34
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          Despite the absence of emfs, they were superior to drying in the BVB

          it is only if on dryers EMDS is disabled
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 26 2018 15: 05
      +4
      Quote: Taoist
      And it was precisely the MiGs that they planned to use primarily as air defense machines.

      With all due respect. The MiG-29 was never planned and most importantly was not an air defense fighter. In the country's air defense waxes there were 10 pieces of them. This is a typical front-line fighter, and it was the Air Force regiments that filled it. And the Su-27 mainly went to the air defense forces, they were also in the Air Force, but literally the 2-3 regiment as an exception.
      Maybe you are talking about ship aircraft specifically MiG-29K and Su-33? Here I can’t know the idea of ​​the command of the Navy, but what the command of the Air Force and Air Defense of the country was expecting from the ground versions of these aircraft is clearly known. I assume that the command of the Navy was based on these introductory notes.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist April 26 2018 17: 04
        +1
        Well, here we are talking about ship modifications. I make my judgments and conclusions based primarily on the experience of the creation and service of the "hundredth naval aviation regiment." and those tasks that were set and practiced by personnel.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 26 2018 17: 52
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, here we are talking about ship modifications. I make my judgments and conclusions based primarily on the experience of the creation and service of the "hundredth naval aviation regiment." and those tasks that were set and practiced by personnel.

          Clear. )))
  10. maximghost
    maximghost April 26 2018 14: 27
    +3
    I did not quite understand why, I lost the fight for the deck in 82-85. YATP operation 141 with Kuznetsov was supposed, but in a limited volume. This is evidenced by the fact that a heat-resistant coating was mounted on the stern and that the Yak-38 (instead of the unprepared 141) flew from Kuznetsov as part of the tests. This was necessary for YTP, so that on an alarm it would be possible to raise planes not only from 3 positions.

    Regarding Comparison Chart
    -If it already has rafal and a serial instant-29k, then, kmk, it would be worth including the Su-27 KUB. And where did 141 yaks have 6 suspension points. He has 5 of them (4 under the consoles and 1 under the fuselage under the PTB), I read. That they wanted to add 2 more, but then it turns out 7.


    At the expense of verticals and a spacious flight deck. In the context of Kuznetsoa, ​​the dispute is certainly not relevant, but they need less deck. If we take Baku as a standard, then 36 yak-38 (or 38 yaks and ka-25/27 in any combination) got into it. Moreover, all aircraft were based in a hangar (but with 36 aircraft it was impossible to omit asbestos and fire curtains), then after rebuilding it in a blink of an eye, then he lost his nose armament, and the number of aircraft decreased to 28-30, while in the hangar they already didn’t fit in. So that airborne aircraft can save a lot of money on their carrier and already in 90 were comparable with conventional aircraft, as shown in the first part of the article, while the second airborne aircraft in general and the deck developed on the basis of modernization of a successful land plane that was already in operation are compared there.
    1. maximghost
      maximghost April 26 2018 14: 30
      +2
      Yes, I forgot. For the su-33, the permissible overload seems to vary depending on how much fuel is left on board. When refueling under a cork, he seems to have 7g.
  11. Alex_59
    Alex_59 April 26 2018 14: 50
    +4
    In fact, if you are guided not by Airwar or Wikipedia, but by the RLE (that is, the MO document by which pilots fly), it will become obvious that the MiG merges Sushka in all respects. And the point here is not the mediocrity of the MiG designers, but what TK was given to both of these design bureaus. In its final form, the concept of a front-line fighter, divided into light and heavy, suggested that light (MiG) would be a battlefield plane. It should be massive, not expensive, not have the longest flight range or effective range of avionics. And the heavy fighter was to become the basis of the air defense forces, and his task was to be able to fly far and see far. This is simply an inevitable requirement for a country like ours. Drying was supposed to work on the vast expanses of the Far East, North, Siberia. And the MiG was supposed to cover attack aircraft and front-line bombers processing the enemy’s front edge.
    I do not have RLE MiG-29K or Su-33. But there are RLE MiG-29 (9-12, declassified book of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR) and RLE Su-27SK (commercial, the book is not secret, and the performance characteristics of the aircraft are lower than the performance characteristics of aircraft intended for the Russian Air Force). There are some fragmentary information on the MiG-29K, such as the MTOW masses, etc.
    From these sources it follows:
    MiG-29 without PTB with 4xR-60MK and 2xR-27 load had a flight range of 951 km at high altitude.
    MiG-29 without PTB and without load at a sick height had a range of 1326 km
    The MiG-29K (presumably) without PTB with a load of 4xR-60MK and 2xR-27 had a range of 1706 km at high altitude.
    Su-27SK without PTB with a load of 2xP-73 and 2xP-27 with their launch in the middle of the route had a flight range of 3545 km at high altitude.
    The question of the suspension of the PTB on the Su-33, I think, should not be seriously discussed - it would have been done. Su-33 also had greater potential for modernization, since a larger antenna diameter is always a longer detection range, because in the main radar equation, the range depends on the area of ​​the antenna mirror directly.
    Given that the USSR Navy wanted to have an air defense carrier, the choice of the Su-33 is inevitable.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 26 2018 15: 00
      0
      And do not constantly cling to the PTB. The fact that Drying without PTB gave out such a range is its most powerful plus. Because flying constantly with the PTB is a huge headache for everyone, both the technical staff and the pilots. PTB is not the most elegant detail, so they throw Cx and S perfectly, turning the fighter into a civilian airliner. And to drop the PTB every time before the threat of maneuvering the battle - so you can’t get any PTB. I remember in Afghanistan the FTBs reported seriously for the discharge - why did they drop it and not bring it back, etc. Drying without dropping anything could with longer ammunition last longer than MiG to fight at a greater distance from Avik. For air defense - that’s it!
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 26 2018 15: 08
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      In fact, if you are guided not by Airwar or Wikipedia, but by the RLE (that is, the MO document by which pilots fly), it will become obvious that the MiG merges Sushka in all respects

      What, in fact, is said in the article. But it’s also noted that by merging Su, MiG does not particularly merge with foreign carrier-based fighters, that is, it is quite competitive with them.
      Quote: Alex_59
      Given that the USSR Navy wanted to have an air defense carrier, the choice of the Su-33 is inevitable.

      For the USSR - yes, but the RF is not the USSR
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 April 26 2018 15: 29
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        For the USSR - yes, but the RF is not the USSR

        I believe that for the Russian Federation it is even more important than for the USSR to have a Su-33 or an airplane based on another representative of the Sukhoi family. Why?
        Our country is not rich. Keeping a bunch of different types of planes is unprofitable. Unification is desirable. Ideally - one type of tactical aircraft for the entire office (Navy). This is excellent! He threw the crews from Kamchatka to the Crimea - and they already know the entire materiel. Or if the planes flew to the airfield - and there already are such ones, techies know everything. Right? Right.
        Then the next question. And what should this single unified airplane be? We look at the map and understand that it must fly far and stay longer in the air. Not Moldova because. Yes, and not enough airfields. And it is advisable for coastal aviation to be able to fly away from the coast without avik. And avionics should be such that to control as much space as possible. Not so, we have a lot of airdromes to plant a regiment on MiGs at each fence. After all, this is still an airfield, ground crews. And also so that such a plane would take more bombs, because if you fly far away, then not to drop a couple of 250-k, but immediately five 6 pieces of five hundred. And also to make it possible to add anti-ship missiles more heavily, because with MRA everything is very sad for us, and “rosargun” is not very suitable for large-scale targets. And also in case of need, naval vehicles could strengthen the air defense of the country (and in the air defense of the country, as we remember, the basis is MiG-31 and ... Drying). Those. so again, if you put the naval on the air defense airdrome — so that the people there knew the equipment in advance, and did not open their mouths.
        Is the appearance looming? )))))))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 26 2018 16: 43
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          I believe that for the Russian Federation it is even more important than for the USSR to have a Su-33 or an airplane based on another representative of the Sukhoi family.

          As for the "other representative", I would agree, but only he is not. Strictly speaking, we had a Su-30, but from it a deck for Kuznetsov will not work - it is even heavier than a Su-33
          Quote: Alex_59
          Our country is not rich. Keeping a bunch of different types of planes is unprofitable. Unification is desirable. Ideally - one type of tactical aircraft for the entire office (Navy).

          Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no point in putting the Su-33 - in any case, it will not be unified with new machines, such as the Su-30. That is, you state an excellent theory, but Su-33 does not fit into it.
          Quote: Alex_59
          And avionics should be such that to control as much space as possible

          How would MiG-29K be almost a plus :)))
          Quote: Alex_59
          And to make such a plane take more bombs, because if you fly far away, then not to drop a pair of 250-k, but immediately five 6 pieces

          Nevertheless, I would prefer not to throw bombs, but to fall into something with them. At the same time, the MiG can do it, but the Su-33 in that configuration is not.
          Quote: Alex_59
          And also to make it possible to add anti-ship missiles more heavily, because with MRA everything is very sad for us, and “rosargun” is not very suitable for large-scale targets

          Pay attention - 2018 g, but we haven’t got such ammunition. And I don’t see much sense in them, to be honest. To send tactical fighters with anti-ship missile launchers against the AUG ... we are unable to form either sufficient salvo density or sufficient cover, and if you think about what will be the range of the Su-33 with heavy anti-ship missiles and that it will take off only from the third position. .. no, it's not his job.
          At the same time, despite all its shortcomings, the MiG has good export potential, but in order to sell it, you must have it as part of the Armed Forces, and here a limited batch for TAKR is very logical. With MiG on deck, TAKR (in theory) can provide a projection of force onto land, with Su-33 - no
          Quote: Alex_59
          Is the appearance looming? )))))))

          In fact, I myself am for heavy fighters, because they are conceptually more correct for us, but specifically in this local case, the MiG-29K would be better hi
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx April 26 2018 18: 01
            +1
            Su-30 brainchild of Irkutsk. And Poghosyan for this plane hated the Irkutsk plant, all the people from this plant and, it seems, the Su-30 itself. Rumor had it that he did not promote him in the Air Force either, brainwashing the generals. So he would not fundamentally make it a deck. And the customer did not give money. So for what sake?
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 April 26 2018 18: 14
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Strictly speaking, we had a Su-30, but from it a deck for Kuznetsov will not work - it is even heavier than a Su-33

            Well, you understand that this is a tense argument? The ship has just been put up for repair. How much will it cost to strengthen the deck? It would be a desire, in the amount of total costs it will be a penny.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no point in putting the Su-33 - in any case, it will not be unified with new machines, such as the Su-30. That is, you state an excellent theory, but Su-33 does not fit into it.

            Again, I can’t understand why the Su-33 is poorly unified with the Su-30? The glider is very unified. Certainly more than the MiG. In general, the Su-33 is a Soviet aircraft, so to speak, the Su-27 is also not unified with anything modern. God be with him, we are talking about a possible future (which the truth is not and will not be). If the task had been set in the 00-ies on the basis of the Su-35 easily deck option would have been done by now. And with hanging tanks and with all the other whistles and fakes. Another question is that everyone does not care. And they put the MiG onto the deck clearly with marketing purposes to cut down the currencies on Indian supplies - look, not a plane, but sweetie, we use it ourselves, we’re not overjoyed. Fly buy.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            At the same time, MiG, with all its shortcomings, has good export potential.
            Practice shows that drying rules. Hundreds of Dry. And a couple of dozen MiGs.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            How would MiG-29K be almost a plus :)))

            Absolutely not. I wrote about the size of the antennas. And so on. You can’t deceive physics. A large plane takes more load, flies further. Large internal volume makes it possible to place a more powerful avionics. MiG-29K or MiG-35 is the limit of what could be squeezed out of that design. Maybe he surpasses the early Su-33 or Su-27. But if the same volumes of work are introduced in the latter, they will again tear MiG in all respects.
            In place of our thick foreheads, I would now do the marine version of PAK-FA instead of spraying forces on the MiG-35 and so on. There is no aircraft carrier for him, but the aircraft can be made so that if the aircraft carrier is suddenly built, then the aircraft is ready. Do folding wings right away, make reinforcements under the brake hook, reinforced chassis. On land, this does not interfere much.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 18: 54
              0
              On land, a brake parachute is suitable; the MiG-29 is still needed by the Air Force.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 April 27 2018 06: 26
                0
                Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                MiG-29 still need the Air Force.

                In addition to the inertia of thinking (there is already an airplane and you need to adapt it somewhere) there is no reason to have a MiG-29 / 35 in the Air Force.
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 06: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  In addition to the inertia of thinking (there is already an airplane and you need to adapt it somewhere) there is no reason to have a MiG-29 / 35 in the Air Force.

                  Or maybe it was necessary to turn it, for example, to why in the Su-27 there are no gaps in the influx of wing?
        2. tomket
          tomket April 28 2018 02: 12
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          . Not so, we have a lot of airdromes to plant a regiment on MiGs at each fence.

          Feeling crippled consciousness Serdyukov. Which hammered to you that we should have few planes, and even less airfields. Ideally, one plane would cut circles over Russia. That did not require a lot of money. Well, there’s no money, but you have to hold on. I’m curious if you give out how many planes and airdromes were in the USSR, would you cut your skates from the shock?
      2. find2312
        find2312 April 26 2018 16: 42
        +3
        Andrei, I respect you very much for excellent notes on the subject of the Navy, but here are some data on the Su-33 aircraft that need to be adjusted, in particular, you write:
        -the empty mass is 16000 kg, but this is fundamentally the wrong figure, the empty mass according to Fomin is 19600 kg, 3,6 tons more, because the Su-33 was designed to land with a Vy-7 m / s, 33 only the chassis set is heavier by half a ton than the usual 27, not counting the gain of the glider, folding components of the inverter, etc.,
        - the height of the aircraft, your data is 5,93 m, but with such keels it simply won’t pass into the hangar, in fact, the height is 5,72 m,
        - wing area, your data is 62m2, actually -67,84 m2,
        -the span with folded inverters, you have 7,4 m, it seems correct, but one nuance is not taken into account, the overall width is 33-8,33 m, almost a meter more, because the flaperons are deflected when folding so as not to touch the keels, therefore the ends of the flaperons, more precisely, the movable part of the flaps protrudes half a meter beyond the span,
        -by MiG-29K, I didn’t see him take off from the second launch of Kuznetsov, I saw him from the third, but they don’t raise GOSHCH (gas baffle) when taking off, so take-off 29 from the second start without GOSHCH is impossible, all equipment from the bow of the PTB and the park area will be swept away , perhaps this is due to the suction of the exhaust jet reflected from GOSHCH in the OT!
        like there were links to Fomin, but the data is given incorrectly
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 26 2018 17: 25
          0
          Quote: find2312
          empty weight -16000 kg, but this is fundamentally the wrong figure, empty mass according to Fomin-19600 kg, 3,6 tons more

          As it is not regrettable for my ego and superego, I have to admit that you are absolutely right in everything, but I am not. Indeed, taking the data from the airvar, I did not compare them with Fomin. I am ashamed. repeat
          Thank you!
          Quote: find2312
          according to MiG-29K, I didn’t see him take off from the second launch of Kuznetsov, I saw him from the third, but they don’t raise the GOSH (gas baffle) during take-off, so the 29 take-off from the second start without GOSH is impossible, all the equipment from the bow PTB and the park area will be swept away, perhaps this is due to the suction of the exhaust jet reflected from GOSHCH in the OT!

          And here I ask for clarification. GOSHCH is in every position, why can not it be used in the second?
          1. find2312
            find2312 April 26 2018 19: 01
            +1
            There are a lot of videos on the MiG take-off network, but I have never seen a raised GOSH when the aircraft started to move, the shield is always down, there are no shields at Vikramadit, but there are starts on the left side and the gas stream does not interfere with airplanes and helicopters, there are two on Kuznetsovo start on the port side, but one, the second, on the starboard side, if you don’t raise the GOSH at this start, the gas stream will hit the technical position, that’s what it is said that the engines 29 can suck the exhaust gases reflected from the GOSH to the VZ entrance , at the time of launch it is surging, so do not raise the shields ayut, 33 this also does not like, but suhovtsy this problem was solved by changing the angles of the shield
          2. find2312
            find2312 April 26 2018 19: 17
            +3
            I would also like to add, you wrote that take-off with a mass of 30 tons, for the Su-33, from 105 meters, (1,2sp) is only available to experienced pilots, let me disagree, landing on an AF is very difficult, it requires the highest qualifications, and on take-off, the task of the pilot is to maintain the direction on the take-off, and after taking off from the springboard, when the plane is still practically uncontrollable and moves along a ballistic trajectory, keep the RUS and pedals neutral. In general, the well-known takeoff of a combat pilot with braked wheels, weighing 26 tons, with 2 sp, took off practically without drawdown, and if you counteract the friction force, you can get a take-off weight similar to 32 ÷ 34 tons with normal rotation of the wheels
            1. ZVO
              ZVO April 27 2018 08: 48
              0
              Quote: find2312
              I would also like to add, you wrote that take-off with a mass of 30 tons, for the Su-33, from 105 meters, (1,2 sp), is only available to experienced pilots, let me disagree, landing on the AF is very difficult, it requires the highest qualifications


              Honestly, looking at the history of US aircraft carriers, the number that they were was for those tens of thousands of jet pilots who made thousands and tens of thousands of takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers.
              And some pilots were 23-25 ​​years old.
              And they took off and boarded the aircraft carriers.
              And there were tens of thousands ...
              How many are there for our youngest deck pilot? 40 now?


              Maybe all the same it is not necessary to excessively "complicate" the pilots of aircraft carriers?
              Maybe our method of training pilots is simply not capable of creating a carrier-based pilot by the age of 25?
              For it cannot be that there are tens of thousands of pilots with hundreds of hours of deck raids per month, and for them it is a normal job and they do not cause any special reverence.
              And others have only a few and idolize them as the first cosmonauts ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 27 2018 09: 01
                0
                Quote: ZVO
                For it cannot be that there are tens of thousands of pilots with hundreds of hours of deck raids per month, and for them it is a normal job and they do not cause any special reverence.

                The United States does not have tens of thousands of deck pilots :)))) And it’s not worth it to interfere with one pilot aircraft of WWII and modern times.
                And so, in the USA there is a very strict selection of decks, the requirements are extremely high. This is an elite, and there is enough reverence there :))) Ours, in principle, are hardly inferior to them, but the problem is that our learning opportunities are much less - one AB and one in the North. Therefore, it’s much more difficult for us to cook them.
                1. ZVO
                  ZVO April 27 2018 14: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                  The United States does not have tens of thousands of deck pilots :)))) And it’s not worth it to interfere with one pilot aircraft of WWII and modern times.


                  Andrei, I believe that since the appearance of the first Vampire in 1945 and the first Phantom in 46 on the decks of aircraft carriers, many thousands of pilots of deck aircraft were released.

                  And yes, in the American Navy, a 23-year-old ensign-flyer can become a pilot of carrier-based aviation, most importantly. so that he has talent. to the deck.
                  Now annually produced from 400 decks and above of the 1200 total release of pilots of the United States Navy.
                  During the years of Vietnam, 2000 decks per year.

                  Have they not scored tens of thousands since 1945?
                  Typed.
                  And not one.
                  I think that the total number of trained pilots of the deckers of jet aircraft was at the level of 45-50 thousand pilots ...
    3. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 15: 19
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      RLE (that is, an MO document by which pilots fly)

      not to this topic, but they also do not always write the truth there
      for example, MiG-25 pilots were not taught to maneuver combat, although the F-15 is inferior to it above 11000, which is not on Wikipedia and Airvar but in the American
      It merges Su-27 at all heights, with the MiG-29 it is approximately equal
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 26 2018 16: 48
        +1
        And ignoramuses of course can provide these American RLE?
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 16: 51
          0
          ignoramuses can google them lol
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 27 2018 07: 53
            +1
            Google is not able to find information that exists only in the fantasies of the ignorant.
            If such information really existed, you would have cited it in a previous dispute. But instead, you jumped from the MiG-25 to the Su-25, and you didn't even notice laughing And what's the difference, the numbers are the same laughing
            Yes, can you tell me why your past twin was banned? For ignorance or for lies?
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 08: 10
              0
              Google is quite capable of finding even on the forums of Western pilots, if you are not banned in it laughing
              generally from Su-25 to MiG-25 usually svidomye immediately jump, for another reason, only now the APU does not have them (as well as 30mm guns on them), maybe you are one of those?
              Svidomo usually goes hand in hand with an empty worship of the West, though not only they
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 08: 28
                0
                there you can find that F-15 pilots, when meeting with the Su-27, are instructed to avoid or leave the battle by all available means. yes
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte April 27 2018 10: 24
                  +2
                  Where is there?
                  In the cheers-patriotic articles of domestic "experts"?
                  There is much to be found in them. For example, boastful tales of how obsolete MiG-29s of different Germans, Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians and Czechs easily defeated air battles in the latest NATO F-15s and F-16s in training battles.
                  And as it came to real air battles, so 12 (+1 allied): 0 (+2 hypothetical) not in favor of the MiG.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 10: 51
                    0
                    in flight instructions or
                    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                    on western pilot forums,

                    where they sent you right away
                    in-in-in, the liberot climbed ... again to write something about cheers-patriotism, "auto engines" is your everything! lol
                    in non-training ones, when all of NATO, without rapprochement, shells several MiG-29s with a radar in which a range of only 40 km and missile traps on them end quickly.
                    I won’t check the numbers for you, most likely you are in them ... lol and the rest can see the American in the Balkans, the question is only how many anti-aircraft gunners shot down, how many air forces (and they lost, in the air).
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 27 2018 14: 18
                      +1
                      So who is to blame for having made a fighter that shines only at air shows and exercises? The same ignoramuses constantly insist that long-range missile combat is a fiction, it will nevertheless pass into the close one, in which our super-maneuverable oh-hoo ... And how it comes to real battles ...
                      Of course, you will not check the numbers, because it is not profitable for you. Indeed, in all cases there is confirmation of the losing side, often with a detailed description of the battle itself (there are also victories in melee combat).
                      Specially (there’s nothing to do anyway) I studied all cases of battles against the MiG-25. Only in one! F-15 began to decline, and as a result, opponents collided in the air wink
                      In other cases, either a counter launch or an ambush attack with climb. Are the Americans to blame for the fact that the world's best Soviet radar systems cannot capture targets against the backdrop of the earth?
                      So leave all your fictitious links to the mythical "forums of western pilots" in your fantasies. When the data is convenient for you, you always stick it out. If not, then you simply lie again.
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 16: 07
                        +1
                        For its air forces, Russia has better radars and there are more planes in them.
                        Who is to blame for the fact that you are constantly spinning from topic to topic with "agitation from the MO" and "smart lockheed"? Rolls Royces not mending, or oranges not growing? Who faced in the air? MiG-29 with MiG-25 or someone else? Maybe the F-15 has even fought at least in the near with the Su-27, or was it enough to jointly maneuver and compare the LTX? With climb, is the plane hiding in the background of the earth?
                        go and learn how much NATO lost in Yugoslavia and other countries in annual losses, then dig the Black Sea, Lake of Galilee, the Gulf of Mexico or whatever you have ... bully
                        they are to blame for the fact that you even had to merge with your "MO agitation" on tomahawks, as always. Earlier in Iraq they gave video hits instead of photos, and then they stopped something, and in the same way they began to write off 66 “axes” to one building. yes
                  2. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 06: 52
                    0
                    here you can, even English for this you do not need to learn:
                    https://topwar.ru/140685-smi-ssha-f-35-imeet-english-proishozhdenie.html
                    (Brad Howard), who is a former US Air Force
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 28 2018 10: 07
                      0
                      Yes, Americans also have their own ignoramuses who, out of ignorance, can blurt out anything. Like Konashenkov, who counted 450 kg of explosives in the Tomahawk warhead, while the entire TLAM-C warhead weighs 360 kg along with a thick titanium shell laughing
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 10: 19
                        0
                        they obviously miss you
                        you got Konashenkov in Russia, Brad Howard in the USA where there is a magnificent lockheed and pink Rolls Royce (there are oranges too)
                        no one forbids making the shell thinner or loading it with submunitions, you wanted a video from Konashenkov, American, as it was at first in the Gulf, where? lol
              2. Snakebyte
                Snakebyte April 27 2018 09: 58
                +1
                Banned seems like a lie.
                Poke your nose in your own posts?
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 10: 42
                  0
                  let's start, and why not in the F-15 flight manual?
                  how was the link to the lokhid site? and on the "car" engineRR"in the AV-8B laughing
                  Michael Bohm, you know that? you look like him ... only with the difference that he would have understood, like other Americans, even from satellite images of the MiG-25. yes
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 11: 02
                    0
                    a normal Russian citizen would be happy and you are being bombed lol
                  2. Snakebyte
                    Snakebyte April 27 2018 13: 34
                    +1
                    Oh ignoramus laughing
                    The AV-8 engine is marked BS.53because it was originally designed by Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited. Prescribed: BES.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 16: 11
                      +1
                      You don’t know how to cover your shame. With the next training manual rupture, “BS” is in words from another Bull-Shit, the AV-8B engine is marked F402-RR-408, you wrote that "RR" is automobile lol it was where you tried to pass off the German nozzle MAN Turbo for English.
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 16: 26
                        0
                        and when it didn’t work out, he crawled out with a lamer link to the site of the lokhid, where the X-35 is not shown laughing
                      2. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 16: 52
                        0
                        and when they broke off with that project, they began to do another, without a nozzle about which you were asked seven times, and you never answered.
                        and it ended with an even bigger program crash lol
                        Quote: Snakebyte

                        1
                        Snakebyte Today, 13:24 PM ↑
                        In response, I have so far received only, to put it mildly, fantasies, absolutely not supported by anything. In addition to frankly illiterate statements.
                        And the evidence of their ability to do quite material, in hundreds of copies.
                        Lockheed is not so ignorant as to develop a project without ready-made components, hoping only for the good Russians, who in a few years will agree to sell something. Because, if you suddenly disagree - the loss of the order, plus heavy fines and penalties (pseudo patrons should be aware of this, they sucked that Lockheed fine for a long and joyful time, describing it as almost the collapse of the entire program).
                        This is not a domestic military-industrial complex, where "objective circumstances" are always found on any jamb of the program and no one bears responsibility.

                        Michael Bom, Heather Nauert, and Jegn Psak to help you laughing yes
                      3. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte April 28 2018 10: 03
                        0
                        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                        the AV-8B engine is marked F402-RR-408

                        Ignoramus confuses the American notation, which they adopted for unification with their own products, with their native British.
                        Based on this logic, the EC145 helicopter should be called UH-72, and the T-34 tank - Pzkpfw.34 (r) laughing And the British designate "Harrier" as the AV-8.
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 10: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Snakebyte

                      Ignoramus confuses the American notation, which they adopted for unification with their own products, with their native British.

                      no, he confused the AV-8 with the AV-8B, although these are all American notations
                      and I didn’t know that on RB.153 (which is not BS) the draft deflection system was German.
      2. tomket
        tomket April 28 2018 02: 17
        0
        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
        for example, MiG-25 pilots were not taught maneuver combat

        MiG-25 pilots were trained to psychologically resist irrational phenomena during flight. The violet sky, the meeting of the Sun half an hour after sunset, etc.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 06: 35
          0
          the same pilots of the SR-71 were taught, maneuvering combat on which you could definitely not be taught
          on the MiG-25 he was not taught so as not to offend the "partners".
    4. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 15: 31
      0
      In the MiG-29K tanks were added to the influx of wings when they removed the cracks.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 April 26 2018 15: 36
        +3
        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
        In the MiG-29K tanks were added to the influx of wings when they removed the cracks.

        Yes, but he never reached the level of Drying. This is the tragedy of the MiG. The fact is that his front-line fighter in the new conditions (after the collapse of the USSR) either had to become not a front-line fighter, but an interceptor and compete with the Su-27, or disappear forever according to the laws of the market. So they tried to pull up what was clearly weaker - range and avionics. But in conditions when Drying successfully went for export, Poghosyan began to steer everyone, and from the MiG all the personnel went to Sukhoi ... In general, the MiG has serious problems. There were and are.
        Personally, I think that today the reanimation of the MiG is money down the drain. It is cruel, but it is. It’s better to bring this effort and money into PAK-FA. Now.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 26 2018 16: 37
          +1
          The MiG-35 is a good aircraft, and it is statically unstable and it seems to have returned the gap, they are generally to fly from the ground.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO April 27 2018 19: 27
            0
            Quote: YELLOWSTONE
            The MiG-35 is a good aircraft, and it is statically unstable and it seems to have returned the gap, they are generally to fly from the ground.

            And we have a lot of unpaved airfields?
            What is the use of soil based. if the entire BAO structure imprisoned on MIG-29 and especially MIG-35 is not mobile?
            Take a look at Swedish Grippen with its BAS90 \ 04 security system
            Here is the ideal system for war ... That's where it was necessary to take an example and a starting point ...
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 20: 10
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              And we have a lot of unpaved airfields?

              it is done in half an hour
              Quote: ZVO
              What is the use of

              Does the railway line fit every airfield? lol
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 20: 21
                0
                and BAO rolls planes to tankers in his arms?
          2. tomket
            tomket April 28 2018 02: 20
            0
            Quote: YELLOWSTONE
            The MiG-35 is a good aircraft, and it is statically unstable and it seems to have returned the gap, they are generally to fly from the ground.

            Can I have a picture with gills on 35? And then your statement is doubtful.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 26 2018 20: 56
          +1
          "It is better to bring this effort and money into PAK-FA" ////

          I totally agree. Limited budget funds sprayed onto similar aircraft
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 08: 31
            0
            they are similar only in appearance.
          2. tomket
            tomket April 28 2018 02: 21
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Limited budget funds sprayed onto similar aircraft

            You reason as a consumer of foreign aircraft, not as a manufacturer.
        3. tomket
          tomket April 28 2018 02: 19
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          Personally, I think that today the reanimation of the MiG is money down the drain.

          You never mind what you think there.
          Quote: Alex_59
          It’s better to bring this effort and money into PAK-FA. Now.

          Yeah, and give out to pensioners.
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  13. mmaxx
    mmaxx April 26 2018 17: 33
    0
    About the maximum load. Here you also need to understand what nodes, how many and in what combination you can hang something. Sometimes max. the load may not be reached at all. And this figure may turn out to be purely theoretical. Or to hang such a composition of weapons in general, etc., that it will not be clear why the plane took off. So this maximum load can not be used in real life. This figure is more calculated than real.
    1. kan123
      kan123 April 26 2018 21: 09
      +1
      There was no load on Yaki. There was only fuel that they raised. Theoretically, there was no show in these aircraft - almost the theme was that they were highly productive equipment. Because without any computers they lifted it into the air. They planted it. It was cool - such a level of technology that went to the pilots, the usual. They are being trained - he just literally talked to the pilot, who saw Yak landing that memorable one, and so abruptly sat down that his electron guns fell into tanks that were in the wings - there was kerosene flowing, the power was all closed, there was a fire. But here is one fact that the plane was fully mastered, that the forefather - the general’s son was appointed to this squadron. That is, the plane was handed over and finished - this was quickly done in the USSR - and the fact that it was a stupid topic - because drying and instantly take off and land on these aircraft carriers cruisers - this is a different topic. These research institutes did a tremendous job — you launch a drone today — and they launched 100 tons and planted it — it was an advanced science in this country, its mother.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack April 26 2018 22: 23
          +1
          Quote: kan123
          kan123

          Damn, yes already tidy up somebody (somewhere) of this ... inadequate.
          And, yes ... where are the promised cons? winked
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 26 2018 22: 31
            +1
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            And, yes ... where are the promised cons?

            I voted against the minuses, but after that I already thought many times that sometimes they are sorely lacking laughing
        2. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 05: 04
          0
          several times more, those that are not Aboriginal
  14. Taoist
    Taoist April 26 2018 17: 35
    +1
    At the same time, to complete a single ship with two types of fighters would be a little strange.
    If we take the times of the USSR, then, as I understand it, there’s not a mole to come to a conclusion, either to stop at Su, or to do the MiG and Su tandem for atomic Ulyanovsk


    Andrei, I’m just talking about the times of the USSR 87-89y year ... The “Sotka” was formed immediately in a two-squad composition - Mig 29K and Su 27K - and we were not talking about the 1 cruiser - at least 2x in the series (for some reason Varyaga forgot ) And I just got a technician at the 29K MiG - in general, no one even experienced the shadow of doubts that this is exactly how the two-squad structure will have other combat regiments. (By the way, do not forget that we had a deck manning system that was different from all - it was the combat regiments that “decked” the deck groups. And, accordingly, the composition of the air group was variable depending on the task.). By and large, it was not necessary to “bring” anything already - there were deck modifications for both cars and it was only necessary to start the series and work out the PSU.
    How they saw the application and what tasks were fulfilled, I also set out for you. Well, what started in 90 was in principle not subject to any military logic - and there was no longer a "battle for the deck", there was just a struggle for survival as such.
    According to the purpose of the machines ... well, let’s say so, I myself witnessed how Apakidze drove two pilots to the 29m MiG in the tail and mane ... Yes, so I had to get them out of the cabs later ... In the end, it made it easier and smaller much more active aerobatics (with the corresponding pilot class) - and the elite was taken from the elites to the decks ...
    However, this does not mean that Dryers were not meant for air combat ... They were much better than Migov for conducting long-range air patrol.
    A typical scheme (though I already told you this) was then considered (for a strike against surface targets) that two pairs of dryers carry Mosquitoes and three pairs of Migs ensure their exit to the strike line. In principle, it was precisely the emerging possibility of carrying heavy aircraft anti-ship missiles that made it possible to consider new ships as an approximation to the capabilities of the AUG.
    After all, in fact, only for ensuring the air defense of the connection it was possible to get by with much lighter aircraft. (By the way, the very same 41 would have completely coped with this goal, especially since it had a good head start on take-off operations.)
    However, now these calculations are already outdated and only matter as reasoning on the topic
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 27 2018 09: 12
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      Andrei, I’m just talking about the times of the USSR 87-89y year ... "Sotka" was formed immediately in a two-squad composition - Mig 29K and Su 27K - and we were not talking about the 1 cruiser - at least 2x in the series (for some reason Varyaga forgot ) And I just got a technician at the 29K Mig - in general, no one even experienced the shadow of doubts that this is exactly how the two-squad structure will have other combat regiments

      The Russian Federation had no chance to complete the Varangian, so it disappears immediately. Speaking about the USSR, I would like to note that if you shared your confidence at the top and accepted the scheme you specified (which, as we understand, is not guaranteed), then one could say that friendship won in the MiG and Su race :))) In fact, as I understand it, she still did not have time to win until the end of the 80's, since the option of picking Ulyanovsk only Su seemed to remain.
      Quote: Taoist
      well, let’s say so, I myself witnessed how Apakidze drove two pilots in the tail and mane of Su 29 at MiG 27

      So then - Apakidze. Excuse me, but it could be put on the Su-24, and, in my opinion, with the same result laughing
      Quote: Taoist
      However, this does not mean that Dryers were not meant for air combat ... They were much better than Migov for conducting long-range air patrol.

      The fact is that if we take the calculated values ​​(not those that are natural in the table), then Su is still better. And air defense was still built around Su, not MiG.
      Quote: Taoist
      However, now these calculations are already outdated and only matter as reasoning on the topic

      Well, I even write about Tsushima sometimes :)))) She is much more outdated :)))
      1. tomket
        tomket April 28 2018 02: 30
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The Russian Federation had no chance to complete the Varangian, so it disappears immediately.

        To clarify, there was no desire.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The fact is that if we take the calculated values ​​(not those that are natural in the table), then Su is still better.

        Regarding air combat, close combat, and at least in terms of rate of climb, the MiG is preferable. And you reduce everything to range.
  15. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 26 2018 17: 45
    +2
    As far as one can judge, the Yak-141 finally lost the “battle for the deck” of the fifth TAKR (the future “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”) somewhere in the period 1982-1984

    Morin’s process of evolution of the composition of the decked air group for the future Kuznetsov is described as follows:
    April 1979, NPKB technical proposal:
    The bureau suggested the MiG-11435K fighter and the Su-29K attack aircraft (the dimensions of the Su-25K fighter. Required to reduce their number by 27%) as the main types of ejection take-off aircraft for TAKR Project 35.
    With the total number of LAC up to 42 vehicles, the ship provided for the basing of 18-28 aircraft (depending on type) and 14 Ka-252 helicopters. The technical proposal considered the basing of 18 Su-27K or 28 fighter aircraft - MiG-29K (Su-25K) or 16 VTOL aircraft Yak-41 and 12 MiG-29K (Su-25K).

    November 1979, outline design. approved by Gorshkov:
    The Commander-in-Chief proposed for further design to work out options for the composition of the aircraft’s armament of the ship with an increase in the total number of LAC to 52 vehicles without changing the main dimensions of the TAKR. Of the options presented by the NPKB, he approved the composition of the TAKR air group of 14 Su-27K, 16 SVVP Yak-41 and 22 Ka-252 helicopters (RLD, PL and PS) for the development of a technical project.

    1980:
    In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed the directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SMEs and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of TAKR pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to aircraft of vertical and short take-off and landing (NE / UVP) . To ensure the takeoff of short-run aircraft, it was proposed to provide a springboard instead of catapults on the ship. This was followed by instructions to ensure the take-off of VTOL Yak-41 with a short take-off.

    April 1980, approved by Gorshkov TTZ:
    The main type of aircraft for TAKR was determined by the SK / GDP of the Yak-41 with ensuring its take-off from the springboard, the total number of LAC is in the range of 46-62 vehicles. The task was to determine the possibility of basing a promising SV / UVP weighing up to 30 tons and to consider two options for power plant: KTU and AEU (based on power plant pr. 11434 and 1144), the displacement of the ship was limited to 55 000 tons
  16. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 26 2018 17: 48
    +1
    Then, instead of project 11435, the design of the “improved Baku” begins - ave. 114342. For the “boots” considered the 65 kt Tavkr too large.
    Mid 1980: "do not give a catapult - we will learn to fly from a springboard, or Su and MiG strike back".
    In May of the same year, D.F. Ustinov accepted the proposal of the IAP, the Air Force and the Navy to conduct experimental work on the Nitka complex to shorten the take-off from the springboard of Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters.
    Among the aircraft based on the ship, it was proposed to provide, in addition to SK / GDP Yak-41, Su-27K, MiG-29K and RLD aircraft with their take-off from a springboard with two take-off tracks. The issue of a catapult for this ship was removed.

    March 1981: project 114342 in fact turns back to 11435, but with a displacement reduced to 55 kt.
    Due to the tight deadlines for the designing of the new TAKR, which was to be laid just six months after the launch of the TAKR "Baku", when adjusting Project 114342, they took the maximum possible basis for the existing reserve in NPKB on Project 11435, which more closely met the new requirements of the Navy than the first stage of development of pr. 114342.

    Mid 1982:
    .. The MAP resolution entrusted with the development of technical proposals for the creation of various types and purposes of springboard takeoff aircraft for the new TAKR. In the summer of that year, a decision was made by the SME, MAP, Navy and Air Force to approve the technical project 11435. In August, the Nitka complex conducted flight tests of the Su-27 and MiG-29 laboratory aircraft from an experimental springboard, confirming the practical feasibility of such take-off of aircraft of the indicated types.

    September 1984: flight tests of ship planes of ordinary takeoff and landing began:
    In September 1984, for the first time in our country, an aerofinishing landing of Su-27 aircraft was successfully carried out here. From August next year, the Nitka began testing the take-off of the Su-27 laboratory airplane from the springboard of the geometry adopted for the ship under construction. Then, flight tests of the MiG-27, MiG-29 and Su-25 laboratory aircraft were also carried out here.

    It turns out that the Yak-141 destroyed precisely the springboard. If it weren’t, there would be no alternative to verticals. But on the other hand, the springboard for Yak was really needed - according to the experience of operating the Yak-38 in KVVP mode on previous ships of Project 1143.
    1. kan123
      kan123 April 26 2018 20: 51
      0
      yak was completely an experiment - I don’t know, they were so kidding in the USSR - there was a lot of money - they were kidding with a take-off plane. All he could do was fly back and forth, the ship from which he started, and he had only 500 liters of kerosene left to board. It was completely the first steps - wherever this led, but there was a restructuring, - the topic is gone. It seems like there was a task - to reduce the fuel level during takeoff - landing - so that they could fly even further. Unfortunately, the USSR was canceled, and it was all poher, like everything else, including the country.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 27 2018 09: 13
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      It turns out that the Yak-141 destroyed the springboard.

      In a sense, yes :))))))
  17. Varna
    Varna April 26 2018 20: 23
    0
    Good, interesting article. Not a set of paper knowledge, but your thoughts and reasoning without any show-offs. Quality thing.
  18. The comment was deleted.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 05: 01
      +1
      you need to RenTV, immediately leading. yes
    2. lazy
      lazy April 27 2018 17: 19
      0
      tell me about il141 dear
  19. kan123
    kan123 April 26 2018 22: 36
    0
    Quote: Golovan Jack
    Quote: kan123
    kan123

    Damn, yes already tidy up somebody (somewhere) of this ... inadequate.
    And, yes ... where are the promised cons? winked

    what do you dislike - specifically on the topic? The topic is quite extensive and, in addition to stupid scum, is sufficient in itself. I will be happy to answer any question that you have. And “myself” is, you know, a topic for which I hope you are not.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack April 26 2018 22: 51
      0
      Quote: kan123
      What do not you like

      Few thoughts, a lot of obscenities ... not, I’m obscene myself, that ... I can, but here it’s somehow not accepted, and therefore I personally perceive it as rudeness in relation to others.
      I got out of the "discussion", don't knock stop
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 05: 07
        +1
        Quote: Golovan Jack
        I got out of the "discussion", don't knock

        the question of a strange war in the Caucasus is not a question at all?
        LP Beria put things in order there in 3 days
        or ran higher because the topic of dog breeding is not disclosed? good
  20. geniy
    geniy April 27 2018 09: 40
    0
    But whether any of the participants in the discussion will tell what will happen: For example, the MiG-29 is limited in angle of attack of 24 degrees. But if you take the angle of attack (and pitch) for example, at the landing angle, for example, 20 degrees with the flaps and hovering ailerons fully extended, and the chassis, of course, is released, then what will be its landing speed? Indeed, now with a practically zero pitch angle at landing, its landing speed is 250 km / h. And if you release the flaps, the chassis, and lower the ailerons and the pitch (attack) angle of 20 degrees - what will be the landing speed - in my opinion about 100 kilometers per hour ... But the landing speed is actually kinetic energy. Which decreases to the second degree from the magnitude of the speed. That is, the kinetic energy (which needs to be braked) will decrease by about 6 times!
    1. Lozovik
      Lozovik 13 September 2018 16: 28
      +2
      Quote: geniy
      MiG-29 is limited in angle of attack of 24 degrees.


      26 degrees according to SOS-3, then the pusher intervenes with a force on the handle of 17 kgf to dive. The pilot can overpower him, but at about 32 degrees the plane will go into stall.

      Quote: geniy
      if you approach the angle of attack (and pitch) for example, at 20 degrees


      More than 14 degrees will not work - it touches the nozzle.

      Quote: geniy
      Indeed, now with a practically zero pitch angle at landing, its landing speed is 250 km / h.


      At 11-12 degrees.

      Quote: geniy
      And if ... lower the ailerons


      There are none, but there are automatically deflected socks.

      Quote: geniy
      in my opinion about 100 kilometers per hour


      Flying at such a speed is impossible, control is also (the stabilizer efficiency is not enough in pitch, and the ailerons alone are not enough in roll, because at large angles of attack the stabilizer is disconnected from lateral control).

      Quote: geniy
      the Tu-104 does not have covers to cover the engine’s air intake in flight, but for example the MiG-29 has such covers.


      The MiG-29 also has no covers; axial inlets are closed by wedge sections.

      Quote: geniy
      And if you close the cover of one of the engines, then its turbine and compressor will not rotate even from the incoming air flow.


      But the frontal resistance will increase and a diving moment will appear, not to mention the draw and the problems with balancing.

      Quote: geniy
      That is, a complete saving in motor resources - one and a half - two times!


      Even if the "naked" plane will go at maximum, the thrust for flying above 8000 and faster M = 0,8 will not be enough. It doesn't smell like any kind of savings.
      1. geniy
        geniy 16 September 2018 10: 41
        0
        MiG-29 is limited in angle of attack of 24 degrees.
        26 degrees SOS-3, further the pusher intervenes

        And more than 20 degrees is not necessary. I gave 24 degrees of the angle of attack only as a limit value, which should not be entered.
      2. geniy
        geniy 16 September 2018 10: 43
        0
        if you approach the angle of attack (and pitch) for example, at 20 degrees
        More than 14 degrees will not work - it touches the nozzle.

        And on the nozzles of the engines it is necessary to put special cylindrical nozzles - by the way, slightly increasing traction, which will protect the nozzles from touching concrete, and small wheels are also possible.
      3. geniy
        geniy 16 September 2018 10: 45
        0
        And if ... lower the ailerons
        There are none, but there are automatically deflected socks.

        No, there is. You misinform the public. On the MiG-29 there are freezing ailerons.
      4. geniy
        geniy 16 September 2018 12: 29
        0
        Even if the "naked" plane will go at maximum, the thrust for flying above 8000 and faster M = 0,8 will not be enough. It doesn't smell like any kind of savings.

        And at this point you misinform VO readers. After all, everyone knows that the maximum speed of the Mig-29 on afterburner is 2450 km / h, and its economic speed is 0,8 Mach 850 km / h, which I write about. If readers knew that the engine power and fuel consumption of an airplane are approximately related in the third degree - that is, the economic speed is about 3 times less than the maximum, then the power is about 3 in the third degree less - that is, about 27 times !! This means that there is no maximum at economic speed! And this means that one of the two engines can be easily turned off, while the second at the same time use a giant reserve of traction. At the same time, the second engine will work with a little more power and a higher temperature - and for a turbojet engine it is very profitable - the thermal efficiency increases. Due to this, flying on one engine will be more economical than on two - with a greatly reduced power of both. And in addition, one turned off engine will greatly save its engine life.
      5. geniy
        geniy 16 September 2018 14: 37
        0
        The MiG-29 also has no covers; axial inlets are closed by wedge sections.

        Quote: geniy
        And if you close the cover of one of the engines, then its turbine and compressor will not rotate even from the incoming air flow.


        But the frontal resistance will increase and a diving moment will appear, not to mention the draw and the problems with balancing.


        Of course, the air intake of the wedge section is closed - by name I simply applied the wrong word, but this does not change the essence of the process - the air intake closes.
        The drawbridge on the Mig-29 is probably very small. The fact is that the odnoyag mainly depends on the distance between the engines. And the Mig-29 fighter has engines installed close to each other - the distance between their axles is about one meter. Whereas, in contrast to most other aircraft, the engines are spaced a very long distance - about 10 meters - for example, these are all twin-engine passenger airliners of the Airbus and Boeing type. Yes, and the Russian turboprop An-24 or piston IL-14.
        And all these aircraft sometimes have emergency situations with the failure of the right or left engine. And all planes fly normally at the same time - sometimes for a long time. Moreover, all cadets pilots must undergo flight practice with one engine turned off. So the MiG-29’s odd draw is so minimal that you can ignore it.
        The frontal resistance when closing the air intake also almost does not increase - since any engine except useful traction necessarily has a small harmful resistance. And although the traction disappears when closing, the engine resistance is negligible, and it can be ignored.
        Also, the MiG-29 engines have no diving moment. This is very easy to verify by a simple consideration: during take-off and landing, their air intakes must be closed, and at that moment, neither a dive nor a cabling moment arises when closing - otherwise all MiGs would constantly suffer disasters during take-off and landing.
        1. Lozovik
          Lozovik 17 September 2018 21: 43
          0
          Quote: geniy
          And on the nozzles of the engines it is necessary to put special cylindrical nozzles - by the way, slightly increasing traction, which will protect the nozzles from touching concrete, and small wheels are also possible.


          An ejector nozzle or what?

          Quote: geniy
          No, there is. You misinform the public. On the MiG-29 there are freezing ailerons.


          At 9.13, the ailerons are not included in the runway; they are intended only for lateral control.

          Quote: geniy
          And at this point you misinform VO readers. After all, everyone knows that the maximum speed of the Mig-29 on afterburner is 2450 km / h, and its economic speed is 0,8 Mach 850 km / h, which I write about. If readers knew that the engine power and fuel consumption of an airplane are approximately related in the third degree - that is, the economic speed is about 3 times less than the maximum, then the power is about 3 in the third degree less - that is, about 27 times !! This means that there is no maximum at economic speed! And this means that one of the two engines can be easily turned off, while the second at the same time use a giant reserve of traction. At the same time, the second engine will work with a little more power and a higher temperature - and for a turbojet engine it is very profitable - the thermal efficiency increases. Due to this, flying on one engine will be more economical than on two - with a greatly reduced power of both. And in addition, one turned off engine will greatly save its engine life.


          With one engine operating on the afterburner mode, this aircraft is unable to exceed M = 0,8 in the GP. Zhukovsky curves to help.

          Quote: geniy
          And the Mig-29 fighter has engines installed close to each other - the distance between their axles is about one meter.


          Much more.

          Quote: geniy
          Moreover, all cadets pilots must undergo flight practice with one engine turned off.


          Pilots simulate failure by putting the engine in MG mode.

          Quote: geniy
          So the MiG-29’s odd draw is so minimal that you can ignore it.


          There is a heeling and a developing moment.

          Quote: geniy
          Also, the MiG-29 engines have no diving moment. This is very easy to verify by a simple consideration: during take-off and landing, their air intakes must be closed, and at that moment, neither a dive nor a cabling moment arises when closing - otherwise all MiGs would constantly suffer disasters during take-off and landing.


          The air intakes are transferred from or to the take-off and landing configuration at an instrument speed of 200 km / h and an altitude of less than 3000 meters with the left landing gear, i.e. on takeoff or run.
          1. geniy
            geniy 17 September 2018 23: 02
            0
            Firstly: in any case, thank you for the informative answers!
            With one engine operating on the afterburner mode, this aircraft is unable to exceed M = 0,8 in the GP. Zhukovsky curves to help.

            About that and speech! That even two engines operating at low thrust allow flying at an economic speed of M = 0,8. So what is the difference if, instead of two, only one will work? After all, Mach 0,8 is still not needed for economic speed!
          2. geniy
            geniy 17 September 2018 23: 14
            0
            And the Mig-29 fighter has engines installed close to each other - the distance between their axles is about one meter.
            ______________________________________________________
            Much more.

            What does much more mean? I mean distance between axles engines and not between their extreme points!
            Of course, I could easily give a specific figure of the distance between the axles, but I will not even bother, since it is still no more than 1,5 meters, and for comparison, for example, a Boeing or an airbus has a distance of about 10 meters between the engine axes! So you distinguish the difference between 10 m and 1,5 m?

            Pilots simulate failure by putting the engine in MG mode.
            Who cares? All the same, the engine does not give traction when idling.
            Yes, in addition, there are trainings on the flight simulator, where one engine is really turned off. And besides, real emergency situations sometimes occur when the plane flies only on one of the engines. And quite normally everyone flies on one engine. And at the same time, heeling and unfolding moments with a distance between the engines of 10 m are easily countered, while the MiG only has 1 meter between the engines.
          3. geniy
            geniy 17 September 2018 23: 16
            0
            At 9.13, the ailerons are not included in the runway; they are intended only for lateral control.

            And on other types are included! So, if desired, freezing ailerons can be made generally on any aircraft. And if the fools of designers have no desire, then the planes are not to blame.
          4. geniy
            geniy 17 September 2018 23: 18
            0
            An ejector nozzle or what?

            There may be different options for constructive protection of the engine nozzle from impact: both the ejector nozzle, and the elastic heel under the nozzle, and small wheels - you can choose who you like.
            1. Lozovik
              Lozovik 18 September 2018 21: 31
              0
              Quote: geniy
              So what is the difference if, instead of two, only one will work?


              Unlike cruising modes, the engine will be subject to increased loads, working at maximum. I won’t tell you what the unit costs are.

              Quote: geniy
              After all, Mach 0,8 is still not needed for economic speed!


              Not only speed is important, but also height. From the point of view of kilometer flow, it is most advantageous to fly on subsonic ceilings. A plane with one working engine of this height (12-13 km) will not reach.

              Quote: geniy
              Of course, I could easily give a specific figure of the distance between the axles, but I will not even bother


              I wonder how? The axis of the engine is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.

              Quote: geniy
              it is still no more than 1,5 meters


              Approximately 1,7-1,75 on average.

              Quote: geniy
              And besides, real emergency situations sometimes occur when the plane flies only on one of the engines. And quite normally everyone flies on one engine. And at the same time, heeling and unfolding moments with a distance between the engines of 10 m are easily countered, while the MiG only has 1 meter between the engines.


              Gliding is not good.

              Quote: geniy
              And on other types are included!


              I can only talk about 9.12, 9.13, 9.19 and 9.51.

              Quote: geniy
              There may be different options for the structural protection of the engine nozzle from impact: and the ejector nozzle


              I have never heard that this is allowed.
  21. geniy
    geniy April 27 2018 10: 17
    +1
    Here some are fighting for an increase in flight range. But there is a way how, without investing a single penny of money, you can easily increase this very range by a factor of 104, and at the same time also reduce fuel consumption and increase engine life. I recall that there were such ancient airliners - Tu-XNUMX. So - their engines were pressed close to the fuselage. That is, turning off the right or left engine created a not too large developing moment, which could easily be countered by a slight deviation of the rudder. I will not say about Soviet (that is, Russian) pilots, but about Polish pilots I read that in order to save fuel after takeoff and climb, they often turned off the right or left engine in flight. And the remaining worked with greater profitability. In this case, engine life was also saved.
    But for a combat aircraft, not only range is often important, but also the duration of the flight - for example, when patrolling the area. And besides, the Tu-104 does not have covers that cover the engine’s air intake during the flight, but for example, the MiG-29 has such covers. And if you close the cover of one of the engines, then its turbine and compressor will not rotate even from the incoming air flow. That is, a complete saving in motor resources - one and a half - two times!
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 11: 16
      +1
      with take-off it’s understandable, but they didn’t sit down at Smolensk too recently?
  22. lazy
    lazy April 27 2018 17: 13
    0
    or it was possible to upgrade the su-33 to universal
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 27 2018 18: 57
      0
      well this is way too easy
  23. exo
    exo April 27 2018 19: 17
    +1
    It seems that I read a lot of literature on carrier-based aviation, but I discovered a lot of new things. Thank you!
  24. Lucy
    Lucy April 27 2018 22: 05
    +3
    Quote: Taoist
    And it was precisely the MiGs that they planned to use primarily as air defense machines. Despite the absence of emfs, they were superior to drying in the BVB, but they could not carry heavy anti-ship missiles in principle. Tactically, the scheme should have looked like Sushki attacked ASGs as attack aircraft and MiGs ensured their withdrawal to the launch line and cover of the warrant.


    Where did the firewood come from? You read the logging documentation in order avtom. calculation of the combat use of MiG-29K strike groups?
    At KP AG “Kuznetsova”, there is an automated workplace OBU in the areas of, including management of the ShA. The MiG-29K was planned (flashed in the automated control system) as a strike aircraft, with BPASP both cast iron and UR including RCC, PR system "X". In general, there was no air defense system at adm.Kuznetsov, because there is no possibility of determining the 3rd coordinate with an accuracy of at least 600m, for the work of operators to remove the height of the equipment is a lawn (“alloy” - Air Force) and the K-20 was originally not working. Well, that's enough, otherwise the patriots will peck.
  25. mmaxx
    mmaxx 1 May 2018 07: 20
    +1
    Quote: Taoist

    2) You compare the drying and the moment in terms of air combat. But (see p. 1) - initially they were bred for tasks. And it was precisely the MiGs that they planned to use primarily as air defense machines. Despite the absence of emfs, they were superior to drying in the BVB, but they could not carry heavy anti-ship missiles in principle. Tactically, the scheme should have looked like Sushki attacked ASGs as attack aircraft and MiGs ensured their withdrawal to the launch line and cover of the warrant.


    The jester knows about superiority in the BVB. There was a war of Ethiopia with Eritrea. So, according to the results of that war, an unambiguous conclusion: the MiG-29 versus the Su-27 in the sky means nothing. Just no chance. The pilots were the same there and there. From b. THE USSR.
  26. mmaxx
    mmaxx 1 May 2018 08: 00
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    Again, I can’t understand why the Su-33 is poorly unified with the Su-30? The glider is very unified. Certainly more than the MiG. In general, the Su-33 is a Soviet aircraft, so to speak, the Su-27 is also not unified with anything modern. God be with him, we are talking about a possible future (which the truth is not and will not be). If the task had been set in the 00-ies on the basis of the Su-35 easily deck option would have been done by now. And with hanging tanks and with all the other whistles and fakes. Another question is that everyone does not care. And they put the MiG onto the deck clearly with marketing purposes to cut down the currencies on Indian supplies - look, not a plane, but sweetie, we use it ourselves, we’re not overjoyed. Fly buy.

    This is most likely a question of money. Drying was simply unprofitable economically. The series is small. It is possible that for the modification under the Indians, it was necessary to invest at a loss. After the Su-30, they never took the old equipment plane. So they decided to feed the Mikoyanovites. A cautious and satisfying option. A plane for an aircraft carrier, as it were. All the same, the Indians did not fight on it. And it will fly. Anything is better than the junk that used to be.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 8 May 2018 18: 08
      0
      And also the Su-30 has keels above millimeters by 300-400. Maybe he didn’t fit in height? :-)
  27. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 4 May 2018 14: 27
    0
    Aircraft have a decisive tactical superiority in GDP.