Military Review

A colorful parade of "Drying": what is wrong with the supply of new technology Air Force?

131
Unbreakable Alliance


There is one thing that really makes Russia and Ukraine related. This is the almost complete absence of any reasonable unification of equipment in the armed forces. It must be assumed that it does not make sense to explain in detail why the uniformity of military equipment that performs the same tasks is of key importance. And if during exercises, difficulties with unification can simply cause unnecessary trouble, in a war such problems risk turning into a real catastrophe. There are a lot of examples.

With Ukraine, everything is more or less clear: the leadership is simply trying to squeeze the most out of what remains of the motley fleet of Soviet technology. Something more or less on the go, and something has long been scrap metal. A similar picture can be seen in the case of Russian ships fleet: even now, in spite of the rearmament attempts, the base of the fleet is military units, which were inherited from the USSR A vivid example: despite the supplies of the first Boreevs, now the basis of the marine component of the Russian nuclear triad is various representatives of the Project 667 submarine family, located at the junction of the second and third generations of nuclear submarines. So there is no particular choice.

Separately, it is worth remembering about the ground forces, which got thousands of different Soviet tanks plus what was produced in the post-Soviet years. Now the basis of all this monstrous park seems to have decided to make the T-72B3 model 2016. We can say, noticeable progress. In any case, this is better than building from scratch the T-90, which are purely conceptually not much different from the 72s. And it’s better than to always rely on the expensive and raw "Armata". It seems that there is simply no money for it.

It is quite another thing - the massive supply of Russian aircraft of the new build. This is an expensive program designed for many years, designed to provide the VCS with all necessary. So attention to the supply of new aircraft has always been riveted very close. As we know, the military bought a huge number of completely different machines: Su-35С, Su-30СМ, Su-34, Su-30М2, Su-27СМ3. And there is the MiG-29SMT and a whole fleet of old Soviet aircraft of various versions and years of release. And this is perhaps a completely unique example, which, with all the desire, you will not meet in any other country of the world. However, first things first.



"How many fighters ..."

Let's see how these issues are resolved in the West. It does not make sense to describe in detail the processes that take place in the American or European Air Force. The enormous cost of new machines forced almost completely to abandon the development of new heavy attack aircraft, interceptors and bombers. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. De facto, the leading countries of the world have chosen for their Air Force a concept similar to the concept of a main battle tank in the ground forces. So, in the future, the F-35 fighter will become a single combat aviation tactical strike complex of the United States and some of its allies. With some interspersed old cars that will live out their lives on a safety net. And, of course, UAV.

It can be argued that based on the F-35 built as many as three different aircraft: F-35A, F-35B and F-35C. However, the unification of the components of these options reaches 90 percent. Suffice it to say that all of these aircraft have one radar station with an active phased antenna array AN / APG-81. The fighters received unified electro-optical systems, omnidirectional infrared cameras, radio-electronic jamming stations, helmet-mounted target designation systems and much more. Some of the differences in power plant design are mainly due to the vertical landing requirements for the F-35B. It is believed that the Americans even overdid it with unification, making the F-35A and F-35C "limited" machines, the capabilities of which were partially sacrificed due to the requirements for the F-35B. But this is just the opinion of some aviation enthusiasts. And the US military has its own view on this.



With the world in a thread

We now turn to the Russian Air Force. Surprisingly, the super-economic “modernization” of the Su-27 to the level of the Su-27CM raises the least of all questions. Yes, the car did not become much more efficient, but it can be said, a necessary measure for far from new aircraft in conditions of chronic lack of funds. In addition, Su-27CM and Su-27СМ3 have a lot in common, which also makes the program far from meaningless.

There are many more questions already raised by the aircraft of the new construction: Su-35С, Su-30СМ, Su-30М2, MiG-29СМТ, MiG-35 (in the future) and, of course, Su-34. In fact, the functions of all these machines can be performed by one plane: for example, the conventional Su-35 (U) BM, having a single and double version. There is a point of view that the Su-34 has some of the makings of a long-range bomber: almost a replacement for the Tu-22М3. But this is absurd, because the 34 combat radius is 1100 km, which is comparable or even less than that of the Su-27. The increased mass of the car makes itself felt, so that its radius can be seriously increased only with the use of a PTB or refueling in the air. Which, again, is available to all modern fighter-bombers.

But this is all the details. What is the main problem with the supply of aircraft? Purely formally, the above machines are built on two bases: MiG-29 and Su-27. However, in practice these are completely different complexes, between which there is almost nothing in common except the name of the brands: “MiG” and “Su”. The most unpleasant thing is a fundamentally different set of avionics. Recall that the Su-30CM has the H011M Bars radar well-known to many, and the Su-35С is equipped with the Irbis H035 radar. In turn, the Su-34 has a W-141 radar, and the Su-30М2 received a H001B radar, which differs little from the equipment installed on the Su-27 / CM. At least one plus, however, it is already hopelessly outdated.

A colorful parade of "Drying": what is wrong with the supply of new technology Air Force?


Surprisingly, with the engines that official propaganda likes to be proud of, the situation is exactly the same. The above machines have different engines that are not interchangeable, although they are made using the same technological base (which, again, cannot be called strange). It is also quite symbolic that the rather heavy Su-34 fighter-bomber is equipped with the “modest” AL-31F-М1, while the single-seat Su-35С received the AL-41Ф1С advanced by Russian standards. But this, as they say, is details. And the requirements for a fighter and a front bomber are different.

Only good news here you can read the recent application submitted in the work submitted by the Ufa Engine Industrial Association (UDC-UMPO) to the competition "Aircraft Builder of the Year." The point is that in the future, the Su-30CM should get the same engine as the Su-35. That is, the above-mentioned AL-41F1C. Now the relevant development work is jointly conducted by Sukhoi, UDC-UMPO and Irkut Corporation. When exactly Su-30CM will receive a new engine is not clear.



What to do?

The first thing that the Ministry of Defense can do in a difficult situation that has developed is to completely (or almost completely) reject the MiG-35. It is completely unnecessary in the current conditions of the machine, which will make the operation of aircraft even more difficult, at the same time without bringing the Air Force practical benefits. Do not forget that the year 2018 is in the yard: the era of the fifth generation fighters has begun. Under these conditions, the “Beetle” radar station, to put it mildly, will surprise no one. Exactly, like a number of other features of 35.

Perhaps, it is much better to send money for further purchases of a single aircraft. From among those already in service. Say Su-35 and its hypothetical double version. Now it is the most powerful fighter of the VKS RF, which probably surpasses the Su-30CM (especially the Su-30М2) in a number of characteristics, including the target detection range with a small EPR.

The situation that has developed in RSK MiG is a completely different matter and now we will not discuss it. But in general, when the entire aircraft manufacturing industry lined up for a handout from the state - this is a bad sign. Airplanes should be in demand on the world market, and if they are not bought, it means that these are not such good planes. Or there is simply no infrastructure for operation (which, in principle, is the same in the current realities).



The real replacement for the old Soviet and new Russian combat aircraft could be the Su-57. However, the assessment of its combat potential is completely impossible in the present circumstances, when the machine exists only as a prototype, and we probably never will ever know the effective dispersion area (roughly speaking, the degree of stealth). Earlier, we recall, it became known that the mass production of the machine was moved approximately to the end of 2020-x - approximately 2027-28 years. That is, when (and if) will bring to mind the engine of the second stage and eliminate the main "childhood diseases", which, as you know, almost always accompany the complex new military equipment.
Author:
131 comment
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 10 December 2018 05: 47
    +26
    Aircraft should be in demand on the world market and if they are not bought, then this is not such a good aircraft.
    The author forgets that one of the criteria for the purchase of an aircraft by a "foreign customer" is the adoption, availability and operation of the aircraft in the Air Force of the manufacturer's country. So, if we want to sell the MiG-35, it means we must have it in our own Air Force. And diversity is a legacy of the collapse of the USSR, when factories were forced to "get out" themselves. And now, having made a preference for one of the aircraft, it means actually closing other factories.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 10 December 2018 06: 20
      +29
      I would point out that there is such "diversity" everywhere. some military "jeeps" amaze .. what is not, because it is not profitable for the army, but apparently beneficial to officials who bask in government orders. and the engine on ships ... right up to the Chinese ...
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 10 December 2018 06: 20
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      So, we want to sell the MiG-35, which means they should have it in their own air force.

      I want a lot of things, only who needs it?
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 December 2018 16: 05
        +2
        Quote: Puncher
        I want a lot of things, only who needs it?

        To whom, as I understand it, those who want to buy it. We do not have it yet, we have nothing to show prospective customers something. One prototype is not that, serial cars are needed
    3. kuz363
      kuz363 10 December 2018 08: 51
      +3
      Why close? Convert also to release new aircraft.
      1. bayard
        bayard 10 December 2018 13: 40
        +15
        Donetsk.
        Does the author suggest abandoning the concept of a light fighter? And ditch the legendary KB? Yes, the MiG-35 is no longer quite light (rather average), but on the world market you can't trade with heavy aircraft alone. There are already interested parties on the MiG-35 - the same India, and most importantly - an industrial line is ready for its production - up to 36 items per year. Now we do not have enough pilots in the regiments, but this year 600 young lieutenants have come to the troops ... and in the future there will be no less, so the personnel hunger should be satisfied in the coming years. And then the question arises about the sufficiency of our air force, because it is quite obvious that with our size, at least 15-20 more "new" air regiments are needed. What sides to saturate them with? Is it just heavy? And how to change the existing regiments of the MiG-29s? I think the construction of 5-6 MiG-35 regiments looks quite justified.
        Now about the diversity of our Air Force. It is clear that they were buying what the factories were ready to supply ... mostly modified export versions. But in the future, we can get rid of the least successful models for us by selling them to someone less fastidious, and replacing them with more advanced Su-57, Su-35 or Su-30 (with AL-41F, Irbis radar or adapted " Proteins, updated avionics, BEB, OLS ...).
        There would be pilots for those planes ... Money. AND WILL.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 41
          +2
          There are no active regiments on the MiG-29. EVERYTHING. 31 was the last, he is at Su-30CM. Only in Armenia remained, perhaps, individual cars still fly in different places.
          1. Sazhka
            Sazhka 10 December 2018 19: 41
            0
            https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2017/08/07/728196-indoneziya-istrebiteli
          2. abc_alex
            abc_alex 11 December 2018 01: 58
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            There are no operating regiments on the MiG-29. ALL.


            And how is it that mass rearmament to heavy aircraft of the Su-27 family is good?
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 11 December 2018 09: 00
              +1
              As we can see, without any problems. Unlike the MiG-35, which does not finish everything.
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 11 December 2018 12: 14
                +5
                In 2017, the Russian Armed Forces received 17 Su-30SM, 16 Su-34 and ten Su-35S. And really, what are the problems? Even 5-10 years and it will be possible to replace the entire fleet of Su-27 ... And we even reach the level of the USSR in the number of heavy fighters. 320-330. And it remains only to collect another 1520 boards, which in the USSR fell on the MiG-29, MiG-23, MiG-21. What problems are there. You just need to wait another 30-40 years.
                But the main thing is how famously we will nip the nose of the USA. Fools are sitting there - they complete their Air Force for the most part with light fighters: out of 1673 vehicles they have 951 F-16s and 71 F-35s. They’re dumb, right? And most importantly, rogues. They can not afford the Air Force all of the heavy vehicles.
                1. Days
                  Days 12 December 2018 00: 08
                  -2
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  <...> USA. There are fools sitting there - they complete their Air Force for the most part with light fighters: out of 1673 aircraft, they have 951 F-16s and 71 F-35s. They're stupid, right?

                  Normal take-off weight:
                  F-16: 12.8 tons
                  MiG-29: 15 tons
                  Su-27: 18 tons
                  MiG-25: 18.5 tons
                  F-35A: 24 tons, Su-30SM: 24 tons
                  Su-35: 25 tons
                  F-22: 29 tons
                  Su-57: 27-30 tons?

                  In total, the Russian Federation replaces Migi with dryers, which, according to the normal take-off mass, are like F-35A, but at the same time, the drying is heavy and the penguins are light. Iron logic! Pan Pan Americano!
                  1. abc_alex
                    abc_alex 12 December 2018 01: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Dagen
                    In total, the Russian Federation replaces the Migi with dryers, which, according to the normal take-off mass, are like F-35A, but at the same time the drying is heavy, and the penguins are light. Iron logic!


                    Different countries, different standards.
                    And I would not compare normal takeoff masses. There, a lot depends on the capacity of the tanks and the quantity of weapons, which again depends on the design of the suspensions. It’s better to compare the masses of empty cars.
        2. Sazhka
          Sazhka 10 December 2018 19: 38
          -3
          Russia is FORBIDDEN to sell products of "dual" use. Sanctions. But there is nothing of its own. Plundered and destroyed. What can we offer buyers ?? Only a figurine in vegetable oil, but rather in "palm".
          1. bayard
            bayard 11 December 2018 01: 59
            +3
            Donetsk.
            Dollar settlement is difficult for Indonesia - the US may block transactions. Therefore, this form of payment was chosen - Indonesia and so supplies this oil to Russia. This time, his payment will be in rubles, and they will be paid for aircraft.
            For planes will pay RUBLES.
      2. svp67
        svp67 10 December 2018 16: 10
        +5
        Quote: kuz363
        Why close? Convert also to release new aircraft.
        Money, huge money, is required for this. Although we are slowly doing this. We are transferring something to the production of civil aircraft, which we are preparing for the release of a single platform of the 5th generation. One regret is that we do not yet have a fifth-generation lightweight platform. But we really need such a plane.
        1. Hypersound
          Hypersound 11 December 2018 19: 44
          -1
          There is a lightweight 5th generation platform. Mig-41, max speed 4-4.5 Mach
    4. user
      user 10 December 2018 11: 53
      +6
      But in general, when the entire aircraft industry lined up for handouts from the state - this is a bad sign. Aircraft should be in demand on the world market and if they are not bought, then this is not such a good aircraft.


      Having read this quote, I immediately have a question - what does the author of this article know about the aviation industry of the Russian Federation?

      You don’t just have to pour mud on me right away, call me a couch general or someone else, I really am not interested in this state of our aviation in this article, because apart from all kinds of information collected from various articles and booklets from all kinds of analysts, there is nothing in the article. And I also had a relationship with the Air Force. I’m interested in what the author knows about the state of our aviation industry, because the information about the design bureaus and research institutes, and also about new enterprises under construction, but most of them are not yet built, are almost 100% not new but simply extensions of the old ones.

      After all, it is no secret that the aviation industry is a huge budget, and most importantly long-term, financing. After all, if you look at today's map of Russia. That aircraft enterprises are located both in the European part of Russia and beyond the Urals. So all current innovations, in the sense of new construction projects, are located in the European part. There are several largest airlines in the Asian part, they can be listed (I will not search for new names of enterprises, I will list only the largest):
      - Helicopter plant in Arseniev, Primorsky Territory.
      - Aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.
      - Helicopter plant in Ulan-Uda.
      - Aircraft factory in Irkutsk.
      - Aircraft factory in Novosibirsk.
      I just listed factories producing airborne aircraft, the list did not include aircraft repair plants and factories producing space and rocket technology. Moreover, these enterprises are operating, manufacturing products, i.e. not bankrupt.
      Now again look at the map where all these plants are located and what is the connection between them (aviation supply of enterprises is from the field of financial science fiction). Obviously, the main transport artery is transib, although they are trying to use BAM, plans are being made for their reconstruction, etc. (but all this in the long run). Today, according to the official information of Russian Railways, Transib’s capacity is 108 pairs of trains per day. Who rides today by train today may pay attention that all stations and sub-stations (meaning Transib) are clogged with echelons as during the war, this is hard to miss. Again, according to the official statistics of Russian Railways, loading of the railway in this direction is far beyond 90% - all this thanks to the Silk Road and transport integration with China and other countries using these transport routes.
      Even during the Soviet Union, I remember how, behind a barrel of sealant, an airplane was sent from Arsenyev to the European part, there was no logistics at that time, but there was transport communication and the plan was not fulfilled by related enterprises for the supply of necessary equipment and components. So, in this regard, today, little has changed. In Europe, with their good logistics, you can order 1 different components from 000 different enterprises by a certain day or even an hour. With us, look at the map again, this is practically impossible to do for the real rhythmic work of the enterprise, bearing in mind the quantitative range of components.
      How did you find a way out of this in our country?
      Everything is very simple, localized on site the maximum possible release of components. To do this, they created a foundry and machine-building production, aluminum rolling, etc., etc., etc., in revenge, as well as their design bureau and related services. Although it is not possible to produce everything on the spot, it turns out to reduce dependence on subcontractors and transport accessibility.
      Today, when capitalism is in the yard, everyone begins to count money, i.e. the profitability of production, referring to Boeing and Airbus, with their logistics in Europe, I described above, about the same in America. And what is the profitability of such enterprises in comparison with them. All of our enterprises have their own foundry and engineering, aluminum rolling, etc., as well as large production facilities and office buildings. All this is very expensive to maintain and maintain, and you may not even need to look at the number of manufactured devices. But transport in the near and medium term will not change. Therefore, in terms of value, it is very difficult for us to compete with the bourgeois.
      Therefore, they are trying to make everything new compact and territorially more accessible, as it seems to them in the European part, well, maximum in the Urals. Therefore, today they are trying to produce so many different aviation and similar equipment, they are trying to load Kazan, Moscow, Voronezh, Samara, Rostov. But it’s very difficult, in fact, it’s not possible to immediately start making the Su-57 (Komsomolsk-on-Amur), Ka-52 (Arsenyev), Su-30Sm (Irkutsk) Su-34 (Novosibirsk)
      But something tells me that no matter how it was necessary to carry out a new evacuation on day X, in Soviet times they understood all this and placed it, the only thing they didn’t have is parallel to Transib (if anyone is interested, it officially starts in Chelyabinsk and ends in Vladivostok) another transport corridor to do.
      1. igor67
        igor67 10 December 2018 12: 37
        +5
        Quote: user
        All our enterprises have their own foundry and engineering, aluminum rolling, etc.

        this is the problem, assembled the NK12 engine, MV4,3,2 series, it doesn’t matter, for example, the gearwheel was decommissioned, it must be replaced, here the problem popped up, the wheels are there, but there are no releases from different enterprises, while there are other options and the same engine, but of different versions, there are high and low series, have differences, although not significant, it is a headache during assembly. Also, the Arsenievsky Mi 24 (Vol. 246) differed from the Rostov (Vol. 242),
    5. alexmach
      alexmach 11 December 2018 00: 23
      0
      And now, having made a preference for one of the aircraft, it means actually closing the other plants.

      Are there any other options?
    6. NordUral
      NordUral 11 December 2018 10: 11
      +3
      Sergei! You have clearly identified the root of the problem identified by the author. Everything for sale and for the sake of sale. And the Russian Air Force - take what you have. This "our" government is not going to fight for us. If only for himself, when he realizes where her place is in the eyes of the West, but the menagers still hope to bargain.
    7. Horn
      Horn 12 December 2018 06: 08
      +2
      Why close? It is necessary to unify and release one thing. Some factories are MiGs, some are Su. Technology for war should be unified and interchangeable. Like a Kalashnikov.
      1. Sazhka
        Sazhka 13 December 2018 08: 43
        -1
        "Why shut down? We need to unify and produce one thing. Some factories are MiGs, some are Su. Equipment for war should be unified and interchangeable. Like Kalashnikov."
        This does not happen .. One of the models of the Cannon, Pistol, Airplane .. Cool !. just "covers" !!! What? .What's wrong ??? Can we start BUILDING ???
    8. another RUSICH
      another RUSICH 17 December 2018 09: 26
      0
      And who said that unification in the air is good? Set as an example of MBT? Or maybe the tasks in the air and on the earth are slightly different?
      And the example with f35 is not correct enough. The thirty-fifth did not become a unique machine "for everything" and what about their unification in the RF "up to 90%", to put it mildly, tightly, especially with the "beshka"
      You can recall the experience of the Second World War, when we had a great experience of unification on the ground in automotive equipment (by comparison. We have a complete wrestret in the Vesakhta fleet), we had different design bureaus: Yak, MiG, La, Su. And this is in conditions of austerity and a chronic lack of funds (and this is not counting the competition Pe and Il)
      And what does the author suggest?
      Under the knife of the KB MiG? Castrate SU?
      Oh well...
  2. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 10 December 2018 06: 28
    0
    The author is entitled to all 100, at least the Su-30 is superfluous, it was logical to create a two-seat version of the Su-35S. And the Su-34 is most likely irrelevant, the order is almost complete, there is no new one, people are being cut. NAPOiCH Sukhoi has the most unpromising plant, while Irkutsk and Komsomolsky underwent re-equipment, then NAPOiCH equipment since Soviet times. Will the KLA invest in its refurbishment? Most likely not and hard times await.
    1. letinant
      letinant 10 December 2018 07: 49
      +32
      The author of this opus writes "HERNYU". And it has to do with aviation 0. And it denies us what all aircraft manufacturers in the world are doing (modernizing aircraft, giving them new opportunities at a minimum cost). Example, F-16, Mirage-2000. What is the difference between the SU-35 and the SU-27 (on the basis of which the SU-30 was made)? Engines, avionics, on-board radar systems, optical systems, and therefore the look has been somewhat changed and improved (although for me the SU-35's cockpit is closer than in the SU-27). I agree that the SU-35 has more sophisticated aerodynamics, some systems have been removed. SU-30 is the VKP of the link plus additional. ammunition. The need for the SU-34, but this is not even a question but a statement of facts, I talked with the pilots who fly it, they are delighted with this car! Maneuverability (even with ammunition), security, visibility (awareness from on-board systems is this: "I saw that the plane was chasing me in the rear hemisphere."
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 December 2018 08: 23
        +6
        No one talks about the unnecessaryness of the Su30 ... it just needs to be replaced with a 2-local version of the Su35C ... with the same radars and turbojet engines ..... and with some kind of augmented systems.
        1. bayard
          bayard 10 December 2018 14: 10
          +2
          Donetsk.
          India is already negotiating the modernization of its Su-30s with the installation of AL-41F, Belka-based radar and new avionics. This is the way to go ... And with the money of India (development of modernization).
          Su-34 has already been built about 120 pieces. The car is good and there are already a lot of them. Therefore, their modernization according to a similar scheme is quite justified - AL-41F, avionics, etc. It would be nice to continue the series to 200 - 240 pcs. - Another 80 - 120 in the updated version.
          But if the matter of curtailing production of the Su-34 is serious ... then perhaps the new Su-57 in the shock version claims to be the fighter-bomber.
          But personally, I am for continuing the purchase of the Su-34. For instead of one Su-57 you can get 3 (!) Su-34.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 10 December 2018 08: 26
      -3
      Unnecessary - Su-34 .... its role will be able to perform the upgraded Su30XX with sighting container.
      1. DenZ
        DenZ 10 December 2018 09: 07
        +3
        Quote: Zaurbek
        Unnecessary - Su-34 .... its role will be able to perform the upgraded Su30XX with sighting container.
        And stick the radar of the rear hemisphere review on the Su30XX too? That will turn out the Su-34 !!!
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 10 December 2018 09: 51
          0
          Rearview Radar - A Sign of a Bomber? And it can not be attached to the variants of the Su30?
          1. DenZ
            DenZ 10 December 2018 13: 18
            +6
            Quote: Zaurbek
            Rearview Radar - A Sign of a Bomber? And it can not be attached to the variants of the Su30?

            Can. but I would like to ask you serious about all this? If "Yes, then one question arises - NAFIGA? If there is already a Su-34. Or is it just that you wanted to practice in wit? Or do you think that everything is so simple - put this one on the Su-30 and became almost like the Su-34? how wonderfully speculative it is possible to alter anything from anything like that.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 10 December 2018 13: 28
              -1
              What for?
              1. interchangeability of nodes
              2. Flexibility of use: the fighter is full and, suspended the container, the bomber is full.
              3. The same pilots


              it is so offhand.

              I would understand if the cars were different cab and contents, and the rest would be the same ... but no. The story with 3 main tanks is repeated.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 10 December 2018 14: 41
                0
                Zaur, you still try to answer - how long does it take to stop Novosib so that it can produce the Su-35?
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 10 December 2018 17: 09
                  +1
                  Taking into account the fact that now all the drawings in digital form are not for long .... but I answered your thought below.
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 11 December 2018 12: 15
                    0
                    That is, do you think that you can manage in two years? I doubt it
              2. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 11 December 2018 11: 13
                +3
                Quote: Zaurbek

                2. Flexibility of use: the fighter is full and, suspended the container, the bomber is full.

                Oh, I have this versatility! There is nothing worse! I was convinced from my own experience. The universal is necessarily (!) Somehow loses to the special.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 10 December 2018 10: 17
          0
          Get a variant of the Su30 with a rear radar ... with the same avionics cabin, turbojet engine, pilots and a full fighter.
          1. letinant
            letinant 10 December 2018 12: 48
            +4
            And to attach the armored capsule of the crew and the nomenclature of weapons on the ground, in addition, as I wrote above, the SU-30 and SU-30SM are a VKP (air command post) unit !!! the main element of the SU-30 is an air battle, and we have already passed the replacement of specialized attack aircraft with multifunction ones. Afgan showed the crew needed protection, the SU-30 had none, and there were enough other specialized systems there. So far, no aircraft manufacturer in the world has created an absolutely universal fighter.
            1. letinant
              letinant 10 December 2018 12: 55
              -4
              And who is the husband of the previous director of the Sukhoi Design Bureau resigned because he was pushing the SU-35 and hiding the SU-30SM, which is cheaper.
              1. letinant
                letinant 10 December 2018 13: 20
                +6
                Aiming container, this is not the very essence but a dire necessity! At the cost of modern aircraft, it is impossible for economic reasons to build a large number of them. Therefore, if it is necessary to hit the ground with fighters, aiming containers are needed! But the survival rate is low. Another side of this issue is export. For example, "LIMPOPO", borders with states that have questions to it on the territory, but their military component is weak. Why "LIMPOPO" spend extra money on planes of different classes if this one can handle it too. From the Pentagon documents (of course, open, the book "Wars in Iraq 1991 and in the Balkans" in English), the effectiveness of the F-16 with the containers "LANTIRN" was low, out of 36 assigned, destroyed 8. In comparison with the outdated FB-111, decommissioned and reinstated in service prior to Operation Desert Storm. He coped much better out of 17 knocked out 14. This is the difference between a specialized aircraft and we are not "LIMPOPO" and our enemy is more serious.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 10 December 2018 13: 33
                  0
                  There is India's experience with the Su30MKI and there is their experience with sighting containers ... There is the experience of the US / Israel Air Force .... and these are the leaders of the last 30 years in the number of strike operations.
                  1. letinant
                    letinant 10 December 2018 16: 33
                    +6
                    Israel until recently worked in conditions of weak air defense this ONCE. The example of the United States I gave you above (this book was written by former pilots and command personnel of the US and British Air Forces) is TWO. In addition, read the documents on the US doctrine: "the war is being fought with an enemy that is weaker in terms of the military component or more technologically backward", identify the countries with which the United States fought over the past 30 years and you will see everything. And where has the specific conflict among the Indians lately been? And I am silent about their aviation, they cannot decide what kind of aircraft they need, so they rush about buying everything around the world, but they are trying to bargain cheaper. Such a motley composition of the Air Force is not found anywhere in the world.
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 10 December 2018 17: 11
                      0
                      I’ll tell you that the majority of conflicts are such .... the war with Georgia was even easier, but the losses ...?
                      1. sivuch
                        sivuch 10 December 2018 18: 29
                        +4
                        Sorry, but to open someone's eyes you need to have a little more knowledge. A major war (with Turkey, Japan or a similar country) is now unlikely, but it is still necessary to prepare for it. It's like a gun for a civilian in Israel - it can come in handy just once, but it's worth it to wear it all your life.
                      2. letinant
                        letinant 10 December 2018 23: 12
                        0
                        Loss of what?
            2. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 10 December 2018 13: 30
              0
              What did Afghanistan show? What should Su25 and Mi24 have armor? It is, Su30 / 34 level aircraft did not participate there, Su24 occasionally took off from the territory of the USSR.
              1. letinant
                letinant 10 December 2018 13: 33
                +3
                Because to the SU-34 and the requirement of an armored capsule.
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 48
                0
                And the losses are not carried.
        3. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet 10 December 2018 21: 15
          +1
          And when they began to put a rear-view radar on the Su-34, there is an APU in the aft beam.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 10 December 2018 10: 10
        -1
        In principle, it will not be able
    3. jonht
      jonht 10 December 2018 09: 16
      +4
      Of all these, the Su-34 is not a fighter, but a front-line bomber, and it was made to replace the Su-24, plus pilots are placed on it for titanium protection, which makes it similar to the attack aircraft.
      The Su-30 spent car and its purchases should end; from the rest, the Su-35 and Mig-35 should become the main machines with the subsequent replacement of the Su-57 and possibly some kind of light and medium next-generation fighter.
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 38
      +2
      In fact, it was under Su-34, when NAPAiCH in 2006 r was put off into production, the complex modernization of the plant was carried out in 2007, after which the series went ahead.
    5. Sazhka
      Sazhka 13 December 2018 08: 58
      0
      Hardly .. Who cares? Just a headache. It is easier to simply go bankrupt and "create" again on this wave. Elementary .. But already under a different "control" ... And there will be those willing to "control" .. True, only "temporarily" Then they will die, from a heart attack or stroke.
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 10 December 2018 08: 02
    +5
    Unification, the dream of any supplier .... and the mechanics too !!!
    Not our path, it seems, however, can and is justified. History has already shown how unification can entice its supporters .... however, there is no small gain!
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 10 December 2018 08: 20
    +1
    and, of course, Su-34. In fact, the functions of all these machines can be performed by one aircraft: for example, the conditional Su-35 (U) BM, which has a single and double version. There is a point of view that the Su-34 has some makings of a long-range bomber: almost a replacement for the Tu-22M3. But this is completely absurd, because the combat radius of the 34-ki is 1100 km, which is comparable or even less than that of the Su-27 ....

    ... about which we have argued more than once.
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 10 December 2018 09: 12
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      34 combat radius of 1100 km, which is comparable or even less than that of the Su-27

      What is the load?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 December 2018 10: 17
        0
        with the same.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 10 December 2018 13: 33
          +1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          with the same.

          Share the source of this revelation.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 10 December 2018 14: 51
          +3
          Quote: Zaurbek
          with the same.
          Where does this data about 1100 km and equality with Su-27 come from? Someone present has access to the navigational calculations of these aircraft? This is generally classified documentation. From the non-secret documentation of the commercial Su-27SK, you can find out that its combat radius with a load of 4xP-27 + 2xP-73 with their discharge in the middle of the route and flying along the profile of a large-large-large altitude is about 1500 km. After reading the similar literature for the declassified Su-24 (without M) and drawing some analogies with the Su-34 (which came to replace it, i.e. the principles of its combat use are similar), we can roughly infer that the combat radius of the Su-34 in 600 km in open sources, indicated in relation to the flight on the profile of low-low-low altitude and combat load from 4's or 6 and FAB-500 with a reset in the middle of the route.
          What can we learn from this information in terms of comparing the ranges of the Su-27 and Su-34? But nothing! Because the conditions are so different that it is not possible to compare anything. Not only do the FAB-500 weigh significantly more, but their aerodynamics are significantly worse than those of the V-V rackets, so they cling to the air much stronger. And besides, for the bomber, the calculations were made logically for low altitude, while for the Su-27 fighter-interceptor, they were designed for high altitude.
          If we talk about calculations on the knee, then my attempt to make navigational calculations in exactly the same conditions for these airplanes, led me to the conclusion that the real combat radius of the Su-34 is still slightly larger than that of the Su-27. But it is not exactly.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 27
            +2
            For Su-34 EMNIP promise to deliver 8 tons at low altitude on 1000 km. And for durability, it even takes 12 tons of load.
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 10 December 2018 21: 28
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              For Su-34 EMNIP promise 8 tons at low altitude at 1000 km deliver.

              16 five hundred on 1000 km at low altitude - this is unlikely.
              Quote: EvilLion
              And in terms of strength, he even takes 12 tons of load.

              In theory, he takes it somewhere. In practice, not feasible. There is already too much of a bust, Su-34 is not a strategist. Such a load, I do not know how to hang it. He won’t take so many 1,5 chek, 24 500-ki also can not be hung. Yes, and it makes little sense. With such clusters, it will be a low-flying crocodile, not a plane.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 10 December 2018 22: 56
                0
                Looking for a photo?
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 11 December 2018 13: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: sivuch
                  Looking for a photo?

                  Where is 24 of five hundred suspended? Do not. There is no point in this, because such a suspension is not a working option for the normal combat operation of this airplane. I think for those who imagine how front-line aviation works, this is understandable without long explanations.
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 11 December 2018 09: 03
                0
                I do not see problems, Su-35 takes 8 tons, Su-34 is stronger, requirements for congestion are lower. To take off, of course, will be like an airliner, but in the era of screw machines, one could only dream of such a burden, but flew. It is clear that in real life more than 4 tons almost never carry. Glider is also a pity.
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 11 December 2018 14: 05
                  +2
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  The glider is also a pity.
                  Yes, it's not a glider. There are many reasons. An external bomb is minus Cx and plus S sections. After all, holders, they also worsen aerodynamics. That is, we will fly not far, we will not be able to maneuver at all. Well, that's all right - let us need to bomb ourselves behind the fence of the airfield. What is the purpose of spending such a suspension? More than two visits on the same goal do not. To destroy the five-story building, there is enough volley of 4's five hundred. For the Basmachi, throwing a dozen 500-ok in one gulp also makes no sense, and scattering them over the area is silly. The pointless consumption of BZ. Only half-defended targets are smashed by half-snacks, not basmachi, not tanks, not airfields and not train stations. From here comes the classic - two hits on 4 of five hundred (total 8x500 = 4 tons), or even all from one call to one target. Well edge - Xnumx bombs. Just do not need more.
  5. Alex_59
    Alex_59 10 December 2018 09: 25
    +2
    the military purchased a huge number of completely different machines: Su-35С, Su-30СМ, Su-34, Su-30М2, Su-27СМ3.
    What kind of panic? "Completely different"? A bold statement, yes. The author gives the degree of unification for the F-35 - about 90%. Excellent. What is the degree of unification for the Su-35/30/34 can the author say? Otherwise, the statement of "completely different machines" in relation to Sushki twin brothers is unfounded. And according to the list, the Su-27SM is not a newly produced aircraft, but an upgrade of the Soviet Su-27, it is out of place here at all. The Su-34 is also a Soviet legacy, when a special place was given to the front-line bomber in the concept of the USSR Air Force. The Su-34 was made as a substitute for the Su-24M and was supposed to go into mass production in the 90s, but due to you know what, this did not happen. In our time - what to do with it? We have a ready-made, finished project that is conceptually somewhat outdated (no one has been making single-purpose aircraft - front-line bombers for a long time). Either throw the work of several decades into the trash, or give the pilots a controversial but living plane. Obviously, this is the last front-line bomber in the world, there won't be any more. The Su-30 and 35 remain. And this is already a legacy of the 90s and 00s, when the plant in Irkutsk traditionally drove two-seater cars, and Komsomolsk mostly single-seater. Double Su-35 you say? Duck is almost a Su-30 and it will work. Leave it as it is. Between them, the unification may not be 90% like that of the F-35, but clearly not small.
    But about the MiG - I agree. Died, so died ...
    1. Henderson
      Henderson 10 December 2018 14: 45
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      What is the degree of unification for the Su-35/30/34, the author can say?

      completely different radars, very different gliders, engines, airborne and navigation equipment.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 10 December 2018 23: 03
        +3
        Quote: Henderson
        completely different radars, very different gliders, engines, airborne and navigation equipment.
        And in percentage, how much is it all the same? ))))
        Well, there is a radar station. But gliders ... are "very different." Well, with this approach - each plane is individual, any pilot will say. Engines? The Su-30/34/27 engine is the same - the Al-31 in various modifications, and the latest modifications are installed on all aircraft of the family without modifications. Only the Su-35 is a different engine, although the issue of backward compatibility has been resolved on it. All these big names 30, 35 are pure marketing. Not the Su-35 should be, but the Su-27M1, not the Su-30, the Su-27UBM. But for the sake of beauty, they gave a separate index. Like a new generation 4 +++, to fence off the old Su-27 interceptor. As with the S-400, which, in terms of the totality of modifications, does not pull a separate name, in the good old Soviet army, which did not need marketing, it would definitely go not as the S-400, but as the S-300PM3.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 34
      0
      KNAAZ built Su-30 for the Chinese, but it turned out that the Indians received a more advanced version from Irkut, and most of the rest, including China, had simpler versions from KNAZ. Of course, our MoD didn’t show much interest in homebugs, limiting itself to 20 units Su-30М2. Comes to 10 squadrons on Su-27CM to train.

      The unification between Su-30CM and Su-35 is apparently insignificant, i.e. they have a front-end for the pilot and the machine’s behavior may be similar for training, but the construction of an ACS on the Su-35 is fundamentally different. At Su-30KI, point autonomous automation of individual systems was used; Su-35 already has a new, unified system. The glider on the Su-35 should differ radically.
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 December 2018 09: 35
    +6
    Aircraft of the MiG-29 class are available on the world market without any problems. Any export prospects in the face of such tough competition are initially vague. It's ridiculous about the infrastructure, because RSK MiG is now in the same structure with Sukhoi, and the UAC will do everything that is needed in terms of infrastructure. In the military commissar, they have long learned to do everything with their hands and on time.

    mass production of the machine was moved to about the end of 2020-x - approximately 2027-28 years


    And mass is how much? 12-15 pcs per year - is it massive? Or maybe you need 50 pcs? Or 100?

    At the same time, the plan for the Su-30SM until 2021. For the Su-34 and Su-35, new contracts are very likely after 2020. During this time, the Su-57 is quite possible to "drip a glass". And after the completion of these contracts, the Su-57 may remain the only heavy fighter in production. There will be unification for you. Although the MiG-35 can exist here simply as a cheap aircraft. It's easier for him to get along with the Su-57 than with the Su-30, Su-35 and even the Su-34, which costs the same 1 billion rubles for which the MiG-35 is promised.

    After 2025, the 20 years of the Algerian MiGs will already loom. That is, the problem of an immediate replacement for the development of a resource of machines of post-Soviet construction will actually arise.

    The problem is much deeper here. In order to produce one type of at least heavy weights, the production structure must be completely reorganized, while the existing machines will not go anywhere, and they will need to be serviced for another 20-30 years, including at factories. That is, we need 3 factories (suppose the Sokol is busy with MiGs and whatever else, maybe some kind of UAV, and we don’t touch it) that produce the Su-27 variants, reorganize and re-equip if necessary. If Irkut goes to make the MS-21, although for such things they make separate workshop buildings behind separate fences, then it will be necessary to somehow increase the production of military vehicles on the two remaining ones, perhaps they will also provide escort for the Su-30SM. Nobody will leave KNaAZ as the only manufacturer of combat aircraft.

    This task in the next 10 years will have to be solved in one form or another.

    If the Air Force has about 450 fighter aircraft with an average lifespan of 30 years, then the necessary output is obtained in 15 machines per year. 450 Estimated minimum, does not take into account the bombers, 30 years will not serve all, some will be broken, part will be somewhere shattered until the resource is exhausted. I think the need for new cars can be doubled. Ie 30 machines per year.
  7. wooja
    wooja 10 December 2018 09: 45
    +3
    the situation is ambiguous, but on the whole it is familiar, before the war the situation in aviation was similar --- a lot of unified planes, the war put everything in its place ... but the price of this order was very high. it seems we are stepping on the same rake .... the country was rich --- there is simply no order.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 14
      +6
      What is the war there? The same LaGG-3 was produced before the 1944 year, and the emergence of a mass of mobilization tanks, like the T-60, and the variety of the same T-34, which in each factory did not correspond to their unification, the fighters existed with different types of engines, and different weapons schemes.

      Nonsense though do not write.
      1. wooja
        wooja 10 December 2018 18: 26
        0
        real mass serial production in the conditions of the Soviet planned economy ...., it’s not for you to chat on the forum, theorists .....
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 11 December 2018 09: 04
          +1
          I tried to seem smart, but let the gases in a puddle.
  8. BAI
    BAI 10 December 2018 09: 48
    +3
    You can criticize diversity as much as you like. But everything should be within reasonable limits. You can not be tied to a single supplier. Need competition.
  9. serezhasoldatow
    serezhasoldatow 10 December 2018 10: 09
    +1
    ONE plane cannot replace the fleet of machines that perform only their characteristic tasks. Mostly heresy is written.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 10 December 2018 10: 19
      -2
      They cannot be a ground attack aircraft (but they cannot be Su34) .... but a 4 ++ fighter must be required to do everything else in one bottle. The division into tactical and / b and fighter in the world ended already in generations 4+.
    2. Henderson
      Henderson 10 December 2018 14: 42
      -2
      This is you heresy say. What is the difference between Su-30SM tasks and Su-30M2 tasks and Su-35 tasks? All three aircraft are multi-purpose. And the biggest heresy is the Su-34. Which, according to its capabilities, is a stripped down Su-30SM, namely, it only knows how to bomb well and nothing more.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 19
        +1
        Su-30М2 is most likely a replacement for Su-27UB. And they should be considered as the second candidate for write-off or sale, after the Algerian MiGs. That frees up the staffing space for the Su-57.

        Su-34 appeared much earlier, is able to take a punch, carries more bombs, has a radar with a wider field of view (hence the flat nose), and a chic cabin with a side arrangement of the crew. It is most likely cheaper.

        And yes, fighters at low altitudes feel bad, they are shaking there.
        1. Henderson
          Henderson 10 December 2018 16: 27
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          The Su-34 appeared much earlier, knows how to hold a blow, carries more bombs, has a radar with a wider field of view (hence the flat nose)

          it will not be able to withstand MANPADS, the maximum combat load is the same 8 tons as the entire T-10 line, the radar is weaker than the Su-30 and Su-35, and it is completely unified. What is the point of a posh cabin, there is no one else to pilot except Putin?
          Quote: EvilLion
          And yes, fighters at low altitudes feel bad, they are shaking there.

          at low altitudes absolutely any plane shakes, even the A-380. Su-34 here does not stand out. But what for the assault NURSami to drive such expensive products? This is not their task at all.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 11 December 2018 09: 08
            +2
            But if you take action, shaking can be reduced. Not bad helps PGO. Radar is cheaper there. On the Su-30 radar, as it were, too, not a fountain. And Su-35 is another class.

            Even unarmored vehicles can withstand the blow of MANPADS F / A-18, for example, caught such, Su-25 sometimes 2 plumes were obtained in Afghanistan. The MANPADS has a very weak CU, even the weak P-60, which the F-15 Israeli could not kill, so that he then posed a torn filet part and posed, and then there should be more power.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 10 December 2018 17: 15
          0
          The Su35 / 30 radars are more modern than they can perform all the functions .... without an armored car, they are higher than those of the C34, the engines are more powerful and more economical .... the only thing is that the cabin ...
  10. Yodzakura
    Yodzakura 10 December 2018 10: 17
    +1
    Su 35 and Su 30 make different plants, but you want to quickly fill up the troops with equipment. It seems that Ilya Legat didn’t copy somewhere.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 10 December 2018 10: 39
      -1
      Quote: Yodzakura
      Su 35 and Su 30 make different plants

      They are made by ONE company, it is easier to make one plane at all plants and operate cheaper than one machine, not two.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 December 2018 10: 59
        0
        Factories simply developed models on their own, hence the difference in components. Su30 is the first modernization, and Su35S is the second major ..... Su34, generally a bounce to the side. All three have different turbojet engines ...
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 10 December 2018 11: 01
        +6
        Quote: Puncher
        They are made by ONE company, it is easier to make one plane at all plants and operate cheaper than one machine, not two.
        That's right, only the situation will look like this. We say - we do not want a colorful park, we no longer need the Su-30/34, give us a unification based on the Su-35. Su-30/34 production stops, Sukhoi says give money for new modifications of the Su-35, give money for the unification of production at two plants, give 5-7 years for these activities. Or let's leave it as it is, but we have a ready-made Su-30, because its design and preparation for production has already been paid for by the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians and others, that is, for you, your beloved Ministry of Defense, all this will be free. And the production preparation time is 0 years, 0 days, 0 seconds, that is, tomorrow we will start assembling serial machines for you. Take your pick.
      3. abc_alex
        abc_alex 11 December 2018 01: 44
        +1
        Su-30 is the only model, the production of which has been worked out and in which all the problems of growth have been caught.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 10 December 2018 10: 39
      -1
      This is justified only by the fact that the VKS lacks new equipment and factories need to update the VKS fleet as quickly as possible .... The launch of the MiG35 is justified by the same ... The launch of a new aircraft at the plant will reduce the production rate in pieces ..... for now apparently, the Russian Federation cannot afford it. Although the transition from the Su35C to its two local versions should be as easy as possible.
      1. bayard
        bayard 10 December 2018 14: 57
        0
        Donetsk.
        VKS is not enough new pilots! Otherwise, the pace of rearmament could be higher.
        A two-seat version of the Su-35 is not needed at all - there is the Su-30, which has an open architecture. To adapt the "Irbis" or "Belka" there, to install the AL_41F is much more convenient and cheaper (because India will pay), and to produce at the same capacities as the previous Su-30s.
        And let the Su-35 sculpt Komsomolsk-on-Amur, do not overload it, he still have to master the Su-57.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 10 December 2018 17: 16
          0
          The Su35C’s radar is much cooler ... you won’t put it on the Su30 ... You won’t put the AL41 either ... you start redoing it - you will come to a 2-seat Su35C
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 December 2018 16: 23
        0
        In fact, they have already updated the park, hence the slowdown and questions about what to produce after the end of the contracts.

        Neither F-22 nor Su-57 have two-pairing, technically this is also possible on Su-35, or they use Su-30CM. But then the idea of ​​a two-seater Su-35 loses its meaning, since Su-30CM is a lot.
  11. Fedor1
    Fedor1 10 December 2018 10: 45
    -3
    The upcoming military conflict will show who has the strength, means and endurance of the economy to wage war, he will receive the winner’s laurels and the right to life, and the losers for enslavement and destruction!
  12. IvanT
    IvanT 10 December 2018 10: 47
    -2
    Smacks of order
  13. sivuch
    sivuch 10 December 2018 11: 26
    +2
    However, the assessment of its Su-57) combat potential is completely impossible in the current conditions, when the machine exists only as a prototype, and we probably will never know the effective dispersion area (roughly speaking, the degree of stealth).
    How so - we don’t know? Ask Uncle Misha (aka Voodoo, Breeze, Spitfire) - he will tell you exactly one photo.
    In general, the author writes about how good it is to be healthy and rich.
    If there is someone from the aircraft industry - explain to me, an amateur. There is a Novosibirsk plant. A decision was made - instead of the Su-34 in single-breasted for a long time, no one has been fighting bombers for a long time, no one has been releasing the Su-35. How long will it take for this activity (if at all)?
  14. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 10 December 2018 12: 27
    0
    Did the author of the article have or is related to aviation? Commentators, who are directly related to aviation?
    The article looks like a panegyric - as they have everything super, but we have lost everything.
    Everything around is such -Oin the author knows how to .. if he is so brilliant, what does he vegetate on the Internet?
  15. av58
    av58 10 December 2018 12: 54
    0
    Two quotes:
    1) "The first thing that the Ministry of Defense can do in a difficult situation is to completely (or almost completely) abandon the MiG-35. This is a completely unnecessary machine in the current conditions, which will make the operation of aircraft even more difficult, at the same time, without bringing practical benefits to the Air Force . "
    2) "The situation that has developed in RSK MiG is a completely different question and we will not discuss it now. But in general, when the entire aircraft industry has lined up for a handout from the state, this is a bad sign. Aircraft should be in demand on the world market. and if they are not bought, then it means that these are not so good planes. Or there is no corny infrastructure for operation (which, in principle, is the same in the current reality). "
    The graphomaniac named "Ilya Legat" seems to have no idea about the combat use of machines, and does not know exactly why the aircraft are being developed, produced, how they are promoted to the foreign market and bought by foreign governments.
    Involuntarily, you begin to wonder if the Bolsheviks, who insisted on universal literacy, were right, maybe it was better not to teach letters to Ilya Legat? laughing
  16. Laksamana besar
    Laksamana besar 10 December 2018 13: 01
    -1
    The author wrote complete nonsense.
  17. Henderson
    Henderson 10 December 2018 14: 39
    0
    Oh, and I was blamed for saying that the Su-34 has no advantages over the Su-30 and just makes life difficult.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 10 December 2018 18: 24
      +1
      And they did it right. Because as a bomber, the Su-34 has a rather large advantage over the Su-30. Compared to the Su-35, it’s more difficult to say, but the latter will have enough work in a direct specialty
      1. Henderson
        Henderson 10 December 2018 18: 29
        0
        What is the advantage, if not a secret? And then they mold a minus, but no one has mastered it clearly yet. One water is kind of "big enough".
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 10 December 2018 18: 39
          +3
          Yes, I will refer to myself, my beloved, from a recent discussion
          Far from the same thing. The Su-30 is the direct successor to the Su-27, so it also cannot carry PTBs, products that are heavier than 1700 kilograms per suspension, there are restrictions on energy consumption, worse forward-down visibility, a container with optronics for working on the ground has just appeared. Small shakes are much smaller than those of the Su30 (although worse than the Su-24). The radar itself sees the NC better than Barca. .Yes and missiles, that explosives, that anti-aircraft, far from always carry enemy aircraft into the trash. More often, the plane receives damage of one or another severity. So, at least the crew has an extra chance. By the way, the armored vehicle goes to the aircraft KSS, so there is not so much excess weight - about 400 kg.
          Well, we can add that the BN in the Su-34 is 8t normal and 12 is the maximum (I had to strengthen the landing gear), there are corresponding photos. That the vibrations of all planes are the same - tell the pilots, they will be interested. In this regard, it is best to use KIS aircraft, if the wing is motionless, then a large load on the wing is desirable (and the other way around for a fighter). By the way, there is still a nuance - the Antipodes interference can be set only on the PMV.
          1. Henderson
            Henderson 10 December 2018 18: 57
            +2
            Now it’s better, plus.
            But where did the data about 12 tons come from? In no version of the pendants does not gain more than 8t. And normally about 4t.
            If we are talking about the radar, then maybe it would be better and cheaper to put something more modern on the SU-30? Just so far, apart from the armored car and shaking, nothing more substantial has been presented. And the lack of normal fighter capabilities and poor unification is a fat minus. And as a fat minus, I see the built-in Platan. The container is easy to change or even remove, change the already obsolete Plane tree without sending it to the factory is hardly realistic.
            And the situation on the export market, as it were, hints that potential buyers think the same way, the Su-30 is popular, no one takes the Su-34 at all.
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 11 December 2018 01: 41
              +1
              You write as if you were not at all interested in the stories and purpose of creating machines. Su-30 is a flying command post - the solution to the problem of shortage of air reconnaissance and target designation points in our Air Force. The second member of the crew must control the followers. Avionics in his narrow-profile. It was created as a clean, refined fighter. Only later he was taught to work on the ground. Now this is essentially the only multipurpose fighter used in production. The preservation of its production is a purely technological issue.
              The Su-34 was created as a bomber and is tailored for this task. He, for example, has a PMV flight system with automatic surface bending. Moreover, it is equipped with a whole set of search and navigation systems that allow it to operate both on land and over water. Including a submarine search system. Even if you put another radar in the Su-30SM, you will not get anything like the Su-34. There are quite a few additional systems without radar. The empty weight of the Su-34 is 25500 kg, and the Su-30SM is 18800. The Su-34's armor is 1500 kg. The mass difference is 5 tons. You don't think it was just sheathed with lead, do you? These are all "add-ons" that make the Su-27 a bomber.
              And what's wrong with an integrated laser guidance system? What's so great about a container? Does an integrated radar or computer not bother you? Maybe let's hang it all up in containers too? :)
              Talking about a front-line bomber based on purchases from abroad is somehow completely liberal, you know. Many countries bought the F-111 from the USA? EMNIP except the British - no one. What a bad plane? Yes, somehow no, it’s been doing fine with its functions for half a century already. :)
              Maybe the fact is that not every army of every country can afford a separate class of tactical bombers? Also, not everyone can afford armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles; someone does not use self-propelled guns. But you never know who does not have enough money.

              You do not like the Su-34. What would you like to equip naval aviation with?
              PS
              In 12, Lieutenant General Viktor Bondarev spoke about 2013 tons of load in XNUMX.
              The Su-24 front-line bomber has a bomb load of 7,5 tons with a combat radius of approximately 350 kilometers. Su-34 carries 12 tons of various weapons, and its combat radius is more than a thousand kilometers

              Obviously, we are talking about a small combat radius of not more than 1000 km.
              So, in theory, the Su-34 can carry three anti-ship missiles of the P-800 class (9 tons) or 2 rockets of the X22 \ 32 type (approx. 12 tons).
              Su-30SM such a load can not withstand the chassis.

              As I understand it...
              1. Henderson
                Henderson 11 December 2018 13: 03
                -1
                Quote: abc_alex
                He, for example, has a PMV flight system with automatic surface envelope

                Su-30MKI also has such a system.
                Quote: abc_alex
                Moreover, it is equipped with a whole set of search and navigation systems allowing it to operate both on land and above water.

                SU-30MKI has the same thing. But hanging containers make it easy and simple to expand capabilities depending on the specific task.
                Quote: abc_alex
                The difference in mass is 5 tons. You do not think that it was simply sheathed with lead, right?

                No, of course, the lack of precision weapons makes it much closer to the target. But this is not required by modern IFIs. And what is this titanium lead capable of protecting against? From DShK?

                Quote: abc_alex
                Many countries bought the F-111 from the USA? EMNIP except the British - no one. What a bad plane?

                yes bad, the Navy did not just abandon it in favor of the universal F-18. And not the British bought, but the Australians. Which in the end also refused.
                Quote: abc_alex
                Maybe the fact is that not every army of every country can afford a separate class of tactical bombers?

                any modern MFI is at the same time a tactical bomber. From F-16 to F-35. It makes no sense to buy a trimmed car for the same money, which, like a bomber, does not surpass the universal one, and even lags behind due to the lack of the ability to use suspended target designation containers. And as a fighter, just about anything.
                Quote: abc_alex
                In 12, Lieutenant General Viktor Bondarev spoke about 2013 tons of load in XNUMX.

                you can say anything. You will not find any option of pendants over 8t. Yes, and for 8t there is only one option with 16yu 500kg cast iron pigs. All the rest are about 4 tons.
                Quote: abc_alex
                So, in theory, the Su-34 can carry three anti-ship missiles of the P-800 class (9 tons) or 2 rockets of the X22 \ 32 type (approx. 12 tons).

                in theory, he can fly into space. In practice, nothing of the kind was and is not expected. He does not have 6 tons of suspension points.
                About the small combat radius you yourself said. The same Su-30 has a combat radius of 1500km - 50% more.
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 11 December 2018 14: 07
                  -1
                  Su-30 flies on PMV in the machine? Can I have a link?
                  As a bomber, he is even superior - he already wrote and there were no clear-cut objections.
                  What the armored vehicle protects from - from the rifle, and in some cases from explosive and anti-aircraft missiles. There are no guarantees, of course, but the chance of survival is greatly increased. By the way, this bath is not so leaden.
                  Those. option 250X36 you have not seen. There are no 6-ton ones, but there are 3-ton ones, so PTB or Owl can be suspended
                  Combat radius without indicating conditions - filkin diploma.
                  1. Henderson
                    Henderson 11 December 2018 14: 15
                    0
                    Quote: sivuch
                    As a bomber, he is even superior - he already wrote and there were no clear-cut objections.

                    No. There is no clear explanation of what surpasses it. The same ammunition drags to a shorter range, at a lower speed and at the same time can not cover itself. It has the worst sighting system.
                    Quote: sivuch
                    Su-30 flies on PMV in the machine? Can I have a link?

                    http://www.xliby.ru/transport_i_aviacija/vzlyot_2007_08_09/p26.php
                    Thanks to the Bars radar, the Su-30MKI can ... the radar provides detection and tracking of ground and surface targets in the mode of terrain mapping with low, medium and high resolution, the detection and selection of moving ground targets, low-altitude flight following the terrain and enveloping obstacles, recognition of the type of target detected.
                    Quote: sivuch
                    from rifleman

                    who in his mind would bring such a machine under the blow of a rifleman? ETOGES idiocy.
                    Quote: sivuch
                    Those. option 250X36 you have not seen

                    So what? It is uncontrollable cast iron with appropriate efficiency. Because of him to make a separate car?
                    Well, anyway I would like a photo. Nothing prevents her from here directly in response to insert.
                    Quote: sivuch
                    Combat radius without indicating conditions - filkin diploma.

                    If you have more accurate information, welcome, please. I bet that the Su-34 in any case has a smaller radius.
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 11 December 2018 19: 36
                      0
                      No. There is no clear explanation of what surpasses it. The same ammunition drags to a shorter range, at a lower speed and at the same time can not cover itself. It has the worst sighting system.
                      Quite the opposite.
                      For a long range + drags what the Su-30 can not, in principle, at the same speed (and what, someone with BN will fly to 2M?)
                      and it covers itself better because EW is more powerful and survivability is better. The sighting system is better (for ground targets, of course), has an OLS, and the Su-30 does not,
                2. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 12 December 2018 03: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Henderson
                  Su-30MKI also has such a system.

                  Quote: Henderson
                  SU-30MKI has the same thing. But hanging containers make it easy and simple to expand capabilities depending on the specific task.


                  Are we talking about the Su-30SM or the Su-30MKI? Avionics is different.

                  Quote: Henderson
                  No, of course, the lack of precision weapons makes it much closer to the target. But this is not required by modern IFIs. And what is this titanium lead capable of protecting against? From DShK?


                  Wait. I just wrote to you: the weight of the armor is 1,5 tons. 5 tons is a "plus" weight in addition to armor. The SUO SU-34 supports an almost identical range of weapons as the Su-30SM. Why do you think that he lacks high-precision weapons? Because of the ability to carry "chugunin"? So her and the State Spirits carry both Raptors and Lightings. Here's what's instantly on Google about precision weapons:

                  6 UR class air-surface X-29Т / L, X-25ML, C-25LD
                  6 UR class air-radar X-31P or ⌠ air-ship X-31A;
                  1 multipurpose alpha alpha;
                  3 XR X-59М;
                  3 adjustable bombs KAB-1500L / TK;
                  6 adjustable bombs KAB-500KR / L;


                  Quote: Henderson
                  yes bad, the Navy did not just abandon it in favor of the universal F-18. And not the British bought, but the Australians. Which in the end also refused.


                  The Navy refused it ... :) They refused it because of the dimensions in which it turned out. :) 20 tons of dry weight. 37 tons normal take-off weight. Where is it in the Navy of the 60s? And do not confuse, the US Navy abandoned the F-111B - fighter. A bomber F-111 took part in the Vietnam War and earned extremely positive reviews. And now it is used with success.
                  Yes, you are right with Britain.

                  Quote: Henderson
                  any modern MFI is at the same time a tactical bomber. From F-16 to F-35. It makes no sense to buy a trimmed car for the same money, which, like a bomber, does not surpass the universal one, and even lags behind due to the lack of the ability to use suspended target designation containers. And as a fighter, just about anything.


                  Even 2MV fighters were a tactical bomber. At the end of the war, a pair of bombs were hung under Yak and La. The question is not whether it can or not. Can. The question is how good.
                  Why did you decide that the absence of overhead containers in its configuration means that they cannot be installed? The Su-34 makes use of various types of suspended containers. Jammer, SAP-14 "Tarantul", for example, as part of the "Khibiny". There are other containers as well. For example, an electronic reconnaissance system with the ability to target other aircraft. And the optoelectronic container is being developed. Why do you think that the container you are looking for is IMPOSSIBLE to use?


                  Quote: Henderson
                  you can say anything. You will not find any option of pendants over 8t. Yes, and for 8t there is only one option with 16yu 500kg cast iron pigs. All the rest are about 4 tons.


                  And who should I trust you or him? :)
                  There is an An-22 plane, you know. So, if you calculate how much he takes aboard the paratroopers (150), then his load capacity will be 15-20 tons. But in fact - 60. The paradox, right? Payload 60, and the payload takes 20, well 30, if you take just a soldier. :)
                  Now do not have 12 tons of suspension options? I agree. Does this mean that this is not possible? Is not a fact.

                  Quote: Henderson
                  in theory, he can fly into space. In practice, nothing of the kind was and is not expected. He does not have 6 tons of suspension points.


                  That's what I write in theory. But the suspension of the 3-ton Onyx is extremely important. To snag a Su-30SM fighter under such an outrage?

                  Quote: Henderson
                  About the small combat radius you yourself said. The same Su-30 has a combat radius of 1500km - 50% more.


                  So the Su-30SM is a fighter in the first place. He needs it. And where should a tactical bomber fly? I don’t understand one thing, why everyone is so limited in range. You go to Yandex maps and postpone the same 1100 km from the borders of Russia. It is not enough? For example, Japan is fully covered, both coasts. Turkey is also through and through. This is still a tactical bomber, there are other planes to destroy the capitals of the warring powers.

                  In general, this "dry zoo" is of course a wild phenomenon and is generated by the lack of money and stagnation of the 90s.
            2. sivuch
              sivuch 11 December 2018 12: 44
              +2
              Let's go in order. That max. BN = 12t, it was mentioned more than once, possibly with incomplete filling. So far I've found such a photo
              http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=114&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=1c8ad4ae4aff60a3f74aee9e51dc3873&start=270
              If it doesn’t rise, then look for the site paralay.iboards.ru, section aviation, Su-34, branch 10, closer to the end. In the photo - at least 36 * 250. Given the weight of the adapters, and they are also included in the BN and the real weight of the bombs (and there, in my opinion, OFAB-250) will be 10 tons.
              The ability to take PTB and products weighing up to 3 tons is also a plus. A plane tree could be a minus in the presence of normal containers. And when they are not, then, on the contrary, is a plus.
              As for the radar, everything is simple - the Su-34 is made side-by-side, so the beak width is noticeably larger, and the area of ​​the ellipse is also. The larger the aperture area, the better parameters can be obtained in the radar regardless of its purpose. In this particular case, one of the parameters, PCA (if we consider only its dependence on iron), is better in B-004 than in the bestial series of NIIP residents, which is determined by the large horizontal aperture.
              Normal fighter capabilities - and what is it? Of course, in the BVB he is hopelessly losing both the Su-30, and even more so, the Su-35. But he takes medium-range explosive missiles, so he can completely fill up a tanker over the ocean and, for him, with nuclear warheads he has better electronic warfare than the same Su-30.
              And as for export, then, of course, here the prospects for a specialized and at the same time expensive car are worse by definition. But only in the event of a war with the non-Papuans it is precisely the specialized machine that can successfully fight. By the way, NYA
              1. Henderson
                Henderson 11 December 2018 13: 20
                0
                Quote: sivuch
                But only in the event of a war with the non-Papuans it is precisely the specialized machine that can successfully fight

                In the event of a war with the non-Papuans, the fighters of the 5th generation will confront it. Here, no armor will save.
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 11 December 2018 14: 08
                  0
                  And this is how it goes. But armor combined with advanced electronic warfare is definitely better.
                  1. Henderson
                    Henderson 11 December 2018 14: 34
                    0
                    In the 5th generation, electronic warfare systems are more advanced by definition. And armor only increases weight and, accordingly, reduces LTX.
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 11 December 2018 17: 21
                      0
                      And who was going to measure the REBs? For the Su-34, the task is to disrupt the launch or guidance of an explosive or missile launcher. Can SAP-514, Tarantula, Khibiny, it doesn’t matter, disrupting the work of the seeker of amraham - that will be quite enough. But whether he can - who knows, will not answer here.
                      1. Henderson
                        Henderson 11 December 2018 17: 35
                        0
                        In order to disrupt a launch, this launch must first be detected. And here begins the measurement, including the capabilities of electronic warfare.
                      2. sivuch
                        sivuch 11 December 2018 18: 15
                        0
                        Again, not only. First you need to try to hide your location - for example, due to spatial interference. Already then, if there was a launch, it will most likely be detected by infrared equipment (we will not consider the fantastic range of launches of 150-200 km). Is it possible to detect a missile control RC? I don’t know, because there is a noise-like signal. But the GOS will turn on at the final stage in any case and it is quite possible to crush it.
                    2. abc_alex
                      abc_alex 12 December 2018 03: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Henderson
                      In the 5th generation, electronic warfare systems are more advanced by definition. And armor only increases weight and, accordingly, reduces LTX.


                      Why do you think so? Do you have reliably confirmed parameters of the electronic warfare systems inherent in the "fifth generation"? How did this "fifth generation" stick to everyone? There is no such technical definition. And no one has ever divided aircraft into generations. This is a marketing term. Designed to justify the Raptor price spike. There are no generally accepted technical parameters behind it. All the systems that marketers put together in the "fifth generation" have been used before on other aircraft. In fact, the US can only say one thing: "the fifth generation is like ours."
  18. lazy
    lazy 10 December 2018 16: 44
    +1
    "The Su-57 could become a real replacement for the old Soviet and new Russian combat aircraft. However, an assessment of its combat potential is completely impossible in the current conditions, when the machine exists only as a prototype" - is already a lie, it is not alone for a long time. su-34 and su-35 can both fly over long distances with refueling. but the state of a Su-35 pilot after a long flight cannot be compared with a pilot on a Su-34 who can stretch his legs and drink coffee and go to the toilet
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 10 December 2018 17: 18
      0
      A 2-seater plane is still needed .... in the Navy, for bomber, air defense purposes .... not everywhere you need bomb compartments and stealth.
  19. rayruav
    rayruav 10 December 2018 18: 02
    0
    and with submarines what has been going on since the times of the USSR compared to the United States, wild diversity
  20. Sazhka
    Sazhka 10 December 2018 19: 23
    -1
    Praise the "sanctions". All the shit got out, got torn apart, plundered and destroyed. There is no one to produce. Zadel is used which they managed to create. That is why there are so many "modifications". Get out as best they can. The rest also "works" ..
  21. Sazhka
    Sazhka 10 December 2018 19: 45
    0
    https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2017/08/07/728196-indoneziya-istrebiteli
    How ?? And so and so .. There is nothing of our own and you can not buy .. A funny "lifting from your knees." And the rest of the production works in exactly the same mode ... Complete ass ...
  22. zyzx
    zyzx 11 December 2018 05: 48
    0
    Let's close the MIG, drive the engineering school to trade socks. And instead of workshops, we will build shopping centers.
    1. lazy
      lazy 11 December 2018 06: 56
      0
      that is, you agree that to buy a moment 35 you just need to save the legendary MIG? AI in the hope that if he buys MO, then someone else will buy abroad. if only it hadn’t happened with Algeria. maybe instead of buying instant 35, to allocate money for the development of a real light fighter of the 5th generation?
  23. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 11 December 2018 07: 40
    +2
    It seems that from the point of view of the author of this article, the main task of the domestic aircraft industry is export deliveries !? And this caused a very great resonance in the responses. Nevertheless, this fact is a profound error! The main objective of the aircraft industry of the Russian Federation is to strengthen the country's defense capability and guarantee that sufficient aviation groups can really protect our territory. And that there are some impudent Indians, whom our traders stuff with various weapons to their own detriment, then it will be equally dubious to them whether Russia will exist or not. They would just as well fall under anyone. Recently they wrote that the Su-35 installation batch was completely shipped to China. This is another time bomb from our manual. No one knows how this country will behave further,
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 11 December 2018 10: 24
      -3
      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      The main task of the Russian aircraft industry is to strengthen the country's defense

      This "is a deep delusion."
      The main task of the Russian aircraft industry (and of the entire defense industry) is the development of budget funds. The second task is one's own well-being (high awards, titles, prizes). The country's defense is the last on the list of priorities (if it is on this list at all).
      And the "motley parade of" Sushki "is caused precisely by this. The system is arranged in such a way that the Ministry of Defense and the military-industrial complex is very profitable to constantly introduce new products and produce them in small series. Why produce 50 aircraft when you can produce 10 and get the same money for them (conditional figures , just to indicate the principle - a small batch is much more expensive)?
      If there is no (and it will not be) radical shake-up of the entire system of the State Defense Order (preferably with confiscation of property and terms of hard labor for the guilty), the situation will be repeated with the Su-57 - they will be releasing one squadron of Su-57, Su-57S, Su- 57CM, Su-57M2, etc.
  24. 5 – 9
    5 – 9 11 December 2018 07: 47
    +1
    I do not understand the essence of the claims. Do what they can do and what there is loot. Moreover, it is necessary to look at the situation not in 2018, but from the year 2012, i.e. the massive start of the arrival of new boards in the VKS. New aircraft are needed; upgrading the Su-27 is not a fact that it will be much cheaper.
    Su-30SM - inexpensive and, most importantly, mastered in production.
    Su-30M2 - even cheaper, built at another plant to maintain its pants .... a little and a long time ago.
    Su-34. Well this is a bomber, a bomber. Why is Su-30SM needed instead? Like a bomber, it’s better, the LTX at low altitudes (both the Su-30 and F-15E is chatting, unlike the Su-24 and the deceased F-111), habitability. Again the same factory. And inexpensive.
    Su-35S. So he was brought to a final mind only about 2 years ago. What, how did the Fy-35 need to plan raw boards, which then either to reserve or at a third-half price of the new upgrade? And 1,5 times more expensive than the Su-30 and -34.
    The zoo, of course, but still unified in many ways.
    And Mig-35 of course nafig needed. After 40 years, it is retrospectively clear that the MiG-29 wasn’t at all in the presence of the Su-27.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Hypersound
    Hypersound 11 December 2018 19: 38
    -1
    Epr Su-57 is known - on average, about 0.5 m2. In F-22, by the way, only a drop is better - 0.4. This means that the S-400 with a decimeter radar will be noticed by our stealth from ~ 270km, and the F-22 - from just 269.2 km! What a monstrous failure of our new Drying !!! 1! 1

    As regards the variegation of our fleet of sambolettes - well, yes, there is such a thing, but there is not much money either, and the Moscow Oblast is also forced to use junk, not just new items, as well as bring old somolets to new modifications. MO in a modest budget makes the maximum possible. Of course, I would also like to have 100 Su-57s delivered to the airborne forces every year, but this is impossible
  28. Bibliographer
    Bibliographer 12 December 2018 11: 23
    0
    I did not even finish reading this opus to the end. The meaning of all the scribble - and look what a clever I am! And he showed his stupidity.
  29. 123456789
    123456789 16 December 2018 00: 53
    0
    "The people who do not want to feed their army will be forced to feed someone else's"
    N. Bonaparte.
    1. Flanker27
      Flanker27 16 December 2018 13: 50
      0
      Sorry for your humble view on this topic. But everyone forgets about such a component as finance. And when the commander makes a decision on the use of forces and means, he immediately thinks about how roads can be lost. And then the price of one Su-35, covers all its advantages. And the timing of reproduction in the event of a full-blown war oh what big ...