Why planes do not fall in Russia


I read on the site article opinion of Oleg Egorov.


I'll start, perhaps, with simple facts. The "mace" flew, and a very long time ago, but this is not interesting. We can only say about IL-112 that the Russian Military Technical Aviation without an airplane with a carrying capacity of 5 tons, in principle, would cost, of course, it would be nice to have it, carry generals, but much more important is IL-76, which will immediately transport 40-50 tons . Therefore, everything goes with the IL-112 neither shaky nor roll.

Further, the question itself is surprising: why Oleg Yegorov took it that the planes are falling from us? More precisely, fall more than it should? What did the Su-57 fall from the factory? When the plane crashes during the flyby, the plant is most likely to blame, specifically someone “did not tighten the nut” and someone did not check. The last time we had this with fighters was at the beginning of 2009, when the prototype Su-35 B / N 904 was broken for a foolish reason. that's what happened in the USSR.

November 26, 1980 at the factory heliport in Kumertau (Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), 3 Ka-27 military helicopters were prepared for departure for their transfer to Severomorsk to the place of permanent basing (830 OKLVP). Helicopters were supposed to reach their final destination on their own. The first transshipment site was to become the helipad of the Kazan Helicopter Plant (approximately 550 km stretch). However, for some reason, the technicians who fueled the helicopters with fuel refuel only the group’s lead helicopter. The other two helicopters were not refueled, and the tanks contained the remnants of fuel after the engines were tested the day before the factory tests. Also, for some unknown reason, the pilots of the helicopters during the pre-flight training were not convinced of the sufficiency of fuel in the tanks.
The group flew a triangle — leading in front, slightly behind, right and left — driven, and so as not to lean on the tail of the leader, the latter worked energetically with a step-gas handle, which led to more intensive fuel production.


So, 3 blind crews do not notice in 2 hours of flight that their vehicles are not refueling, the end, as they say, is slightly predictable, one of the new helicopters during an emergency landing on the city square damaged an empty tram (fortunately), broke poles and, collapsing on side, went into a pile of scrap metal. There were no casualties. In a good way, for such things the plant’s technicians, crews, and comasco from the regiment, or maybe the division commander, should have been taken for a causal place, but no one was punished. The city authorities quickly eliminated the damage to the infrastructure, took out what had recently been a helicopter, and that’s all.

If we take the Stalinist times, then the monstrous accident rate in aviation led to the removal of this topic to separate meetings, at one of which the people's commissar, the modern minister, aviation Pasha Rychagov, 29 years old, beautifully transferred the responsibility for the horror that was happening in his department to Joseph Vissarionovich, which made him temporarily lose the ability to speak correctly Russian. If someone still thinks that Rychagov was shot precisely for "you make us fly on coffins", then I hasten to disappoint, he was only deservedly removed from his post and sent to study. They shot him after the outbreak of the war, and I have no particular doubt that many members of the Red Army aviation command had defeatism, simply because they knew very well how things were in the Air Force. When nowadays ex. Air Force Commander-in-Chief Bondarev made a statement about the problems with night vision goggles for the Mi-28, he at least prudently waited for his departure from this post so that there would be no questions: "And you, commander in chief, where are you looking?" Against the background of Rychagov, undoubted progress.

I remember the old issue of the journal "Science and Life", which described the brand new one at the time of the publication of the An-10. This model was quickly replaced by the An-12 after it turned out that the An-10 had much worse flying than crashing. Planes in the USSR crashed, and there were a lot of them, but only about the next accident, even if it was a liner with hundreds of people on board, or if the car fell on a crowd of people, no one reported in the news. Light combat aircraft rained completely from the sky, simply because of their quantity. And not only here, the same F-16s already crashed 15% of the issued. For the Su-27 for the period 1988-1992. reported loss of 22 aircraft, despite the fact that they were built in the Soviet period about five hundred. During the same period, 27 Su-24s were lost.

And what about the accident rate of serial military aircraft of the post-Soviet construction for the Russian Defense Ministry?

Various MiG-29 variants, including deck ones, were lost (drowned off the coast of Syria) 1 serial car out of 76 built (MiG-29SMT and shipbuilders). Moreover, Algerian MiGs have already hit 10 years ago.

Su-34, out of 124 production vehicles, 2 collided, 1 rolled over. All losses are the fault of the pilots.

Su-27SM3 and Su-30M2 in the amount of 32 pcs., There are no losses.

Su-30SM of 116 cars, one that caught a pelican, or something.

Su-35S, built 88 serial cars, there are no losses. Moreover, in terms of the intensity of combat use in Syria, they have long surpassed the Su-27, which almost did not have to be fought.

There are no technical losses at all. So far, only the Su-57 has managed to achieve a 100% accident rate among production vehicles.

Things are worse with the Yak-130, out of the order of hundreds of serial and pre-production vehicles delivered by the Russian Air Force, 4 crashed.

For combat helicopters, the layout is as follows.

Ka-52: out of approximately 120 production vehicles, 2 were lost.

Mi-28: with approximately the same number, irretrievable losses - 4 vehicles, another 1 was seriously damaged.

Somehow this does not seem to mean that our planes do not fly. The number of new aircraft is quite comparable with the number of Soviet Su-27s, the service life of the oldest is already noticeably more than 4 years, but there are no two dozen broken ones. Rather, we can say that there are problems specifically with the Yak-130 and Mi-28, but even they are less emergency than the Soviet "drying".

As for the SSJ, in December 2019, 191 aircraft were produced (minus non-flying), i.e., in terms of production volumes, it already surpassed the Soviet Yak-42, which was produced only by 183. At the same time, the SSJ aircraft is young, however, to approach the volume release of Tu-154 (1026 cars), he is unlikely to succeed. Losses amounted to 3 cars: one in 2009 crashed into a mountain, one rolled out of the GDP and was written off, another crashed on May 5, 2019 at Sheremetyevo. No particular accident is observed. The same Yak-42 at one time from flights for 2 years was decommissioned until it eliminated a structural defect. If someone expected from the SSJ the overthrow of the titans in the face of firms A and B, then this is exclusively their problem. There is a category of people who first listens to the media inevitably unfulfilled promises, which people in the topic do not pay attention to, and then, when the promises are not expected to come true, they arrange a tantrum. True, for some reason this concerns only Russia, for example, no one asks how things are going with Ilon Mask for a rocket flying to Mars. He promised that in the 2019th year this will become possible. Musk cannot lie, I want to see a wonderful rocket.

No matter how hysterical that the “red”, that the “liberal” clicks were hysterical, flights are now safer than ever. The reasons are fairly obvious:

1. High performance of old structures like the Su-27.

2. A high level of global aircraft manufacturing, allowing you to immediately create highly reliable structures.

3. The introduction of computers in the development of aircraft and their management, which drastically reduces the number and severity of the consequences of crew errors.

Problems in the development of the same F-35, for example, are insignificant against the background of problems in the development of any previous generation combat aircraft, when up to 10 prototypes were broken by champions.

The author’s thoughts about working for 20 thousand rubles at the CNC machine also look rather strange. Firstly, the aircraft are developed not by workers at the plant, but engineers in the design bureau. And their salaries there are slightly different. You will not find a good programmer in any widely spoken language for the money, not like a specialist in aerodynamics or jet engines. Secondly, an engineer in a design bureau is not just a job, it is a vocation. Such people will not go into business. On the contrary, it is there that characters like Pasha Rychagov, who famously jumped from the cockpit to the minister’s chair, are first torn right now.

It would seem that it is possible to take and finish here on this optimistic note, but it does not work out. Because strange things begin.

If the loss of the first production Su-57 is discussed by everyone who is not lazy, then the message about revision of the contract for 39 IL-76MD-90A. The fulfillment of the contract is very late and actually thwarted, it turns out that when calculating the cost, they did something wise, and the plant worked at a loss, it is now assumed that for the same money the plant will deliver fewer cars, and the price of one aircraft will be increased from 3,5, 4,9 to 50 billion rubles. Yes, the Air Force needs modern fighters, otherwise they will lose in battle, and in which case the transporter will fulfill his task, even if he is 57 years old. But how much did the crashed Su-1,5 cost? 2,5-1,4 billion. An increase in the price of one transporter by XNUMX billion means an increase in the cost of the entire program by tens of billions. Perhaps this is still more important than one lost car.

But Oleg Egorov, probably, should still write more about Belarus, China and other things that he understands better than on airplanes, and about which I read with pleasure.
Author:
Photos used:
Dmitry Zherdin, commons.wikimedia.org
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 15 January 2020 15: 05 New
    • 36
    • 2
    +34
    Normal analysis, quite acceptable alignment and "kind" criticism of a colleague!
    Well done. It is necessary to write more often, if so in the courses of all kinds of flight affairs!
    1. Alexander Suvorov 15 January 2020 15: 24 New
      • 21
      • 6
      +15
      rocket757 (Victor)
      Normal analysis, quite acceptable alignment and "kind" criticism of a colleague!
      Yes, indeed, I read it with pleasure. It is easy to read, there are no obscure for many, abstruse terms. Everything is clear, clear and to the point. I hope the statistics are correct, double-check reluctance.
      As for the fall of the Su-57, as I wrote earlier, the new equipment has fallen, is falling, and most likely will continue to fall. How many pilots died before they revealed the problem of torsion and further dumping on the MiG-25? So anything happens in the sky, you just need to draw the right conclusions and not panic!
      1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 16: 07 New
        • 19
        • 1
        +18
        Check worth it, there are different murky cases. For example, the Ka-52 includes only losses in the 2012th year of side number 99, and the loss in Syria. Another car was lost in 2013, but this car is listed as experienced and crashed on the territory of the flight test complex, so it is not turned on.

        According to the Yak-130, it is specifically indicated that with pre-production, since it is not very clear to me how to interpret this status.
        1. cradle 17 January 2020 10: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          to check stupidly there is no time, if by garlic ... gentlemen believe in the word. laughing
    2. Dizel200 15 January 2020 15: 44 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      I also liked it, everything is clear and understandable without any
  2. Loess 15 January 2020 15: 10 New
    • 19
    • 0
    +19
    Thanks to the author. A good analysis though in the "Opinions" section. This is exactly what the local section of analytics usually lacks. There, more and more emphasis is placed on emotions.
  3. Al_lexx 15 January 2020 15: 12 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    Timely and correct article. Thank you for laying out the real situation.
  4. AU Ivanov. 15 January 2020 15: 17 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    We had such a device: Su-7. Fighter pilots. Over the first five years, 27 cars fell, and in total more than a hundred of them were lost, and, mainly, not because of the human factor.
    1. Botanologist 15 January 2020 15: 54 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: AU Ivanov.
      We had such a device: Su-7. Fighter pilots. Over the first five years, 27 cars fell, and in total more than a hundred of them were lost, and, mainly, not because of the human factor.


      If you want to be in a coffin, then fly on a Su-7Be (bomber).
    2. Alexey RA 15 January 2020 15: 58 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: AU Ivanov.
      We had such a device: Su-7. Fighter pilots.

      And we also had a Yak-38 ...
      A proud Yak flies in the sky
      Yak - shmyak on the deck!
      1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 20: 20 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        "Harrier" caused great damage to the USSR, there were those in the Union who wanted to repeat this stupid idea with VTOL.
  5. Pavel57 15 January 2020 15: 17 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    "Everything is gone" does not work with a sober analysis.
  6. Romka 15 January 2020 15: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "I will be brief." This is about the article.
  7. Invoce 15 January 2020 15: 59 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Su-35S, built 88 serial cars, there are no losses. Moreover, in terms of the intensity of combat use in Syria, they have long surpassed the Su-27, which almost did not have to be fought.

    Believe me - 1 is definitely lost in Syria. The fault of the personnel
    1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 16: 12 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      There is no information about the Su-35S accidents during the flight (from starting the engines to a stop). I know very well that planes are being destroyed in a variety of ways, it’s possible to run over with a conveyor, and the other day it was flooded with the Israelis in the desert, but such incidents, even if they lead to the cancellation of the car, do not get into the news, and they cannot be tracked.
      1. SovAr238A 15 January 2020 21: 47 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: EvilLion
        There is no information about the Su-35S accidents during the flight (from starting the engines to a stop). I know very well that planes are being destroyed in a variety of ways, it’s possible to run over with a conveyor, and the other day it was flooded with the Israelis in the desert, but such incidents, even if they lead to the cancellation of the car, do not get into the news, and they cannot be tracked.

        One plane in Syria naputilsya. I thought it was a Su-34, but it is possible that it was a Su-35.
        About 2 years ago.
        1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 22: 40 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Hood - covers the engines, so bonding is possible only for a propeller-driven aircraft with a bow engine. For the pilot - this is usually kirdyk. The Su-27-derivative machine has engines at the rear of the hull and, as you say, cannot be hooded. As for the plane turning upside down, this was the case with the Su-34, and not in Syria, it was counted as lost for me, the info was different, either it was repaired or decommissioned. And then there was even a video from the cockpit of this drunken landing recording all the matyugs.

          In the meantime, it turns out, as with that pack of cars that were supposedly destroyed during mortar shelling, photo 1 Su-24 with a hole appeared in the end, but there were no new vehicles on Khmeinim to replace the losses. And in general, not in poker, but in preference, did not win but lost.
          1. SovAr238A 15 January 2020 23: 06 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: EvilLion
            And in general, not in poker, but in preference, did not win but lost.

            It was not the plane you wrote about.
            And unlike you, I know on what plane the cargo was taken from Hmeimim to Novosibirsk ...
        2. FRoman1984 16 January 2020 07: 10 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          It was a Su-30SM.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. UVB
    UVB 15 January 2020 17: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I remember the old issue of the journal "Science and Life", which described the brand new one at the time of the publication of the An-10. This model was quickly replaced by the An-12 after it turned out that the An-10 had much worse flying than crashing.
    What nonsense? An-12, by definition, could not replace the An-10, because the first is transport, and the second is passenger. An-10, by the way, served for a relatively short time due to rapid wear and tear due to abuse of its ability to operate at unprepared unpaved ground airfields, which naturally led to accidents.
    1. AU Ivanov. 15 January 2020 18: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      According to An-10, I heard a different version: fatigue cracks in the center section due to vibration - resonance, in short. This did not happen on the An-12.
    2. EvilLion 15 January 2020 20: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Here I, perhaps, partially agree, because they were created at the same time, only the An-10 was quickly decommissioned and decommissioned, and the An-12 was built for another 13 years and still flies.

      Passenger aircraft at unpaved airfields are not operated unless it is an An-2. Yes, and in the list of disasters appear problems with glaciation. Well, fatigue cracks due to which in the 73rd aircraft were decommissioned.
      1. UVB
        UVB 15 January 2020 21: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You forget that in the 60s, far from all airfields had concrete runways. And operation in harsh conditions just led to the appearance of fatigue cracks. Of course, this is not the only cause of disasters.
        1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 22: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And An-12 and other models were not at the same airfields? Soil airfields in fact were of little use for heavy aircraft after WWII. And civilian airfields are located in the centers of civilization.
          1. UVB
            UVB 15 January 2020 23: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I advise you to read at your leisure, very interesting: http://avia-simply.ru/samolet-an-10/
  10. Ros 56 15 January 2020 17: 55 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Qualitative analysis, respect to the author.
  11. yriuv62 15 January 2020 19: 39 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Since when did Pasha Rychagov become the people's commissar of aviation? This is not a typo, this is the level of the author!
    1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 20: 10 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Excuse me, who is he? Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR for Aviation.
  12. Dart2027 15 January 2020 20: 04 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    It would not hysteria that the "red" that the "liberal" clicks

    Both of them are already tired of death.
    The article is good.
  13. Uncle Vanya Susanin 15 January 2020 20: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Great article and so few comments, I’m not sure why? what
    1. Dart2027 15 January 2020 21: 36 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Uncle Vanya Susanin
      I’m wondering why

      It’s hard for all crawlers to object.
    2. EvilLion 15 January 2020 22: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      She appeared only in the evening. Probably not yet.
  14. SovAr238A 15 January 2020 21: 45 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    I will never believe that an aircraft manufactured on the basis of the same technological process, with the same level of economic development, will have different costs.
    For there are no prerequisites for such a difference in price.
    by that. anyone who is even a little familiar with production technology and the economics of manufacturing enterprises - this is clear as 2x2.
    except for the cases. when it’s twice or three times more expensive.
    You are struggling to do what your economy is not pulling.
    Well, you don’t have such a powerful processor industry.
    And the percentage of rejects in finished products you reach 98%. And your processor began to cost not 50 thousand dollars. and 2,5 million dollars.
    when you spent a couple of billion dollars on developing an engine that you will need in quantities of less than 50 over the next 500 years. but a competitor will produce 10000 engines for the same 50 years. at the same development costs.
    and so on in everything.
    The cost of labor in the cost of such an aircraft can be neglected. This is an elusive amount.
    So it turns out that there are simply no prerequisites for our plane to be two to three times cheaper than a similar one.

    Why the author of the article believes that the Su-57 will be at least 2 times cheaper than classmates - I absolutely do not understand.
    1. EvilLion 15 January 2020 22: 56 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Because the purchase price of the cheapest models is 1 billion rubles, and for Su-35 the second EMNIP contract was 2 billion. The first 1.4 I suspect that they also counted there at first. There is no reason to believe that the Su-57 is many times more expensive. Obviously, 1 Su-57 will not be able to replace 2 Su-35.

      As for the quantities of the Su-57, for the 2030s I consider only 2 options possible:
      1) In the production of an expensive Su-57 and some cheaper car, the Su-35, or MiG-35, if it is brought to mind. In this case, the Su-57 will be a lot (10-15 units per year).
      2) Only Su-57 is in production. In this case, even without increasing the fleet of air force fighters, they will have to build 40-50 pieces a year. And this is a good application for 1000+ copies for the entire service life.

      As for the process technology, one of the features of the Su-57 is a reduction in the number of parts at times due to the use of composites. Complex elements can be made immediately, and not bolted from smaller parts. And this is a huge savings in assembly and weight reduction.
      1. FRoman1984 16 January 2020 07: 19 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Also met in an interview with Old, that the Su-57 is 35 times more expensive than the Su-2.
        Most likely not only in the radar case, avionics in general or materials used. The production of small batches is more expensive than the serial model of the Su-35 a priori.
        If you put the Su-57 on the stream, of course the price will drop.
        The only question is whether it is needed without engines now. No better than the Su-35, which is so good and perfectly perform their functions
        1. EvilLion 16 January 2020 08: 32 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          How is it no better than that, when it has the same engines at a higher speed, a new radar, reduced visibility?
    2. Arkon 17 January 2020 12: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: SovAr238A
      You are struggling to do what your economy is not pulling.
      Well, you don’t have such a powerful processor industry.


      What do you mean by "processor industry"? Serial processors "Elbrus" and "Bikal", serial controllers "Milander and" Module. Perhaps you mean crystal production? So here is Micron. For a military 65nm - for the eyes. Moreover, in military applications it is much smaller and never will be - the risks of failures are increasing multiply.
      And why the equipment is expensive in the USA: is it because the work is expensive or the components, or very greedy (I don’t even think that they steal the option, they cannot steal in the light of democracy) - this is unknown to us. But military equipment in the US is several times more expensive, for some reason. Moreover, all.
      1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 15: 22 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        65 nm is already too sensitive to radiation. There, it seems, about 180 is still applicable.
        1. Arkon 17 January 2020 15: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I agree. In general, there micrometers go even to the military commissar, and not nanometers.
  15. Fitter65 16 January 2020 02: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    An-10. This model was quickly replaced by the An-12 after it turned out that the An-10 had much worse flying,
    Judging by this phrase, the author is completely off topic on the history of the creation and operation of An-10/12 family aircraft. To begin with, it was proposed in the Design Bureau to create two different ones on the basis of one aircraft. Passenger An-10, and military transport An-12. In short, the reason for the rapid decommissioning and frequent disasters of the An-10 was a design flaw.
  16. g1washntwn 16 January 2020 08: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    it turns out that when calculating the value, they were wise, and the plant worked at a loss,

    With high prices, you will not take the MO contract. The word "wise" is clearly the letter "p" is superfluous, this is not a mistake, and someone has long spent their prizes.
    1. EvilLion 16 January 2020 09: 51 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I did not name the reasons for the blame for the situation in Ulyanovsk. This is unqualification (it was simple at Sukhoi factories only in the 90s, and they retained qualifications due to export to receive orders from the Moscow Region), or the desire of someone to get a contract with premiums, and then topple, I do not know. And what MO wants cheaper, so you also turn your nose to the store that you think your money is not worth it.
      1. g1washntwn 16 January 2020 11: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        When a monopolist picks up the price of the same titanium (aiming, weapon, power, etc.) products, it’s nothing, because MMZ (or UVZ, or Zvezda, or the like) is responsible for the entire final product. MO and enterprises in the market, I understand perfectly, but there is no free cheese.
  17. Pecheneg 16 January 2020 11: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    According to the Yak-130, I think the accident rate should not be considered at all, all the same training aircraft, i.e. it is necessary to consider who flies on them.
    1. EvilLion 16 January 2020 12: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      If a CDU dies in an airplane in the sky, then who cares who flies on it?
      1. pavelty 16 January 2020 13: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        With a dead CDS, is there a difference between a test pilot, instructor and cadet at the helm?
        1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 08: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The cadet does not fly alone, there is an instructor there, but this is much better than just a combat pilot, the instructor is always ready for an emergency situation.
  18. Dmitry V. 16 January 2020 13: 19 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Planes in the USSR crashed, and there were a lot of them, but only about the next accident, even if it was a liner with hundreds of people on board, or if the car fell on a crowd of people, no one reported in the news.

    But for each flight accident, especially the crash, in the civil aviation of the USSR Aeroflot held meetings of pilots in all air squads, brought information, materials and the results of the investigation. Instructions and standards changed, tests were surrendered, similar situations were worked out on simulators in regional UTO (educational training unit).
    And in the USSR, there were 5 times more flights, and civilian planes did not beat every year - not like now.
    Because qualifications and discipline in civil aviation are highly dependent on a particular airline.
    And specific people were responsible for aviation security, and now there is no one to ask.
    1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 08: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You will not believe it, but any accident is investigated and organizational conclusions and events follow. Not only in aviation. As for the fairy tales, they didn’t break every year, just stop lying. That's just enough. In civil aviation, less than 1 car a year is now beating. We open, let’s say an article on the IL-76 wiki and look at the losses, we discard combat, or foreign users, so there every year after an accident. And on Tu-154, so in the 1980s alone, 3 Soviet cars crashed. The same number in the 81st. And in 1988, 4 cars were lost, one of them was blown up by terrorists, one was written off in the manual.

      So just bullied, you already lie.
      1. Olezhek 17 January 2020 10: 09 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        So just bullied, you already lie


        Everybody lies, everybody dies. House d

        yes

        And now in chorus!

        drinks

        All appliances lie
        Everyone who dies with us
        Ring roads
        They’re not leading anywhere.

  19. Olezhek 16 January 2020 15: 02 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    I'll start, perhaps, with simple facts. The "mace" flew, and a very long time ago, but this is not interesting.


    Do you recall the story of its creation?
    And the related scandals?
    I understand that you are not interested in such “nonsense”.

    About IL-112, we can only say now that the BTA of the Russian Federation without an airplane with a carrying capacity of 5 tons, in principle, would cost, of course, it would be nice to have it, carry generals, but much more important than IL-76


    More importantly, Ruslan.
    The classic "jump" from the theme. We can’t create a light dance tank ...
    but why do we need it?
    We will add 50 rubles and buy an elephant ...

    What does "nice to have" mean?
    Was the task set? Funding allocated?
    What a jump?
    And let's spend the entire military budget on the Death Star? Or 10 heavy nuclear carriers?

    I read the article-opinion of Oleg Egorov on the site.

    Further, the question itself is surprising: why Oleg Yegorov took it that the planes are falling from us?


    Comrad, you’d at least have mastered the headline ...

    Why do our rockets fall and the planes do not work

    or difficult? lol
    1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 08: 38 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Do you recall the history of the creation of the Su-24, or various missiles in which of the first 20 launches half are nowhere? You still joke about VAZ, or Windows. Although Win10 gives reasons ... Grandma remembered how she was a girl.

      The classic "jump" from the theme. We can’t create a light dance tank ...
      but why do we need it?


      I perfectly remember all that enchanting nonsense that you wrote under other articles, so I do not hope for understanding. But for those who are friends with the head. If there is a real need to transfer something somewhere and 100 planes of 5 tons each, having made a take-off, they will transport only 500 tons, and large cargoes will still not fit in size. This is a train of ten cars. Moreover, in conditions where the bill goes by the clock, and traffic increases significantly, the airport’s throughput will be a problem, but to plant that IL-112, that IL-76 will require the same time. So what is the role of this unit in hostilities? BTA just can not do without it? And the Air Force command is well aware of this. Somehow it turns out ridiculous, we can build a fighter, or can we use a liner, but there’s a tiny transporter? If someone really needed it, they would have done it a long time ago, the task is much simpler than the development of some Su-57, or SSJ. There are simply things that are only suitable for transporting through exhibitions, like the same BMPT, and digging deeper, so no one gets them.
      1. Olezhek 17 January 2020 10: 00 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I perfectly remember all that enchanting nonsense that you wrote under other articles, so I do not hope for understanding. But for those who are friends with the head. If there is a real need to transfer something somewhere and 100 planes of 5 tons each, having made on departure, only 500 tons will be transported


        I can donate a textbook on arithmetic as a gift ...
        All one in vain gather dust in the country
        Yes, I am - good I!

        fellow
  20. Olezhek 16 January 2020 15: 16 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Secondly, an engineer in a design bureau is not just a job, it is a vocation. Such people will not go into business


    And the song is pouring ...
    Comrad, I’ve kind of heard such a song many times from my bosses ...
    If you have the time and desire, you can go to a "high-tech factory" such as the Ufa Engine Building and execute it in front of the team ...
    1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 08: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I do not believe that at least you were at the entrance of a real factory. And to have a permanent pass.
      1. Olezhek 17 January 2020 09: 59 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        I don't believe you


        And Komrad, please remind me when and in which location we used to drink alcohol together?
        I don’t know how you are doing there in Ukraine, but in Russia you usually come to strangers personally
        laughing

        or are you the hero of all wars at the same time (I'm shell-shocked in the Civil War)?
        Well then lay out scans of award sheets.
        am
  21. Sfurei 16 January 2020 16: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Great article .. I copied it to the zashashnik. I liked the turnaround very much: “There is such a category of people that at first they listen to the obviously unrealizable promises in the media, which people in the topic do not pay attention to, and then, when the promises are not expected to come true, they arrange a tantrum.”
    I watched about the same thing when in 2006 one of the managers of power engineers at the state. level issued an optimistic plan to build 2 nuclear power units per year. We with the nuclear engineers neigh as they could)) Given the fact that our country is capable of physically and technologically building only 0,9 reactor vessels per year !!!
  22. Olezhek 16 January 2020 19: 44 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    When the plane crashes during the flyby, the plant is most likely to blame, specifically someone “did not tighten the nut” and someone did not check.


    Comrad:
    the reasons that the plane crashes during a flyby - there can be a lot
    here the book must be written.
    "someone did not tighten the nut."
    Well, read the memories of aircraft designers in the end.
    But to listen to you - the Chekhov malefactor is to blame for everything ... he has been walking around Russia for a hundred years and unscrews all the nuts.
    1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 08: 41 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      When a wagon presses a passenger car on the highway, everything inside is crumpled - it also drove the wagons to jail, or did it “turn out like that”, no matter his fault, or conditionally the brakes failed?
      1. Olezhek 17 January 2020 09: 56 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        when a wagon presses a passenger car on the highway, everything inside is completely wrinkled - it also drove


        Brilliant technical analysis. Bravissimo!
        All the problems of the Russian aerospace at a glance.
        Congenially!
        good
  23. Eug
    Eug 16 January 2020 23: 02 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    At the end of the 80s, more than 40 aircraft fought in the USSR Air Defense Agency in the late XNUMXs, I don’t remember exactly, but the number hit me - a regiment (a little more) annually ...
  24. Farewell 17 January 2020 12: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: EvilLion

    As for the process technology, one of the features of the Su-57 is a reduction in the number of parts at times due to the use of composites. Complex elements can be made immediately, and not bolted from smaller parts. And this is a huge savings in assembly and weight reduction.

    And also a huge hemorrhoids when repairing combat damage.
    1. EvilLion 17 January 2020 15: 25 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      In the case of fighters, combat damage, as a rule, means the complete destruction of the machine. Well, the replacement of whole blocks can hardly be called hemorrhoids, even if closing a hole in the casing is a more affordable event in the field.
      1. Ua3qhp 17 January 2020 18: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        "The author’s thoughts about working for 20 thousand rubles at a CNC machine tool look strange enough. First, the plane is developed not by workers at the factory, but by engineers at the design bureau. And their salaries are a little different."
        That's it, that a little, but should be many times more.
  25. Smirnov Mikhail 18 January 2020 00: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Where do shots like the author come from? Or does it work for the Kremlin?

    What did Egorov say (factual allegations)? The points..

    1. The modern Russian Federation (ethnic Russians) is a technological dwarf. Scientific and technological. Nothing breakthrough, nothing advanced, and so on. Which, in principle, is true. Cause? Small salaries, according to Egorov.

    So you do not agree with what? With the fact that the Russians as a people turned into a dwarf nation (in science and technology)? Well, write that here in the Russian Federation unprecedented ones have been created that have no analogues, but a bunch of specialists (the number of patents per capita at least). Do not write, because there is none of this. Science and technology have ceased to be interesting to ethnic Russians, both in their mass and at least at the level of simple enthusiasm (and even at the business level it is not interesting). Or do you agree with the statement, but see the reason in another? The reason is not salary at all (a question of profit or its absence), but something else? So write, Egorov is wrong, the reason lies elsewhere, then a list of the other. What are you writing? About airplanes? So the planes were just there as an example, I also read his article. And yes, about airplanes there are a couple of paragraphs from the whole article. And you paid attention only to this. Generation of the exam? To people who can read, your rebuke characterizes you well in terms of intelligence, and not on the good side.

    2. Salaries in the scientific and technical sphere are scanty, and they do not add up to qualifications at all. Do you agree with this statement? I remind you that the salary of an electrician and a typesetter is now identical. Therefore, the qualifications of modern employers are not taken into account, because electricians are the horses of progress. Do you disagree with this? Well, write that the electrician’s salary is so many times different, or that the electricians aren’t at all the horses that serve substations, aggregates and cars, automation and other things in material production, but some innovators whom the ex-head of government has spent his entire life called, or immediately academicians. Invent with one hand (the elite of science and technology), and serve with the other (horses of science and technology). Just do not write fairy tales about patriotism, vocation and other dregs. What is the benefit of being an innovator and innovator? And what is the benefit of going to the factory, striving to become a professional in their field, if the salary is like that of a loader who does not particularly strain and is not responsible for anything (financial responsibility). Where is the benefit if skilled labor is not respected even by just surrounding members of society? What is she doing? Profit in rubles or something else? How much benefit? You cannot spread fairy tales on a bun, and children also do not feed on fairy tales. And the key idea of ​​Egorov is that if you pay a person as a loader, then he will work as a loader, even if he should be put in what. Do you disagree?

    3. Salaries are added up from the post. The more leading it is, the more material wealth it gives. Do you disagree? Well, the counter-facts to the studio, what are you talking about planes? Let's talk about receipts, here is the turner's salary somewhere in the defense factory, but the salary of the director (or those engineers from the design bureau). And they are no different, therefore Egorov lied to us. And yes, do you know that airplanes (like trains, missiles, cars, and much more) are assembled by the same grimy hard workers from the workshop, and not clean collars from the design bureaus? Do you know what machines and equipment they collect, how many electricians are needed for these machines and equipment to still work? Do you know how much time (and marriage) is needed to prepare a normal carousel, welder, fitter, and so on? Are you aware that if such a specialist quits (and without orders you can go to the market to trade yourself), then he loses his qualifications? And much more, about which Yegorov himself is not in the know. Or do you think it is normal that the salary of a developer from a design bureau and a merry-go-round is very different. So it should be? And are we going to pick up the carousel from the street? Well, he will make you look like that. What Yegorov also wrote about, but you didn’t see it, the white-collar worker, as a developer, is a priori more elite than some kind of mob that you can start.

    In general, we look at the book, we see a fig, everything is fine, a beautiful marquise, and any roughness is an optical illusion and illusions. What is the reason for such articles and authors? That’s why rockets fall and planes fail. There is only one reason, and here I don’t quite agree with Egorov. It’s not only about money, it’s more interesting with the author’s patch than with any welder. It has become not just unprofitable to be a professional, it has become profitable to be a hack worker. As the author of this article, as an engineer from KB and production director. And, judging by the comments, this does not cause dissonance in anyone, people hack the hack.
    1. EvilLion 20 January 2020 08: 22 New
      • 0
      • 6
      -6
      The modern Russian Federation (ethnic Russians) is a technological dwarf. Scientific and technological. Nothing breakthrough, nothing advanced, and so on. Which, in principle, is true.


      All further verbal diarrhea did not even read. So it’s clear that you are from Kyivisho and will ride above all.
      1. Smirnov Mikhail 22 January 2020 12: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Have we already switched to "you"? Quickly, I didn’t notice .. And yes, I am ethnic Russian, was born and live in the Russian Federation (RSFSR) ..
  26. solovald 21 January 2020 07: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Liked .... intelligibly, reasoned. Bravo!
    .
  27. Mustachioed Georgian 21 January 2020 14: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    Passenger aircraft at unpaved airfields are not operated unless it is An-2

    Yes, in our Yakutia, namely Mr. Lenske, until now the runway is unpaved, the carcasses of course do not land, but here is the 24 main passenger plane, as I recall. Himself local and already over 40