Military Review

Why is the VKS another plane?

206

According to the press service of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), work is underway in Russia to create a new aircraft. This machine will belong to the operational tactical aviation and be a kind of "light multi-purpose front-line aircraft" (LMFS).


Money has been allocated for primary aerodynamic calculations. The amount is small, only 4 million rubles, according to the website of government orders. The contractor is MiG.

From the information of the UAC, you can also understand that the aircraft must be twin-engine, light and cheap. And, of course, it is desirable to be “unparalleled in the world” at best, and at worst, to be no worse than Western classmates.

Cheapness is understandable. The crisis in the yard, this is normal. But here are our planes and as it were not the most expensive. The MiG-35 (as far as MiG’s developments are concerned) costs $ 45 million, while the same Swedish Griffin / Gripen costs $ 48 million. Despite the fact that the "Griffin" is single-engine.

So, in principle, with the price we have, I think, relatively order.

Another question: why do we need it?

And here expanse for experts, many spoke out, developed, so to speak, the topic. The UAC, meanwhile, regularly poured gasoline into the fire, making statements on the topic that it was not even the LFMS, but a whole platform on the basis of which several aircraft with different functionality, but having the same basic characteristics, would be developed at once.

Experts predicted the appearance of a light front-line fighter and attack aircraft (to replace the Su-25). A training aircraft for combat training also looks quite normal.

Even a niche was predicted by some, between the Yak-130 and MiG-35. It is quite logical, by weight, the new development somewhere should be so.

Well, forecasts are wonderful. Allocated money for initial calculations - too.

But excuse me, the main question of the day is not what the new / new planes will be. The main question: why all this?

It is really incomprehensible whether this aircraft was really required by the aerospace forces, or this is an attempt to support the MiG corporation, which is confidently at the peak, or simply cut it.

It is probably worth considering, in principle, which aircraft the VKS needs as a front-line operator. You must admit that the further we go, the more airplanes become multifunctional and universal, which we have already talked about more than once. Classes such as interceptors are actually dying out, scouts are really disappearing, with the possible exception of long-range marine ones.

However, let’s take a look at all that is currently at the disposal of our VKS in terms of combat aircraft. We will leave aside reconnaissance, transport (it would be nice to leave, by the way) planes and strategic bombers (we also move the Tu-22M to them, because hefty after all), let's look at combat aircraft, which are more or less classmates of the LMSF.

At the disposal of the Russian Aerospace Forces are:
- light fighter MiG-29 and MiG-35;
- heavy fighters Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-57;
- interceptor MiG-31;
- bombers Su-24 and Su-34;
- attack aircraft Su-25;
- deck MiG-29K and Su-33;
- combat training Yak-130.

13 aircraft. It is clear that the list is far-fetched, the Su-34 is positioned as a fighter-bomber, a station wagon, whether the Su-57 will be a full-fledged member of the Aerospace Forces is not entirely clear, and the Mig-29 and Su-27 have long gone to rest.

Nevertheless, we have such a picture.

If you look at the "potential", there is a different picture. As a light fighter F-16, the heavy fighter / fighter-bomber F-15 and for patriotism is something of its own production. “Tornado”, “Rafal”, “Griffin”. Those who are poorer still use Typhoons. But they are ordering slowly the F-35.

The British generally manage with two brands, "Typhoon" and "Lightning." And they are all happy.


In the United States, which is a stronghold and everything else, the alignment is a bit like ours. Light F-16 fighter, heavy F-15, heavy multi-purpose F-22 (yes, it’s actually “at the exit”, but still in service), F-35 fighter-bomber, A-10 attack aircraft. In naval aviation, the F / A-18 fighter attack aircraft, as well as two deck modifications of the F-35. A total of 8 aircraft and a pack of training for all occasions.

Of course, comparing our aircraft with the American one ... let's say this is not entirely correct. Countries have slightly different goals and opportunities. But, on our part, it’s clearly too much.

Even taking into account the fact that the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the future will definitely be withdrawn from the existing aircraft, it will still be a bit too much. I would even say too much. It is clear that in the arguments you can see that each of the aircraft is better than others with certain tasks. But this is absolutely no reason to have so many models.

A large number of different machines places a significant burden on the training of pilots, and on the production of aircraft, and on their repair, and on flight operation. Here, as an example, I can cite an air regiment based in Halino, Kursk Region, covering the border. One squadron on the MiG-29SM, one on the Su-30.

Yes, on the one hand, as if the part is becoming more functional. On the other hand, the technical load doubles. You can talk a lot on the topic that a modern technician is obliged ... In fact, there is a separation. And those who work on MiGs will not meddle in Su. Just because an airplane is a pretty complicated car.

And from here it becomes clear the desire to make the aircraft as versatile as possible. Or multifunctional.

We definitely have the Su-34. And it is made on the basis of the Su-27, which many modern aircraft are far from acrobatic capabilities, and weapons drags more than enough. And most importantly - the 34th is really too tough for many, because, despite the bomber component, it is a very difficult enemy. And it’s not just that you can slap the answer in full, he is quite able to attack first. With a high probability of defeating the enemy.

And yes, many discussing people said that it was necessary to replace the Su-25 with something, since the aircraft was outdated. And just a new development from MiG ...

I completely disagree. There is a replacement. All the same Su-34, which is armored no worse than the Su-25, and when perfecting avionics and protection in terms of flights at low altitudes, you will get a monster no worse than the Rook.


And then, technological advances - the thing is: why iron the enemy’s positions on the attack aircraft at low altitude, running into heavy machine guns and small caliber guns (not to mention MANPADS), if you can safely work out guided and adjusted munitions from a safe distance?

Here is also a manifestation of multifunctionality.

Meanwhile, if you look at the public procurement website, then until 2023 there is a purchase of already ... 6 (SIX !!!) MiG-35 aircraft. Strange, right?

Actually, it turns out that the aircraft belonging to the 4 ++ generation is quite versatile, that is, capable of solving many combat missions (who would argue that this is not a distinctive feature of MiGs?), Equipped with good avionics, including radars with AFAR ... NOT NEEDED!


Expensive, according to the Ministry of Defense. 45 million dollars. And here is a familiar phrase about “excellent export potential”, that is, buy, whoever wants, we do not need it.

So what? Instead of the MiG-35, which maybe India will buy at the end of the 1000-series show, it’s necessary to build something cheaper. From dung and sticks, as I understand it. By the residual principle, that is, when the price is decisive, and as it will be with LTX, no one cares at all.

What, in general, can start the MiG-21 to produce? It will certainly be very cheap.

It’s frankly strange to load our already stunted industry with ANOTHER ONE light fighter in return for the two already existing ones.

It is very unclear why it is impossible to do everything on the basis of the already finished MiG-35? Is it difficult to get on his platform both a light support attack aircraft and a fighter-bomber? The aircraft is already there, it is being operated, in the West it is really well evaluated.

No, we have everything as always. “We will destroy to the ground, and then ...” We will abandon the “expensive” MiG-35 and begin to re-create something cheaper. Will not work? Nothing, try again. To the victorious, as they say, end.

Do you know what all this recalls? That's right, effective action at Roskosmos. On the ship to replace the "Union". There was a project “Dawn”, there was a “Buran”. No, everything Soviet is disgusting, we will go the other way. Gash yours.

As a result, there is no Fedi with a walkie-talkie, no Eagle, no Argo. But there is a constant development of the budget and joyful reports on development plans. And do not think that outer space. Of course, the budget.

The fact is that, by analogy with Rogozin, Mr. Serdyukov was thrown to support the development of a new and very necessary aircraft.

It’s hard to say why. Either he succeeded in optimizing Russian Helicopters so much that it was time to reanimate everything there, or because everything was going so well that ...

In general, the former scandalous Minister of Defense will command the parade. And therefore, the most diverse thoughts come to mind. And among them there is very little joyful. Because where Serdyukov, there is optimization, reorganization, reformation and other pleasures. Up to the multimillion-dollar support of all kinds of pop singers.

Alas, there are no thoughts that the new head of the UAC is interested in the real release of aircraft. And it cannot be, otherwise the work would go in a completely different direction. And here, alas, the Armata and the Su-57. And talk of "export potential."

I apologize, but anyone can pick up a calculator and simply estimate that if you take a huge series of 6 MiG-35s and add to them the costs of creation, testing, etc., it will become clear why the planes are so expensive. The laws of economics are the same for everyone.

And therefore, since the MiG-35, which is 4 ++, is too expensive, then, accordingly, the MiG company will be forced to give birth to something ... simpler. That is, it is unlikely that this “simpler” will be at least “4+”.


Will our "potential" wait for us? Of course not. Everyone is racking their brains over the fifth generation, and it already turns out. As a result, when we are transporting the next 10 years, they will roll out something that the whole world will happily make fun of.

But cheap. And again - no one needs.

Nobody really needs this LMFs now, what can we say about what will happen in 10 years?

But he is not needed. The Su-34 will easily take over the functions of the attack aircraft, and it will not be necessary to kill several billion rubles and 10 years. Plus, we have a really interesting and unique aircraft, from which an attack aircraft can easily be made. Yes, I'm talking about the Yak-130.

By the way, this LIFS as a training or combat training is also not needed. Because there is a Yak-130, which is easily and naturally able to simulate the flight characteristics of a wide variety of aircraft, including NATO ones. Yes, it is subsonic. But it is at subsonic speeds that 90% of the curriculum is worked out.

Hence the question: why do we need a second combat training aircraft, and it is not known at all how “direct” it will turn out?

And in fact, this LMFS will retain the function of a light fighter capable of fighting a obviously weaker enemy. Who this enemy is is completely incomprehensible. Why knowingly weak? And with what?

In general, the situation is more than strange. Work begins on the aircraft, it is not clear for what purpose the created. Who has real competitors in the class, I boldly emphasize the word “real”.

Budget games are a very difficult matter ...

Why is the VKS another plane?

It’s a pity, of course, that the fate of the MiG-35 is the same as that of the “Almaty” and the Su-57: to wait until someone deigns to buy. It would be quite useful for us. But here Shoigu and Serdyukov know best what kind of aircraft our VKS needs.

It is possible that this slurred cheap plane.
Author:
206 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. cost
    cost April 23 2020 04: 52 New
    +3
    An interestingly written article, but clearly aimed at a specialist in aviation. I will wait for other comments.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 23 2020 05: 26 New
      39
      Quote: Rich
      An interestingly written article, but clearly aimed at a specialist in aviation.

      Roman again singled out the problem. Bravo! fellow
      There is no need to be an expert in aviation to understand that the Russian Armed Forces are not a Kunstkamera, where different wonders gather. So when I was in my service, I clearly understood that for military equipment universal fuel is needed so that to refuel a company or a battalion not to drive a column of fuel trucks.
      As for aviation, different types of aircraft require appropriate training not only for the flight, but also for technical personnel.
      Although, why retell the written?
      Budget games are a very difficult matter ...
      But here already Shoigu and Serdyukov know better which aircraft our VKS needs.

      Only here problems arise from the recklessness with which we trust the solution of urgent issues of military construction to a civil engineer and furniture seller. How did they prove their competence? Perhaps the accomplishment of some exploits unknown to us or unconditional and flawless victories?
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich April 23 2020 06: 46 New
        39
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Only here problems arise from the recklessness with which we trust the solution of urgent issues of military construction to a civil engineer and furniture seller. How did they prove their competence? Perhaps the accomplishment of some exploits unknown to us or unconditional and flawless victories?

        In any case, Serdyukov did not build the main military temple and did not tyry tanks into the Turbopatriot park from Kubinka. And he didn’t arrange all kinds of near-war shows (on which semi-literate Negroes tear down the towers from the shoulder strap of the T-72B3).
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 April 23 2020 06: 55 New
          18
          Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
          Serdyukov anyway

          With him, by the way, the entire rearmament program for new aircraft was implemented.
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich April 23 2020 07: 04 New
            18
            So who remembers that. How did serial production of the Yak-130, Su-35, Su-34, how did you decide to buy a Su-30. But Shoigu knows how to PR.
            1. bayard
              bayard April 24 2020 05: 55 New
              +3
              Well, 4 million rubles. , it's about nothing yet. So, sketching in sketches.
              And if we discard everything superfluous, including the classics with the development of the budget, then the only thing that comes to mind about the use of such a "light fighter with two engines", and not a new platform for carrier-based aircraft decided to work? For TA, indeed, this new apparatus, like a dog, needs a fifth leg ... but if indeed in the future they are going to build at least 4 aircraft carriers, even of medium displacement, then we need to take care of the aircraft for their decks right now. Taking into account the fact that we will see the first such AB in the ranks no earlier than 15 years later, then there is quite enough time for this, but a suitable candidate from the available prototypes is somehow not observed.
              The MiG-35 in the deck version in 15 years will look like a frank anachronism, the Su-57 is too bulky for the deck ... And in 2015, the MiG corporation had negotiations with the UAE on the development of a fifth-generation aircraft for them in weight and dimensions MiG-5, but according to STELS technology and with engines of 29 tons. The message passed and ... no longer repeated, apparently the customer changed his mind, but the drafts seemed to remain ...
              So it seems to me that if we discard the versions with sawing and mastering, then there is simply no other reason, like a platform for carrier-based aircraft, and cannot be. And if it turns out to portray this for the deck, then for the TA as a "light" fighter, this can also be offered - for the sake of seriality and unification.
              And if I'm still wrong, then yes - stupidity, cutting and mastering. For a TA light fighter should be single-engine - with one engine from a heavy colleague, the same "Product-30".
              And only time will show whether I am right in my assumptions ... and will show at the same time very soon. repeat hi
              1. whitebeard
                whitebeard April 26 2020 20: 48 New
                +1
                I agree, except for the "offshore platform" - we have nowhere to use it. But the lightweight of the 5th generation, paired with the Su-57 - is logical. And only then it will be possible to make a deck boat out of it, if necessary, for the same India
              2. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... April 27 2020 16: 24 New
                0
                Precisely single-engine. A half of the Su-57. And it will contain cheaper. However, remember in the 90s such a concept S-54/55/56
                1. bayard
                  bayard April 27 2020 16: 51 New
                  +1
                  There was, and was even offered in the version of the deck, with a chassis with a twine-mounted chassis for two-tier basing in the hangar of an aircraft carrier.
                  Another thing is that not only naval aviation, but also the aerospace forces does not want to hear about a single-engine aircraft. The experience of wars and exploitation showed that twin-engine engines are more tenacious, and even with one plane that failed, it was quite up to the base.
                  And the fact that the operation and life cycle of the MiG-29 turned out to be HIGHER than that of the Su-27 ... and maintenance is more difficult due to a denser lineup ...
                  A light fighter should be easy to operate, not expensive and multi-functional, and therefore single-engine. And fuel consumption is not the point. The main availability, convenience and MASS (for an Army like Russia).
                2. DDT
                  DDT April 29 2020 12: 29 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  Precisely single-engine. A half of the Su-57. And it will contain cheaper. However, remember in the 90s such a concept S-54/55/56

                  Are you guys kidding me? 1500 kg of weapons, what can he take, three KAB-500 bombs? 4 melee missiles and one 250 kg bomb? And all this without hanging tanks, therefore the radius will be what? Yes, the MiG-21 was capable of more!
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... April 29 2020 16: 27 New
                    0
                    What is the average combat load when you are out = years in Syria? For example, sailors flew for example with 2P-73, 2 FAB-500 = 1200 kg., I saw the same Su-24 repeatedly with 4 FAB-250.

                    By the way, why did you decide that a single-engine MFI with one "Product 30" will have a load of one and a half tons.
          2. Angry
            Angry April 23 2020 09: 25 New
            26
            Certainly Serdyukov created the modern Russian army from the aging SA. No matter how they scolded him (and this is very beneficial for someone), but where he did not come, there was a jerk in the right direction. I argued hoarsely with my comrades, proving that he was right. Yes, they cut the forest and the chips fly. But after a couple of years, on a silver platter with a blue border, he presented a new RA to the GDP. And he did the same as all of us as engineers. He came to the position "not hacking in anything." He ordered a complete inventory of all the Armed Forces. And this is at least six months, he went to the Academy of the General Staff as a listener, he got smart there, and here the inventory arrived in time, sat down in the GDP and "oh ... ate" in the sense of eating fish soup ... It turns out at that time we had 211 divisions .. . In the whole world this was not the case. And in most of them anti-aircraft "missile" regiment was represented only by 57 mm ZAU S-60! And no missiles. And what did the MO do next? They calculated how much and what kind of weapons are modern, and what can our lame industry give from modern weapons in 5-10 years? And that's all. Further as Michelangelo "I cut off all unnecessary!" And it was the amount of the latest weapons that determined the composition of the armed forces. This is how the modern Russian army of Shoigu turned out. Any Soviet engineer in his place would have done this, just like you and me.
            1. Clone
              Clone April 24 2020 01: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Angry
              And so the modern Russian army turned out

              Just because the "wooden" one has done with the entire system of military education, he has to sew mittens next to Hodor for ten years. The technique is there, but there is no one to fly, command, lead! And what about hospitals with unique military specialists, surgeons and traumatologists? And the repairmen? In the end, ensign?
              Based on the presented "angry" reasoning, it would be quite logical to award Vasilyeva and the entire Babsky battalion "for services to the Fatherland." The elephant in the china shop - this is Serdyukov, after which they went in a circle with requests - Guys, you are officers, forgive me, come back ... you are suddenly needed by the Motherland!
              I hate it!
              1. Angry
                Angry April 24 2020 19: 58 New
                0
                "You wouldn't have read Soviet newspapers in the morning!" None of us will really know anything about this "Operation A. Serdyukov" for a long time. I'm talking about stolen money. Hardly anyone would believe that they surfaced not in private pockets, but in the secret defense budget. Why it was necessary to do so, and not to pass them through US banks, I kind of guess. But I'm not saying. Look at the consequences of this "scam". NO HARM DONE. After that, we got some samples of weapons, which we already know everything about.
                1. Clone
                  Clone April 24 2020 23: 02 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Angry
                  After which we got some samples of weapons, which we already know about.

                  I believe that one should not only enthusiastically toss caps to the glory of a wooden one, but also "slightly" delve into the essence of the questions ... And then a lot of interesting things will be revealed, including the year in which SOVIET engineers began to develop hyper and why this direction was on takeoff, it is covered up how compact nuclear reactors were created and when they were fired into the air and space ... It is no longer decent to remember about lasers among us, such intelligent, many well-served and well-mannered citizens. And the liberal Sakharov intended to palm off on the Americans by no means in the era of revival ... of Russian capitalism.
                  So, on the shelves, there is still a lot of things invented in the USSR, gathering dust in anticipation of their finest hour. If only there were fewer Serdyukovs, and even better, there wouldn't be at all.
              2. Shkodnick
                Shkodnick April 24 2020 20: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Clone
                Quote: Angry
                And so the modern Russian army turned out

                Just because the "wooden" one has done with the entire system of military education, he has to sew mittens next to Hodor for ten years. The technique is there, but there is no one to fly, command, lead! And what about hospitals with unique military specialists, surgeons and traumatologists? And the repairmen? In the end, ensign?
                Based on the presented "angry" reasoning, it would be quite logical to award Vasilyeva and the entire Babsky battalion "for services to the Fatherland." The elephant in the china shop - this is Serdyukov, after which they went in a circle with requests - Guys, you are officers, forgive me, come back ... you are suddenly needed by the Motherland!
                I hate it!

                Under him, only in our Novocherkassk they covered the higher military command school of communications, well, yes, he transformed the army, healed only one, and crippled the other (education).
      2. knn54
        knn54 April 23 2020 07: 29 New
        +4
        What for? The answer in the article is 13 models.
        Looks like Shoigu and Serdyukov are very superstitious.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 23 2020 13: 45 New
          15
          Quote: knn54
          What for? The answer in the article is 13 models.

          5 years ago, I said that the concept of a fighter couple has not gone away and remains relevant to this day. They objected to me, saying that this was all in the past, and the multitasking of fighters would cover everything, thereby removing the issue of the fighter pair. And what do we see? Finally, the roasted cock pecked and the defense decided to create a light front-line fighter to replace the not young MIG-29. The MIG-35 is not a very light fighter, but rather an average one, and its price is already very high for the mass series. And we need a lot of light fighters. The ratio to heavy is one heavy fighter, 2 light. This is an elementary logic and saving money and resources. Chasing an expensive and gluttonous car for tasks that an easy front-line soldier can do perfectly is inexpedient and stupid.
          Our range of heavy fighters is very stretched, but this happened due to the fact that when we were creating the SU-30, we desperately needed a modern fighter, which we did not have then. The story of the SU-35 is more prosaic, since this fighter is a transitional stage from the SU-30 to the SU-57. And what about light fighters? It is deaf as in a tank.
          Yes, someone can say that light fighters can replace drones, but ... sorry, even the United States does not have a fighter that could fight on equal terms with a manned vehicle.
          1. whitebeard
            whitebeard April 26 2020 20: 55 New
            0
            Everything is even simpler - it is most likely a 5P-lightweight trite in a pair with the Su-57, like the amers F-22 and F-35. True, it is not clear how long they will do it, and the F35 is already flying. Another thing is that the 5P-dviglo of the "2nd stage" is on its way, and there are all 5P technologies, so all that remains is to apply them in the airframe.
        2. Range
          Range April 23 2020 18: 50 New
          +1
          You forgot about PAK YES and about PAK TA, and this is not 13. Ah, yes! Also, a hunter on the way + UAV zverilnik. So superstition has nothing to do with it. Just adversaries do not give time for a halt.
        3. bayard
          bayard April 24 2020 05: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: knn54
          The answer in the article is 13 models.

          Well, if we count by the types of TA aircraft, including training ones (!), Which was done by the author, then we need to add one more - L-39 "Albatross", because it is also armed with a training desk for cadets. So - 14.
      3. Aviator_
        Aviator_ April 23 2020 07: 56 New
        +5
        with what recklessness we trust the solution of pressing issues of military construction to a civil engineer and furniture seller.

        It is not impersonal "we" who trust, but quite specific persons. A tricky plan?
      4. Klingon
        Klingon April 23 2020 08: 02 New
        0
        "how you proved your competence" - and you have not thought about the version that here everything is decided not by competence, but as the Germans say - "vitamin B"?
      5. Private-K
        Private-K April 23 2020 10: 21 New
        17
        MiG-29 and everything based on it is a departing nature without obvious serious volumetric prospects. There is one reason - there is no currently required degree of stealth.
        Let me explain.
        The MiG-35, as an extreme modernization of the MiG-29 concept, is a decent MFI. But the Russian Aerospace Forces already have Su-30MK and Su-35S that cover this niche. All of them are unobtrusive. With full stealth up to the "as it should" level, only the Su-57. But the Su-57 is expensive and not everyone can afford it. But a lighter MFI with stealth, albeit with a certain degree of "cut-off" characteristics, but less expensive - is needed. It is also necessary for the Russian Aerospace Forces for the future replacement of the Su-30MK, replacement of the existing MiG-29 and MiG-35.

        Su-24 - departing nature - tomorrow it will be gone. Only the Su-34 will remain. So it was hardly worth pointing it out - it’s about a prospect!
        Su-25 ... Well, there are doubts about the need for a new attack aircraft, but the new lightweight IFI with shock capabilities as a substitute for the Su-25 in a number of situations will come down.
        Mig-31 is a car of a special class for special purposes.

        That is, in the future the picture is this.
        Su-57 as the main promising MFI with primarily the tasks of gaining air superiority in aerial combat.
        Su-35S (and its modes) - as a parallel MFI timeline with similar Su-57 tasks.
        Su-34 is the main drummer. (It would be nice to give his naval aviation.)
        MiG-LMFS - as a less expensive IFI with an expanded (due to lower price than Su-57) export potential.
        Everything is logical.

        And, besides, letting the well-deserved and fully functional Aviation Design Bureau (MiG) die is not a businesslike way.
        1. bang
          bang April 24 2020 17: 10 New
          0
          And, besides, letting the well-deserved and fully functional Aviation Design Bureau (MiG) die is not a businesslike way.
          Are they not developing the MiG-41 (the next generation of the 31st)?
          1. Private-K
            Private-K April 25 2020 07: 33 New
            0
            for the survival of the MiG Design Bureau, one 41st will not be enough.
            In addition, as I described the situation, a lightweight MFI is necessary and useful as a substitute commercially.
      6. antivirus
        antivirus April 23 2020 17: 35 New
        0
        argue about empty matter - THE PROBLEM IS DELIVERED TO GDP AND BY S. IVANOV - SERDYUKOV BROKEN AND BLINDED NEW. Now we need to build a financial industry group - not RA --- occupy niches of the aviation technology market, so many competencies. Management reform in the military-industrial complex (MIC) , without regard to the sweat and blood of the Army. The USA is crushed by countries without AUG as futures alone.
        conventionally: "it is necessary to create a Boeing corporation." well-capitalized
        1. whitebeard
          whitebeard April 26 2020 21: 08 New
          +1
          They tried to create Boeing Corporation on the basis of Sukhoi, but a stone flower did not come out. There is too much difference between the military and civil aviation industry. And since we use authoritarian methods of management, including finances, a corporation like Boeing is simply not viable in our country, for this we need a different hierarchical practice with a predominance of horizontal rather than vertical ties. Rather, it would be more appropriate to enlarge the military bureaus to 2 main multifunctional competitors (conditionally Mig and Su, and now Mig, in fact, Su has been absorbed), and in the civil industry it is necessary to create a united corporation even without dualism, since they should not compete with each other, but in the international market. And in our country, even the SSJ and MS-21 could not unify (and even such a task was not set) and in general they are designed by different bureaus, they have almost nothing in common with each other. For modern civil aviation, this is very wasteful and therefore bad, especially when you have to fight monsters like Boeing and Airbus.
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 April 26 2020 21: 14 New
          0
          Quote: antivirus
          THE PROBLEM IS DELIVERED TO GDP AND BY S. IVANOV - SERDYUKOV BROKEN AND BLINDED NEW. Now the financial industry group needs to be built - not the RA --- to occupy the niches of the aircraft technology market, tons of competencies. Management reform in the defense industry complex (MIC), without regard to sweat and the blood of the Army. The USA is crushed by countries without AUG as futures alone.

          Do you want me to answer you?
      7. Living7111972
        Living7111972 April 24 2020 11: 54 New
        +1
        In order to have common sense, education is not necessary, these guys are not stupid boys, the grasp and clarity of life's positions is evident ... The point, I think, is different ... The Sabbath, finally.
        Already tired and want to stop. I'm waiting
      8. frolov andrey
        frolov andrey April 25 2020 22: 00 New
        0
        Right. All officials should be lustrated, accredited, re-profiled. I remembered: to subject the special commission to certification. For incompetence - dismissal from the camps! For sabotage - execution! Everything is serious - the safety of the people is more important than a single "elite". The program to the State Duma: for consideration by the "deputies" of the law on "enemies" of the people.
    2. mark1
      mark1 April 23 2020 05: 33 New
      +1
      Yes, here everyone understandably wants to attach the MiG-AT, but there is no clear justification.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather April 23 2020 05: 51 New
        20
        Roman again singled out the problem. Bravo!
        the problems are the same: crayfish and roads. and while such "managers" (like Serdyukov, mudko, Rogozin ..... take a long time to enumerate ...) in the "case", I will not trust Putin or the government one iota.
        1. Range
          Range April 23 2020 18: 54 New
          -3
          Do you trust Uncle SAM or Abram more?
      2. whitebeard
        whitebeard April 26 2020 21: 13 New
        0
        In principle, if they remake it for 1 engine, they can occupy the UTB niche for the Yak-130, about which they write that it is for the universal UT - they are expensive to operate for our Air Force, therefore, in fact, such a project as SR-10 or this modernized MIG-AT is getting some interest from the Moscow Region.
    3. bober1982
      bober1982 April 23 2020 06: 31 New
      +5
      Quote: Rich
      An interestingly written article, but clearly aimed at a specialist in aviation

      What is interesting to find? The article is designed specifically for amateurs, which is confirmed by the comments.
      Quote: ROSS 42
      So when I was in my service, I clearly understood that for military equipment universal fuel is needed so that to refuel a company or a battalion not to drive a column of fuel trucks.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich April 23 2020 06: 47 New
        +5
        Quote: bober1982
        The article is designed specifically for amateurs, which is confirmed by the comments.

        So it is, most do not care about the quality of the content.
      2. novel66
        novel66 April 23 2020 09: 51 New
        +7
        especially pleased with this
        Why iron the enemy’s positions on the attack aircraft at low altitude, running into heavy machine guns and small-caliber guns (not to mention MANPADS), if you can safely work out guided and adjusted munitions from a safe distance?

        and what are unobtrusive and disguised targets that simply cannot be recognized from a safe distance
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 April 23 2020 10: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: novel xnumx
          especially pleased with this

          A lot of fun in the article, as well as in the comments.
          The VKS main headquarters, in full force, neighing with laughter.
    4. max702
      max702 April 23 2020 14: 05 New
      0
      MIG everything .. Absolutely everything .. There is no point in its production, no one needs a MIG-35 in the army. Dryers are better .. Export? Well, if only India but doubts .. Further, the SU-34 was late and outdated in concept, nothing will come of making an attack aircraft out of it, but the car turned out to be successful, so it will be modernized and serve further, export? Well, maybe .. SU-30 is basically a workhorse of the Aerospace Forces with the prospect of being transferred to naval aviation as a universal fighter, leaving the most perfect version. The SU-35 is the main one for conquering and maintaining air supremacy, if necessary, and on the ground. The SU-57 is still a very long way for the troops, by the time they debug and saturate the HF those machines that were listed earlier will have to be written off for wear, so that this is the future and they need to be addressed The SU-25, as it was and will remain the MOST Fighting aircraft of the VKS, the money saved on the MIG and other closed projects can be partially spent here .. With the Yak-130 everything is clear, this is a flying desk that can do a little bit of war .. The rest are written off, SU-33, SU- 27, MiG-29 (of all stripes) .. We get 5 aircraft and one training aircraft in this segment .. Everything is not bad if you consider that the SU family of three aircraft is quite the same, which can be reduced to one unit during modernization, for example, the same engine up to "izdeliya30" .. The United States with its F-15 has a similar picture of several aircraft of the family sharpened for different tasks .. For the rest, the same picture of the SU-25 \ A-10 as the SU-57 \ f-22 \ f-35 .. I don’t think the lack of an analogue of the F-16 is critical, unlike the USA, we do not have such a forced sales market, although the F-35 perfectly changes the 16th in this niche ...
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS April 23 2020 14: 44 New
        +4
        Quote: max702
        MIG everything .. Absolutely everything .. There is no sense in its production, MIG-35 in the army no one needs Sushki better ..

        Do not equal, dear soft and warm. So that all the stupidity of what you scratched here will reach you, I will explain to you on the fingers. Imagine that a heavy fighter is a laptop, with a good graphics card, memory, etc.And a light fighter is a smartphone. So Mikoyanovtsy need to shove the smartphone into the smartphone. The task is an order of magnitude more complicated than creating a heavy fighter. These machines are not correct and stupid to compare. Different tasks, different combat load, different functionality. A light fighter does not need to fly behind the front line into the depths of the enemy’s positions. Its task is to stick everything into the ground on the front line (conditionally) that flies from that side. A light fighter is not suitable for escorting bombers, for delivering strikes in the depths of enemy positions, etc. This is not his task.

        Quote: max702
        SU-57 is still a very long way troops

        What hangover? This year the first production SU-57 will go to Lipetsk. The clear task is given, to put up to 28 aircraft in the VKS until 76 years. What long road are you talking about?
        1. max702
          max702 April 23 2020 14: 55 New
          +6
          Now there is no light and cheap, there are effective and not effective, and your comparison of laptop with smart characterizes complete incompetence in this matter .. All your examples of using La are taken from the time of the Second World War and have nothing to do with today! Look at the latest conflicts where are your tactical calculations? Do you again think about hypothetical and unrealizable database scenarios? We need one type of BASIC aircraft and the SU family provides it .. MIG is a repetition of the same for the same money BUT with less efficiency And for what? Until the age of 28, another 8 years of what and how there will be on the SU-57 big question, 76 cars say this is the minimum in order for the troops to master this new machine and prepare for actual operation .. Those same Dryers will plow and time will confirm my point ..
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 23 2020 15: 03 New
            +1
            Quote: max702
            Now there is no light and cheap, there are effective and not effective, and your comparison of laptop with smart characterizes complete incompetence in this matter ..

            I’ve clearly explained to dummies on your fingers. And you began to bend your fingers.
            Quote: max702
            We need one type of PRIMARY aircraft and the SU family provides it ..

            Yeah ... and drive a heavy IFI both in the tail and in the mane for bread ... yeah. It doesn’t matter that such a device eats like a mammoth and preparing to fly there is more, as well as the flight hour is more expensive ... the main thing is Schaub ride a taxi ... yeah.
            Quote: max702
            MIG is a repetition of the same for the same money BUT with less efficiency

            Another stupid thing. The question of expediency is not familiar to you at all? The tasks, and therefore the functionality, are different for these machines, dear. Why does the same fleet not stamp only Boreas, but order both Varshavyanka and Yaseni? The tasks are different!
            Quote: max702
            Until the age of 28, another 8 years of what and how there will be on the SU-57 is a big question, 76 cars say this is the minimum so that the troops mastered this new machine and prepared for actual operation ..

            What makes you think that the contract will not be increased in the direction of increasing the number of ordered cars?
            1. Alexander mosin
              Alexander mosin April 23 2020 15: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Yeah ... and drive a heavy IFI both in the tail and in the mane for bread ... yeah. It doesn’t matter that such a device eats like a mammoth and preparing to fly there is more, as well as the flight hour is more expensive ... the main thing is Schaub ride a taxi ... yeah.

              Could you bring the difference in the cost per hour of flight of the Mig-29 and its variants against the Su-27 and its variants accordingly. Thanks in advance.
              1. max702
                max702 April 23 2020 17: 12 New
                +1
                Quote: Alexander Mosin
                Yeah ... and drive a heavy IFI in the tail and mane for bread ... and

                What kind of bread? For an hour, give the data on the difference in operation .. It seems to me that these are your fantasies .. The facts of the database proved that MIGne is a competitor to SU due to the small radius of action of the "lightness" of the machine itself, because there is no normal avionics for fuel because it is light and cheap .. That is, to be honest necessary and useless ..
                1. Alexander mosin
                  Alexander mosin April 23 2020 23: 17 New
                  +1
                  He is right about the fact that you need a lot of light, ONE-engine combat, multipurpose aircraft, for everyday gestures, so to speak, but that very "one engine" is not. And Mig 29 and its upgrades are generally past, I would get rid of them altogether.
                  1. max702
                    max702 April 24 2020 13: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: Alexander Mosin
                    , for everyday gestures, so to speak, but that very "one engine" is not. And Mig 29 and its upgrades are generally past, I would get rid of them altogether.

                    Duc and I about that .. There is no plane with one engine and there are not many options, maybe what happens with the "product 30" but this is still 10-15 years minimum ..
          2. Igor Aviator
            Igor Aviator April 23 2020 21: 54 New
            +4
            You are mistaken! If you do not perceive printed text, I print by syllables:
            1. heavy - it means VERY not easy. A lot follows from this characteristic: empty weight - about 17 tons; normal take-off weight - about 25-30 tons; maximum take-off weight - about 35-40 tons. It follows that it can ONLY be based on well-equipped rear aerodromes with a concrete runway, in exceptional cases it can work from dispersal areas - pre-determined and PREPARED sections of federal highways. typical representative - SU-27, SU-30SM.
            2. Light-cue means SIGNIFICANTLY less heavy than the above, namely - empty weight - about 10-13 tons; normal takeoff weight - about 15-17 tons; maximum takeoff weight - about 20-22 tons. based on the above characteristics, it is capable of operating from prepared DIRECT RUNWAYS, It can be based on "jump aerodromes" with a prepared DIRECT or metal runway, or dispersal areas, which can be used as road sections of district or regional significance. An important advantage - it uses the SAME range of weapons. as a HEAVY fellow. Representatives - MiG-29 (better than the older ones, 28-31, series); MiG-29SMT. Most importantly, the combat radius of the MiG-29SMT is approaching the combat radius of the SU-27.
            About efficiency. Using the example of the regiments in which I had the good fortune to serve - 73GVIAP and 14GVIAP (9IAD), (both MiG-29), I can say that in training battles with the SU-27 regiments, the pilots of our regiments almost always won. An important factor is the higher maneuverability of the MiG-29 in close combat, the lower EOP, which made it possible to work from "ambushes".
            1. max702
              max702 April 23 2020 23: 07 New
              0
              All that you have written are the files of bygone days .. No unpaved airfields, unprepared runways and other nonsense .. You could serve anywhere and anytime all this in the past. And therefore, there is no point in focusing on this .. The level of current technology, the requirements for operation are only increasing, therefore, the cheapness and simplicity in the past ... Today, aircraft are VERY piece goods, up to their own names as in the fleet .. Mass air attacks are not expected to a couple of squadrons at once maximum what we observe in Syria .. Clashes with the NATO bloc will quickly develop into the third world with the use of strategic nuclear forces because no one wants to suffer defeat, we are not NATO .. ​​Accordingly, the flight park designed for the global felling of hundreds of aircraft makes no sense, from this the need for one aircraft type (the family of SU allows it) MIG does not fit here in any way due to inefficiency, if without the "easy" one can do without the heavy one. I will repeat the REAL databases, not staged ones, proved it .. And orders of military equipment around the world confirm this. Instead of three light ones, they buy two heavy ones.
              1. Alexander mosin
                Alexander mosin April 24 2020 00: 48 New
                0
                Quote: max702
                Collisions with the NATO bloc will quickly grow into a third world war with the use of strategic nuclear forces because no one wants to suffer defeats, not we not NATO.

                The chances are that in a conventional war the Russian Federation will win, that NATO will have to use strategic nuclear weapons, as it were, a little more than zero, for the next ten years. To do this, it is necessary to increase by orders of magnitude and imperceptibly the Air Force, Navy and something more on the ground than 1500 T-90 and T-72 of all variants. It is the weakness of the conventional army and the technological backwardness of the Russian Federation that can most likely provoke nuclear weapons to strike, but this can have global consequences. I'm not even talking about the nuclear end of the world, but for example the use of a pair of tactical nuclear weapons against, or even in front of some strategic directions, where, say, the Russian forces suffered heavy losses, are forced to retreat, and in order to "sober up" the advancing NATO forces will decide to strike. can provoke at least a complete political and economic isolation of the Russian Federation, in which everyone, without exception, will take part, including China. This is the mildest, political option, when the West decides not to continue the DB in order to avoid the exchange of nuclear weapons. This "soft option" is of course fraught with internal problems of such force that there will be no need for war. But they can, after all, answer, moreover, more comprehensively and for sure. I believe that all the mines, nuclear submarines with strategic nuclear weapons, strategic air forces, their location is known to NATO, at least 95%, the question is, how will NATO respond to a preemptive or limited strike by tactical nuclear weapons? Will there be a global strike, an attempt to neutralize the nuclear shield of the Russian Federation, or will there be a similar response, several strikes and then sanctions? You will inquire about treaties on this topic, but as far as I remember, whoever starts a nuclear war, or whoever strikes first, bears all responsibility. And in general, nuclear weapons are a complex topic, there are many questions, for good humanity it is necessary to get rid of it, as well as bio-chemical weapons, forever. Weapons should kill military personnel, and not be a means of mass murder of civilians. But this is my opinion.
                1. max702
                  max702 April 24 2020 13: 20 New
                  +2
                  As for the conventional chances in Europe, now everything is not so bad as in the 90s-2000s and not because of our combat readiness, but because of the decline of the European military potential .. Tanks are not 1500, but more. The shock functions have completely increased themselves and strengthened the air defense / missile defense facilities. We have no goals for military aggression in Europe, the task is to defend our borders and not be tempted by the ease of defeating us by military means .. There are no special problems regarding the use of nuclear weapons you are able to destroy the enemy and confirm it by deed (and he will understand it) you are being talked very politely and not from a position of strength (will you be rude to a man with a gun pointed at you?) .. Therefore, conversations about sanctions and other threats are not worthwhile for that sa th you cornered and you have nothing to lose repeat opponent understands it .. As for the massacres of the population .. To fight we can be different for example with the West in the 90s were not at war but losing the peace population is estimated at 30m .. More than in World War II ..
        2. Garris199
          Garris199 April 30 2020 02: 59 New
          0
          So Mikoyanovtsy need to shove the smartphone into the smartphone.

          In other words, make candy from ...... I'm afraid it is impossible.
    5. lego2
      lego2 April 24 2020 10: 04 New
      0
      I can’t say anything about the new project, but I suspect that there is a specialist who can write an equally convincing article in his defense. But counting the number of our and Amerov’s front-line soldiers raises questions. If you do not take into account the old people: su 24, su 25 and instant 25, as well as the beginner su 57, then the rest are deep modernizations created on the platforms: su 27 and instant 29 and plus yak 130 and that 7, exactly like the main potential, well, if you count as amers. And if you count as ours, that is, all modifications of the old F15 and F16, as well as three F35 variants, then the potential may have other numbers.
  2. Dmitry from Voronezh
    Dmitry from Voronezh April 23 2020 05: 11 New
    +2
    Indeed, it smacks of some kind of absurdity. We made a MiG-35, presented it, ordered 6 pieces and then silence ... The VKS doesn't really need it, it turns out. The Su-34 as an attack aircraft is probably the only real replacement for the Su-25. And the functionality of the 34th needs to be added. The era of highly specialized machines is leaving. As a fighter, the Su-34, of course, is not very much, it is still heavy, and the radar is rather weak for air purposes, but this means that it should be developed as a drummer, especially since the machine has been worked out by industry. An attack aircraft based on the Yak-130 - there was such an idea, but, I think, still not. There will be another highly specialized machine, worse in some respects than the Su-25, so they won't do it. And the new MFLS is some kind of "projection". And what would really be done to the MiG is to bring the 35th to mind, to make for it a radar station with AFAR and in the troops, at least 30-40 pieces. They will not be superfluous.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek April 23 2020 08: 03 New
      +1
      The real replacement for the Su25 is the increase in the power of attack helicopters, the maintenance of the SVVP-24 on Sukhoi and wounded UAVs.
      1. Dmitry from Voronezh
        Dmitry from Voronezh April 23 2020 08: 13 New
        0
        In general, I think it’s too early to write off the Su-25. They are being upgraded, so they are still flying. Aiming containers are needed for the Su-30SM and Su-35, as was done in the West. For UAVs - the future, but we are still far from creating such perfect machines as the Americans, therefore, our UAVs will not be able to replace attack aircraft soon.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek April 23 2020 08: 14 New
          +2
          The United States is also thinking about this, for which these problems have already been resolved. A-10 flies oat.
          1. novel66
            novel66 April 23 2020 09: 52 New
            +3
            only the wings fall off .. little bird, and f-35 cannot replace them, as it turned out ..
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek April 23 2020 10: 33 New
              0
              The wings change ..... A10 fly .... and shoot further than the Shell can meet.
              1. novel66
                novel66 April 23 2020 10: 56 New
                +5
                the range of the "shell" missile is more than that of the Hellfire
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek April 23 2020 11: 04 New
                  +2
                  At low altitudes, it’s unlikely ... the missile does not have a rocket, but the HF has ....
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty April 23 2020 05: 25 New
    +7
    Roman, you "adopted" the Su57, although our army has not received one of them yet! How can you count something that is not in stock? ??
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 23 2020 05: 53 New
      -1
      Quote: Thrifty
      Roman, you "adopted" the Su57, although our army has not received one of them yet! How can you count something that is not in stock? ??

      duck took like, just did not fly ... request
  4. Ru_Na
    Ru_Na April 23 2020 05: 31 New
    +6
    While such "effective managers" like Serdyukov, for whom the prison is crying, are at the helm, we will have similar situations when the plane / rocket is there, tested, tested and even in a series, but we will create even better, if it works out, the main thing is to believe and master the money!
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      Dmitry from Voronezh April 23 2020 05: 37 New
      +1
      Yes, in military construction and not only, we need responsible people, dedicated to the cause and the country. Then there will be progress, then reasonable decisions will be made, and even with a relatively small military budget, the country will have high defense capability.
  5. avia12005
    avia12005 April 23 2020 05: 46 New
    17
    Just do not pour water on the enemies mill. Serdyukov is the standard of successful modern top management. This is a lump, this is a super leader. Where Serdyukov, there is success, there is victory.

    Seriously, there will be no new aircraft. It will be a useless budget.
    1. Angry
      Angry April 23 2020 11: 08 New
      -3
      The plane is needed. Only VTOL aircraft and purely as a fighter. You can, of course, follow the path of "settling" the entire territory of the country with the S-400 square-nesting method, but it is still better to use the vertical take-off and landing aircraft. It will be useful everywhere in our country, on any patch of roads and on almost any ship. And the assault missions of manned aircraft to fight the armies and fleets of potential enemies is already suicide. These tasks should be solved by the CD and drones. It is possible to drive these Majeheads through the mountains and deserts, which have AK and DShK from the air defense, as they say. And the support of its troops, in terms of singular destruction of the enemy's fire mobile objects, should be carried out by mobile unmanned systems, which in the conditions of modern military air defense will actually be disposable, like manned aircraft.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 April 23 2020 11: 52 New
        0
        During wars, everything is decided by economics and management. How UAVs will work in conditions of mass enemy use of electronic warfare on the battlefield is not yet clear. KR is generally an expensive thing, you can’t get a lot of it on tanks and pillboxes)
      2. Winnie76
        Winnie76 April 23 2020 13: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Angry
        but it’s better to do the same with vertical takeoff and landing. It will come in handy everywhere in our country, on any patch of roads and on almost any ship.

        That is yes. Will be based on the tip of the flagpole
      3. nedgen
        nedgen April 23 2020 23: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: Angry
        The plane is needed. Only VTOL aircraft and purely as a fighter. You can, of course, follow the path of "settling" the entire territory of the country with the S-400 square-nesting method, but it is still better to use the vertical take-off and landing aircraft. It will be useful everywhere in our country, on any patch of roads and on almost any ship.

        Sorry, I’m angry, but how do you imagine the VTOL aircraft with the characteristics of a normal airplane? The VTOL aircraft will ALWAYS be inferior to conventional aircraft in the quantity of weapons and speed characteristics. And there is no need to cite the Falkland conflict as an example (the only case when the VTOL aircraft defeated normal aircraft, but there the harriers were used only as aircraft with short take-offs and vertical landings, and the Argentines had shit as well. They only had old Sidewinder missiles that could use only for firing at planes from the back hemisphere, that is, only to catch up. And when the harriers rejected the thrust vector, the rocket lost its integrity. But the Harriers used newer missiles that could be fired at oncoming courses. mainly OVER the naval junction where they had information and fire support. Altogether the Argentines did not have this.) With vertical take-off from the ground at the VTOL aircraft at the launch pad site, a PIT is obtained. The same thing when taking off from concrete, but not immediately, but after a couple of three take-offs and landings. Metal bands are not a solution because they do not exclude the full erosion of the soil. And with the vertical take-off, the combat radius as well as the combat load fall very serially. VTOL aircraft in the shortened take-off variant cannot take off both from the ground (literally loosening the ground) and from asphalt (melt) A and it is shortened then it is relatively 50-100 m with full load. But even the MiG-29 on the afterburner needs only 220 meters of the runway with full load. Of course, you need 600 meters to run. But vertical landing also destroys the site. Something like this.
      4. bayard
        bayard April 24 2020 06: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Angry
        but it’s better to do the same with vertical takeoff and landing. It will come in handy everywhere in our country, on any patch of roads and on almost any ship.

        On any spot of the road, even asphalt, he will dig a hole during take-off / landing, disabling valuable infrastructure. And it will burn / jar with hot gases any deck not prepared for this (not covered with heat-resistant plates) ... This has already been tested by practice. VTOL is effective in use from concrete strips and specialized ships, but it is very difficult to use from unprepared sites.
        And it is VERY expensive and difficult to maintain and operate. So it will not be a cheap version of a "light fighter" for sure.
        It is much easier to plant a classic light fighter on road sections or prepared unpaved strips - they do not dig ground underneath, and due to the high thrust-weight ratio they have a small take-off run (and run when landing with a brake parachute).
      5. PSih2097
        PSih2097 April 24 2020 16: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Angry
        This majadhede can be driven through the mountains and deserts, from which the air defense, as they say, AK and DShK.

        They have long been in the presence of MANPADS of both domestic (USSR / RF) and foreign production (China / NATO).
  6. svp67
    svp67 April 23 2020 06: 00 New
    +2
    From the information of the UAC, you can also understand that the aircraft should be twin-engine, light and cheap.
    I believe that our Aerospace Forces need such an aircraft, but it must be single-engine to really talk about "cheapness"
    We definitely have the Su-34.
    I do not agree with certainty. Definitely, such a plane we should have become the Su-30 ... That would be more correct.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      Dmitry from Voronezh April 23 2020 06: 15 New
      +1
      The Su-30 is, of course, a really versatile machine. Su-34 striker, which, if necessary, can play the role of a fighter, and not very successfully. In principle, for 4th generation fighters, the creation of specialized strikers is a normal practice. An example is the F-15 "Strike Eagle", the Mirage-2000D. So the Su-34 has its place and scope, but its versatility is lower than that of the Su-30.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 23 2020 06: 21 New
      +7
      Su-34 has the same armor as Su-25? ... Unusual conclusion ...
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin April 23 2020 09: 50 New
        +3
        And most importantly, it is also cheap. That's just the difference in a penny.)))
      2. Alexander mosin
        Alexander mosin April 23 2020 15: 49 New
        -1
        Why does he need armor? He can fly higher than 5000m, he does not need to storm trenches at a low altitude.
      3. D16
        D16 April 23 2020 19: 28 New
        0
        Su-34 has the same armor as Su-25? ... Unusual conclusion ...

        "The mass of the Su-34's armor is 1480 kg, which is almost 1,5 times more than that of the Su-25. [4] A distinctive feature of the Su-34's armor from the Su-25 is the armor made entirely of titanium alloy, without aluminum and steel slabs. The cab has armored glazing. "(c) wiki
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins April 23 2020 20: 37 New
          0
          If we compare the percentage of armor to the mass of the aircraft, then the Su 25 is 7.5 percent. Su 34 has 3.8 percent.
          That is, we compare the armored car and body armor.
          1. D16
            D16 April 23 2020 20: 50 New
            0
            The Su-25 and Su-34 are booked the same thing. What does the Su-34 have better. It sounds paradoxical, but at the same time, with an increase in secondary internal volumes and take-off weight, survivability increases. At the same time, the Su-25 is an attack aircraft, and the 34th can fight with fighters. And if in the process of modernization they put AL-41F1. so generally all opponents in the BVB will tear to pieces laughing .
  7. Alex66
    Alex66 April 23 2020 06: 37 New
    0
    It seems to me that the task of the current government is to ruin everything to the maximum, while depicting ardent modernization activities with the simultaneous withdrawal of attendants from the hill. The authorities understand that they will not be able to control the country for a long time and one of its tasks is to leave the ruins behind them so that those who come to replace them get bogged down in problems and then remember them again. It’s like in Ukraine with Saakashvili.
    1. V.I.P.
      V.I.P. April 23 2020 08: 21 New
      +3
      Correctly. Therefore, one of the main amendments to the constitution is the inability to judge the former president for his affairs))))) ..... It would be better if he appointed Serdyukov as finance minister)))
      1. Angry
        Angry April 23 2020 12: 22 New
        0
        It seems that Serdyukov should be put instead of Putin .. If Uncle Vova does it. He is a genius!
      2. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny April 23 2020 12: 43 New
        +2
        Therefore, one of the main amendments to the constitution is the inability to judge the former president for his affairs)))))

        You will first familiarize yourself with the current Constitution, and then with the amendments. And then write your HERESY. According to his Status, the President of the Russian Federation therefore has Immunity and Immunity, and without any amendments.
        1. V.I.P.
          V.I.P. April 23 2020 14: 32 New
          0
          Amendments made before the second reading to the State Duma ...... The Duma adopted them. read the amendments to Article 93 of the procedure for bringing the former president to criminal liability ....
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny April 23 2020 16: 01 New
            +5
            The former president already receives guarantees of immunity after his terms. Article 93 provides for the procedure for RESIGNATION from office. After his terms, the President is no longer in office and this procedure does not concern him.
            1. Clone
              Clone April 24 2020 01: 56 New
              0
              Quote: Okolotochny
              The former president, and so receives guarantees of immunity

              Really. If not for one BUT ... namely, the procedure for amending the Law and the Constitution. To change the law, in principle, like two fingers ... on the asphalt. It will be more difficult with the Constitution, to put it mildly. However, in fact, the new changes are already in effect, and the announced "nationwide approval" - ... oh, I better keep silent.
  8. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 23 2020 06: 42 New
    +4
    Su25 will replace Su34, which is booked no worse ... you can no longer read.
    It is necessary to restore order first with what is. And the question I have is: a turbojet engine with a thrust of 12-18 tons is at the output - Product 30 ... and where will we get a turbojet engine to replace the RD-33? For two engine fighter?
    1. Eug
      Eug April 23 2020 12: 40 New
      0
      But this is a question of questions. If you make 30 on the basis of one product, the dimensions will not significantly decrease, because the length of the engine and its diameter will not change, the air flow (which also will not change) draws the area and cross section of the air intake, a direct section of the air intake in front of the compressor is desirable, and something else. As for me, it is worth considering the afterburner version of ed.30, but for two it turns out 22 tons of traction, which is obviously a lot for a really light one. And in general, it is first necessary to determine the normal take-off weight and then already with the required engines.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 23 2020 13: 11 New
        0
        The sizes can be visually compared with the example of Su27 and J10 ....
    2. D16
      D16 April 23 2020 19: 42 New
      0
      Su25 will replace Su34, which is booked no worse ... you can no longer read.

      So what? Booking with the Su-34 is twice as heavy, made entirely of titanium, unlike the aluminum inserts of the Su-25.
      and where will we get the turbojet engine to replace the RD-33?

      But this is the right question. Until there is a new engine, the migrants every time they exit will get a stepped-up requirement that is worsened by stealth requirements, flanked by the Mig-29 weapon compartment. So all this is empty talk and transfusion from empty to empty. Engineers need to train, that's the money they give out.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 24 2020 00: 02 New
        0
        In addition to the armored car (1 local weighs less than 2x), the Su25 has many other improvements written in blood. IB simply cannot have them.
        1. D16
          D16 April 24 2020 07: 58 New
          0
          In addition to armored cabs (1 local weighs less than 2x)

          A double armored car cannot weigh twice as much as a single. This Su-25UB had two armored cabs.
          Su25 has many other blood-written improvements.

          Su 34 was created much later than the 25th, taking into account all its jambs.
          IB simply cannot have them.

          For instance? Su25 is far from a tank and its reservation provides protection only to the pilot and vital systems and assemblies. In Su34, the same thing, only all of titanium and two times heavier.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek April 24 2020 08: 07 New
            0
            And spaced motors, shielding of some units by others, etc. the fighter "Inception" cannot provide such an integrated approach.
            1. D16
              D16 April 24 2020 19: 32 New
              0
              And the spaced engines

              In the same way, they are also spaced at the 34th between the nozzles of the tail fin with the APU.
              shielding of some units by others, etc. the fighter "Inception" cannot provide such an integrated approach.

              Do you think during the development of the 27th you didn’t think about survivability? One of the tasks of the 34th was to open the enemy air defense. The job is no less dangerous than that of an attack aircraft.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek April 24 2020 20: 17 New
                0
                They didn’t think so, as with 25m ..... read the monologue about the creation of Su25 and the application ....
                1. D16
                  D16 April 24 2020 20: 52 New
                  0
                  Thought with 34m. From that, the weight of the reservation is twice as high. But in principle, this is a set of standard measures for cars of this purpose. Take the same fins with the APU. At 27m it’s not what it wouldn’t be, but it’s not like that and not with such a massive aggregate.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek April 24 2020 21: 30 New
                    0
                    No .... Su25, A10, Mi28, Ka50 / 52 are fundamentally designed to increase survivability. This is not just a reservation. This is an ideology. If so create tactical fighters, it will be a flying Iron, not far flying.
                    1. D16
                      D16 April 24 2020 22: 12 New
                      0
                      You stuffed fundamentally different pepelats in a row laughing I gave you an example of a secondary unit used to protect one of the main ones. Show your example of Su34 fails in terms of protection.
                      If so create tactical fighters, it will be a flying Iron, not far flying.

                      You can make a rocket out of any iron. The question is about motors and wing area. laughing
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 24 2020 23: 05 New
                        0
                        I just built the pepelats in terms of the approach to survivability .. Still during the design.
                      2. D16
                        D16 April 24 2020 23: 11 New
                        0
                        Will there be no examples?
                      3. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 25 2020 07: 25 New
                        0
                        http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft20013-3.htm ознакомьтесь и приведите примеры такого подхода к защите и живучести у Су34.
                      4. D16
                        D16 April 25 2020 22: 42 New
                        0
                        Examples please laughing
                      5. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 26 2020 00: 23 New
                        0
                        Examples in the article (s) about Su25 .... specific solutions for survivability and their weight in the design.
                      6. D16
                        D16 April 26 2020 07: 40 New
                        0
                        That is, should I seek evidence of your allegations? lol Do not wait laughing And read the article (s) yourself. Moreover, there is nothing concrete there.
                      7. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 26 2020 08: 52 New
                        0
                        I read .... and I advise you the same. Still on paper.
                      8. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 26 2020 09: 35 New
                        0
                        https://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/55/700px-Su25-bron.svg.png
                      9. D16
                        D16 April 26 2020 10: 57 New
                        0
                        AND? Reserving the Su-34 is more sharpened to meet airborne rocket and is evenly distributed throughout the cockpit. The 25th is imprisoned for shelling the MZA, which makes it more vulnerable to shelling with missiles, which rarely explode in the lower hemisphere. View statistics on recent conflicts. The ratio of aviation losses from MZA and MANPADS and immediately everything will become clear. Structurally, the AL-31 engine is protected from MANPADS much better due to the afterburner.
                      10. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 26 2020 11: 56 New
                        0
                        And this means that the Su34 is not a ground attack aircraft
                      11. D16
                        D16 April 26 2020 15: 15 New
                        0
                        No one writes that he is an attack aircraft. The author writes that he is not worse booked. From rockets is better. Today, the trend is more technologically advanced than MZA.
                    2. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek April 26 2020 12: 12 New
                      0
                      Have you seen a hole from a MANPADS snot? There 2pcs will make Al31 immediately
                    3. D16
                      D16 April 26 2020 15: 09 New
                      0
                      Rutskoi and Filippov also probably saw these pictures. But they were shot down from MANPADS on real attack aircraft ..
                      Rutskoi April 6, 1986.
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 23 2020 07: 30 New
    +2
    The amount is small, only 4 million rubles
    ... It seems that some kind of miscarriage will turn out, and then they will forget about him ...
    1. avia12005
      avia12005 April 23 2020 08: 06 New
      +2
      Serdyukov didn’t have enough for linoleum ...
  • Oleg1
    Oleg1 April 23 2020 07: 38 New
    0
    "But here Shoigu and Serdyukov already know better what kind of aircraft our aerospace forces need." Finally, finally! I heard a clever saying from the author of the article, but then why is she ... this whole article?
  • Courier
    Courier April 23 2020 07: 46 New
    -1
    Not a specialist, but why not MiG make an analogue of MiG 27.

    There is no such class of aircraft in the VKS.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      Dmitry from Voronezh April 23 2020 08: 07 New
      -2
      MiG-27 is a highly specialized aircraft. Fighter-bomber. Today the niche of attack aircraft is occupied by the Su-24M and Su-34. To produce a light single-engine drummer for modern Russia is an unaffordable luxury. In general, we will not pull such a "zoo" of machines, we must strive for the greatest possible unification. This is a general global trend today.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 23 2020 08: 02 New
    +2
    In reality, it is necessary to make a modernized Su30 (with AFAR, new engines and systems), preferably with a cabin and avionics unified with Su57, and replace with it all descendants of Su27. He will solve problems both as a tactical bomber and as a reconnaissance and as a software and interceptor to replace the MiG-31BM (long-range missiles announced). To produce Su57 in the right quantity and on the basis of Product 30 also make a mass plane. The possibility and need for replacing the Su25 is not ready to discuss.
    So you get 3 types of aircraft with maximum unification for systems and pilots
  • Sailor
    Sailor April 23 2020 08: 09 New
    +3
    My God, what’s going on in the country? Under the Communists, they would have shot him for a long time or sent him to Siberia to cut down the forest for the end of his days for his tricks, and then they put him in charge of the national defense company!
    1. V.I.P.
      V.I.P. April 23 2020 08: 23 New
      +2
      Why be surprised .. The irreplaceable won for Dimon invented a new longevity. Yes, and Chubais is working for the good ....))) I do not know the truth for whose benefit he is working. But the money he normally fall off))))
      1. Sailor
        Sailor April 23 2020 08: 39 New
        +1
        This is depressing!
      2. Angry
        Angry April 23 2020 15: 50 New
        +2
        Yes, Chubais is generally a mystery! Obviously, our Nanotechnology is a branch of their Silicon Valley. Most likely there, in the first place, they get the results of NT research, moreover, secret ones. Wonderful things are your Vovochka!
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 23 2020 09: 48 New
      +2
      Skomorokhov for intentional misinformation?
  • Eug
    Eug April 23 2020 09: 00 New
    +2
    The Su-34 is clearly not a replacement for the Su-25, just compare the cost of a flight hour. As for me, the tasks of the attack should be solved by the army aviation. I don’t see LMFS at all (except for export), if it doesn’t work at least from perforated metal sheets, even better from compacted soil. If there is - behind it is the niche of the front-line fighter-bomber and the "accelerator" of the enemy army aviation - until the ground military air defense is deployed, both tasks require a very short reaction time to requests from the ground. In general, there are four types in one generation (three to the maximum unified among themselves - Su-30, Su-34, Su-35 and really light), as for me the situation is bearable, we also need a front-line bomber-coastal naval missile carrier-reconnaissance-jammer, and two-one-seat fighters, the fourth is light. The MiG-35 does not exactly fall into the light, the Su-57 is still more experimental and generally a new generation, the developments of which, however, can be used to modernize the older ones. But there are also promising foreign markets with the so-called. "single" type of aircraft (Rafal, Typhoon), to which the MIG-35 clearly belongs and the Ross will probably lean. VKS. So the question is about the sustainability of the development. State financing up to the stage of the technical project, and then - who was chosen ... Or development for foreign orders.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 23 2020 09: 29 New
    +4
    The author again, some kind of nonsense about a new plane, either invented it, or read it somewhere, now he is fighting hard with it.

    I do not know since when Germany is in the "poorer" category, but it is from her that "typhoons", and she does not take the F-35. "Tornado" still seems to have written off everything.

    And how can you make an attack aircraft out of the Yak-130, when it is one and a half times lighter than the smallest planes claiming to be something multifunctional (KAI T-50 with F-50 variants, "gripen" of early modifications, FC-1, Tejas Mk 1 )? Moreover, newer versions of cars on the GF 404 pass to the GF 414 and gain weight. Installing only a radar and a gun will require the creation of an actually new aircraft of a different dimension.

    And if the author considers the models in the USA, then the "hornet" and "superhornet" are not modifications, they are completely different machines, of different weight categories, and the F-15E cannot be considered together with the F-15C, because it is a strike aircraft and closer to the Su-34 in terms of functionality, or the Su-30. And in the F-16 blocks, the devil will break his leg, and 50/52 are versions with different engines. Therefore, and through a fraction.

    And I do not know what the author was going to revive in "Russian Helicopters". The presence or absence of Serdyukov there will not change the market needs. And the problem is precisely in the redundancy of production capacities that arose after the massive renovation of equipment in the Air Force and other organizations. And believe me, it will only get worse, because because of the epidemic, people began to fly less, and when it ends HZ, the epidemic itself is superimposed on the global economic crisis, which means that people will not have time for new helicopters.

    Everything has been decided about the Su-57, and a contract was signed a year ago, only Skomorokhov does not know about it. The main, and, possibly, the only Su-57 combat aircraft can become no earlier than the 2040s, since the already built Su-30SM and Su-35 will be operated until the resource is depleted. Even if the Su-30SM will be driven, like the UB, without dividing the materiel into combat, which is saved, and training, which is used in peacetime, then they should last 20 years. And the first flight of the Su-30SM is the 2012th year.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 23 2020 14: 15 New
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      I do not know since when Germany is in the "poorer" category, but it is from her that "typhoons", and she does not take the F-35. "Tornado" still seems to have written off everything.

      The Germans, instead of “Tornado”, planned a combined hodgepodge of “Typhoons” and F-18s - but everything sank at the approval stage.
      It was previously reported that the German Ministry of Defense intends to replace Tornado fighters with more modern aircraft. At the end of March this year, it became known that the option of acquiring up to 90 Eurofighter Typhoons, 30 F / A-18E / F and 15 EA-18G is being considered, but this plan has not been approved.

      Yesterday there was news about the scandal in Germany, when the Minister of Defense personally addressed the Yankees about the procurement of F-18.
      According to the weekly, the German defense minister without approval wrote a letter to the head of the Pentagon, Mark Esper, in which she requested the United States to purchase 45 F-18 fighters. It should be noted that the option with American fighters, which can replace the German obsolete Tornado, began to be discussed even under the former Minister of Defense of Germany, Ursula von der Leyen, but they did not come to a common decision in the Bundestag.

      It seems to me that Annegret Crump-Karrenbauer simply decided to throw a large stone into the swamp in which the aforementioned plan sank - in the hope that at least some kind of decision to replace the “Tornado” will emerge from it.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 23 2020 14: 21 New
        0
        I have nothing against "superhornets" as long as they don't fly to bomb me. I would very much like to see captured vehicles in service with our Air Force. It is quite logical to replace the "tornado" with them, as the interceptor "typhoons" already exist.
      2. Liam
        Liam April 23 2020 14: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Yesterday there was news about the scandal

        You have been on the site for a long time to know the price and reliability of these and other "scandals")
        Quote: Alexey RA
        decision to replace "Tornado".

        Decision made long ago - Eurofighter Typhoon Tr.4
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 23 2020 09: 47 New
    +5
    As for the Su-25, pure physics, the reach of MZA since WWII has not changed in any way. But the ability of planes and helicopters to detect targets and hit them since 1980 has grown critically. This means that the confrontation between aircraft and air defense is increasingly moving towards missile launches against each other. Whether a new attack aircraft is needed in such conditions, and isn’t it easier if necessary to attract conventional fighters, the question is open. It’s just that the likelihood of a need arising in walking around the NURSami area decreases, which means that the losses of helicopters with airplanes that can get such a task fall. Sami Su-25 is in storage so far. And as Syria shows, a local dozens of aircraft can be fought by dozens of aircraft, including escort fighters, and this I take into account that in addition to our air forces there are also the Syrian ones, which, according to some estimates, are 7 times less effective in terms of the number of targets hit and the number of sorties . And why then have Su-25 class aircraft in an amount of more than 8-10 squadrons in active operation.

    MiG-35 has no special prospects in the Air Force, because there is a better technique. But curtailing its development will not lead to any savings, but it will deprive people of the opportunity to gain practical experience in design. At the same time, MiG-29 variants are exported. That is, this project can shoot, and, most likely, it already shot with the same Egyptian contract, because no matter what the supplied model is called, it most likely contains developments from what is called the MiG-35.

    In general, the author for the article cons on all counts.
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin April 23 2020 09: 57 New
    +3
    The specifics in the message are zero. What is a plane? 4 mlona this is not a lot. It’s probably just about a certain analogue of SuperTukano. A sort of IL 10 in a new way.
  • alstr
    alstr April 23 2020 10: 06 New
    +4
    The author is not quite right. In the west, too, a decent zoo. We just have this zoo more intuitive.
    It's just that in fact, every modification is a new model, but they don’t.
    For example, 4 F-16 modifications, 3 F-16/18, 2–3 F-35 modifications are currently in operation (this is not counting the actual 3 versions A, B, C).
    And their modifications differ about the same as the Su-27, Su-30, Su-33.

    And this is explained simply. It was easier for them to get financing for modernization (although in fact a new aircraft was obtained), and for us for a new aircraft (plus prizes and orders were crushed for a new aircraft).
    Although now we are closer to the western model.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 23 2020 10: 56 New
    0
    A large number of different machines places a significant burden on the training of pilots, and on the production of aircraft, and on their repair, and on flight operation. Here, as an example, I can cite an air regiment based in Halino, Kursk Region, covering the border. One squadron on the MiG-29SM, one on the Su-30.

    The standard of diversity - This is the 22nd IAP. He simultaneously had the Su-35S, Su-27SM, Su-30M2, MiG-31 and MiG-31BSM:
    Recall that according to previously published materials, the 22nd fighter aviation regiment should receive 14 Su-35S fighters in exchange for the squadron of Su-27SM fighters transferred from this regiment to Crimea in 2014 (two other squadrons of the 22nd aviation regiment are retained by Su-fighters 27SM and Su-30M2, and MiG-31 and MiG-31BSM, respectively).
    © bmpd
  • Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. April 23 2020 11: 17 New
    +1
    Anyone who was engaged in stools, CANNOT create a plane. The people of Baumanku, MAI, Fizteh passed, began with a simple engineer and reached the Minister of Aviation Industry. Stop lying, the PEOPLE is already tired of such managers, politicians, leaders.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 23 2020 14: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: I.P. Stalnov.
      Anyone who was engaged in stools, CANNOT create a plane.

      But do not remind me - what kind of education the best manager of the USSR? And what did he do before the atomic and missile projects? wink
      We must still separate the administrative and design activities. And on the administrative field, the furniture maker is quite at the level. smile
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 23 2020 14: 22 New
        +1
        4 University courses in the specialty "Architect".
    2. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. April 23 2020 19: 31 New
      +2
      And he should not create planes. He must coordinate the work of designers creating aircraft. This requires more skills of the organizer, manager, rather than engineering.
  • depressant
    depressant April 23 2020 11: 18 New
    -4
    My God! ... That one trouble, now the arc. Either coronavirus, then Serdyukov, a rider on a pale horse.
  • Roman123567
    Roman123567 April 23 2020 13: 01 New
    -1
    it’s not even the LFMS, but the whole platform on the basis of which several airplanes will be developed at once, differing in functionality, but having the same basic characteristics.


    Flying Armata ..))
  • iouris
    iouris April 23 2020 13: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: "Shoigu and Serdyukov know better what kind of aircraft our VKS needs." End of quote.
    Why did you forget about Vasilieva?
  • Alex1949
    Alex1949 April 23 2020 13: 42 New
    -1
    Yes, you do not have to be an expert in aviation. Just imagine the scenario of a new world war without the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Ten thousand cruise missiles, aircraft, tanks and artillery will very quickly destroy the infrastructure of any country, both Russia and China. Modern aviation in Russia is not numerous and will be destroyed very quickly. Air defense and missile defense systems will not be able to contain such an onslaught. This means that factories, and industrial enterprises, and the railway, and power plants of oil and gas production will be significantly damaged.
    Modern aircraft in our time can be made no earlier than in a month and then in peacetime. And during the war, when all communications and communication lines are disturbed, the creation of modern complex aircraft will simply not be possible. Where to get expensive fuel?
    Therefore, modern designers are thinking about light, simple, unmanned fighters with the latest electronics and artificial intelligence. Therefore, both the United States and Israel are developing modern light assault UAVs with significant weapon load. They, apparently, are developing fighters, but this is a much more complicated light UAV in control.
    So in Russia, finally woke up. We need a simple, light, high-speed (up to 900 km per hour) armed fighter, which could be manufactured at dilapidated enterprises and repaired at field airfields in military units, and which would eat a minimum of fuel and fly at altitudes from 2 meters to 12000 meters.
    This is evidenced by the entire experience of aviation development during the Great Patriotic War.
    So, dear readers, do not be surprised if something like this appears soon in Russia. Not all the same, only supermonsters fight.
    1. iouris
      iouris April 23 2020 14: 10 New
      +2
      If you are not ready to use nuclear weapons in the "decision-making center" about your destruction, then you will be destroyed regardless of whether you "woke up" at last, or do not continue to sleep and dream of a wonderful future: nothing personal is business. You have nothing to lose, your opponents have a lot at stake.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 23 2020 14: 28 New
      +1
      During the entire production of the Tomahawk missiles, not even 10 thousand of them were built. So the reasoning about destroying something with cruise missiles looks ridiculous. Considering that the aviation of even the leading European members of NATO is insignificant and a serious mixing with Russia is possible only in the case of the unification of France, Great Britain and Germany, then there is no need to talk about any Douai doctrine in a new way.

      which could be manufactured at dilapidated enterprises


      In-1, even an aircraft of the Su-25 level with the collapse of production. you will not make chains.
      Secondly, a fighter must fly much faster than any subsonic aircraft, just to be able to intercept.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 23 2020 15: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex1949
      So in Russia, finally woke up. We need a simple, light, high-speed (up to 900 km per hour) armed fighter, which could be manufactured at dilapidated enterprises and repaired at field airfields in military units, and which would eat a minimum of fuel and fly at altitudes from 2 meters to 12000 meters.

      Simple, light, high-speed (up to 900 km per hour) armed fighter - This is an ideal target for air defense. Which since the Second World War has grown significantly. And which will end much later than modern fighters. smile
      Quote: Alex1949
      This is evidenced by the entire experience of aviation development during the Great Patriotic War.

      And what WWII fighter was made on dilapidated enterprises? The USSR in the war to equip aircraft factories ordered equipment even in the United States.
      For an easy-to-manufacture fighter, you will have to pay in the blood of pilots. How did they pay for the first La-5s with their overweight design (with a "double" nose) and the limited run time of the engine in takeoff mode (exceeding which it would break down). But the plant did not change the technology, and the plane was equipped with the existing engine, yes ...
      1. Alex1949
        Alex1949 April 23 2020 19: 10 New
        +3
        This is not about the battlefields in Europe or the United States, but on the territory of Russia. What American air defense systems in Russia do you write about?

        During the Second World War, in many military factories, the machines stood directly on the ground and only gradually, where there was no reach for German aircraft, put up walls and then created roofs and foundations for the machines. And in Leningrad, air strikes and shelling at industrial enterprises producing weapons were daily. Could they (the factories) have no destruction? And if there was a connection with large land, the number of tanks of the KV-1 and KV-2 type would be many times larger

        In addition, I wrote about the creation of an ultramodern UAV fighter with the presence of artificial intelligence, so that the operator makes less mistakes, and in the future, the fighter itself must fight, only the area and targets for destruction are needed.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 23 2020 19: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Alex1949
          This is not about the battlefields in Europe or the United States, but on the territory of Russia. What American air defense systems in Russia do you write about?

          Depends on where your cheap fighter will operate. Most likely, after or even during the air phase of the operation, the ground phase will begin - and he will meet with NATO military air defense. Or do you think that the United States will climb alone? wink
          Quote: Alex1949
          During the Second World War, in many military factories, machines stood directly on the ground and only gradually, where there was no reach for German aircraft, they put up walls and then created roofs and foundations for machine tools.

          Very well. And now try to do at such an enterprise ... well, at least a turbojet engine for your fighter.
          Over the past 75 years since the war, everything has changed somewhat in engineering and technology.
          Quote: Alex1949
          And in Leningrad, air strikes and shelling at industrial enterprises producing weapons were daily. Could they (the factories) have no destruction?

          Aircraft plants from Leningrad began to be evacuated in July.
          In general, during the blockade, only the remnants of enterprises producing technically sophisticated products worked in the city. They either finished off the backlog, or were engaged in repairs. The shipbuilding industry stood apart - but it simply had nowhere to evacuate, the Baltic Sea was over.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 24 2020 08: 44 New
          +1
          About the machines on earth he came up with?
          1. Alex1949
            Alex1949 April 25 2020 19: 06 New
            -1
            Read more about how factories were evacuated during the war years and how they started to work and everything will be clear to you. Probably you have no home front workers and no one to ask. I am frankly sorry for you if you do not know this part of the history of our country.
    4. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov April 23 2020 16: 38 New
      -2
      Do you propose to prepare in advance the production of LA-5 and Tu-2? winked
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 23 2020 22: 10 New
        -1
        Po-2CM.

        Container machine guns 7.62 under the wings, 2 pcs.
        Pilot night vision goggles.
        New, more powerful engine.
        The ability to suspend several submunitions from a cluster bomb under the fuselage.

        Must roll.
        1. Clone
          Clone April 24 2020 02: 14 New
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Must roll.

          Roughly speaking, I am laughing ... laughing But, based on current realities, 4 lemma is very little for the "modernization" you are proposing ... These are just "Serdyukov" stars on the wings to draw, and even then ... only on one airplane and on one side.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov April 24 2020 09: 03 New
            -3
            The author of this proposal would be nice to put in a Po-2 cabin in the winter for a ride at night. You look and grow wiser.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 24 2020 11: 14 New
              +1
              You would be so wise as the author of the proposal.
              It was a joke, if that.
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov April 24 2020 14: 40 New
                -1
                In the text, intonation is replaced by a smiley, to exclude such incidents.
    5. Usher
      Usher April 23 2020 21: 35 New
      0
      At the expense of the fighter, I agree, at the expense of thousands of Tomahawks, you turned it down. For example, more than 100 were released in Syria, 6 flew, if the memory is not changed, I'm talking about those who generally got where they should.
      1. Alex1949
        Alex1949 April 25 2020 19: 09 New
        0
        Half flew by. Read carefully the messages on Syria. There were two volleys from two frigates. The first salvo was almost completely intercepted, and the second salvo of the Syrian air defense system was already discharged. We did not have time to reload.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 23 2020 14: 19 New
    0
    A convenient topic to think out loud.
    -Do you need an attack aircraft as a class, especially the larger and more expensive Su-34 type? Light attack aircraft will quite get out of the Yak-130.
    - The Mig-35 is not many times cheaper than the Su-35, but - if we want to sell it, then we must have it in service. and most importantly - to have 3 regiments of Mig-35 instead of 2x Su-35 is economically justified. In cases of high-intensity conflict, the Su-35 will be quickly lost and then the number will be decisive.

    MiG-31 aircraft is outstanding, but conceptually not certain. Like the MiG-25, which grew out of the requirement to intercept the American B-70, and the MiG-31, which appeared as a long-range carrier, with limited long-range flight capabilities. The aircraft, by virtue of the personal preferences of the commander-in-chief, won the Tu-148 competition, which conceptually grew out of the Tu-128, a real long-distance carrier.
    At the current stage of development, the MiG-31 in its current form is not unique - neither in terms of armament, nor in the capabilities of radar systems. What will come to replace him - the question of what tasks will be replaced by him is not yet very clear.

    A lot has been written about training aircraft that the Yak-130 is expensive, but its appearance is the result of a combination of circumstances in the 90s. The winner of the competition at that time was MiG-AT.

    Well, the old problem is that there is no single-engine fighter. That primarily limits export opportunities.
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator April 23 2020 22: 32 New
      +1
      Which killed a lot of pilots due to the inversion of the stabilizers at supersonic speeds, which it was not possible to defeat, which was why it was withdrawn from service, moreover, its weapons complex, frankly, No.
    2. Clone
      Clone April 24 2020 02: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      A convenient topic to think out loud.
      -Do I need a ground attack aircraft as a class?

      Actually, you have to ask the landowners what the main "customers for the service" are. More than I am sure ... they will not have similar considerations about the value and advisability of having attack aircraft.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 24 2020 08: 45 New
      +1
      Appearing as a long-distance garages, with limited long flight capabilities.


      Did you understand what you wrote?
      Single engine fighter is a disposable fighter.
  • casuist68
    casuist68 April 23 2020 14: 48 New
    0
    It looks like the concept of "LVSH" (Easy-Reproducible Attack Aircraft) - an aircraft that can be produced during the war on the principle "I blinded it from what was."
  • Sergey Afanasyev_2
    Sergey Afanasyev_2 April 23 2020 16: 17 New
    -2
    Is it anyone who is ruling the country interested in the interests of the country ?! The main thing here is that the stool-keeper Perdukov, a faithful lackey and "defective manager", is again attached to the fat feeder. The task of the authorities is simple - Russia should NOT rise!
  • Brigadier
    Brigadier April 23 2020 16: 47 New
    0
    "The fact is that, by analogy with Rogozin, Mr. Serdyukov was thrown to support the development of a new and very necessary aircraft."

    That's the whole answer to the title of the article "Why does the Aerospace Forces need another plane?"
    Everyone remembers the words of Panikovsky: "Saw, Shura, saw ..."? lol laughing wassat

    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 24 2020 08: 46 New
      0
      Take the profile picture with Stalin.
  • KOLEGAN
    KOLEGAN April 23 2020 17: 26 New
    +1
    Absolutely correct opinion. I also left my comment and also drew a parallel between Roskosmos under the control of citizen Rogozin, where the budget is only being developed, and ready-made, calculated and financially effective spaceships and rockets are not released. Has this Rogozinovirus already affected the military aviation industry? And the main thing is that no services and departments can stop this process of cutting the budget. Is it really all of us .. or then it is a purposeful policy. That's when people want to buy a Kalashnikov assault rifle and solve this issue once and for all.
  • Oleg1
    Oleg1 April 23 2020 17: 42 New
    +5
    Only it seems to me that VO is becoming more and more a branch of ECHO MOSCOW? PICHALKA ....
    1. Usher
      Usher April 23 2020 21: 30 New
      0
      I agree, I noticed a lot of liberds.
  • shoroh
    shoroh April 23 2020 18: 56 New
    +3
    I think it’s easier to go along the path of increasing unmanned vehicles. Let them be simpler. But there will be more of them and losing them is not so fatal. Now drones will bomb, not hundreds of bombers as during the aggression against Yugoslavia. Drones are an inexpensive replacement for cruise missiles, bombers and scouts.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 24 2020 17: 31 New
      0
      Quote: shoroh
      UAVs inexpensive replacement for cruise missiles, bombers and scouts.

      Well, the KR stands under the green light, but the UAV is in the region of ten, it is clear that the main criterion is the preservation of the life of the pilot.
  • malyvalv
    malyvalv April 23 2020 19: 35 New
    +1
    It is a reasonable decision. Of all the variety of low visibility aircraft, we have only one - the Su-57. In addition to the Su-57, sooner or later you will need a light version originally designed with low visibility. And to give this development to Migu is quite reasonable.
    To a real plane is still a very long way. So it’s better to start now.
  • DDT
    DDT April 23 2020 20: 49 New
    0
    Here's the mind, Sukhoi did everything right. There is a Su-30/35 and there is a Su-34. Developed on the basis of the unique Su-27 airframe, this is essentially a replacement for the entire tactical fighter-assault aircraft from the Su-17 to the MiG-31 ... What prevented the MiG from doing the same? They have a MiG-29, the same unique glider, with fantastic modernization capabilities. What made it multifunctional?
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 April 23 2020 22: 48 New
      -1
      What MiG prevented to do the same? They have a MiG-29, the same unique glider, with fantastic modernization capabilities. What made it multifunctional?

      First of all, the passivity of the MIG design bureau leadership in the 90s prevented, unlike Simonov.
      As for the Su-17, MiG-27 - for many conflicts of medium intensity, such an aircraft is more optimal than the Su-24 and Su-34.
      1. DDT
        DDT April 24 2020 03: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Pavel57
        First of all, the passivity of the MIG design bureau leadership in the 90s prevented, unlike Simonov.
        As for the Su-17, MiG-27 - for many conflicts of medium intensity, such an aircraft is more optimal than the Su-24 and Su-34.

        I agree about the passivity of the MiG management ...
        About the Su-17, MiG-27 you are probably a fan of single-engine cars? In terms of performing combat missions against the barmalei, of course they were the most. But here is one mechanization of the wing and the maintenance of these same wings, you should talk to the technicians, there the matyugs are worse than the boatswain. Moreover, as soon as the barmaley acquired the Stingers, Su and MiG began to fall too often. It seems to me on the ground that not a single Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft will work.
        1. Pavel57
          Pavel57 April 24 2020 11: 15 New
          0
          About the Su-17, MiG-27 you are probably a fan of single-engine cars? In terms of performing combat missions against the barmalei, of course they were the most. But here is one mechanization of the wing and the maintenance of these same wings, you should talk to the technicians, there the matyugs are worse than the boatswain. Moreover, as soon as the barmaley acquired the Stingers, Su and MiG began to fall too often. It seems to me on the ground that no plane better than the Su-25 will work.

          There is a concept - the cost of the operation. Drive Su-24 and Su-34 where you can get by with a single-engine aircraft, often not justified. This was the case in the Chechen campaigns, and this partly takes place in Syria.
          As for variable geometry, it was a hobby and a fashion. The military was offered a single-engine attack aircraft with a fixed wing - no, give me, variable geometry.

          As for the Stingers, now any aircraft at low altitude is vulnerable to the mass use of this class of missiles. An example is the conflict in Donetsk, when the Su-25 was bombarded with Needles.
          1. DDT
            DDT April 24 2020 17: 59 New
            0
            Quote: Pavel57

            As for variable geometry, it was a hobby and a fashion. The military was offered a single-engine attack aircraft with a fixed wing - no, give me, variable geometry.

            As for the Stingers, now any aircraft at low altitude is vulnerable to the mass use of this class of missiles. An example is the conflict in Donetsk, when the Su-25 was bombarded with Needles.

            According to the fixed wing on the MiG and Su, they simply would not have flown with it with full arms and tanks, the military did not want a good life to request wings of variable sweep. The engine then did not produce the desired traction.
            As for MANPADS, the MiG-29 has much more chances to get away from it than the Su-17, Su-25 and MiG-27.
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... April 27 2020 18: 50 New
          0
          Losses of the Su-17 and MiG-27 turned out to be just significantly less in terms of take-off in comparison with the Su-25 attack aircraft
          1. DDT
            DDT April 29 2020 12: 23 New
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Losses of the Su-17 and MiG-27 turned out to be just significantly less in terms of take-off in comparison with the Su-25 attack aircraft

            Since the Su-25 flew significantly lower. At that time they did not have false target shooting systems, which the Su-17 and MiG-27, being full-fledged bombers, did not have. The Su-25 was supposed to be able to "not die" from Shilok and KPVT, not from missiles. And he did essentially the work of army turntables, and he did better than them. Don't compare the incomparable.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... April 29 2020 12: 24 New
              0
              I just compared the comparable.
  • Usher
    Usher April 23 2020 21: 29 New
    +1
    Some nonsense is written. The USA has the same zoo, there are just as many F-16 blocks, these are modifications. The first f-16s and the last F-16 as well as the MiG-29 and MiG-35 are simply separated by indices, they add letters or write (mod / block). Su-34 can not replace the Su-25. Universal machines do not exist, there are some combining roles, but not all. And with a global won (this can also be) all the newfangled super-super missiles will quickly end, there will be iron. Which is more convenient to throw tactically from the Su-25. Su-34 is too expensive for this. I did not read further, I myself am not an arms specialist, but I'm interested. For me, some kind of incomprehensible article and for the color photo Serdyukov for some reason.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator April 23 2020 22: 15 New
    0
    Quote: Ru_Na
    As long as such "effective managers" like Serdyukov, for whom the prison cries, are at the helm,

    Rustam, with all due respect, you should not evaluate people whose field of activity is not only above your competence, but even far beyond the sphere of your UNDERSTANDING! It is VERY not solid to make a judgment about a person, relying only on information from Internet resources, it's like judging by the inscriptions on the fence! ("the girls were jumping, and there are firewood!" (c)) What you are not destined to know - you are NOT ALLOWED to know! If I were you, I would apologize to Serdyukov. (at least mentally!)
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator April 23 2020 22: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: DDT
    They have a MiG-29, the same unique glider, with fantastic modernization capabilities. What made it multifunctional?

    We will not go far - why did the MiG-35 not please you? Uses ALL range of weapons. available at the disposal of the RF Aerospace Forces. It is equally capable of working "over the air". that "on the ground", that for single, that for group targets, it can work "on the surface". equipped with a splendid RLPK with AFAR, KOLS, an excellent complex electronic warfare, SUV with AI elements.
    1. DDT
      DDT April 27 2020 02: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Igor Aviator
      We will not go far - why did the MiG-35 not please you? Uses ALL range of weapons. available at the disposal of the RF Aerospace Forces. It is equally capable of working "over the air". that "on the ground", that for single, that for group targets, it can work "on the surface". equipped with a splendid RLPK with AFAR, KOLS, an excellent complex electronic warfare, SUV with AI elements.

      Igor, I’m talking about the same thing. But how much is the MiG-35 currently produced? Less than a cat cried. He is actively promoted, but so far he is not fully armed. It cannot use the entire range of weapons, including air-to-surface ... But does it cost less than the Su-30? So which one do you think?
      Once again, the MiG-35 price would not have been like an MFI. In another form, it is simply not needed. Su are much more specialized machines and in their niches, they will be honest, they can do better. If the MiG wants to survive, he must learn to replace the MiG-29, MiG-25, MiG-23/27. Then it will go for export with a bang and will be useful for the videoconferencing.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator April 23 2020 22: 27 New
    -1
    Quote: Oleg1
    it seems that VO is increasingly turning into a branch of ECHO MOSCOW

    There is such a feeling! .. hi
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator April 23 2020 22: 39 New
    +4
    Quote: Pavel57
    the problem is that there is no single-engine fighter., which primarily limits export opportunities.

    It has long been proven - single-engine machines are inferior to twin-engine ones, both in terms of reliability, efficiency, and operational properties! So a single-engine car is a step BACK. With apparent cheapness, it turns out to be more expensive in the end. The study of the issue was conducted both by the Design Bureau and by theorists of aviation scientific institutions. Internet to the rescue!
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 April 24 2020 11: 29 New
      +1
      Igor Aviator (IGOR) - It has long been proven - single-engine machines are inferior to twin-engine ones, both in terms of reliability, efficiency, and operational properties! So a single-engine car is a step BACK. With apparent cheapness, it turns out to be more expensive in the end. The study of the issue was conducted both by the Design Bureau and by theorists of aviation scientific institutions. Internet to the rescue!

      For a long time already single-engine cars are not inferior in efficiency and reliability. But it’s definitely cheaper than twin-engine ones.
      They are slightly inferior in stability in battle, but very slightly.

      And examples of single-engine aircraft are enough - F-16, Grippen, J-10, FC-1, Tejas.
      And the cherry on the cake, the most massive fighter of the 21st century - F-35.

      And there is a market for single-engine aircraft, but we have nothing to offer for it.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 April 24 2020 17: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Pavel57
        For a long time already single-engine cars are not inferior in efficiency and reliability. But it’s definitely cheaper than twin-engine ones.

        How much is a penguin cheaper than 57 drying? and by what criteria do you judge?
        1. Pavel57
          Pavel57 April 24 2020 18: 06 New
          0
          F-35 - Penguin? I wonder where such liberties come from in the name?

          Comparison is best within the industry of one country. The pricing of the American defense industry has its own characteristics, it is better to compare the F-35 and F-22.
  • Owl
    Owl April 24 2020 07: 21 New
    -1
    It is very "similar" to the beginning of the "cutting" of state funds by accomplices and "relatives of friends" of our "dear guarantor".
  • lego2
    lego2 April 24 2020 10: 02 New
    0
    I can’t say anything about the new project, but I suspect that there is a specialist who can write an equally convincing article in his defense. But counting the number of our and Amerov’s front-line soldiers raises questions. If you do not take into account the old people: su 24, su 25 and instant 25, as well as the beginner su 57, then the rest are deep modernizations created on the platforms: su 27 and instant 29 and plus yak 130 and that 7, exactly like the main potential, well, if you count as amers. And if you count as ours, that is, all modifications of the old F15 and F16, as well as three F35 variants, then the potential may have other numbers.
  • Diverter
    Diverter April 24 2020 10: 22 New
    0
    Mig 21 and Su 17 were just great devices. The creation of two engine Mig 35s for the Russian Aerospace Forces is not considered necessary. Mig 29 is not needed either. My opinion may be wrong, but I am sure that we need a single-engine light multi-purpose Su 17M4 / 20/22 in a modern look. A sort of inconspicuous Mig 45 with one engine from the Su 35. Again, unification!) This complex is also useful in the Navy and for manning foreign aviation bases and border regiments, etc.
    The second option. Make one of the Yak 130, redoing the nose for the installation of AFAR? Use the base 130 or some developments of Mikoyanovtsy? Not ready to answer, designers will probably say that.
    But he really needed. This complex will be cheaper than heavy dryers, and war is also an economy.
    For the rest:
    Su 57 - bringing to mind, then delivery to the troops in small quantities because it is expensive.
    Su 35 - actively supply troops to replace Su 27.
    Su 30 - do not buy new ones, upgrade existing ones to Su 35 level, after saturating the airborne forces with Su 35 complexes, scatter all Su 30 into squadrons of the remaining 27th and 35th as command vehicles, thereby increasing their staff from 12 to 14 aircraft, where 12 linear sides plus a commanding pair. On the development of resources sent to storage.
    Su 27 - at the first stage, upgrade during repairs, and then, when replacing with Su 35, send for storage. It is only advisable to store in at least some, but hangar. If storage is not possible, put up for sale. There are buyers - I'm 100% sure.
    Su 34 - increase supplies to the troops. Have at least 268 sides, i.e. 7 regiments of three squadrons and one squadron each in Lipetsk and Akhtuba. And also create several regiments of naval aviation (at least one per fleet).
    Su 24 - given that this unit is difficult to pilot, it makes no sense to put it in storage. (in which case there will be nobody to fly on it - it is very difficult without constant practice). As long as there are airplanes in the airworthiness, let them fly until they receive part of the 34s. Then recycling.
    Su 25 is a smart device! I propose that everything be repaired during modernization and have at least a regiment in each district as the operational reserve of the commander. for example, an adversary’s breakthrough, the discovery of accumulations of equipment in his rear, etc., etc., because a helicopter is a long time and not fast. By the way, the author !, Su 25 can fly and fight and higher than shaving))) And he is very reliable!
    Mig 31 to redo 50% in MIG 31K and transfer everything to .... YES VKS. Where the pair consists of 1 pure fighter and the second with a Dagger. Those. the first clears the "road" / covers, the second destroys an important target. Or a boat at a distance, then transfer them to the Navy.
    Thus, according to my plan)))) after some time in the FA VKS will remain: SU 57/35, 34, 25 and single-engine light MiG 45)).
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Souchastnik
      Souchastnik April 24 2020 11: 49 New
      0
      And it seems to me that the Su-34 does not replace the Su-25. And in the arsenal of the videoconferencing should be aircraft to solve various problems. Versatility is a good thing, but in moderation.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 24 2020 12: 12 New
    0
    Quote: EvilLion


    Did you understand what you wrote?
    Single engine fighter is a disposable fighter.


    1. The MiG-31 was created as an intercept aircraft at distant frontiers. And we have a radius of 700km. The Tu-128 had about 1300. So, on a backswing, it was a barrage driver (MiG-31), but in fact it wasn’t.
    2. About the disposability of a single-engine fighter - you tell the F-16 and F-35 operators.

    And the Syrians with the Su-17 how many are fighting on it.
    1. Lozovik
      Lozovik April 25 2020 12: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      The Tu-128 had about 1300.

      The intercept line according to the afterburner program is 550 km, according to the afterburner program 1150 km.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 April 24 2020 13: 26 New
    0
    The structure and composition of aviation is a very complex issue.
    Do I need a front-line fighter? With thousands of warring aircraft needed. But will there be thousands of warring aircraft now? If not, then it’s more useful to transfer funds to aircraft gaining air supremacy.
    Does it then make sense to produce light fighters for striking the ground? A specialized aircraft will be either more functional or cheaper. Or both.
    The only where such an aircraft is definitely needed is aircraft carriers.
  • NordUral
    NordUral April 24 2020 14: 15 New
    -1
    In these, everything is aimed at export orders and profits for their relatives, and not at all on defense. Private yachts on the Cote d'Azur are preferable to national security.
  • bang
    bang April 24 2020 17: 14 New
    0
    One of the problems of the MiG-29/35 is twin engine. Why in planning a new light aircraft to step on the same rake? Or is there no suitable engine?
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan April 24 2020 19: 01 New
    +1
    It looks like a replacement for the Su-25 go.
    - operational tactical
    - cheap easy.
    I don’t understand why the howl was raised by the author in the comments.
    The Su-27 appeared Su-30 and then the Su-35, followed by the Su-57
    The Su-24 replacement Su-34
    MiG-29 MiG-35 replacement
    So the Su-25 needs a replacement.
    Feel the topic. They think where to move.
    "Oh, how many planes !!!"
    The author himself wrote that in fact
    1) easy and
    2) heavy fighter
    3) front-line bomber
    4) attack aircraft
    The fact that we are at a crossroads now, well, such a time as the old in service and the new. In general, technology is growing very fast. It is unclear where to move in a limited budget. We are not the United States to scatter yards of wunderwafes with yards of greenery.
    For me, the duck needs to be left heavy multi-functional fighters, and the rest of the tasks drones to solve. But if there are old planes suitable for service with a resource - it is necessary to use. Do not throw it away.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nikolay Balashov
    Nikolay Balashov April 24 2020 22: 52 New
    0
    And some years ago, there was information about the MiG-21-300. Old glider with new avionics and another engine. According to the declared LTX, the MiG-21-300 tore the F-16 not even as a Tuzik heating pad, but as a Tuzik balloon. For some reason, I then agreed with this. But, everything calmed down. Why not?
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 29 2020 16: 30 New
      0
      It was such a modernized Indian MiG-21 with a pair of R-73 and a pair of RVV-AE that was shot down over Pakistan the other day.